19767: Fenton: Canadian Shame in Haiti... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Anthony Fenton <apfenton@ualberta.ca>

posted: March 03, 2004

Is Democracy in Haiti the First Victim of Paul Martin's "Deep Integration"?

by Dru Oja Jay

Last week, the US government unseated the democratically elected
president of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide. Aristide, who was elected with
92% of the popular vote, claims that the US threatened to ensure a
bloodbath if he did not leave. But it is not necessary to believe his version
of the story to determine that there was a coup. Since 2000, the US
government has been systematically working to destabilize the fragile
democracy in the western hemisphere's poorest country: by blocking
$400 million in aid and over $120 million in loans, and simultaneously
funding the political opposition (whose popular support is estimated at
between 8% and 12%) to the tune of $70 million. The same opposition
has been calling for Aristide's removal since before he was elected in a
landslide. The power of these figures is further amplified by the fact that
fully 80% of Haiti's population lives on under $2 per day, and the national
budget is a mere $300 million.

So where was Canada in all of this?

Paul Martin has recently been back-peddling, claiming that he always
"supported a power-sharing agreement" between the opposition and
Aristide. If this claim is measured against Canada's actions, it is a lie.

In the most crucial weeks during the crisis, Foreign Affairs minister Bill
Graham repeatedly called on Aristide to negotiate with the opposition,
effectively laying the blame on the president for the crisis. Yet such
one-sided "calls for negotiation" were effectively meaningless. Aristide
had repeatedly shown his willingness to negotiate to preserve the peace.
The opposition, by contrast, had been consistently refusing to negotiate
for months, quite possibly because they knew that if a new election was
called, they would lose. As the Council on Hemispheric Affairs put it:

The bedrock problem regarding Haiti is that the country’s opposition
refuses to negotiate with Aristide and will not consider taking up their seat
on the Provisional Electoral Council, without which no elections can be
held.  How can a new prime minister be jointly appointed by the
opposition and the government, when the former refuses to participate in
the process?
Yet Graham said nothing about the opposition. No exhortations to
negotiate, no criticisms, nothing. All of his ire was reserved for Aristide.



Given that the US had been quite obviously intending to remove Aristide
for years, Graham's failure to say anything to actually support a "power
sharing agreement" found its origin in either incompetence or in a
willingness to support regime change in a democratic country.

As one Globe and Mail report makes perfectly clear, it was the latter. "In no
way were the Bush guys going to help him out -- in no way," one
"diplomat" was quoted as saying. Furthermore, the US had a "high
tolerance" for bloodshed in Haiti.

At this point, Canada could have done a few different things to stand up for
democracy.

Martin could (as many Caribbean countries insisted) have sent in troops
to stabilize the country and precipitate an agreement before paramilitary
groups had taken over half of the country and forced Aristide out.
Canadian credibility in defending democracy would never have been
higher -- this would give Canada more "soft power" internationally and
cushion the blow of immediate diplomatic fallout. But what could the US
do? Blast Canada for preventing its planned coup d'etat?

Barring this, Martin could have done the absolute minimum: he could
have told the truth (which is obvious to anyone who spends an hour
researching US activities in the region) about the US-funded
coup-in-progress, and he could have put pressure on the opposition to
compromise with Aristide (hardly unreasonable, given that they had a
minimal electoral mandate and very little democratic credibility to begin
with).

But Martin, Graham, et alia did none of these things.

Instead, they chose to be 100% complicit in an illegal coup. It will now be
much more difficult to stand up to future coup attempts. (Follow the
money: as you read this, the US government is funneling millions of
dollars to "opposition" groups and enforcing embargoes in Venezuela,
Cuba and elsewhere.)

While "deep integration" with the US and erosion of sovereignty have been
years in the making, and their consequences quite clear, the Canadian
government's complicity with illegal US intervention in Haiti is the first
truly
stark illustration of the horrifying consequences of these policies.

The key questions for the Liberals, and for the opposition parties at this
time, is this: do we believe in international law, and do we believe in
democracy? If so, what are we doing?

As for what to do about Haiti in the long term, the problem was best
framed by Paul Farmer, an American doctor who has spent years working
with the poor in Haiti, in his book The Uses of Haiti:

What, then, is to be done? The first order of business, for citizens of the
United States, might be a candid and careful assessment of our ruinous
policies towards Haiti. The Haitian people are asking not for charity, but
for justice.
Given Canada's apparent willingness to relinquish independence in
foreign policy whenever taking a stand might inconvenience the US, these
considerations apply equally to Canadians.