New Democrat leader Jagmeet Singh can’t catch a break. The mutterings against him from within his party continue. Now the NDP parliamentary caucus has hung him out to dry over Venezuela.

This week, foreign affairs critic Helene Laverdiere announced that the NDP caucus is “comfortable” with the Liberal government’s decision to recognize Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as that country’s legitimate president.

Canada, along with the United States and 10 South and Central American countries, has called on Venezuela’s military to overthrow current President Nicolas Maduro and install Guaido instead.

This so-called Lima Group has rejected calls by Uruguay, Pope Francis and the United Nations for a negotiated end to the crisis.

The Canadian government’s position is that the time for talking is done and that Maduro must be sent packing. Period.

But until this week, that didn’t seem to be the NDP stance. Indeed, the party is split on the issue. Some see Maduro as a villain pure and simple. Others are deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions in Latin America.

In late January, Manitoba MP Niki Ashton attacked the Liberal government for siding with U.S. President Donald Trump and his “regime-change agenda.”

Read more:

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh seems in the dark about his own party’s stance on Venezuela

Opinion | Rick Salutin: Canada’s policy on Venezuela plagued by hypocrisy

Trudeau rallies Venezuela's neighbours in support of Guaido

At about the same time, Svend Robinson, a former MP who is running for the NDP in British Columbia this October, called Canada’s decision to recognize self-appointed president Guaido ridiculous and “shameful.”

Meanwhile, others — including Laverdiere — were harshly critical of Maduro. On Jan. 24, Singh issued a carefully worded statement that tried to bridge the gap in his party.

“Canada should not simply follow the United States’ foreign policy, particularly given its history of self-interested interference in the region,” he wrote.

“The question of who is to lead Venezuela should be in the hands of Venezuelans. All countries should be free to make their own democratic decisions through free and fair elections independent of authoritative (sic) pressure or foreign interference.”

Tellingly, his statement supported UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ call for dialogue to end the crisis. Equally tellingly, it did not mention Guaido.

And that seemed to be the party line — until this week when Laverdiere outlined the new, pro-Guaido stance to the National Post.

In Burnaby B.C., where he was campaigning in a byelection race, Singh was left spluttering. Asked whether he agreed with his caucus that Guaido should be treated as president, he kept repeating that this decision is up to the Venezuelan people.

In theory, this was not a foolish answer. In the end, presumably, that decision is up to Venezuelans.

But it helps little in sorting out the immediate question: Who should be treated as Venezuela’s president now? Maduro, who won an election last summer that many say was deeply flawed? Or Guaido, who has never contested a national election but who is the choice of a majority of members of Venezuela’s Legislative Assembly?

Singh could have pointed out that Canada is usually practical in these matters and offers diplomatic recognition to a government if it controls its country’s territory.

Thus Ottawa recognizes Kim Jong Un as North Korean leader even though he is a dictator. Similarly it recognizes Saudi Arabia’s autocratic monarchy and China’s Communist government as legitimate even though they trample on civil rights. Singh could have mentioned that.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

He could have pointed out that Canada’s Liberal government is not calling for a military coup in Honduras, even though that country endured what the Organization of American States called a flawed election in 2017.

He could have said that in international relations it makes more sense to deal with whoever is in charge than to prop up pretenders and that to foment regime change is to risk harming the people you are allegedly trying to help. He could have mentioned Libya.

But he didn’t. And now, it seems, the NDP is officially in lock-step with the Liberal coup-masters. With or without Singh.

Read more about: