20247: Fenton: Canadian Connection... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Anthony Fenton <apfenton@ualberta.ca>

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=55&ItemID=5140

ZNet | Haiti

The Canadian Connection
Haiti is 'Debated' in the Canadian House of Commons
by Anthony Fenton; March 11, 2004


In an emergency House of Commons debate surounding Canada's role
in Haiti yesterday, The Canadian government trotted out its new foreign
policy language, coloured by a great deal of Bush-speak that Canadians
and Americans have come to know so well. Evidently, the foreign policy
medicine of "deep integration" with the United States has an immediate
side effect of groundless, unsubstantiatable claims and much empty
rhetoric.

During the debate Canada's New Democratic Party [NDP] demanded an
inquiry into the circumstances surrounding President Aristide's departure.
For those familiar with the facts surrounding the recent crisis in Haiti, this
might seem to be an odd request, especially given Aristide's recent
personal testimony that he did not in fact resign and that he was [again]
the victim of a coup d'etat, carried out this time by "French and US
diplomacy". [1]

It was evident from the responses of the Liberal government that they
were unprepared for such a challenge - however strongly warranted given
the facts - to come from the NDP. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham
claimed that we "can't focus on past quarrels", and that rather than be
preoccupied with the past, we need to "look forward". Graham and others
denied that it was important whether or not Canada was a party to an
illegal coup d'etat. With the exception of Liberal MP David Kilgour, there
was a virtual gag order imposed on the House as to the question of
Aristide's departure.

Svend Robinson asked Kilgour if he would support an independent
inquiry, which is currently being demanded by CARICOM and South Africa.
Kilgour replied that Canada "can only gain from this process." When
Parliamentary Secretary Scott Brison was asked the same question , he
refused to answer - three times - claiming repeatedly that Aristide
"resigned voluntarily", while also asserting that February 29th was "not a
coup d'etat".

Even Stockwell Day of the Conservative Party of Canada, referred to
Aristide's removal as "regime change". Quite matter-of-factly, Day said
"We have been a party to regime change in Haiti.[Canada] actively
supported [the] regime change of an elected leader." Liberal President of
the Privy council Denis Coderre referred to Day's comments as "rhetoric",
while proceeding to deny and deflect terminology that refers to Aristide's
"resignation" as anything but legitimate. For his part, Bill Graham stated "I
don't accept the point that this is regime change," qualifying this statement
by asserting "this was not a regime change according to the [UN] Security
Council."

Day, in fact, was the only member of Parliament who seemed clear on the
issue of regime change. Being a member of the right-wing Conservative
Party, Day did not object to the regime change. Rather, he just called it like
it is. This is something that Canada is unwilling to do, and therefore do
not offer so much as a justification for regime change, knowing fulll well
that to admit to this would be to admit to breaking international law.

All told the Liberals effectively stated that the issue of Aristide's
departure
is to be put in its proper place: down the memory hole. Later on, during a
statement that was hurriedly contrived by the Liberals in response to the
NDP, Scott Brison made this clear:

"The current political situation in Haiti punctuated by the events of the last
few weeks, has its roots in the seriously flawed legislative and municipal
elections of May 2000. The resulting polarization of the government and
opposition compounded with weak institutions and severe economic and
social challenges in the country have led us to the situation today where
strong participation by the international community is required to
accompany Haiti in changing directions and moving forward to a more
positive future....Canada decided to terminate our police engagement in
May 2001 due to the worsening political and security context more
broadly...We are now entering a new era for Haiti and the opportunity for a
new beginning...the challenges are great..."

Brison, who earlier had claimed that Canada is working closely with
CARICOM, must not have been aware that the "seriously flawed" election
to which he referred have been considered resolved for two years. In a
February 15, 2002 press release concerning a recent meeting with US
Secretary of State Colin Powell, CARICOM stated:

"The actions taken by President Aristide are in the right direction and the
release of the funds would assist. Not doing this could lead to a
deteriorating situation". Further to this, Powell was also aware that "the
Caribbean Ministers had earlier pointed out that President Aristide had
done his best to fulfil the eight conditions which were requested of him by
the United States in December 2000. The two outstanding areas were not
dependent on the Government of Haiti alone and required the compliance
of the Opposition." [2]

It has been clear for several years that Aristide had made serious efforts
to rectify the so-called "seriously flawed" elections. Just as in the lead up
to his overthrow, it has all along been the opposition that have steadfastly
refused to cooperate. Canada, the US and the EU have had several
opportunities to persuade the opposition to cooperate, but instead have
supported the withholding of desperately needed funds while falsely
pressuring Aristide to "negotiate" with the opposition, something that,
according to CARICOM, he had already made several attempts to do with
no success.

Bill Graham stated explicitly that "CARICOM knows the political situation
best." Clearly, Graham cannot agree with his own statement here if he is
denying the legitimacy of an investigation into Aristide's overthrow.
Equally, his statement is inconsistent with the realities of what the
CARICOM have conveyed to the international community surrounding
Haiti. Several times, CARICOM has asked the US to release the $500
million in withheld aid to Haiti. Again in 2002: "they stressed that the
prompt release of such funds was critical, if a catastrophe were to be
avoided in that country." Now that this prediction has been fulfilled, Bill
Graham claims that Canada trusts CARICOM's opinion.

If we look at more recent CARICOM statements, we should be careful to
compare them with Graham's statement that "CARICOM knows the
political situation best."

CARICOM Heads of Government met on March 2nd and 3rd in Kingston,
Jamaica, in an emergency session to consider the situation in Haiti. The
following statements were issued in a March 3rd press release:

"They expressed the view that the circumstances under which the
President demitted office set a dangerous precedent for democratically
elected governments everywhere as it promotes the unconstitutional
removal of duly elected persons from office."

Accordingly, CARICOM is seeking "an investigation under the auspices of
the United Nations to clarify the circumstances leading to his
relinquishing the Presidency. "

Regarding the rebel forces, who are led by numerous convicted
murderers and leaders of FRAPH deathsquads:

".No action should be taken to legitimize the rebel forces nor should they
be included in any interim government."

In an Associated Press article March 11, 2004 "Haiti's new PM tries to
unite nation,"[3] it passes without criticism that Yvon Neptune, Haiti's
sworn in Prime Minister, has himself been deposed and replaced by
Gerard Latortue. Quickly Tortue "has indicated he might consider bringing
back Haiti's army." This also passed without comment, even though the
US and Canada have stated that they do not wish to see the army
restored.

While the Liberals were as defiant as Colin Powell, who Graham claims
he is conferring with on a daily basis regarding Haiti, it is clear that they
do
not have a leg to stand on as far as the pertinent facts are concerned. If
the NDP remain committed, as they claim to be "to holding Paul Martin's
feet to the fire" regarding Haiti, the illegalilites of Aristide's overthrow
might
yet be revealed to a popular audience.

The Canadian government must continue to rely on a corporate media
that is willing to lie, disinform and omit on its behalf regarding the Haiti
scandal. How much longer the government can rely on this support will
depend on how long the Canadian press is willing to push the ideology of
the Associated Press, who have been most complicit in the suppression
of important facts, such as the US funding of the Haitian opposition, the
omission of key facts such as Aristide's still enjoying massive popular
support, and the issues surrounding Aristide's overthrow.

The NDP's Svend Robinson also brought up the issue of the 2003
'Summit of the Francophonie" hosted by Denis Paradis in Ottawa.
Robinson asked if "regime change in Haiti" was discussed at this
meeting between Canadian, French and US foreign ministers, as was
reported by Michel Vastel in the March 15, 2003 edition of L'Actualite. To
this Robinson received no response, though it is said that the hum of
paper shredders could be heard echoing throughout the House
Chambers.


[1] See Democracy Now! Interview with Aristide at
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=36&ItemID=5111

[2] http://www.caricom.org/pressreleases/pres28_02.htm

[3]http://globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040310.wnewha0310/
BNStory/International/?query=haiti