19046: Esser: Letter to Government and Corp. Media About Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

The Dominion
http://dominionpaper.ca/

February 22, 2004

Letter to Government and Corp. Media About Haiti


To the Government of Canada and Canada’s corporate-owned media,

I am writing to you concerning the escalating crisis that is
unfolding in Haiti, where the world is witnessing the attempted
violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader, Jean Bertrand
Aristide. By tacitly supporting an opposition that has repeatedly
refused to negotiate peacefully with President Aristide, the Canadian
government is effectively supporting this attempted coup d’etat. From
a rational perspective this is unacceptable for several reasons,
explored below. It is also unacceptable that the corporate news
agencies are refusing to provide objective coverage of these harmful
events, and are thereby also effectively supporting the attempted
coup d’etat.

On January 13, 2004, speaking from Monterrey, Mexico at the Special
Summit of the Americas, Paul Martin committed to help mediate a
solution to the crisis in Haiti, which has since seen at least 60
people brutally murdered, and promises to soon see more in the
absence of concrete efforts toward this professed end by Paul
Martin’s government.

As of writing, the 8 million citizens of Haiti are in jeopardy of
imminent destruction as a society and as a peoples in this, Haiti’s
200-year anniversary of independence from colonial rule. In a country
that sees a majority of its inhabitants impoverished and lacking the
necessities of life, the decision not to intervene on behalf of the
Haitian population is jeopardizing an already desperately precarious
state of living.

Canada is supporting the CARICOM proposal which claims to seek a
peaceful and democratic solution to the democratic crisis in Haiti.
For its part, the United States has also endorsed this proposal.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham refused Friday to assist the
Haitian government by sending in a Canadian police contingent. Both
Canada and the U.S. are refusing to assist the democratically elected
President Aristide while claiming at the same time that they support
a democratic resolution to this crisis.

The basis for this refusal is conveyed through repeated declarations
as to the right of the opposition to voice its dissent and carry out
peaceful protests. President Aristide has himself repeatedly
recognized the legal and democratic right to opposition, a central
feature of any truly democratic system. On several occasions and in
full compliance with the recent CARICOM proposal, Aristide has called
upon the opposition to sit down and engage in a peaceful dialogue
with him. Consistently, the opposition has refused. And yet the
Canadian and US governments are maintaining that the impetus for a
peaceful political solution must come from Aristide.

Andre Apaid Jr., and Evans Pauls, both leaders of the opposition,
have been quoted several times asserting that they will not, under
any circumstances, enter into a dialogue with Aristide until he
resigns. Such declarations have been commonplace since 2000, the year
of the disputed elections, which have now culminated, according to
many, in this crisis. The subsequent freezing of some $500 million of
economic aid to Haiti by the US, in addition to some $140 million in
loans that have been withdrawn by the World Bank, have functioned to
cripple Haiti economically. This has prevented President Aristide
from implementing Haiti’s desperately needed social and democratic
reforms. This, in turn, has undermined the stability of his
government. In spite of this, Aristide to this day carries a
plurality of support from the impoverished masses who still see him
as their only chance for democratic survival.

The Group of 184, the Democratic Convergence and other opposition
groups have been generously funded by U.S. and European taxpayers
according to COHA, and according to other independent sources, such
as the Haiti Support Group. A primary source of opposition funding
has come from the International Republican Institute and through
USAID. Additional support for this opposition comes from the Haiti
Democracy Project, which is affiliated with the conservative
think-tank, the Brookings Institution.

It has been reported by independent journalist and filmmaker Kevin
Pina that the majority of US humanitarian aid to Haiti bypasses the
Haitian government and goes directly to opposition-run NGOs.

In response to the Canadian and US position toward Haiti, the
corporate media in Canada have neglected to critically challenge
these policies. Largely, this is due to a corporate media reliance on
misinformation provided to it by Haitian opposition-owned media
outlets, as has been reported by several independent journalist, in
addition to COHA and U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Walters. None of the
coverage by any of these corporate news outlets has been critical of
the Canadian policy, despite having the means to do so at their every
disposal.

Several of Rep. Waters other assertions relate to the government and
several pertain to the corporate media, who are an important lynchpin
in that their readers, viewers, and listeners, receive disinformation
regarding Haiti that prevents positive actions from being taken on
the part of this wider public.

I am calling on the Canadian government to encourage the U.S.
government to discontinue its support of the opposition, which has
repeatedly demonstrated its refusal to negotiate peacefully with
President Aristide who himself has repeatedly reached out to them. It
follows that if Canada and the U.S. were to condemn the opposition,
which, as been documented, has very little popular support, the
opposition would abandon its disruptive and violent efforts.

Kevin Pina, Rep. Maxine Walters, Tom Reeves, and various other
credible sources of information have asserted that President Aristide
still enjoys the support of a majority of the Haitian citizenry. That
massive demonstrations in support of Aristide, such as the one on
February 7 which drew at least 300,000 people, go unreported by
corporate media outlets, is an example of disinformation that is
fomenting the violence in Haiti.

It follows that I am calling on the corporate media to demand from
their journalists honest and balanced reporting of the events as they
unfold in Haiti. Continued deception on the part of the corporate
media will have the most dire of consequences for the already heavily
distressed Haitian population.

Canada has a history of humanitarian efforts throughout the world. I
do not wish to see this devolve into mythology as Canada blindly
accepts a policy of “complementary” relations with the U.S. The
Canadian stance on Haiti, if continued, will set a dangerous
precedent which can only undermine the many commitments that Canada
has previously made to issues of human rights, civil and political
liberty, the right of self-determination, and the prevention of
genocide.

As a point of reference, I would like to draw your attention to the
following internationally-binding agreements to which Canada has
signed and ratified, as well as specific sections under which a
certain scrutiny is necessitated given the dire situation in Haiti:

The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

In Part 1, Article 1, it states:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue
their economic, social and cultural development.

Article 4 States:

In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation
and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States
Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from
their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly
required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such
measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under
international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the
ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

Secondly, I will draw your attention to the Convention of the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ratified by
Canada on September 3rd, 1952:

According to Article 1, Genocide is:

A crime under international law.

And Article 2:

…Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as
such:
a] killing members of the group;
b] causing serious bodily harm to members of the group;
c] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Article 3 states:

The following acts shall be punishable:
a] Genocide
b] conspiring to commit genocide;
c] direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d] complicity in genocide

Lastly, Article 4 states:

Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in
Article 3
Shall be punishable, whether they are constitutionally responsible
rulers, public
Officials, or private individuals.



posted by Anthony  Fenton in op-ed