What surprises me is not so much the actions taken as the fumbling. If the government had simply cut off the agency's funds there might have been a stink but nothing major -- then they could have set up a new agency, a little different perhaps, in the new budget and appointed whoever they wanted. Perhaps, to be fair, they really think they are doing the right thing and want to keep Rights and Democracy going?
OTTAWA -- Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has rejected the advice of all three opposition parties and is proceeding with the appointment of Gerard Latulippe as president of the Montreal-based Rights and Democracy agency.
"Mr. Latulippe's international background in advancing democratic governance and in strengthening civil society will contribute to the work of Rights and Democracy," Cannon said. "His breadth of experience in managing international economic development projects and in negotiating complex bilateral agreements will be an asset to the organization."
Cannon's announcement was distributed to the press gallery Wednesday but was timed late night Tuesday, apparently after news was out that three high-level administrators of the embattled Rights and Democracy organization were fired earlier in the day for "insubordination," according to their lawyer, Julius Grey.
Marie-France Cloutier, Razmik Panossian and Charles Vallerand were suspended with pay Jan. 29, from the federally funded, Montreal-based advocacy organization over allegations of leaking sensitive information to the media.
Read more:
http://tiny.cc/IlQOX
3 comments:
Maybe someone can explain to me why we have these "arm's length" groups in the first place? Why is the government of Canada funding shops outside of government control? If the government thinks promoting rights and democracy are important enough to spend money why can't it be done in-house? I would dearly love to see an accounting of each "independent" groups the government funds.
Call me cynical but I think these kind of projects are all about the vanity and legacy of certain PMs. I agree with the assertion that the government should just cut funding, but I'm not sure why they would want to set up another agency once it is done.
Professor Morton, you generously call what they do "fumbling". Is it? LK
France, the United States, the UK, to name a few countries, all maintain arm's length NGOs to promote concepts like free trade, human rights, health, the environment, good governance, etc...
It’s not about vanity. All of these topics are at times uncomfortable for both important domestic constituents and powerful foreign interests. Meaning the government of the day is constantly tempted to interfere.
If you are really concerned about promoting human rights, the promoting agency is best distanced from the government and its interest in re-election, or advancing the ideology of the day (free trade, reproductive health, climate change, central bank independence). For example, until recently, most western governments hesitated to promote human rights in East Timor because they wanted to maintain good relations with the Indonesian government.
The Mulroney government started Rights & Democracy out of a sincere belief the promotion of human rights and international democracy across the globe advanced Canada’s national interest.
Organizations like NGO Monitor dislike criticism of Israel out of the sincere belief that that criticism undermines Israel’s legitimacy and, therefore, threatens its security. For them, it is intolerable that an institution like Rights & Democracy be allowed to operate separately from the pressures of Canadian politics – from where they can apply leverage.
In my opinion, their neo-conservative style bullying damages their own cause more than it does the very real enemies of Israel. No doubt they disagree.
wsam
Post a Comment