Cc

Tonight, we come to the final session of the 29th annual Kuchiching Conference on the Latin Americans. It's been quite a week here on the shores of Lake Kuchiching, Ontario, estimulating week with clashes of personalities. An exhausting week, too, with the extra sessions put in to meet the demands of participants for further information. But we can safely say it has not been a boring week. We've discussed nearly every possible aspect of Latin American life, but we have not yet really touched upon the crucial point. Why should Canada be interested in the Latin America's at all? And more particularly, should she join the organization of American states? On the platform tonight, we have Dr. Charles Fenwick of the OAS with AJ Knowles and Marcel Rousin. Here is our chairman to introduce them to you. Editor of McLean's Magazine, Blair Fraser. Applause

Ladies and gentlemen, the people who are to take part in the discussion tonight are all particularly qualified to do so. Dr. Charles Fenwick has been director of the Department of International Law of the Pan American Union since 1947. I think one could almost say a lifetime of experience with Latin American affairs. Mr. Knowles lived in Latin America, working for the Royal Bank of Canada for 28 years. Professor Rousin has been a student not only of, but in Latin America and has recently published a book on Canada and the inter-American system. I appear as the local audience heard a moment or two ago to cast upon these affairs the clear white light of ignorance. My role is that of the typical Canadian in the street

who I think in spite of this, of having been enlightened for the past week on Latin American affairs could still. Fairly be described as pretty solidly apathetic on the whole subject. The question of Canada is joining the organization of American states is greeted in this country certainly not with hostility, but with resounding lack of interest. So the first question that I'd like to put to Dr. Fenwick is, we, most of us Canadians, I think, really don't know very much about the organization of American states. Could you tell us, could you give us an example of something that the organization of American states has recently done? Well, please don't expect too much of this. You're not buying a Cadillac car. You're getting a model, I was going to say Model T Ford, but that wouldn't be very courteous to the organization of American states.

You're getting an organization that is developing from an older one and don't expect that it's going to control the world all at once. Let's see how it functions. Once upon a time, there was a President Roosevelt of the United States, a man of very vigorous character and teeth and determination. And he said, I'm tired of this business of disorder in the Caribbean. And he picked up a big stick. He said, I'm going to introduce an international police power. Well, there wasn't anything international about it at all, it was himself. And a real man, a man of vigor. And he swung his big stick around and restored order. He protected Venezuela against an invasion of those wicked European powers you've heard about who'd like to come over and take America. He protected the Dominican Republic. He restored order in Haiti and things went well for a while. Not very long because Latin America didn't like it. Nobody likes to have somebody else who's bigger, use a big stick on them.

It wasn't until 1936 that we got away from that policy, which Latin America called intervention. And we called maintenance of the Monroe doctrine by making everybody behave so that there be no cause for European coming in. That's logical, isn't it, if there's disorder in the Caribbean and European powers want to come over and collect debts from Venezuela while the way to do is make see yourself at Venezuela pays those debts to keep Europe out. It's all very logical, of course. But unfortunately, it was doing the right thing in the wrong way. By the year 1936, we learned how lesson. And we agreed at the conference at Buenos Aires that the thing to do under such circumstances was to consult. In other words, the United States said, I'll only give up this Monroe doctrine. If you all will assume the responsibility to take care of the situations that come up. Well, the Treaty of 1936 is about the weakest you can possibly imagine.

But by 1938, we got a little nearer. Then when the war came and our eyes were opened and we saw what had to be done, we drew up a regional, inter-American treaty of reciprocal assistance. An attack upon one is an attack upon all. That's the principle of collective security. An attack upon one is the same principle as in the United Nations. And the same principle, if you please, that was in the oligov nations that we did not have sense enough to get into. Well, that's gone. The principle of collective, I'm sorry, Canada Guardian and our respect for it. But we'll come back that maybe later. All right, we've adopted a treaty and an attack upon one is an attack upon all. When there's a threat to the peace, we call all our foreign ministers together. Why didn't they let the Council in Washington and the Council of Ambassadors have the power to do it?

Well, unfortunately, the Council of Ambassadors was too near the United States State Department and might be influenced by it. Let's call the foreign ministers in the event of a threat to the peace. And they've been called and they're going to meet next Tuesday down in San Jose, Costa Rica. Nobody else seems to want to happen. Well, let's be honest about it. We already've gone way down to San Diego, Chile, and Chile was brave and bold and said, come on down here, that was the last summer. But other countries felt a little uncomfortable. We don't know what we can do if this business fellow cruise chef makes too much trouble. We don't think we'd like to have you, but Costa Rica brave and bold little state. It doesn't have any army, but only schoolteachers, or rather more schoolteachers and soldiers is a real story. I guess I have a few policemen. Anyway, Costa Rica said, come on down here. We're not afraid.

So they're going to meet there on Tuesday. That is the real treaty, as we call it, of reciprocal assistance, regional, collective security. An attack upon one is an attack upon all. Well, is that just an attack from outside? Or is this an organization which can deal with attacks by one member on another? This organization deals with both kinds of an attack. Any attacked by those wicked European powers, we won't name them, why would be met by a solid organization of American states, and any threat to the peace within the organization will also be met. Now, you ask for an example? Yeah. Can I have a minute or a half a minute for that? Honduras and Nicaragua have been having a bound require for a long time. Nobody here from Honduras and Nicaragua don't mean to be disagreeable, but I'm going to tell you the facts as I see them. Way long time ago, you know, one of our troubles in Latin America was that when they won their independence, they didn't know quite where the boundaries were.

And that's simply because the boundaries weren't clear under the old Spanish administration and Portuguese, and therefore we've had a lot of boundary disputes. Honduras said, let's arbitrate this to Nicaragua. Nicaragua said, all right, I'll arbitrate. Well, whom show we didn't go to? King of Spain, all right? Let's go to King of Spain, because they were recently under him. So they went to the King of Spain, and the question now is, well, the King of Spain looked at the map and said, oh, what are they fussing about? Why do I want to go back to Ocolonio Dusty documents? It's a govier river, cocoa river, would be an awfully nice bound. River is a nice because there's a river. You never have any trouble. You don't have to stake it off. And so he said, let's have the cocoa. It's a govier river for a boundary. Well, that pleased Honduras, because it gave Honduras what she was claiming. Nicaragua said nonsense. Now you're supposed to follow an arbitral award.

That's the idea of going to arbitration. You accept the award beforehand, whatever it be. But Nicaragua said, no, no, I won't have anything to do that award. The King didn't give us a real arbitral award. All he did was to give us a boundary line that he thought would look nice. Well, we're not interested in what looks nice. We're interested in the Ocolonio boundary line. And he didn't look up the documents, or he wouldn't have given that award. All right, great quarrel beginning in 1957. What did the organization of the American States do? They called both of them up to Washington and said, stop this shame on your sister states. I don't like calling sister states. I don't like to think of sisters quarreling that way. But did it speak of sister states, you know? Ever since known sister's to quarrel, I may be so. Anyway, I'm not familiar with that because I've only got sons. Did they, in fact, settle about the industry? They did, and how did they settle it? And this I wouldn't want you to quote. But they sent it over to the international court of justice at the Hague.

Going to cost them a tidy sum. But I for all, what is a few hundred thousand dollars to getting a settlement? But poor old Supreme Court, what have they got to do? Look, back over documents, 60 years old full of dust. They'll all get asthma from it if they do it themselves. Of course, what court will they all appoint masters, as they call them? And the masters examine the documents. And the answer will be so and so, and then it'll be accepted. Why? Because the pressure of public opinion of the 21 states has now become very strong. And I'm emphasizing the pressure of public opinion because you don't have to break heads anymore. The pressure of public opinion, I'm letting you draw the conclusion a little later of what I mean by that. But if, if Canada were to join the organization of American states, what exactly would be our involvement? What would we be letting ourselves in for? Well, now, Mr. Fraser, that's an embarrassing question because you're not letting yourselves in for anything.

And why you get so excited over it, I don't know. Look here, you let yourself in for real trouble when you signed up for NATO to protect Turkey against the Soviet Union. And why you scared about a little cluster, a little cubo, that's all about it. I don't think it's a matter of being scared. We just really don't know. Well, now let me tell you what your obligations are under the real treaty. Your obligations are upon call of a meeting of foreign ministers, you send your foreign minister down, and he consults. The sole obligation is to consult. In the course of consultation, obviously, you're supposed to do something. You're supposed to take some measures to stop the trouble that's going on. But those measures are taken after consultation. And if Canada were a member, she could express her opinion. I don't think we ought to spank Castro. No, I don't think we ought to take him to the Woodpile. No, I think we ought to slap his wrist and say, bad boy, now behave yourself well and stop dealing with the Russians and the Chinese and behave yourself like a good, inter-American boy.

But, of course, the only obligation that you have. Suppose we don't care how you behave. Well, if you don't care how he behaves, you're not interested in law and order in the world. No, what I mean is this. Most Canadians think of themselves as members of a North Atlantic community. And as you say, we're even willing to stretch the North Atlantic as far as Turkey. But, relatively few of us actually think of ourselves as part of a hemisphere community. Well, in the world, can you get such an extraordinary idea into your heads? I promise not to speak. I promise not to speak about Canada's interest. That's for Canada to decide. I'm only telling you what your obligations would be, would be, if you join. And the obligation is merely to consult and in the event of a threat to the peace,

you're to decide what measures ought to be taken to meet it. Is that an extraordinary obligation to assume after what you've done under NATO? No, but wouldn't you think that the nations in the region would be sufficiently equipped to look after their own region? I mean, do you think that Canada specifically is part of this Latin American, South American region? And we have a direct concern other than the general concern about peace in this region. I respect Canada. I think, Radio Canadians have always admired your country and wonderful summers that you have, in fact, that you have no worry over foreign policies and no taxes to pay and all that. I always thought that you had a desire to help maintain order and order in the world. If you haven't got any desire to maintain order, don't believe that public opinion. The voice of Canada in the councils of the organization of American states, well, I'm

organone, I said I wouldn't, I'm going to say the voice of Canada would strengthen the public opinion of the hemisphere. Now, that I believe because I respect Canada very highly. If you don't believe it, I'd stay out of this thing. I wouldn't get into it. Well, there are two Canadians here on the platform who, unlike me, really do know what they're talking about in this field. As I said before, they both have most extensive experience in Latin America, but they differ. We have found out already that Professor Rusan thinks Canada should join the organization of American states at once, and Mr. Noles, who is also a man of great experience in the area, thinks that we should not. Now, Professor Rusan, would you tell us why should Canada join the OAS? You know something, Mr. Fraser? My wife has been asking me the same thing for years, and I think I'm a little more at ease to answer you here, frankly.

The point is, I think that Canada should join the element of reasons anyway, and I just don't know why people do not understand that yet, frankly, why Canada should join? It should have been understood a long time ago. But in my opinion is that there are reasons we are so enthusiastic about defence those days that there would be military reasons to join the OAS and work with the Inter-American Defence Board. We already have board in some kind of board in the United States, which is a permanent joint defence board, working with the United States, and we think that it is a very useful organisation. So we could just have this body collaborate very easily and very closely with the Inter-American Defence Board.

There is no doubt about it, but there are also other reasons besides defence, if defence had the result of protecting the continent, and we should, I think, in the case of emergency or in the case of war, I think we should present one United Front from the South America, from the South Pole to the North Pole, because in the period that we are in now, I don't think we shouldn't take any chance of leaving an open door for the big, bad wolf to come in. And later on, there are political reasons, after all, Canada is, believe it or not, in the American state. It's still true, you know. And we have responsibilities which are connected with this geographical position in America, and I agree with Dr. Fenmer that it is a stranded affair to promise to different Turkey,

but I think that putting Turkey in the Atlantic is really stretching the map. And there is also the fact that we are an American nation, there is no doubt about that, the providence, which, if we were an American nation, otherwise, we have put us somewhere in Europe, middle Europe, where we could enjoy it tremendously. But we have contacts with the Latin American state and with the United States, and I think we should use, at the utmost, the organization which has been in existence for more than half a century. There are also other reasons, there are economic reasons. And we know, you know, as well as I do, that the trade would be tremendously increased, if we could use the good offices of the Inter-American, the Economic and Social Council, and the

different economic, economic and financial agencies under the OAS. And I think, also, there is a psychological reason, which is that that would contribute to complete the continental unity, and it would make it a little easier to can eat and to go abroad, to have contacts with the United States or with Latin Americans, to answer exactly the question, why is that Canada joining the Inter-American States? Why do you keep out of the OAS when, in fact, you are using some of the agencies, you attend some of the conferences, but you just don't want to belong to the family. It is very embarrassing to answer that question after a while, you know. And I think there are psychological reasons for which we should affirm our character of an American state, and we should act as an American state.

Mr. Knowles, what's your rejoinder to that first race of case? Well, Mr. Chairman, the outset I'd like to say that I find myself in company was two of the North American, the Continent's best brokers for brides for the OAS, and I want to warn all Canadians here to be very careful that they're not led to the OAS altar. Now, there are many reasons why I think Canada should not join the OAS. But I'll mention three, just not to take too long time. First of all, I think that the problems, the biggest problems in the world today are not regional problems, but global problems. I think that it's not only a few Cubans who should be taken to the woodshed, but a lot of people from the Kremlin as well. And I think that the big problem as well is a global one, and not a regional one. Now, the second reason why I think Canada should keep out of the OAS is that Canada itself, considering its tremendous known resources, is one of the largest underdeveloped countries

in the world. And the third reason why I think Canadians should keep free of this organization is that our, it's because of our incompatibilities with Latin Americans. And I'm going to argue that we have incompatibilities in different fields, first of all, in the juridic and political, secondly, in the social and economic. And I'd like to warn Canadians that incompatibility is no grounds for divorce in Canada. Well, is this your point then, Mr. Knowles, that because, whereas the 21 republics, now members of the OAS, even though some of them may be mutually unfriendly, still all share basically similar way of thinking and living, that our way is different? I'm arguing that our way is entirely different.

I said, for instance, juridically and politically that we are different. Let me explain what I mean. Now juridically, our law here, and most of Canada at least, is based on the English law, which is a law of equity. In South America, as far as I know, the law in every South American country is based on the, in the polyonic law, and then the polyonic law is one that is based on the letter of the law. Therefore, we have this conflict as between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Now, I think that that has some importance. I also said that we have political incompatibilities. Now let me explain what I mean there. In Canada, for instance, we say that democracy is something that must start from the grassroots and grow up. This point was very well discussed and treated one or two nights ago, whereas in Latin America, the tendency is for democracy to filter from the top downwards.

Now right in that, there is too a definite incompatibility. And if we sum up all these incompatibilities, we find that we're there very many, I think that they, the way of life towards which Latin America is tending and leading is very different from ours. Dr. Fenwick and Mr. Rusan, both want to answer you. Let me ask you one question in your prepared manuscript. You spoke, said something so extraordinary. You said, Canada's a monarchy, we couldn't join up with a whole lot of backward democracies. I didn't know Canada was a monarchy. I knew you had a lovely queen whom we all really had Maya Highley. Nobody can speak too well of her, but I never knew. Canada was a monarchy. A monarchy means a single rule. I understood that the good queen reigned but didn't rule and that you had a parliament and that you were after the Statute of Westminster completely independent, really. When did you get to be a monarchy again?

Have you gone back since the Statute of Westminster? Just before Mr. Norris answers, I'd better throw in that everyone has thrown away his script tonight. I'm very happy to answer Dr. Fenwick's question that I accept the correction, perhaps I should have said that Canada has a monarchy instead of saying that it is a monarchy, but the fact is that we do have a queen and that queen is also queen of the Falk and Islands, Queen of British Honduras, Queen of British Guiana, and she's also queen of the Federation of the British West Indies. Now let me tell you that the Falk and Islands is under attack by Argentina on stamps published in Argentina. You'll find that the Falk and Islands appears on the cover, they claim that it belongs to them. He is a source of conflict, he is an incompatibility. Honduras is under attack too, it's been under attack going on for, well, a Dr. Fenwick could tell us, but for a tremendous long time, to my knowledge, and the British Guiana too, well, that has been denounced because of colonialism, so how can we reconcile that with our status

as a monarchy, or as a country that has a monarchy? Professor Luisa, you've been patiently waiting here to get a rejoinder in. Yes. Mr. Noah mentioned incompatibility, and I agree with him completely. And I think he probably got his idea after seeing and hearing some of the speakers we had here this week. And I certainly agree with him, but the incompatibility was among themselves, not at all, they are repeated against Canada. That's one thing. Second thing, you were speaking of global problems, I agree with that too, and then later there is one world, somebody said that before. But don't you know, don't you think that if everybody could take care of its own, we have a saying in French, you know, if everyone could take care of its own local affair, the

whole world would certainly look better. And that is true, not only in French, but it is true. It is true also in a juridical language, and Mr. Fenwick, he was the authority, I should see in Inter-American law, could I presume quote you by heart, the article of the charter, I should say both in the UN Charter, which deals with local regional affairs, and also the article in the Charter of the OAS, which says that when there are difficulties among the American states, there was difficulties, that's both in the UN and OAS. When there are difficulties, they should first be settled at the local level before bothering

the big strong powers who have many other things to do for the present time. So I think we should start first with that, I should like to answer that, I am in full agreement if we can possibly clean up our own backyards splendid, but suppose that someone comes along and interferes when you are cleaning it up, we would like to clean up the situation in Cuba, but the Russians tell us that if we do attempt to do that, they will show rockets on us. How can we solve the problem by cleaning our own backyards when we are on such to this interference? Certainly it would be fine if we were free to do it, but we are not, that's why I say this is a global problem and not a regional problem. I wouldn't agree with that at all, and I think if you call the Russians in, I don't, if you put it yourself on the international level, I don't, I just say let's get together, let's set really well on difficult days and leave the Russians out of it, the Russians

and all the other people who are not interested in it, they shouldn't be interested in things like that. Well, Dr. Fenwick has a point, would you like to see the Soviet Union have a landing field in Cuba and one tunnel mold bay for a naval base? Would you be any more comfortable than you now are with Turkey on your hands? Would you be more comfortable or uncomfortable? Would the presence of the Soviet Union right under your nose trouble you at all? It most certainly would trouble me, that's precisely why I say this is a global problem. I don't think that we in North America are powerful enough to end it, and I think that's why this is a matter for United Nations, not for a regional organization that has the body of an elephant and only got the legs of a chicken. Mr. Chairman, are you referring to the Republican Party in the United States? I'm referring to the, I'm referring to the, I'm referring to the, I just pleased his lead down to the ground.

I'm referring to the organization, the American States, which a friend, Dr. Fenwick, so widely represent. Professor Russi, I think you had, you wanted to make one more comment before we ask for questions from the floor? Yes. But just thinking still in, in line of regional organization, I, Mr. Knowles speaks of the UN. I completely agree. Oh, I completely know, I shouldn't say that. I agree partially with him about the UN, and it's supposed to be a role in the world. But we do belong to the UN, for good or for bad, I don't know. And that would not prevent us at all from joining the organization of the American States, and discussing with our American friends, either North Americans or Latin Americans, or their problems, which are typically American. We have no reason to ask the, say, Turkey or Japan to interfere or to give his or her opinion in cases like that.

We can settle the world, don't flood themselves. Then why not use our embassies, our trade commissioners, and all this enormous staff that we have from all over the world for whom we're spending a tremendous sum of money? Make, put them to work and put them down to solve some of these problems. That's a very good idea, too. Well, there have been several hands up in the audience for several minutes now of people wanting to get into this argument, so shall I invite a question from here? Yes. I may say, first of all, that the rather fuchsia approach to this and the metaphors drawn from the formula to rather uphold me, this is an extremely serious subject, and despite the liver path. If I may, sir, I'd like just to give a personal British point of view, because the question of the Commonwealth relationships has been raised in this connection. I think perhaps I should put it into focus, first of all, and I don't think this question would hit the headlines in Britain. It is apparently domestic, a Canadian matter, and we in Britain are far too concerned at

the moment with the fact that we've got about seven minutes warning before annihilation. I can say quite categorically, though, that I can see no conflict between Canada's relationship to the Commonwealth and her membership of the organization of American states. Indeed, I think that from a fairly British point of view, it might be a considerable advantage for Britain to have an associate in this organization who can bring her good influence to bear both on the United States and on Latin America. I can therefore sum up objectively, I think, the situation, because for the average Englishman, well, he's no ex to grind in this matter, and looking at it objectively, I can see that there are affinities between Canada and Latin America, particularly, for example, on religious

grounds in the case of a French Canada. And I believe that French Canadian missionaries are very active indeed in certain backward areas in South America. On the other hand, I can see that Canada might not wish to associate herself too closely with certain dictatorial regimes because of the basic incompatibility of these rate regimes and the Canadian democratic tradition. The Latin American states, I think, would like Canada in to counterbalance the USA, and the USA would like Canada in to counterbalance the Latin American states. And I'm not sure that you would like to be placed in the position of siding with one block against the other, with one neighbour against another. And thirdly, looking at it more from commercial grounds, I can see on the one hand that if

Canada does not join the Organization of American States, she may find herself shut out of possible markets should let an American trading block develop. On the other hand, as far as I can see it, her stake in Latin America is not great. And I think it should be stated quite frankly that a joining OAS will cost her about 50 millions for the Inter-American Bank, a point which hasn't been given, I think, sufficient emphasis in the discussions at the round the table. And my last point is this. Perhaps as yet Canadians do not know enough about Latin America. This conference has done very much to help, but those of us who recall certain difficulties of communication, shall we say, at the beginning of the week, will realise this very grave situation

of trying to understand neighbours to the south. And I can only conclude in this way with a kind of rather impertinent recommendations. I would say, get to know more about Latin America first. Bring Latin Americans to Canada. Send your young men to Latin America as frequently as you can. Promote the study of Latin American institutions and history and literature in your universities. And when you are quite sure of your fans and not before, then make up your own minds. Thank you very much. My guy, because I'm sure many listeners last night realised was Mr. John Matford, who spoke to the meeting from the platform last night, and I see Mr. Erquiti of Mexico has his hand up with the comment.

Well, Mr. Chairman, for once I'm a little bit at a lot for words. I suppose I should start with what I assume might be a Canadian proverb, something about separating the wheat from the chaff or something like that. My English is not good enough to know these things. But I think there's a lot of serious subject matter to discuss, and there are a lot of sort of details, which have a reason in the discussion, which I think are slightly can put you off the tracks. Now I think, first of all, there has not been a clear explanation here of what is the OIS. Secondly, I don't think there has been a clear statement by anybody of what Canada's purposes would be if you joined the OIS. I as a Latin American have no right to tell any Canadians what they should do. That's entirely a Canadian problem, a Canadian business.

But I think we should just keep in mind a few points of fact. The OIS is a regional organisation worked out voluntarily by the countries that belong to it, to solve disputes peacefully, and also to work out economic and social problems of fine solutions to them when they are of common interest, and to do it in a very nice trendy fashion. It is not a super state, it doesn't have more any sovereignty of its own beyond the national sovereignty of the countries. It is not a regional branch of the United Nations. I can read you, I wouldn't do it, but I could read you, I haven't right here the articles of the UN Charter, which do not say anything about the OIS, any country has the right to take any problem to the United Nations directly if it wishes to, but the Charter does provide to encourage regional solution of disputes before taking them to the UN.

I think that's a very important part of the question to keep in mind. And also on economic and social matters, the OIS is not the only agency that operates on Latin American problems. There are UN agencies and there are world agencies, FIO and many others. And I think the interesting thing to note is that they all work in close consultation with each other and cooperate in all the programs and problems and so on. Now I don't suppose Canada expects to have any border disputes with any Latin American countries. I think that's a pretty clear question. The Canada, I have noticed, does participate and very generously indeed in many programs of improvement for the underdeveloped world. I have in mind the Colombo Plan, I have in mind some figures that I read in a report giving me this afternoon, which says that Canada has given four and a half billion dollars of financial assistance to other countries since the war and a lot of that has gone for reconstruction

and a lot for technical assistance of various kinds and so on. Now supposing that Canada wished to have a greater participation in the economic and social improvements of Latin America to help in many ways. I think there are many ways open to Canada to do it and not exclusively through the OIS. I wouldn't say anything further than that. Somebody stated here that a trading block of Latin America would leave Canada out on the cold. It has nothing to do with the OIS. The trading arrangements are a free arrangement, arrived at by sovereign countries with or without the OIS. It makes no difference. These are acts of sovereignty and Canada can work out her trade arrangements, financial and everything else with a Latin American countries by all the various means available. What I've tried to say with the chairman is that once we know the limitations of the

OIS, and I don't want to, the little anything it has done, it has done very good work indeed, but we also realize that there is a broader picture, a global picture as one of the speakers said of United Nations and many other agencies, and that Canada's interest in the other developed world is worldwide, I would say, at least that's what I have assumed from listening to speeches of your delegates and statements. Canada, if that is the purpose, to help in the economic and social improvement, has opened to it a whole series of possibilities in order to reach that kind of solution. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I take one of the questions from the back, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask Mr. Knowles that he feels that Canada should withdraw from NATO.

No indeed I do not. I think that Canada should definitely remain in NATO. I strongly advocate Canadian membership from NATO, but I see no reason for the OIS. Mr. Chairman? Are you putting a question or answer it? No, I'm answering Mr. Rookweed. Oh, yeah, good. This is Professor Rosan. I start to believe that we really have incompatibility because I think we do not speak the same language. Mr. Rookweed says that he has not heard this week precise reasons why Canada should join the OIS. I thought I had given them a few minutes ago, but I'll give him a chance. I thought that Canada should join the OIS in order to complete the national family. The continent of family, I mean, should increase the political and diplomatic relations, perfect them if it's possible, should also increase the trade using the agencies which

already exist, using the agencies, and that is two of the other American countries, 21 of them. I wonder why it would not be true in the case of Canada. And there is another thing also. He says he hasn't got in front of him, the charter, but I have it. The charter of the UN, Article 52, paragraph 2, I quote, it's about regional arrangements. The members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements, that's regional arrangements, entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve specific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before, and I underline it in red, before referring them to the Security Council.

That's in the charter. So I think it means that when there are regional arrangements, regional organizations, the members should first go to those agencies before going to the UN. And if you have read the papers recently, maybe you're too busy for that. But there was a case recently when the country in Latin America went to the UN and it was sent back to the OAS. There's a question just at the, yes. Mr. Chairman, as a lawyer, I cannot let pass without explaining certain arguments which in no way are convincing. Mr. Nolan's has said two arguments which are debatable. First, he said there is certain incompatibilities, those incompatibilities that exceeding his mind are no longer so. I'm going to explain why.

First of all, eating in the same nation like Switzerland, like Canada, there are two different systems of legal systems, the Roman law which prevailed in the province of Quebec, and the Anglo-Saxon law in the rest of the province, in Switzerland. We have different systems in other countries too. Secondly, in the community of nations, there is only one rule, the international law, the international rule. United Nations composed of more than 83 members and all come from different traditions, different religions, different system, legal system, and all of them abide the principle of law. This is called community of nations means respect to international law, and international law is order. If discipline is the way to live together with nations, in the same way that within a nation we have to establish system, system law, system order, system force, the same thing happened in the international field. We need that to preserve the mankind and rights, the human rights and all those things. We cannot evade our responsibility, the responsibility goes together with the status, with the condition,

with the position of a nation, as Canada came out of the Second World War as a nation. And it's playing important role everywhere. Why cannot we think of a big continent to compose of 230 million people with a big possibility as a market, with a big possibility as nation to cooperate in the whole world as far as it is doing, all Latin America has been representing all the United Nations agencies, is working effectively, and on the other hand, anybody who has read the preamble of the chart, they can see that the first words they say, these organizations have been made with the main purpose of living together in a peaceful way, to cooperate for the peaceful solution of all our problems. Thank you very much. Mr. Erkide has rejoined here. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to get a few facts straight.

I also had the text of the UN Charter before me here, but I didn't read it. That same article that Mr. Erkide has quoted also says at the end, this article in no way impairs the application of Article 34 and 35 of the UN Charter, which gives the right to any member of the UN to bring any dispute or any situation of the nature referred to and so on in the article, to the attention of the Security Council. So you see, there can be a policy of trying to get disputes worked out regionally, but there is a right always to go to the UN. I think it's an important point of fact to keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer and I cannot go into it. If it cannot be said to locally, they can do to the UN. I agree with you. I think you and Professor Luisa are really making the same point. I think I saw Mr. Cardoso's hand up there. Well Mr. Chairman, there's no doubt that from the Latin America point of view, it would

be very useful for Canada to enter the OAS. But I have been trying to put myself in the Canadian point of view as a mental exercise. And there are a great number of arguments pro and con. They have been sorely examined this whole week. Mr. Nol's pointed some of them and I won't repeat them. I will, some arguments con like Canada is a member of the English word that Canada has a series of internal problems like unemployment, like limited resources. Well, they have been very well examined and they are very respectable. We might maybe go a little further in the problem and it might be that the problem is that we both Latin America and Canada belong to the same civilization. The sources were different in Latin America.

It was Spanish and Portugal and France in the case of IT. But the source is the same, although differences in sources. And Latin America today, it seems as if someone else is looking to the continent. And the cause of all this unrest is based on a need to give better conditions to Latin America. We are doing a lot in this sense but a lot more has to be done and Canadian participation can help a lot also. There is also the commercial side. It has already been pointed out here during the conference that once a region, a country and a region industrialized, commerce with another industrialized country in this case Canada tends to augment.

What there is is a difference in the composition of commerce but there is definitely a movement towards augmenting the commerce. This would be very useful to Canada. Well, the only thing I can say is that, as it has already been said, it is for Canadians to decide, to examine the problems and decide. But maybe they can be put in this way, there are true series of present problems in Canada which may Canada hesitate to enter the OAS. But there are also the projection of these problems in the future. You must always see the future and more important than these present problems is a common heritage we have. Maybe Canadians can put in a scale. In one side, the present problems in the other, the projection in the future and decide if participating of the OAS is not a great investment in the future of Canada.

Thank you. There is a visitor from Trinidad with his hand up there, I think we would like to ask a question. Mr. Chairman, you have asked striking resemblance to the premier of Jamaica and other factors prompt me to ask a question, in fact to return from the realm of commentating to Query from the general to the specific. I have noticed in the Library of Coaching here that most of the material on Guatemala has to do with the Belize question. And I should like to ask the panel in general, but Mr. Hussain in particular, what would be the Canadian position, assuming of course that you join OAS, to the claim of Guatemala

on the territory of Belize, otherwise known to us as British Honduras? Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to answer the question of our good friend, but frankly, I am absolutely in no position to make an statement and I have the impression that the government would like it at all if I engage in tonight to make any decision and not that nine. But on the other hand, there is one thing I would like, since I can speak now, there is one thing I would like to say that has been, one objection that has been raised during the week and since we have Mr. Fenwick with us tonight, I would like him to confirm what I said, I mean confirm. It is that very often it has been told that if Canada joined the OAS, we would have to take part in all the border disputes in Latin America. And I wasn't under the impression and I still believe that there are two different

treaties, which is one, the real treaty, which deals with those conflicts and the organization of American states, which is the general framework of the affair. And we could easily, and Dr. Fenwick can correct me if it's not true, I think we can join the OAS without signing the real treaty, which assures a continental security, or we can sign the real treaty without joining the OAS, is it not the other one week? There is a questioner here, I think, perhaps. Mr. Chairman, we've all been talking about this problem of the organization of American states since the beginning of the week and many of us have pushed the controversy from one side to the other. And I think it's been brought out very clearly here tonight that OAS is a regional organization with similar aims and to the United Nations and in no way is in conflict with those of the United Nations.

And in fact, it seems to complement the aims of the United Nations. Now whether Canada or not should join this organization is really a case of whether Canada feels they can contribute to this regional organization in the same way as Canada has felt that she is contributing to the United Nations. Now I'd like to see the tables turn tonight, and we have in the past, all week, been asking the members of the panel questions, and I would like to see the chairman tonight ask the members of the audience this question, how many Canadians in the audience are in favor now having discussed this problem all week in favor of joining the OAS, and how many are in favor of not joining? Shall we take a voice vote? Those in favor, please say aye. Are there any nays? I should say the ayes have it on the strength of the reply. I am afraid it will take too long to count off, but there is one question here that we still have time for.

I think sir before the question is put to a vote, some discussion should take place. Personally, I really don't see it. I'm rather inclined to agree with Victor or Katie that we haven't really learned just what this thing is. I personally would like to know if I were to join the OAS, what it is I am committing myself for. For example, would Canada, and these questions arise purely through ignorance, I assure you, would Canada be committing itself in any way to participation in say a hemisphere UN type of force to enforce its decisions, things of that sort? These are questions I think Canadians would want to know before they committed themselves. I think that's a question for Dr. Fenwick. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but I did address myself to that point. Canada. And there we leave the concluding session of the 29th annual Kuchichin Conference. Tonight speakers were Dr. Charles Fenwick, Director, Department of Legal Affairs, Pan-American Union, AJ Knowles, writer and broadcaster, and Marcel Rousseau of Ottawa.

The conference is organized jointly by the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. And to round off the week's discussion, here is Michael McKenzie, Chairman of the Program Committee of the Conference. For a minute, I should like to talk about why we held a conference in Latin America and what we hope has been achieved. We feel that it is useful to give Canadians an opportunity to meet another culture, another tradition. It's good for us to try to listen to others as they tell us their views about themselves, about us, and about the world. This isn't easy. We seem to have an almost irresistible urge to make our guests see their problems from our perspective. Perhaps the not-so-original sin of our North American pride is that we cannot avoid trying to impose our own image on others. For example, there has been a lot of talk here this week about the need to industrialize Latin American countries, so they may develop standards of living that will go some way to realizing the rising expectations of their peoples.

We tend to see this as a technique for the development of stable, prosperous, democratic Latin American countries, more or less according to our ideas of stability, prosperity, and democracy. It is extremely difficult for us to see that they must develop standards and conditions of life that are theirs, that spring from the texture of their own history and sense of the order of things. Another example, and this was a personal one for me. We try to run each evening and morning session in a way which we think will get good free discussion of important issues. On the whole over the years, our procedures have worked pretty well, but this week we have had to realize that even in this, what to us, or logical matters of procedure, where for Latin Americans, attempts to make them adjust to us, fortunately are guests rebelled, they made us see that they cannot speak to us freely if we stick rigidly to our own rules, and in this they have done us a great service where they have forced me and my colleagues to re-examine the validity of our traditional way of doing things. What we have done here is to examine and to be shown our images.

The image we have of Canada's role in history, as against the image we project to the Latin Americas. Wake Canadians like to think of ourselves as playing a constructive role in world affairs. We like to be on the side of the angels in a history which is thus far reserve the role of gods or fallen gods to mightier nations. We tend to be awfully smug about our role as angels. We have begun to understand here this week that perhaps we can't get away with it, that as events and communications in the modern world conquer physical and political distances. For Latin American eyes we are being drawn out of the misty remote north to be examined in the piercing light of the southern sun. We have been told bluntly that it becomes harder and harder to justify our almost total ignorance and lack of interest in that part of the hemispheres south of the Rio Grande. Here we should or should not join the organization of American states. Events in Cuba make us realize that what happens in Latin America can change our destiny. It is the function of the Canadian Institute and Public Affairs to provide a forum for

the expression of such realities as these. Michael McKenzie is a partner in Clarkson Gordon and Company. Copies of the speeches and discussions at the conference may have obtained shortly at $1.50 by writing to the University of Toronto Press Toronto Ontario. Program produced by Christina McDougal Technical operations by John Skellen. This is Bob Wilson saying goodbye from this year's Kuchichin Conference. This is CBC Radio the Trans-Canada Network.