FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

What both Canada and the U.S. have in common when it comes to the Artic and Russia

Back in 2016, a report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Defense appeared to call for American ships to challenge Canadian claims in the Arctic.  The U.S. has had three active marine disputes with Canada in the Arctic, including over 21,000 square kilometres in the Beaufort Sea and two smaller areas of the Dixon Passage, between British Columbia and Alaska.  In addition, in the past the U.S. Coast Guard has sent ice breakers through the Northwest Passage without seeking Canadian permission.  Then came issues surrounding access to minerals and fossil fuels located on the Arctic sea floor, especially as climate change and melting sea ice were helping to open up these waters to year round navigation and maritime shipping.  In 2017, this in turn led to President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jointly signing a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing in Arctic waters.

However, now enters Russia who we all know are very active in opening up their Arctic waters.  In the past, Russia has made it clear it intends to control the so-called Northern Sea Route off its northern shore, a route that significantly shortens the shipping distance between China and Northern Europe.  U.S. officials have complained that Russia is illegally demanding that other nations seek permission to pass and threatening to use military force to sink vessels that do not comply.  Two years ago, Moscow brought its own war games barrelling through the Bering Sea, with Russian commanders testing weapons and demanding that American fishing boats operating in U.S. fishing waters get out of the way — an order the U.S. Coast Guard advised them to comply with at the time.  In addition, Russia has repeatedly sent military aircraft to the edge of U.S. and Canadian airspace, leading U.S. and Canadian jets to scramble to intercept them and warn them away.

Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers.  Their nuclear propulsion systems allow them to smash through much thicker ice than conventionally powered vessels giving them a full winter capacity to push through the up to three-metre ice encountered at that certain times of the year. In 2019, the American government began pondering the construction of three heavy icebreakers and three medium-sized vessels.  The Trump Administration ordered an overview of the nation’s icebreaker fleet, with an eye toward fielding a new, rejuvenated fleet by 2029.  The current fleet of Canadian Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, now under construction, will still have limited icebreaking capacity, and to date little progress has been made toward the actual construction of a planned heavy polar icebreaker.  Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, concerns over Russia’s military capability and intentions in our Arctic waters have grown.  All signs indicate that Russia is reinvesting in its military capabilities and presence in the region.

Canada’s Defence Minister Anita Anand is pledging to modernize the alliance protecting Canada’s North particularly in terms of our Arctic sovereignty.  Hopefully, the Russian threat may actually now lead to Canada and the U.S. to finally reaching agreement on the status of the critical Northwest Passage between the North Atlantic and the Beaufort Sea.  However, some observers will argue that the European Artic waters — comprised of Norway, Denmark and Iceland — are more vulnerable to Russian shipping and military initiatives in the North.  One has to remember that these countries are part of NATO, and we are then, of course, obligated to go to their defence in the event of any military incursion.  Since the Russian threat is also an aerospace one, there is an urgent need to strengthen the current capabilities of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).  First created during the Cold War to protect against a Soviet attack, NORAD is a joint military command between Canada and the U.S. that provides airspace surveillance.  America’s strategic air command’s bombers fly over Canadian aerospace on a daily basis.  However, the technology of NORAD’s north warning system was only last modernized in 1985, and requires an immediate modernization designed to counter imminent dangers of the day — long range bomber threats from the Soviet Union.

What all this means is that Canada and the U.S. had better get their acts together to protect their Arctic maritime and aerospace regions.  The sooner the better!

Leave a comment »

There is a Catch-22 in Pipeline Issues Between Canada and the U.S.

Following Joe Biden’s inauguration as U.S. president, he took the widely expected step through an executive order of cancelling the cross-border permit for the US$14.4-billion Alberta-to-Texas heavy oil pipeline, the Keystone XL pipeline. The decision marks the third time a U.S. president has blocked the construction of this pipeline.  Next occurred the decision by Michigan’s Governor Gretchen Whitmer last November which ordered Calgary-based Enbridge to shut down its nearly 70-year-old Line 5 pipeline by May 12, 2021.  Line 5 carries each day up to 540,000 barrels of crude oil and natural gas liquids across Michigan and under the Great Lakes.  Line 5 is part of Enbridge’s mainland system carrying fuel from Alberta’s oil sands to the Midwestern U.S. and Eastern Canada, especially to refineries in Sarnia, Ontario.  Not surprisingly, President Biden’s and Governor Whitmer’s decisions were applauded by environmentalists and Indigenous groups on both sides of the border.

The difficulty is that Canada is the world’s fourth-largest producer of crude oil, and the U.S. is its top customer.  While past incidents have occurred where crude oil leakages in pipelines, including those which are part of Enbridge’s mainland system, the alternative means of transportation via rail and trucking also represents serious safety issues.  This potential danger was clearly demonstrated in the fiery derailment in July 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people and wiped out part of the town.  From an economic point of view, the transport of crude oil and natural gas liquids by pipeline is the most efficient and least costly option.  Realistically, any transition within the U.S. or Canada away from fossil fuels will take time.  While the elimination of fossil fuels makes good environmental sense in light of climate change, there continues to be a dependence on fossil fuels for servicing our industries, running our transportation hubs, producing electricity and heating our homes.  Both countries have to cooperatively work together towards achieving environmental goals without creating bad relations between our governments and citizens.

Back in January, Alberta’s Premier Jason Kenney asked the Canadian government to push the U.S. government to reimburse the $1.5 billion it stands to lose from the cancellation of Keystone XL and to reimburse TC Energy, the project proponent, for the money it has sunk into the project.  Alberta took an ownership stake in 2020, representing more than $1 billion in taxpayer money to fund the construction of the pipeline.  The Biden administration’s decision to block the Keystone XL pipeline has put Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a very difficult situation, one which he has raised with the President.  On the one hand he has to support Alberta’s oil and gas industry.  On the other hand the Prime Minister has agreed reduce in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by 40 to 45 percent within the next decade.  This brings Canada in line with the Biden administration recent pledge to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Critics of the decision to shut down the Line 5 pipeline note that 6,500 good-paying jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, are on the line.  A further 23,500 indirect jobs in that same region could also be impacted, and thousands more across Ontario and Quebec.  Line 5 also feeds into Line 9, which carries oil to refineries in Montreal and Lévis for Quebec’s supply needs.  According to Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan, Line 5 delivers 66 percent of the crude oil consumed in Quebec.  This means that besides Alberta, the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec are extremely unhappy with the Michigan Governor’s position.  Any decision to move crude oil and natural gas liquids by alternate means is considered less safe, more costly and realistically not viable given the vast quantities that have to be transported.  This is your Catch-22.  For this reason, both Canada and the U.S. need to work much more closely to resolve all relevant issues pertinent to their respective constituents.  Our continuing good trade and political relationships are in the balance.

Leave a comment »

Heading Towards Another Nuclear Arms Race?

During the so-called Cold War in the early sixties, the U.S. and former Soviet Union (USSR) had enough nuclear warheads to devastate every major city in both countries and more.  In the late 1960s, it was estimated that the U.S. had more than 30,000 nuclear weapons, and the Soviet Union by some accounts had at least 40,000.  Fortunately, a Cold War-era pact, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, occurred whereby nuclear nations pledged to reduce their arsenals in exchange for non-nuclear nations not pursuing nuclear weapons.  As a result, the U.S. and Russia today each have more than 5,000 nuclear weapons, according to the Federation of American Scientists — more than enough to still do plenty of death and destruction.  Unfortunately, there is no follow-on agreement between the U.S. and Russia to limit strategic arms.  Instead, one has both countries proceeding to increase their arsenals — this time with even more deadly and sophisticated weapons.

In recent decades, we also have had former non-nuclear nations joining the nuclear arms race.  It started covertly with India in the mid-seventies and Pakistan in the late seventies.  Now we have countries such as North Korea, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia moving to expand their missile capabilities and to develop nuclear weapons.  Then of course there is China which is pursuing a full nuclear triad that can launch nuclear warheads from air, land and sea.  As a recent article in the Washington Post noted, the threat from nuclear weapons and missiles has grown since Trump entered office.  Indeed, one must conclude that we are in a full-blown arms race.  As the article concluded: “… after nearly four years in office, he hasn’t signed any significant new treaties to regulate the world’s most devastating weapons and has populated his administration at times with arms-control skeptics, such as John Bolton, the former national security adviser.”

In addition, the Trump administration’s on-going verbal attacks on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is alienating allies in Europe, at a time when the U.S. needs the full support of NATO in dealing with Russia and Iran.  Trump’s three meetings with Kim Jong Un of North Korea did nothing to slow down that regime’s continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclearization.  Obsessed with media coverage, these meetings were all show and had no substance except to legitimize Kim’s regime in the eyes of the world.

The general stance of the Trump administration to stand alone and isolate the U.S. from the broader multilateral issues affecting global issues has done a great disservice to American leadership on the world scene.  With both Trump and Russia’s Vladimir Putin bragging about the modernization of their respective nuclear arsenals, one can only conclude that we are witnessing another nuclear arms race.  With numerous other nations now having nuclear capabilities, the threat of such weapons being used is increasing every day when no new non-proliferation treaties are in place.  The only way that the world can come to grips with this reality is through meaningful dialogue and multilateral negotiations involving all the affected countries.  No one country can tackle this issue on its own.

Leave a comment »

Trump’s Strange Saga of U.S. and Denmark Over the Purchase of Greenland

With everything going on in the world today, maybe one needs a minor distraction like the battle of Donald Trump over the purchase of Greenland by the U.S.  About a year ago, Trump approached the Danish P.M., Mette Frederiksen, with an offer to buy Greenland which is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark. Thinking it was some kind of April Fool’s Day joke, the Danes refused. Unfortunately, like so many times before Trump took the refusal to even consider the idea a sign of disrespect and immediately cancelled his planned September 2019 trip to Denmark — one which had been at the formal invitation of Queen Margrethe, Denmark’s head of state. Needless-to-say, this did not go over well with the Danes who after all are an important NATO ally.

Greenland is the world’s largest island and has a population of less than 60,000 inhabitants. Denmark contributes two thirds of Greenland’s budget revenue, the rest coming mainly from fishing. Greenland is noted for its vast tundra and immense glaciers. While the country has a vast array of minerals, including rare-earth elements used for electronic, military and new energy technologies like wind turbines, these are very difficult to mine in its harsh environment.

As a strategic location, Greenland was important to the U.S. during the Cold War as evidenced by American military presence at the Thule Air Base under a U.S.-Danish treaty dating to 1951. However, in this day and age of new military capabilities, including those in space, Greenland would not be considered anymore as a strategic importance. Then there’s those rare earths, most of which currently come from China. Experts believe that the environmental impact of mining for rare earths is profound and extremely costly.  Even if it was to happen, the process to get new mining operations off the ground takes decades.

However, despite the Danish rejection to what Trump referred to as one “big real-estate” deal,   the Trump administration has opened a consulate in Greenland for the first time in nearly 70 years. In a further extension of U.S. influence, Greenland announced at the end of April that it had accepted an offer of US$12.1 million for mining, tourism and education. There is little doubt that Trump is keen to expand the U.S. presence in the entire Arctic region amid fears of growing Russian and Chinese militarization. The U.S. recently announced its intention to create a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.

As for Canada, Canadian Forces Station (CFS) Alert located on Ellesmere Island is the northernmost settlement in the world. With the end of the Cold War and the advent of new technologies allowing for remote interpretation of data, the over-wintering population has been reduced to 62 civilians and military personnel as of 2016. I guess that the location for an American base on Ellesmere Island is not as popular as one in Greenland, although the two islands are geographically at an identical latitude. The new consulate in Greenland has once again made for strange bedfellows.

Canada, as a near-Artic country and member of The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defense of North America.  For this reason, Canada has been wary of Chinese and Russian threats to expand in the region, and like the U.S. is also building a new fleet of ice-breaking ships for use in the Arctic.  Rather than worry about relations with Greenland, maybe Trump should be working more closely with Canada to safeguard our Artic waters.

 

Leave a comment »

Canada and U.S. Need to Consult More on How to Manage Artic Waters

Increasingly, the Artic waterways are open for a longer period to limited shipping, including commercial vessels, due to the impact of climate change in warming the oceans’ waters. For years, the former Soviet Union and now Russia have been building a greater capacity to travel through the Northwest Passage, even when the ice is still fairly thick. North of Russia shipping from Europe to Asia now takes place on an intermittent basis. Russia is far ahead of both Canada and the U.S. in creating ice-breaking capacity and particularly in the building of large nuclear-powered icebreakers. Currently the U.S. has two heavy icebreakers that are in their last days of service, and no new replacements are under construction at this time. Under a previous Conservative government, Canada proposed building a heavy polar icebreaker, but almost no progress has been made toward its actual construction.

Besides the potential natural resources that the Artic has, the Artic waters are of an important strategic value, militarily and politically, to both Canada and the U.S.  This year Canada released a comprehensive Arctic policy framework that places the emphasis for future development on civilian development. However, Canadian policy does not address Arctic shipping concerns.  This certainly is not a way to reinforce Canadian sovereignty off our Arctic coast.  Alaska’s two senators, Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, recently proposed the creation of an Arctic Shipping Federal Advisory Committee to centralize discussions about shipping in Alaskan waters.

I would go one step further and suggest that a joint North American body needs to be created, just as we have one for common defense concerns in the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) to deal with mutual issues involving the Great Lakes waterways, commercial shipping and environmental concerns. Not only do we need to monitor Russian activities in Artic waters, but both countries can better coordinate investments in the creation of an ‘Artic seaway’ and the development of Artic ports.

At this time, neither Canada nor the United States has much to offer in the event of a maritime disaster in North American Arctic waters. Isn’t it about time that both countries get together to share resources and expertise to counter the growing Russian influence in Artic waters.  Instead of investing in military capabilities in outer space, it might be wiser to invest more resources right here on earth where more immediate and important needs must be addressed.

Leave a comment »

Now Trump Has Gone Too Far With His Tariff Strategy

U.S. Vice-President Pence just visited Ottawa this week to discuss the ratification of the proposed new North American free trade agreement, which includes Mexico. In order to encourage Canadian ratification of the agreement, the U.S. just lifted its tariffs on Canadian and Mexican steel and aluminum products. Tariffs that should never have been implemented to begin with given the President’s use of ‘national security’ as a justification.  No sooner had these tariffs been lifted, President Trump’s administration placed new tariffs on Mexican imports.  Only this time, Trump is using these tariffs to try to force the Mexicans to do something more about stopping Central American refugees from crossing into the U.S.  Most would agree, including some of Trump’s own advisors, that this tactic will have little effect with respect to the border issue.

Instead, the new tariffs on Mexican products will cause as much economic harm to the Americans as it will to Mexicans. Many goods, including vehicles assembled in Mexico and agricultural goods, will cost American consumers even more. Combined with the recent increases in tariffs on Chinese imports, Americans can be expected to pay even more for consumer products of all kinds.  Remember, at one time about eighty percent of Walmart’s sales inventory involved cheaper Chinese imports.

Recent headlines in The New York Times (May 31, 2019) read: “Things Were Going Great for Wall Street. Then the Trade War Heated Up.” Basically, the article notes that up to now the U.S. economy was going fairly well. However, since the introduction of further tariffs on Chinese goods, the benchmark index of the stock exchange ended down 6.6 percent in May, its first monthly decline of the year and its worst drop since an ugly sell-off at the end of 2018. As well, stock markets in trade-dependent economies such as Canada, Japan, South Korea and Germany also saw steep losses in May. In addition, government bond markets have been sending some of the strongest warning signals.

I have been warning for some time that we could be heading for another major global recession if the U.S. continues its protectionist policies. The President’s use of economic threats and a trade war appears to be unravelling. Many economic indicators in the American economy are showing a growing weakness, despite the current low unemployment rate and high corporate profits. As indicated in the above article, investors are becoming increasingly fixated on any signs that growth is flagging. Consumer debt is high and consumer spending is on the decline in both Canada and the U.S. It just may be that Trump’s tariff strategy has gone too far. There is little doubt that ordinary Americans and Canadians will pay the price under his economic policies.

Leave a comment »

If Tariffs Are “So Great”, How Come Trump Appears To Be Backing Off?

President Donald Trump backed off his threat to levy tariffs on cars imported to the U.S. from the E.U. during a recent meeting with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. It appears that Trump had warned that he would move forward with 25 percent tariffs on auto imports if the meeting with Juncker didn’t go well, prompting the E.U. to respond that such a move would bring significant retaliatory measures on U.S. goods. Wow!  Now Trump indicates that he’s willing to open up further trade negotiations with the E.U.

Trump has also tweeted that his administration is considering introducing tariffs on auto imports from Canada and Mexico, much to the displeasure of the American auto industry. You see, in today’s world, many auto parts are supplied from sources outside the U.S.  Indeed, the average Big Three vehicle is comprised of anywhere between 40 to 60 percent of parts manufactured outside the country.  American auto tariffs will simply disrupt the supply chain, reduce efficiencies, increase costs, cause a major downturn in the industry, and eventually increase the costs of all vehicles to American consumers.

American tariffs on Chinese goods, including steel and aluminum, are already having an impact on the agricultural sector, especially on soybean exports. As a result, Trump has pledged $12 billion to farmers to help ease trade pain caused by tariffs aimed at China which had retaliated against U.S. farm products. However, farmers have made it clear that they don’t want handouts, but prefer to be able to sell their products and are concerned about the long-term damage caused by tariffs.

As for negotiating separate trade agreements with Canada and Mexico, the chances are pretty slim that either country would agree to do so. Mexican and Canadian officials have reiterated that talks on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will remain a three-way negotiation. Canada has a strong participant in Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland who has proven to be an excellent representative from the Canadian Cabinet. She has made it very clear that Canada is working to obtain a modern NAFTA which is fair and beneficial to all three countries. Minister Freeland met with Mexican President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who will take office on Dec. 1rst, and was given assurance that Mexico also has the same objectives for a trilateral trade agreement.

I firmly believe that President Trump has underestimated just how much the E.U., China, Mexico and Canada are willing to go to protect their interests and promote free trade. Before the terrible and costly consequences of international trade wars happen, I would suggest that the President take a close look at his strategy and consider backing off even more.  I’m sure even the Republicans, who historically promoted free trade as opposed to protectionism, would very much support such a move.  We can only hope.

Leave a comment »

President Trump’s Behaviour At The G7 Meeting In Canada Was Disrespectful To Host Leader

Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister of the sovereign nation of Canada and as such deserves the normal respect given to any head of state. For the past four decades, Canada has been a recognized member of the G7 Group. This body is there to provide a valuable opportunity for the seven participating countries to discuss a number of important world issues, including trade.  Normally, at the end of each meeting a joint communiqué is issued highlighting the results of the discussions. However, although the U.S. delegation appeared to have endorsed the draft communiqué, the American President abruptly left the meeting refusing to sign off on the document. Instead, Trump launched a tirade against Prime Minister Trudeau calling him “dishonest and weak”.

Other leaders and delegates were surprised by Trump’s outburst, although not completely shocked given recent events. After all, some of these leaders have been disparaged by Trump’s statements in the past.  Some observers have labelled the tirade released by Trump and his advisors against the Canadian PM as a form of ‘bullying’.  Having placed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, Canada has indicated that tariffs will be imposed on a number of American products exported to Canada.  In addition, Trump is not too happy with the negotiations surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which have been going slower than he would have liked.  Both Canada and Mexico believe that negotiations on a new agreement need to be thorough in order to achieve a fair and equitable result for all three nations. Given the complexity of some of the trade items, this process cannot be done over night.

President Trump needs to realize that the Prime Minister has the full backing of not only his government, but also the opposition members and Canadians in general. Unlike recent contradictory statements by Trump, the Canadian position on the NAFTA negotiations and on free trade in general has been consistent.  Indeed, the Canadian position reflects that of many of its European allies who have also been hit with American tariffs.  Regrettably, the U.S. protectionist situation leaves Canada, Mexico and the European Union with no other option but to retaliate in kind. No one wants to give in to a bully.  Unfortunately, workers and consumers in the U.S. and the other affected countries will ultimately suffer.

It’s time that Donald Trump realises that he is no longer part of a reality T.V. show. He is now on the world stage and needs to act in a respectful, informed and reflective manner.  Name calling and bullying have no place in diplomacy.  Years of cooperation and trust among nations are at stake.  Trump’s administration needs to be very careful as to whom it defames and attempts to discredit.  It’s one thing to launch a trade war and quite another to start diplomatic conflicts among one’s allies.  There could be grave consequences for the so-called leader of the free world.

Leave a comment »

President Trump, Cozying Up To ‘Dictators’ Can Be Very Hazardous

In 1938, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, flew to meet Germany’s Adolf Hitler at his private mountain retreat in Berchtesgaden in an attempt to resolve the Sudetenland crisis in Czechoslovakia. If history has taught us anything, Chamberlain’s appeasement policy made war much more likely because Hitler thought he could get away with anything.  Meetings between legitimate elected leaders and ‘dictators’ are seen as legitimizing ‘dictatorial’ regimes.

Trump’s description of Russia’s Vladimir Putin as a “nice guy” two years after Russia annexed Crimea from the Ukraine baffles one’s mind. The incursion by the Russian military was seen as responsible for the defeat of Ukrainian forces. Many countries, including the U.S. and Canada, implemented economic sanctions against Russia or Russian individuals or companies.  Amnesty International expressed its belief that Russia is fuelling the conflict, noting that there had been an estimated 8000 casualties resulting from the conflict.  The Russian Federation was accused of fuelling the ongoing violence with the presence and continuing influx of foreign fighters and sophisticated weapons and ammunition.  More recently, Putin has aligned himself with Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens. Maybe, not so much a “nice guy” or one to be admired!

Now one sees President Trump continuing to outreach to rogue leaders, even declaring that he would meet North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-un and Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte. Kim’s grandfather Kim Il-sung established a Stalinist state after the Korean War.  Kim has continued to build a huge military arsenal, including a nuclear potential, while human rights are abused and North Koreans are starving from a lack of food.  Of course, we are familiar with Duterte who is accused of supporting thousands of extrajudicial killings of drug suspects in his country.

Having a face-to-face meeting between two or more businessmen is not the same thing as it is in the world of international diplomacy. You are not only the President of the world’s most powerful nation, but you are also a leader among ‘democratically elected’ national leaders.  You have alliances, both military and political, and their policies and positions must be respected.  The international community looks to you for coherent and strategic leadership, not showmanship.  Simply by meeting with the likes of Assad, Duterte and Kim can look like recognition of and support for their regimes, both internally and externally.  For the most part, this is exactly what they relish and seek out.  Such meetings will achieve very little towards resolving the real issues and dictatorial behaviour.  Only comprehensive and aggressive international actions and their economic and political consequences can help to prevent further abuses in these countries and future threats to global peace.  Indeed, beware of the Chamberlain effect!

Leave a comment »

Fidel Castro – A Legend In His Own Time

When I was just a lad, I remember watching on television Edward R. Murrow, a well-known American broadcast journalist, who interviewed Fidel Castro shortly after coming to power in Cuba in 1959. Castro was in New York City at the time, and was welcomed by the American administration and people as a hero. Of course, Castro was casually dressed in olive-drab fatigues and combat boots, while typically smoking his large Cuban cigar. At the time, I didn’t really know much about Castro, but found him to have a larger than life presence.  Castro was not a Communist at that moment, but more a devoted socialist.

As the years passed, I followed closely the success and failures of the Cuban revolution. For whatever reason, the U.S. had supported the previous Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar, who had negotiated lucrative relationships with the American Mafia and with large U.S.-based multinationals who in turn were awarded lucrative contracts. The Mafia controlled the drug, gambling, and prostitution businesses in Havana.  In a manner that antagonized the Cuban people, the U.S. government used its influence to advance the interests of and increase the profits of the private American companies.  These companies dominated the island’s economy.  Batista, who murdered thousands of his political opponents in what was then a police state, fled Cuba for Portugal in 1958 with the arrival of Castro’s movement.

After Castro kicked out the Mafia and U.S. multinationals (expropriating billions of dollars in U.S. property), the U.S. turned on Castro. This led to the C.I.A.’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion involving hundreds of Cuban exciles and American strict embargo on Cuban sugar, tobacco and other products.  Given the severe hit on Cuba’s economy and the constant fear of American military campaigns against Cuba, Castro was forced to turn to the Soviet Union for economic and military assistance.  It was at this point that the Americans declared his regime as Communist.

Despite such adversity, Cuba introduced and developed the best free education and universal health care systems in the region, whereby over 90% of Cubans became literate. Castro dispatched Cuban-educated doctors and Cuban-developed vaccines to the poorest corners of Latin America. Superbly trained Cuban musicians and athletes have travelled the world, reflecting excellence in their various disciplines.  Cuban diplomatic and military assistance was provided in the fight against South African apartheid and poverty in various West African nations. In recent years, Cuba has eased its restrictions on religious and individual economic freedoms.

Unlike the U.S., Canada maintained diplomatic relations and trade with Cuba. Canadian tourists and officials frequented Havana and the surrounding country side.  Canadian students volunteered to travel to Cuba to help with the yearly sugar cane harvest.  Just recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited Cuba, reiterating the strong ties between the two peoples.  Unfortunately, Fidel Castro died shortly after.  However, Cuban-Canadian friendship will live on.  Indeed, Castro is a legend in turbulent times.

Leave a comment »