CKNW Editorial
for October 20, 1999

I must be missing something here. Pakistan, a member of the Commonwealth, has had it's case heard by the Commonwealth without its participation and now Canada’s Foreign Minister, Lloyd Axworthy, is off to Pakistan to deliver the verdict. And the verdict could well be expulsion.

Now I must admit that Pakistan hasn’t been in the running for any awards for civics, lately but aren’t we being just a bit hasty here?

Until last week Pakistan existed under a government which had the trappings of democracy but which was really a semi dictatorship where fraud, bribery and general dishonesty were its hallmarks. Its government, in terms of crookedness, made Mexican politicians seem like choirboys.

Moreover, it’s always been this way. Presidents have been judicially murdered and made to disappear in plane crashes. The last but one president, Ms Bhutto, filled Alpine banks to overflowing with the stuff she and her husband stole from the Pakistani people. It would be hard to imagine a government, any government at all, that would not be an improvement over what this poor country has had to endure.

So there was a coup … and a soldier has taken over. There have not been slaughters of the innocent or massive jailing. No riots in the street … no drumhead courts and instant executions. In fact the new boss promises to bring democracy to Pakistan for the first time.

I’m not so naïve as to take this chap at his word – after all, Fidel Castro promised Cuba free elections back in 1959 and at this count is about 50 years behind schedule. But what I do ask is this … why is Canada getting its nickers in a knot when the government of a fellow Commonwealth country suddenly has at least a short term improvement?

Canada has plenty of support, of course. There’s Uganda, for example which gave us Idi Amin followed by successors which are only mildly less horrible. And Malaysia where political rivals of the president go to jail on trumped up charges and where a Canadian journalist went to jail for writing what he saw. And of course there’s Nigeria, the great hope of Africa which had manages to go broker and broker while sitting on a ton of oil and after about 40 years of independence seems no closer to real democracy now than it ever was. Of course we must recall places like Zambia and Tanzania which, for most of their existences, have been one party states socialist states which are economic basket cases.. And who could overlook Zimbabwe where the president continues to enrich himself at the public trough while driving opposition further and further underground. And the list goes on. Oh, I forgot Brunei ruled by a Sultan who takes the national revenue for himself and that which he doesn’t gamble away in London Casinos or on property in British Columbia he permits to go into schools and hospitals.

What insufferable hypocrites we are. But apart from the obvious hypocrisy, there is the practical side of all this.

The Commonwealth doesn’t mean anything except a loose association of countries which once had some connection to Britain. For some countries the Queen is head of State, for others, not. It’s existence is defensible on two grounds … first it can hardly do much harm and second, if nothing else, it’s a good talk shop where dignitaries from Pakistan for example, can talk personally to, say, delegates from India.

And talk shops are very important. As Churchill said, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war." He was right. For talks shops to succeed, though, they must give everyone possible the chance to talk to colleagues around the organization.

In fact, the Commonwealth is where India and Pakistan – as well as Bangladesh – can talk through their problems in an intimacy not possible with the United Nations.

We must be mad … out of our senses … to suddenly decide that Pakistan must pay for the sins that half of the rest of the Commonwealth practices to a fare-thee-well. Are we really so sure that the rascals in Pakistan are any worse than the rascals we break bread with and trade with in other lands?

Perhaps I’m right out of my mind on this but might it not be a good idea … given the track record of other Pakistan governments … to give General Mushariff the opportunity to bring democracy to his country for the first time instead of threatening him?

After all, it does seem as if the basic civil liberties are much better cared for in Pakistan that a great many other Commonwealth countries … shouldn’t we cut the general a bit of slack and see what happens before we mount our lofty pulpit and start lecturing?

Just thought I’d ask …