Commentary: Canada's lamentable double standard towards Venezuela
June 26, 2017
By Sheldon Birkett
Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
In Ottawa, on May 1, 2017, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke on the phone with Peruvian President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski, affirming a commitment to encourage dialogue between the government of Venezuela and the opposition, Mesa Unidad Democrática (MUD). Trudeau offered his support for a democratic resolution on the political and economic crisis in Venezuela.
The rumors of an initiative for Trudeau to lead an Organization of American States (OAS) Venezuela mediation effort came from Peru’s foreign minister, Ricardo Luna, after stating that the liberal-minded Trudeau holds a “global power role.”
However, on May 16, 2017, Trudeau met with Lilian Tintori in Ottawa. Tintori is the wife of the leader of the right wing opposition party Voluntad Popular, Leopoldo López, who was imprisoned in 2015 for inciting violence in the “guarimbas.” At the meeting with Tintori, Trudeau committed to restoring dialogue “as enshrined in the OAS’s Inter-American Democratic charter.”
Though the Canadian government continues to push for talks on the Venezuelan crisis through the OAS, a fair and impartial Latin American mediation process ought to exclude the involvement of Canada and United States. Canada and the United States should be excluded because they have been outspoken partisans in this conflict and form part of a bloc of countries lead by a strong supporter of the Venezuelan opposition, who is the secretary general of the OAS, Luis Almagro.
More:
http://www.coha.org/canadas-lamentable-double-standard-towards-venezuela/
= new reply since forum marked as read
But those days are long since gone, and have been replaced with dystopian logic and outright BS courtesy of the PSUV and Chavismo.
Years ago, Chavez demanded my wife's uncles offer to the government (err... Chavez) concrete and cement products "at a discount" so that he could build housing for Chavez voters. When Chavez was offered these products at the cost to produce them, Chavez refused to pay what he considered "extortion" and promptly confiscated (he called it "nationalization"
the company and "promised" to reimburse them. (That promise was as empty and vacuous as Chavez' skull. Not a Bolivar was ever paid.)
Unfortunately, Chavez and his sycophants knew less about business than he did about good governance, and the company failed within a month. He then accused these uncles of "economic sabotage" and threatened them with prison if they didn't come back and run the company. They fled Venezuela instead. As a result, a company that employed over 170 Venezuelans with a good income was pillaged for anything of value and currently sits rotting.
The good news? He deeded this rotting complex that produces nothing "to the people", who are now the proud owners of a property that has negative value, and produces nothing. Much the way that the recently nationalized GM and Kimberly Clark plants now belong to "the people", but produce nothing and have been stripped of anything of value.
And Maduro's apologists (see above) concern themselves (from the safety of other Capitalist countries) with what the "right wingers" might do if Chavismo fails? They certainly can't do worse than what Chavismo has done to a once proud nation.