So why did the Canadian government ramp up their support for an unelected government that was showing themselves to be increasingly more repressive and undemocratic? Maria Cueva of the Quebec-Peru Solidarity Committee provided North Star with an explanation:
“Currently, [Canada] has mining companies that operate there, and the government also sells arms to Peru. That’s the point of interest, because we have lots and lots of minerals. That’s why they continued their support. And Pedro Castillo’s government didn’t want to renew the contracts. With Dina Boluarte, they have been renewed. That’s it. And the people don’t want the mines because they contaminate the whole environment, their territory.”
“Supports” is stretching things way out of shape. “Ignores” or “does not attempt to prevent” might be accurate, depending on what’s actually taking place in Peru (about which I have no idea, nor do most Canadians), but to what degree is it acceptable to interfere in another country’s politics? Do they expect Canada to enact a trade embargo with Peru to get mining companies headquartered here to stop investing there? This is not stuff we do casually, nor should we.
A new government came into power in Peru through a coup and has violently repressed protesters. During this time, the Canadian government has “met with almost every different minister of the usurper government” (most likely an uptick in their communication with the Peruvian government) and they increased their military exports 2 months after the coup.
Boluarte’s government has become known for its violent suppression of popular protests, with the Peruvian army and national police killing over 70 people in the past two years, the majority indigenous and peasants—as reported by Amnesty International.
How does that not qualify as Canada supporting human rights abuses? Grant_M
(Edit: You two are doubling down hard on your own misunderstanding or denial)
There’s a difference between ignorance—even willful ignorance—and active malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government believed them, then our government is guilty of ignorance and stupidity, but not malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government knew there was a possible issue but sold them the weapons anyway, that’s willful ignorance, but still not malice. Consider the following scenario: Your neighbour borrows a kitchen knife from you, saying he needs to chop some vegetables. Instead, he uses it to kill his wife. You knew that he and his wife had a bad relationship, and you’ve told him off when you’ve seen her with suspicious bruises, but you weren’t expecting anything like this. Still, you provided the weapon, and you didn’t try to step between them. To what degree are you guilty? Should you have interfered in their relationship? That’s where I suspect we’re at: our government not agreeing with or encouraging the Peruvian government’s behaviour, but not shunning the perpetrator or making any real attempt to stop what’s going on. Like it or not (and I don’t like it), this is really common in international relations. If the original headline had used “ignores” in place of “supports”, I would agree with it 100%.
If the Peruvian government told the truth: “We want these weapons to kill and maim our own people,” and our government still sold them, then that’s malice and would make the headline accurate as it stands. But I doubt that’s what actually happened.
In the case of a usurper government that was massacring citizens within 8 days of taking power, under the veil of “removing human obstacles” and eliminating “hostile groups”… I would argue that support and willful ignorance are one in the same. Unwillingness to refuse supply of arms or materials to the government that is undertaking these actions does nothing but strengthen their campaign of violence.
I emailed them about the headline. This is their official response:
Hello Grant,
Thank you for contacting us.
We would be pleased to hear information that contradicts the facts stated in this article’s title and wouldn’t hesitate to change it if it is proven incorrect. As it stands, we consider it to be correct.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
“Supports” is stretching things way out of shape. “Ignores” or “does not attempt to prevent” might be accurate, depending on what’s actually taking place in Peru (about which I have no idea, nor do most Canadians), but to what degree is it acceptable to interfere in another country’s politics? Do they expect Canada to enact a trade embargo with Peru to get mining companies headquartered here to stop investing there? This is not stuff we do casually, nor should we.
A new government came into power in Peru through a coup and has violently repressed protesters. During this time, the Canadian government has “met with almost every different minister of the usurper government” (most likely an uptick in their communication with the Peruvian government) and they increased their military exports 2 months after the coup.
How does that not qualify as Canada supporting human rights abuses? Grant_M
(Edit: You two are doubling down hard on your own misunderstanding or denial)
There’s a difference between ignorance—even willful ignorance—and active malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government believed them, then our government is guilty of ignorance and stupidity, but not malice.
If the Peruvian government lied about why it wanted the weapons, and our government knew there was a possible issue but sold them the weapons anyway, that’s willful ignorance, but still not malice. Consider the following scenario: Your neighbour borrows a kitchen knife from you, saying he needs to chop some vegetables. Instead, he uses it to kill his wife. You knew that he and his wife had a bad relationship, and you’ve told him off when you’ve seen her with suspicious bruises, but you weren’t expecting anything like this. Still, you provided the weapon, and you didn’t try to step between them. To what degree are you guilty? Should you have interfered in their relationship? That’s where I suspect we’re at: our government not agreeing with or encouraging the Peruvian government’s behaviour, but not shunning the perpetrator or making any real attempt to stop what’s going on. Like it or not (and I don’t like it), this is really common in international relations. If the original headline had used “ignores” in place of “supports”, I would agree with it 100%.
If the Peruvian government told the truth: “We want these weapons to kill and maim our own people,” and our government still sold them, then that’s malice and would make the headline accurate as it stands. But I doubt that’s what actually happened.
In the case of a usurper government that was massacring citizens within 8 days of taking power, under the veil of “removing human obstacles” and eliminating “hostile groups”… I would argue that support and willful ignorance are one in the same. Unwillingness to refuse supply of arms or materials to the government that is undertaking these actions does nothing but strengthen their campaign of violence.
^ Willful ignorance
I emailed them about the headline. This is their official response:
Hello Grant,
Thank you for contacting us.
We would be pleased to hear information that contradicts the facts stated in this article’s title and wouldn’t hesitate to change it if it is proven incorrect. As it stands, we consider it to be correct.
Thank you.
Editorial committee of North Star
I’d translate that as “We’re too lazy to do any actual checking, so we’re going to dump the responsibility on you in the hope that you’ll go away.”
Very maga-like behavior.