[asia-apec 1017] Toronto Star APEC Article

[Gatt Watchdog]

from the Toronto Star
February 12, 1999


Staying focused on the pepper-spray cover up 
by Naomi Klein

 
Do you suffer from APEC fatigue?

Do your limbs get heavy when you hear the words ``pepper spray?''

Do your eyelids droop when talk turns to legal fees?

If so, you are not alone. Thousands of Canadians suffer from APEC Fatigue,
among them many federal opposition politicians and members of the media.
And I admit it: Sometimes I, obsessed as I am with what happened at the
1997 Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation Summit, suffer from APEC Fatigue,
too.

The time has come, however, to shake off that political narcolepsy and
take a cue from the Americans. Much as I despise the motives behind the
Bill Clinton witch hunt, it's tough not to admire the Republicans'
determination.

What these people lack in evidence and genuine scandal, they make up for
in steely-eyed focus. They won't let anything distract them from their
resolve to hold Clinton to account: not a Congressional election upset,
not blown-up American embassies, not even air strikes against Iraq.

But here in Canada, say ``Social Union,'' ``Bill C-54'' or ``King
Hussein's funeral'' and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien's foes are darting
around like 10-year-old boys on a sugar high.

Now I'm not saying that APEC should be the only item on the political
agenda. But one thing is clear: If the truth about APEC is ever to come
out, it will only be as a result of sustained - and extremely
uncomfortable - public pressure. The Chrtien government has already
demonstrated how far it will go to ward off scrutiny.

It has targeted the CBC, it still refuses to pay the students' legal fees,
and it won't hold an independent inquiry or even an internal review. The
Prime Minister's Office has yet to hand over relevant documents to the
RCMP's Public Complaints Commission, and Chrtien has not agreed to
testify.

Busting Fortress Liberal is going to take a kind of doggedness that seems
to have dissipated from only a few months ago. And the fatigue is not for
lack of incriminating material. If anything, the case that Chrtien was
involved in a politically motivated campaign to strip protesters of their
civil liberties is only gaining more heft.

In the past couple of weeks, new information has emerged on several of the
case's most contentious issues. A quick rundown:


Chrtien was involved. In the original round of documents, there was no
direct evidence that the Prime Minister offered his personal assurances
that Indonesia's concerns about embarrassment would be addressed. But
documents released this week show that Chrtien did offer those assurances
in a meeting with Indonesian ambassador Benjamin Parwoto.  When Chrtien
said he was aware of President Suharto's concerns about ``comfort,'' there
is little doubt that both men took that as a reference to Suharto's demand
- made repeatedly in the previous months - that he should see no visible
signs of protest. It was this desire for a protest-free summit that led to
the security crackdown.


Chrtien may have called Suharto. At the same meeting, Chrtien said he
would be calling the Indonesian president soon. The statement directly
contradicts the position of the Prime Minister's Office, which is that no
such phone call took place.  The discrepancy makes a persuasive argument
for why the Prime Minister must be subpoenaed and why phone records must
be produced by the PMO. Did the phone call take place or not? If so, what
assurances were offered?


Jaggi Singh's charges were trumped up. That's the way it looks, anyway.
The outspoken activist was arrested on assault charges the day before the
now infamous anti-APEC protest - a protest he helped to organize. The RCMP
claimed that two weeks earlier, Singh had shouted too loudly into a
megaphone, injuring a police officer's eardrum.  But last week, Singh's
charges were quietly dropped. Though the RCMP denies it, this development
bolsters Singh's allegation that the assault charge was fabricated to keep
him - and his embarrassing megaphone - away from the summit site.

As the incriminating evidence piles up, however, it seems as if the more
we know, the less interested we become. News stories that would have made
the front page only months ago are now buried in the back. Opposition
parties fire in all directions. It becomes easier not to care.

But this scandal has become about much more than APEC: It is now a test of
whether it is possible to make this government accountable for anything.
Can we do it, or will we sleep through it?