19793: Fenton: Canada's Counterspin Show on Hait - 'Recap and Review' (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Anthony Fenton <apfenton@ualberta.ca>

March 04, 2004

Canada’s Counterspin: Haiti Special

'Recap' and 'Review' http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblog

On Wednesday evening CBC’s Counterspin provided a mainstream
Canadian audience with their first taste of what is really going on in Haiti.
What took place was the sort of dialogue that has been largely absent
from mainstream coverage of Haiti during its recent crisis.

The excerpts to follow are extensive, but it should be asserted that this
was the first time such context has been offered to Canadians, due to the
monopoly that international wires, such as the Associated Press and
Reuters, have had on the flow of information about Haiti throughout the
continuing crisis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

All told, last night’s broadcast provided a clear example of what a free and
public exchange of current issues and ideas is supposed to engender.
The topic was Haiti. The three main questions as posed by host Carol Off
were:

1. Did Canada help the US engineer a coup?

2. Was Aristide the author of his own fate or the victim of outside forces?

3. Where will Haiti go from here?

The panellists: Via Washington, Haitian Clotilde Charlot [CC] of the
right-wing Brookings Institution Affiliate, Haiti democracy Project; Via New
York, Marguerite Laurent [ML], Haitian-American lawyer and advocate for
Haitian democracy and self-determination; Via Montreal, Jean Fils-Aime
[JFA], a Haitian-Canadian radio broadcaster and; and in the Toronto
studio, Jean St-Vil [JSV], Haitian-Canadian journalist, broadcaster, and
political activist.

Many viewers are likely to have been shocked to hear some of the things
being said during the show. St-Vil and Laurent were well prepared for the
arguments of Charlot and Fils-Aime, which were exposed as largely
spurious and deceptive. Interesting to note is that the anti-Aristide
panellists did not offer any analysis that one could not otherwise find in
the mainstream press or in State Department press releases. As such,
this can be read as the debtate that should be taking place bewteen the
pages of our news dailies.

*Off begins with the issue of whether Aristide was or was not kidnapped*:

Marguerite Laurent: We stand behind Aristide’s comments. He did not
resign, and is still the legitimate President of Haiti. The US fomented
economic, and social destabilization in Haiti. The opposition could not win
an election, so the US Marines did their job for them.

Jean St-Vil: If he were not kidnapped he would have addressed the nation
on television announcing his decision. Also, on Saturday night on
[http://www.moun.com] they were announcing that helicopters had landed
in the National Palace grass, that a ‘diplomatic core’ was in the Palace,
and that Aristide was going to give his resignation speech in a few
minutes. This was not on any mainstream station…We awoke the next
day learning Aristide had “resigned”.

The day before Aristide “resigned” he was quoted on CNN as having no
intentions of leaving prior to the end of his Presidency.

*On his “resignation”*:

Clotilde Charlot: I’ve seen [a copy] of the resignation letter. It looks
authentic. The recent events are the culmination of a deepening crisis of
the last three years…[This was able to come about] with the
empowerment of civil society over the last few months, joining forces with
the traditional opposition.

*An exchange on Aristide’s departure between Fils-Aime and Off*:

Jean Files-Aime: [Aristide] needed to leave. And because he did not want
to, he was forced to.

Off: But what kind of a message does this send about democracy – when
Canada, the US, France and others are supporting this?

Fils-Aime: A democracy is a contract…There are other articles of the
Constitution to consider, such as those regarding “security”…this is not
just about fulfilling a mandate.

Off: But you have to honour this contract.

Fils-Aime: We need to take back the democratic process: if you don’t
agree, you can be forced to.

Off asks St-Vil if he believes Colin Powell when he denies that the US
forced Aristide out. Footage of Powell [March 1] is shown: “He was not
kidnapped, we did not force him on the plane. That’s the truth.” St-Vil
replies: “Colin Powell has lied to the world over the last few years so
many times…its crazy to even be asking the question.”

St-Vil then provides context toward “democratic process” and the coup:

St-Vil: The coup, first of all, was not conducted against Jean Bertrand
Aristide, but against the people of Haiti. You have adult people who have
fully functioning brains, who…voted for someone. These people don’t
have big checkbooks; some don’t even have proper clothing to wear. They
voted and they are full human beings [who have every right to do so].

St-Vil and Laurent respond to the “reductionist” arguments of Charlot and
Fils-Aime, who continually attempt to frame the entire Haiti crisis around
the character of Aristide:

St-Vil: It is ridiculous to simply focus on Jean Bertrand Aristide. What has
happened here is that twice in a row the U.S…denied the people of Haiti
their right to self-govern. That is the point.

Laurent: Your public [Canadians] must understand: we’re not talking
about abstracts here. We’re talking about flesh and blood*…The Haitian
people have the right to self-determination.

Jean St-Ville brings up the issue of Ottawa’s involvement. [see
Haiti-Progres, V.20, #51, link below], dating back to early 2003.

St-Vil: In fact, while people are focusing on Aristide the real situation is
not
even about that. It is about foreign occupation; there were meetings in
Ottawa planning what’s happening today. Here, they discussed [the
establishment of] a new police and a democratic Army. The Haitian
people, as far as I know, never asked for a return of the Haitian army. [It
was decided that] Aristide must go, and foreign ministers are deciding
this [with no Haitian representatives invited or present].

Off asks Fils-Aime if he admits that such meetings took place as “the
Ottawa Initiative in Haiti” as reported March 15, 2003 in L’Actualite.

Fils-Aime: It is true. There was a meeting of Foreign Ministers of France,
Canada, the U.S…[The meeting was brought on by] Aristide’s behaviour.”

This brings up issues of the opposition, whose interests were
represented at this high-level meeting in Ottawa. On the background of
the opposition:

Laurent: The Haitian Opposition started out as a USAID creation, in an
attempt to undermine democracy. This did not work…later [the opposition]
met in the Dominican Republic with the Touton Macoutes [former FRAPH
leaders]…Andre Apaid, one of the leaders of the opposition, owns 15
sweatshops in Haiti…supported the previous 1991 coup d’etat…is known
for his maltreatment of workers.

On the “empowerment” of the opposition, US-nurtured:

Laurent: The opposition has been financed by the U.S., E.U., the IRI and
others. They represent the interests of big business. They’re only platform
has been to bring back the Haitian Army, and to keep wages down for
potential investors [in more sweatshops].

Both Charlot and Fils-Aime deflect criticism of the opposition. Charlot
says such generalizations “are misleading” and Fils-Aime asserts that
the opposition is not an “homogenous” mass. Both refer to the fact that
several opposition leaders are former Aristide supporters. Charlot
emphasizes that there is “no professional, no NGO - like myself – who is
not part of that opposition.” Neither offer justification for the funding of
their
opposition by the US, EU, and Canada, as mentioned by Laurent. On the
“mixed bag” opposition, St-Vil provides context:

St-Vil: Precisely because alone as political parties they are not going to
win anything does the US put all 15 parties together to try to target the
opposition to win some votes. When that did not work…[We later] see key
figures walking side by side with international figures, such as Philippe,
Tatoune, Chamblain, who are known criminals, convicted, but [friends] of
the US.

In the context of Haiti today, Laurent asserts, “Haitian people are being
slaughtered right now.” Largely, she argues, this has come about due to
the illegal intervention on Haitian affairs by the likes of Roger Noriega,
Otto Reich, and Colin Powell. “We should have a say, not them.”

In the context of whether Aristide “delivered” on his electoral mandate,
Charlot and Fils-Aime assert that he did not, but fail to offer concrete
examples of this, preferring instead to focus on petty personal issues.
Fils-Aime says he sees Aristide foremost “as a Preacher”, and not as a
politician. He also claims that Aristide was a “reproduction” of the
Duvaliers, another unsubstantiated claim.

Even though Aristide, according to Off, won the 2000 elections “in another
landslide”, Fils-Aime states, “if there were a referendum, Aristide would
get something like 25 per cent of the vote. The other 75 per cent would say
no to him.” Since the opposition has since 2000 refused to participate in
any part of the electoral process, let alone a “referendum”, we will never
know if this is the case.

In closing, St-Vil reasserts that the US, Canada, and France have now
brought the reviled Haitian Army back. As Laurent had earlier pointed out,
many “obstructions” on the part of the US, such as “withheld aid by the US
and Canada [according to OFF],” part of an ongoing effort “to dominate
and control” Haiti. St-Vil laments that this type of discussion is only
legitimate if it is being undertaken by the Haitian people.

“There is no evidence that the people of Haiti want that Army to come
back. The Army is needed in Haiti by the elites that control all of the money
of Haiti but can never win democratic elections.”

To return to the initial 3 questions as posed by Carol Off, we can better
assess concrete answers as based on this panel discussion:

1. Did Canada help the US engineer a coup?

Every indication yields a resounding yes. All of the points raised by St-Vil,
Laurent, and Off to this end are fully substantiated and thoroughly
documented. The important point to remember is that the coup was not
so much against Aristide as it was against the people of Haiti, already
impoverished and always bearing the most destructive brunt of US policy
toward Haiti. Charlot and Fils-Aime offered no credible evidence that
would suggest otherwise.

2. Was Aristide the author of his own fate or the victim of outside forces?

Given the nature of the opposition and the hostile US policy toward Haiti,
the notion of “outside forces” has to be considered foremost in this
calculus. The criticisms of Aristide come mostly in the form of veiled
character assassinations and demonization. Neither Charlot nor
Fils-Aime were able to provide concrete examples toward how Aristide
might have been the “author of his own fate”. Neither did they offer
counter-examples to those posed by Laurent and St-Vil, who noted
numerous “obstructions” and impediments that have been imposed by
the US, Canada, and others. The point herein – again – is that Aristide
should be no more [or less] subject to scrutiny than any other
democratically elected leader. Accordingly, it is up to the Haitian people to
decide whether or not Aristide has fulfilled a mandate.

3. Where will Haiti go from here?

This question was not addressed head on due to time constraints,
though it is not difficult to formulate a response, as based on the
discussions. Laurent pointed to the fact that Haitians are being
slaughtered in the wake of the US-Canada-France engineered coup
d’etat. If US policy [as parroted by others, including Canada] continues
unchallenged, the future for Haiti is even more dire than already was the
case before the coup. The neoliberal imperatives that were forced upon
Haiti with Aristide’s return in 1994 – and those Structural Adjustment
Programs imposed since – have devastated Haiti economically and
socially. The World Bank and IMF, both controlled by the US, have a long
history of making impoverished countries worse off after neoliberalism.
With Haiti’s crumbling agricultural base, infrastructure, its external debt,
combined with several years of withheld aid that has suffocated Haiti, the
Haitian people are about to have evermore-severe hardships thrust upon
them. A reinstalled military can only exacerbate this and lead to countless
human rights abuses and deaths. As Laurent pointed out, several
international laws and international covenants have been broken in
overthrowing Aristide. This spells disaster for Haiti in the coming years
unless the responsible parties are held accountable and the Haitian
people are allowed to exercise their human right to self-determination.

On the Ottawa Initiative Background:

“Canadian Officials Initiate Planning for Military Ouster of Aristide”:
http://www.haiti-progres.com/2003/sm030305/eng03-05.html

Counterspin. This episode can be viewed online at:
http://counterspin.tv/article.pl?sid=04/02/27/2235249&mode=thread

For general background information regarding the crisis, see:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/haiti
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
http:://www.coha.org