[R-G] What is Canada Doing in Haiti?

[Anthony Fenton]

What is Canada Doing in Haiti?
The “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”: Humanist Peacekeeping or…?

by Jean Saint-Vil

Global Research, April 20, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13280

On Sussex Drive in Ottawa, just a few steps away from the enormous US  
embassy, stands the Peacekeeping Monument. The monument titled  
“Reconciliation,”was erected to honour the more than 125,000  
Canadians who have served in United Nations peacekeeping forces since  
1947. This article documents one particular instance – the overthrow  
of the Haitian government and subsequent occupation of that country –  
in which the historical record conflicts with the “good  
peacekeeper” narrative communicated by the government, reiterated by  
the media, and represented by “Reconciliation.”

Seeing themselves as a generous people, most Canadians also consider  
that their noble ideals are reflected in the foreign policy of their  
government. The importance of nurturing this positive image both at  
home and abroad is well ingrained in the national psyche and, every  
now and again, surveys are conducted to confirm its resilience.[1]  
Walter Dorn, Associate Professor at the Royal Military College of  
Canada, writes that:

For Canadians, peacekeeping is about trying to protect people in  
mortal danger… about self-sacrifice as well as world service. These  
notions of courage and service resonate with the public, and  
politicians across the political spectrum have readily adopted the  
peacekeeping cause… Canadian support for its peacekeeping role has  
been so strong for so long that it has become a part of the national  
identity.[2]

Canada’s intervention in Haiti is represented and legitimized in such  
terms. On the very first line of the section of its website devoted to  
Haiti, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) boasts how  
“Canada has committed to allocate $555 million over five years  
(2006-2011) to reconstruction and development efforts in Haiti.” Such  
“special consideration” is given to Haiti because “[t]he  
Government of Canada is committed to helping the people of Haiti  
improve their living conditions.”[3] Unequivocally endorsing the  
government’s line as reiterated by its Ambassador to Haiti, Claude  
Boucher, Maclean’s Magazine answers its own question in an April 2008  
feature article: “it's easy to forget that what Boucher says is true.  
Haiti is a less dangerous, more hopeful place than it has been for  
years, and this is the case, in part, because of the United Nations  
mission there and Canada's involvement in it.”[4]

The Ottawa Initiative

In contrast to Maclean’s pronouncement, a growing number of  
international critics insist that what is happening in Haiti is  
instead an odious imperialist crime in which Canada is shamefully  
complicit.[5] These skeptics argue that in January, 2003 the Canadian  
government organized a meeting to plan the illegal and violent  
overthrow of the democratically-elected government of the small  
Caribbean nation for political, ideological and economic reasons.[6]  
The meeting, called the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti,” was held at  
the government’s Meech Lake conference centre in Gatineau, Québec,  
on January 31 and February 1, 2003, one year before the February 29,  
2004 coup d’état.

The extraordinary decisions taken at this gathering of non-Haitians  
were first leaked to the general public in Michel Vastel’s March 2003  
article, published in French-language magazine l’Actualité. Under  
the prophetic title of “Haiti put under U.N. Tutelage?,” Vastel  
described how, in the name of a new Responsibility to Protect (R2P)  
doctrine, parliamentarians of former colonial powers invited to Meech  
Lake by Minister Denis Paradis, decided that Haiti’s democratically- 
elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, had to be overthrown, a  
Kosovo-like trusteeship of Haiti implemented before January 1, 2004  
while the US- subservient Haitian army, the Forces armées d’Haiti  
(FAdH), would be reinstated alongside a new police force. The UN  
trusteeship project itself first surfaced in 2002 as mere rumor (or  
trial balloon?) in the neighboring Dominican Republic’s press.

While Canadian soldiers stood guard over Toussaint Louverture  
International Airport in Port-au-Prince, the president of Haiti and  
his wife were put on an airplane by US officials before dawn on  
February 29, 2004. According to world-renowned African-American author  
and activist Randall Robinson, who interviewed several eye-witnesses,  
the aircraft was not a commercial plane. No members of the Aristide  
government and no media were at the airport as Mr. and Mrs. Aristide  
were effectively abducted and taken to the Central African Republic  
against their will, following a refueling stop in the Caribbean island  
of Antigua.

In its December 10, 2004 report titled “An Economic Governance Reform  
Operation,” the World Bank bluntly declared that (thanks to the  
coup), “The transition period and the Transitional Government provide  
a window of opportunity for implementing economic governance reforms  
with the involvement of civil society stakeholders that may be hard  
for a future government to undo.”[7] Within the same post-coup  
period, said transitional government adopted a budget plan baptised  
“interim cooperation framework” (ICF) which outlined extensive  
privatization measures, accompanied by massive layoffs of public  
sector employees. This was done without the benefit of any legal  
sanction from a Haitian parliament. De facto Prime Minister Gérard  
Latortue, who was hand-picked by the U.S. to implement the ICF,  
promptly began the distribution of $29 million dollars to remobilized  
soldiers and paramilitaries whom the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)  
had recruited and trained for the coup over the previous years in  
neighboring Dominican Republic and whom Latortue dubbed “freedom  
fighters”. The announcement of special pay to Latortue’s “freedom  
fighters” was made within days of a December 6, 2004 announcement of  
new “aid to Haiti” by the Canadian government.[8]

As of September 2008, most of the objectives attributed to the Ottawa  
Initiative have come to fruition. Haiti’s democratically–elected  
government has been overthrown, the country has been put under UN  
tutelage, new armed forces have been formed, and former President Jean- 
Bertrand Aristide is still in exile. As for Canada’s promised  
“improvement to living conditions”, such improvements can easily be  
demonstrated for the over 9000 foreign troops (police and military)  
whose salaries have in many instances doubled during their tour with  
the UN force in Haiti (MINUSTAH). However, as far as the overwhelming  
majority of Haitians are concerned, there are no reasons to rejoice.  
In the past four years, they have been subjected to an unprecedented  
wave of kidnappings, rapes and murders, among other forms of urban  
violence. The Haitian state has been further weakened and  
destabilized. The trauma and social divisions of the Haitian people  
have been greatly exacerbated as a consequence of the coup.  
Understandably, many charge that the R2P doctrine has proven to be “a  
nightmarish and violent neo-imperialist experiment gone terribly mad”  
conducted on Haitians in blatant contravention of international law.[9]

At the time of the first leak of the Ottawa Initiative meeting to the  
public, Canadians of Haitian origin warned Prime Minister Jean  
Chrétien not to engage in such “a foolish adventure in  
neocolonialism.”[10] But these warnings were to no avail. After  
several changes in government in Ottawa, there is no indication of any  
change in policy. On the contrary, Canadian officials are steadfastly  
implementing the same ill-fated policy while disingenuously diverting  
blame for failure onto its victims. Does it not speak volumes that in  
Haiti, as in foreign-occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, kidnappings and the  
“brain drain” are two phenomena that have markedly intensified with  
the arrival of the foreign troops?[11]

Four shaky pillars

The post-coup regime in UN-occupied Haiti rests on four unstable  
pillars: money, weapons, class solidarity and racism.

Money: Those who call the shots in Haiti today are those who control  
the bank accounts. Contrast, for example, the $600 million budget of  
the UN force with that of the Republic of Haiti. The latter grew from  
$300 million in 2004-05 to $ 850 million in 2005-06  to 1.8 billion in  
2006-07 and finally to $2 billion in 2008-09, with the caveat that  
above 60% of the budget is dependent on foreign sources and their  
associated  conditionalities. President Préval’s pleas for MINUSTAH  
tanks to be replaced by construction equipment remain as futile as  
they are incessant.[12] The “grants” allocated to Haiti at never- 
ending donors’ conferences are largely directed towards the donor’s  
own selected non-governmental organizations. In response to last  
year’s food riots, Préval vowed in a speech delivered in Creole that  
he would no longer subsidize foreign rice imports but would instead  
stimulate the production and consumption of Haitian rice. This  
statement was retracted in a matter of hours, and Préval announced  
instead that he was in fact using the country’s meager resources to  
subsidize imported (American) rice to reduce the retail price by 16  
percent.[13] The balance of power being what it is in these complex  
relationships, Haiti is expected to accept without a whimper the  
poisoned gifts “donated” by her generous benefactors in the name of  
“peace” or “humanitarian aid.” I recall how in 1997, when  
confronted with the poor quality of a foreign “expert’s” report  
submitted to the Minister, a junior Canadian NGO staff person, who was  
supposedly working in support of Haiti’s Ministry of Environment,  
arrogantly interjected that “beggars cannot be choosers.”

Weapons: MINUSTAH, comprised of some reputedly ruthless forces of  
repression in the world including those of Brazil, China, Jordan and  
the U.S. has no rival on the ground in terms of sheer fire power.  
MINUSTAH’s marching orders are especially clear following the  
“suicide” of its former military leader, Brazilian General  
Bacellar, who was found dead on January 7, 2006, following a night of  
heated exchange with members of Haiti’s business elite who were  
openly critical of him for being too “soft” with “slum gangs”,  
“bandits” or “chimères.” MINUSTAH serves the role of place  
holder for the defunct Haitian army (FAdH), the traditional tool by  
which Haiti’s elites and their foreign allies have kept the “black  
masses” under control. “In the context of a country with an  
estimated 210,000 firearms (the vast majority of which remain securely  
in the hands of its ruling families and businesses)”, writes Peter  
Hallward, “it may be that a ‘chimère’ arsenal of around 250  
handguns never posed a very worrying threat.”[14] The dramatic  
increase of weapons entering Haiti by way of Florida immediately after  
the 2004 coup suggests that the powers in place aren’t willing to  
take any chances.

Class solidarity: By caricaturing the base of support for the toppled  
Lavalas government as a violent underclass of  
“chimères” (monsters), mainstream media inside and outside of  
Haiti helped the coup forces to gather much sympathy. The attack on  
Lavalas was systematic, but the casualties of the coup went far beyond  
a single political party. Today, there remains not a single political  
party in Haiti which is independent of the foreign forces. Préval  
himself declares that he does not belong to a political party.[15] The  
Lespwa platform under which he was elected is already in shambles.  
Hallward provides an in-depth analysis of 20 years of efforts deployed  
by the US and its allies to destroy Haiti’s emerging popular  
democracy. The devastating impact of the assassinations in the 1990s  
of key figures of the progressive bourgeoisie linked to Lavalas, such  
as the Izmery brothers, attorney Guy Malary, agronomist and journalist  
Jean Dominique, are key to understand the class struggle still  
unfolding in Haiti. The web of connections between the Port-au-Prince- 
based ambassadors, NGO directors, food importers and sweatshop owners,  
all of whom live in the same neighborhoods, send their kids to the  
same schools and have developed an acute sense of (Apartheid-like)  
community is an important element that remains to be thoroughly  
researched, documented and analyzed. Meanwhile, mainstream media  
continues to propagate the stereotypes which sustain this mentality of  
a “besieged class” that must be protected from “savage  
others.”[16]  In order to meet the class-based “responsibility to  
protect” they have assumed in post-Aristide Haiti, Canada, the US,  
the UN and the Préval Government are steadfastly enforcing  
undemocratic and illegal practices such as the maintenance in African  
exile of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the exclusion of  
his Fanmi Lavalas party from the Senatorial elections of April 19,  
2009[17]. Clearly, rather than contribute to inter-Haitian  
reconciliation, social appeasement or political stability, such  
practices further exacerbate political tensions among a people that  
has heroically struggled for peace but have consistently been denied  
the benefit of genuine international brotherhood.

Racism: The lingering influence of white supremacist ideology in world  
affairs is seldom referred to in mainstream publications about Haiti.  
Yet, it is a key pillar of the Ottawa Initiative and the R2P doctrine  
on which it was predicated. Indeed, the racial features of the  
conflict brewing in Haiti are quite visible. At the international  
level, the anti-coup and pro-Haitian sovereignty positions adopted by  
members of the US Congressional Black Caucus, the nations of the  
Caribbean and Africa, have consistently stood in sharp contrast to  
those in the US White House, Canada and Europe. In Haiti, the black  
majority stands in opposition to a foreign-backed minority represented  
by the likes of white American sweatshop owner André Apaid, his  
brother-in-law and unsuccessful presidential candidate Charles Baker,  
American Rudolph Boulos, his brother Reginald Boulos, Hans  
Tippenhauer, (uncle and nephew of the same name), Jacques Bernard, etc. 
[18] The similarities abound with the 1915 US occupation of Haiti  
which resulted in the imposition of a string of white-friendly  
dictators ruling Haiti: Sudre Dartiguenave, Louis Borno, Elie Lesco,  
Louis Eugene Roy and Stenio Vincent. As in 1915-1934, members of  
Haiti’s black majority resisting the humiliating occupation of their  
land today are deemed to be a horde of “bandits” who endanger  
“private property.” Back in the 20th century the private property  
being protected by Yankee troops was mostly American. Today,  
MINUSTAH’s ‘responsibility to protect’ also extends to important  
Canadian investments such as Gildan Active Wear’s sweatshops and Ste- 
Geneviève Resources’ gold exploration concessions.[19]

In a research paper titled Defining Canada’s role in Haiti, Canadian  
Armed Forces Major J.M. Saint-Yves writes that:

While the solutions may sound colonial in nature it is clear that the  
endemic corruption of Haitian society will prevent the establishment  
of a sound economic solution to Haiti’s problems under Haitian  
control. Rather, foreign investment under foreign control is required  
to establish a new  Haitian economy based on industries that will  
directly benefit the rural Haitian population.[20]

As we will see in further detail, the “foreign control” Saint-Yves  
is calling for is already in place. But, it appears that the results  
of such racist and imperialist take-over have thus far proven to be  
the kind of ugly orphan that no one wants to officially claim as their  
own.

Documenting Canada’s Role

 From the early hours of the coup, Haitian-American activist and  
attorney Marguerite Laurent has been a powerful and relentless voice  
denouncing the overthrow of the Aristide government and in documenting  
its consequences for thousands of people worldwide. “If justice, and  
not power, prevailed in international affairs,” writes Laurent,  
“the coup d'état corporatocracy in Haiti, that is, the governments  
(US/France/Canada), international banks and rich multinational  
corporations, and their Haitian minions who funded the overthrow of  
Haiti's elected government, would be paying reparations to the people  
of Haiti who lost and continue to lose loved ones, property, and  
limbs.”[21]

Ten days after the coup, Stockwell Day, then-foreign affairs critic  
for the Conservative opposition, declared in Parliament that “… we  
have an elected leader Aristide. We may not have wanted to vote for  
him… But the (Canadian) government makes a decision that there should  
be a regime change. It is a serious question that we need to address.  
That decision was based on what criteria?”[22]

At first, the Liberal government attempted to cast doubt on whether  
the infamous coup-plotting meeting of January 31, 2003 ever took  
place. Records of a March 19, 2003 Senate hearing titled “Meeting on  
Regime Change in Haiti” include Senator Consiglio Di Nino inquiring  
about a “secret initiative referred to as the “Ottawa Initiative on  
Haiti” that is being led by the Secretary of State for La  
Francophonie.” The Senator asked: “Can the leader of the government  
in the Senate tell us if this meeting actually took place?” to which  
Liberal Senator Sharon Carstairs answered: “I cannot honestly say  
whether this meeting took place. I have no information whatsoever on  
such a meeting.”[23]


Since this exchange in the House of Commons, successive governments –  
Liberal and Conservative alike – have steadfastly pursued the agenda  
developed under “The Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”, the minutes of  
which have yet to be made available as requested by New Democratic  
Party MP Svend Robinson. Vancouver-based Journalist Anthony Fenton,  
who eventually obtained a severely edited set of documents concerning  
the meeting and its aftermath under Access to Information, recently  
wrote to the author as follows:

It remains a reasonable question to ask why these full, uncensored  
minutes haven't been tabled in the Standing Committee on Foreign  
Affairs. Since the coup, the same committee has heard Haiti-specific  
testimony on at least thirteen separate occasions. Between May and  
June of 2006, the Committee heard from over thirty 'witnesses,' in the  
course of conducting their 'Study on Haiti.' This resulted in the  
December 2006 tabling of the ‘Report of the Standing Committee on  
Foreign Affairs and International Development, Canada's International  
Policy Put to the Test in Haiti.’

Fenton notes that, of course, no reference to a coup or Ottawa  
Initiative is to be found in the Report or the Government’s response.


In “Canada in Haiti: Waging War on The Poor Majority,” written with  
colleague Yves Engler, Fenton documents various aspects of Canada’s  
involvement in the 2004 coup d’état.[24] Of particular note is the  
role CIDA played in both the destabilization campaign that prepared  
the way for the coup and the PR campaign which followed. In Damming  
the Flood, a recent book published by UK-based Canadian author Peter  
Hallward, Canada is deemed to have executed “its client functions in  
rare and exemplary fashion” in the eyes of the US, the ultimate  
leader of the multinational coup. “Canada’s foreign minister Pierre  
Pettigrew reportedly met with leading figures in the anti-Aristide  
opposition and insurgency shortly before the February coup and, as we  
have seen,” Hallward continues, “CIDA provided significant  
financial assistance to pro-coup pressure groups like the National  
Coalition for Haitian Rights-Haiti (NCHR-Haiti) and SOFA.”[25]

Upon analysis, the case of CIDA’s funding to NCHR-Haiti is  
particularly disturbing in that it provides direct evidence of  
collusion between the highest level of Canadian government and a pro- 
coup NGO of much disrepute in the eyes of Haitians and international  
observers alike. NCHR-Haiti is said to have caused great harm to the  
cause of peace and justice in Haiti. Chiefly among NCHR-Haiti’s  
damages, critics often point to the wrongful jailing of Haiti’s Prime  
Minister Yvon Neptune for over two years on trumped-up charges that  
were – through the CIDA/NCHR-Haiti connection - essentially financed  
by Canadian tax-payers. NCHR-Haiti has been so discredited on account  
of the Yvon Neptune wrongful imprisonment scandal that its US-based  
parent organization demanded that it change its name, which has since  
been modified to Réseau national de défense des droits humains  
(RNDDH).

In his well-researched article “Faking Genocide,” Kevin Skerrett  
writes that:

Within days of the coup, accusations of Prime Minister Neptune’s  
responsibility for a major massacre, a “genocide” of 50 people,  
were published by a human rights organization called the National  
Coalition for Haitian Rights-Haiti (NCHR-Haiti)…The particular  
episode of violence and political killings for which Neptune was being  
blamed took place in the city of St. Marc on February 11 2004, during  
the three-week "death squad rebellion" that began February 5 in  
Gonaives and was then spreading through the north of Haiti.  The  
attacks launched through this “rebellion” culminated in the coup of  
February 29.[26]

Documents obtained in 2007 through Anthony Fenton’s Access to  
Information Request (CIDA A-2005-00039) reveal that, in the name of  
the victims of coup violence, NCHR-Haiti submitted a $100,000 project  
to CIDA on Friday March 5, 2004. By Monday March 8, Mr. Yves Petillon,  
Chief of Canadian Cooperation at the Embassy in Haiti, received a  
recommendation from his staff to approve the funding and on Thursday,  
March 11 (within less than 5 working days from the original  
submission), Mr. Pétillon signed and approved the 10 page grant  
request. As someone with over 17 years of experience in the federal  
grant funding world, the author can attest that this is an unusually  
rapid response time.

In their March 5 funding proposal, the applicants wrote: “Just as  
NCHR aided and assisted victims of the Lavalas regime, the  
organization has the obligation to do the same for Lavalas supporters  
now coming under attack.” Yet, the same document confirms NCHR’s  
deliberate decision to limit the dates covered by the victims’ fund  
to February 9 through 29, 2004. Thus, they purposely exclude the  
victims of anti-Lavalas violence which peaked as the death squad  
“rebellion” hit Gonaives in the first days of February and in the  
days following Aristide’s removal on February 29, 2004. In addition,  
NCHR openly refused to enter the Bel Air neighborhood to investigate  
widespread reports of killings of unarmed Lavalas supporters by  
foreign occupiers in early March 2004.[27]

Two days after the coup, in an interview given to journalists Kevin  
Pina and Andrea Nicastro, Prime Minister Yvon Neptune declared:

The resignation of the President is not constitutional because he did  
that under duress and threat. The chief of the Supreme court was  
brought here into my office by representatives of the international  
community. I was not invited or present when he was sworn in.[28]

In sharp contrast to the CIDA-funded reports produced by NCHR-Haiti,  
the above statement goes a long way to explain the true motivations  
behind the illegal incarceration and torment suffered by Haiti’s  
constitutional Prime Minister during the post-coup period when  
“Haitian” justice and prison systems effectively fell under  
Canadian control.  While Mr. Neptune was being punished in jail for  
his refusal to condone the coup, Paul Martin went to Haiti in November  
2004. This was the first ever official visit of a Canadian Prime  
Minister to Haiti. During his visit, Martin, who dubs himself a proud  
champion of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, was quoted by  
Agence France Press as saying that “there are no political prisoners  
in Haiti.”[29]

Haiti’s Prime Minister, Yvon Neptune, was eventually freed under  
René Préval’s presidency. His release occurred after all risk was  
effectively cleared that dozens of illegally incarcerated top leaders  
of Fanmi Lavalas would register and win the foreign controlled  
elections of 2006.

Months after his return to Canada, Prime Minister Martin was publicly  
denounced by activist Yves Engler with the infamous heckle “Martin  
lies, Haitians die” for his shameful behavior in Haiti. During  
another episode of colourful protest, Engler decorated then Foreign  
Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew’s hands in the red of Haitian  
blood. For his efforts, Engler ended up spending several days in jail. 
[30]

What is becoming clearer is the hugely embarrassing contradiction  
between the multi-million dollar contributions which the Canadian  
government boasts having made to help fix the Haitian police and  
justice systems and the fact that said systems are deemed by several  
independent studies to be in much worse shape several years after the  
coup. The suggestion that this “failure” is solely that of Haitians  
also falls flat in the face of scrutiny. Consider the bold statements  
made by Chief Superintendent David Beer, Director General of  
International Policing at the RCMP at the April 3, 2008 meeting of The  
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development:

Mr. Chair, I think the committee might be interested to know that  
although our numbers are down to a certain degree in the total number  
of almost 1,900 serving police officers, in the mission Canada  
continues to have very key roles. Indeed, Canada holds the position of  
deputy commissioner of operations, senior mentor and advisor, and  
senior mentoring unit for the police for the city of Port-au-Prince.  
We are in charge of the Bureau de la lutte contre le trafic des  
stupéfiants, the counter-narcotics unit. We're also in charge of the  
anti-kidnapping unit. We also contribute to border management, the  
academy, and la formation de la police nationale. Also, we're involved  
in a financial integrity and assets management project within the  
Haitian National Police. Finally, Mr. Chair, the vetting and  
registration of the HNP is also a responsibility of a Canadian police  
officer. [31]

The conspicuous exchange of funds between CIDA and NCHR-Haiti which  
financed Mr. Neptune’s ordeal may never make the front pages of  
Maclean’s Magazine or the Globe and Mail. Generally speaking,  
Canadians meet with great surprise and disbelief the recurring  
corruption scandals involving their political elite. One of the cases  
currently in front of the courts involves former Prime Minister Brian  
Mulroney who is accused of having accepted bribes in cash, while in  
office, from German arms dealer Karlheinz Shreiber. Many are shocked  
by the case. However, that the Mulroney-Shreiber deal in question  
allegedly involved the purchase of weapons destined to  
“peacekeeping” has attracted no special attention. If anything, it  
seems, Brian Mulroney stands to benefit from the “peacekeeping”  
connection that he recently volunteered about his dealings with the  
infamous arms dealer.

Peace Be Unto Them . . . With Tanks and Bullets

In fact, bloody foreign interventions dubbed ‘peacekeeping’ enjoy  
such a positive aura in Canada that para-governmental bodies such as  
FOCAL are openly calling for Canada to engage ever deeper in the  
imperialist adventure that is The Ottawa Initiative.  It is this aura  
which allows military figures such as Major Michael D. Ward to write  
that “strong commitment to the sovereignty [and] independence ... of  
Haiti is a crucial barrier to the international engagement required to  
rebuild and reform the Haitian state.”[32]

Such crude and condescending statements explain why the North-South  
Institute cautioned, as early as October 2005, that “The Canadian  
government’s justification for the 2004 intervention in Haiti,  
without open debate from an R2P perspective, has damaged the R2P  
campaign, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean.”[33] The  
CIDA-funded think tank proceeds to lament how ‘peacebuilding’ in  
Haiti has been compromised by de facto collaboration with paramilitary  
leaders responsible for past human rights violations.

In the very document produced by the R2P Commission, it was boldly  
highlighted how governments engaged in such interventions must prove  
themselves to be very agile at spinning and controlling information.  
“The key to mobilizing international support,” it states, “is to  
mobilize domestic support, or at least neutralize domestic  
opposition.” Further, it highlights the crucial role that government- 
funded entities (wrongly referred to as ‘non-governmental agencies’  
- NGOs) have to play in this regard: “NGOs have a crucial and ever  
increasing role, in turn, in contributing information, arguments and  
energy to influencing the decision-making process, addressing  
themselves both directly to policy makers and indirectly to those who,  
in turn, influence them.”[34]

It thus falls to heavily-funded NGOs to ensure that racism is seen as  
humanism and imperialism as peacekeeping – no matter the native body  
count. It is hardly surprising, then, that in the eyes of people of  
African-descent worldwide, Canada’s “good” image has suffered a  
considerable blow as a result of the 2004 coup and its aftermath.

Commenting on the food riots that rocked Haiti in April 2008, veteran  
journalist John Maxwell, wrote in the Jamaica Observer:

Today, and especially for the last few weeks, the starving people in  
Haiti have been trying to get the world to listen to their anguish and  
misery…Mr Bush and Mr Colin Powell and a mixed gaggle of French and  
Canadian politicians had decided that freedom and independence were  
too good for the black people of Haiti. Lest you think I am being  
racist, there is abundant evidence that the conspiracy against Haiti  
was inspired by racial hatred and prejudice...I have gone into this  
before and I will not return to it today . . . Suffice it to say that  
the US, Canada and France, acting on behalf of the so-called  
'civilised world', decided on the basis of lies that, as in the case  
of Iraq, a free and independent people had no business being free and  
independent when their freedom and independence was seen to threaten  
the economic interest of the richest people in Haiti and, by  
extension, the wealthiest countries in the world.[35]

Conclusion

According to Walter Dorn, there exist two groups of advocates of the  
Responsibility to Protect doctrine. “The idealist or internationalist  
school often clashes with the realpolitik school, whose members are  
usually called realists (although not necessarily realistic),” says  
the military professor. “Canadian realists hold that Canada's  
contributions do not arise from the purity of our souls or national  
benevolence, but because of basic national interest.” Dorn tells us  
that, for the realists, “Canada's large contributions to the UN's  
successive missions in Haiti are also explained in part by a desire to  
assist the US in the continental backyard.”

Speaking about his own ‘civilized world’s responsibility to protect  
‘others’ in early 2003, then-Minister for la Francophonie Denis  
Paradis was quoted by journalist Michel Vastel as follows: “I do not  
want to end up like Roméo Dallaire…” “Time is running out  
because, it is estimated that Haiti’s population could reach 20  
million in 2009,” observed Vastel, before proceeding to quote  
Minister Paradis describing Haiti’s 99 percent African population as  
“a time bomb which must be stopped immediately!”[36]

It is frightening for a historically-conscious person, especially one  
of African descent, to observe how the logic of Rudyard Kipling’s  
‘White man’s burden’ emanates so easily from the minds of high- 
ranking Canadian officials and intellectuals, and then is translated  
into foreign policy that is implemented with brute force.
As Sherene Razack writes in Black Threats, White Knights,  
“Peacekeeping today is a kind of war, a race war waged by those who  
constitute themselves as civilized, modern and democratic against  
those who are constituted as savage, tribal and immoral.”[37]

A report issued by the International Commission argues that
“there is much direct reciprocal benefit to be gained in an  
interdependent, globalized world where nobody can solve all their own  
problems: my country’s assistance for you today in solving your  
neighbourhood refugee and terrorism problem, might reasonably lead you  
to be more willing to help solve my environmental or drugs problem  
tomorrow.”[38] One is indeed well advised to ask the crucial  
question: What are they talking about as far as R2P is concerned? This  
so-called responsibility is to protect who from what? Are soldiers  
being mobilized to protect vulnerable populations from massive human  
rights horrors or to protect the interests of world elites from  
threats such as Haiti’s perceived black “time bomb”, or Europe  
from the advances of the wretched of the earth arriving by way of  
Morroco and Spain?

While seeking the answer to that pivotal question, I am mindful of the  
shocking statement made by the Assistant Secretary General of the OAS,  
in front of myself as well as several other witnesses at Haiti’s  
Hotel Montana, on December 31, 2003: “The real problem with Haiti”  
said Luigi Enaudi, “is that the ‘International Community’ is so  
screwed up & divided that they are actually letting Haitians run  
Haiti.”  Less than two months after Einaudi uttered these words, US  
Marines entered the residence of Haiti’s president, while Canadian  
RCMP soldiers secured the airport to facilitate the coup and  
occupation of Haiti. Since that fateful night, Haitians are no longer  
running Haiti and the bloodbath the foreign invaders claim to have  
intervened to avoid has reached unprecedented proportions, with full  
involvement of the UN forces engaged in what can only be defined as  
class and race warfare. Meanwhile, the world still awaits a serious  
report on the circumstances surrounding the death of U.N. Commander  
Urano Teixeira Da Matta Bacellar, at Hotel Montana, on January 7, 2006

  “there is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the  
political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave.  
On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on  
Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver."

  Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister in  January 2007  
interview cited in Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang, The Unexpected  
War: Canada in Kandahar  (Toronto, ON: Viking Canada, 2007), pp. 126-27

What Should Canadian Policy Towards Haiti be? Contrary to the IMF  
style of “aid”, the Cuba-Venezuela model is, in essence, what  
activists for peace with justice have been advocating for several  
years. Unfortunately, successive Canadian governments have chosen to  
ignore this message and, instead, have multiplied workshops,  
conferences, meetings (usually, with little or no Haitian  
participation) to coordinate even more “aid” to Haiti. This is done  
in blatant disregard of the evidence that Haiti has, for far too long,  
been “aided to death” by its self-appointed foreign friends.

The appalling poverty found in Haiti is no recent phenomenon due to  
“bad governance,” as is often posited by apologists for the violent  
conquest of this continent. The endemic vulnerability of the African  
and First Nations populations of the Americas stems from 500 years of  
inhumane colonial and neo-colonial policies. A strategy consisting in  
piling up money and weapons, while patching up a brick school, a  
dispensary and a few prisons in return for shameless waving of  
countless Canadian flags, is no solution at all.

Commenting the current world hunger crisis, Jeffrey Sachs suggested  
that the long-term solution involves putting brakes on the U.S.  
ethanol industry, creating a $5-billon fund for agriculture, and  
financing better research and development for crop technologies in the  
developing world.[39] Laudable goals, indeed! However, judging from  
the Haitian experience, governments of enriched societies who built  
their wealth on racial slavery, theft of indigenous land and shameful  
trickery of the world financial system, can hardly be counted upon to  
make such a radical 180 degree conversion. It will necessitate a mass  
mobilization of peoples worldwide to force these urgently needed  
changes. Reversing the situation requires us all to force the enriched  
states to adopt new policies and approaches, rather than rehashing the  
same old racist practices, masked or not, with clever and cynical  
humanitarian rhetoric. Their challenge is to first stop doing harm,  
and then repair the damage already done. Our challenge is to  
consistently practice genuine people-to-people solidarity.


NOTES

[1] “World Sees Canada as Tolerant, Generous Nation,” Angus Reid  
Global Monitor : Polls & Research (November 12, 2006).

[2] Walter Dorn, “Canadian Peacekeeping: Proud Tradition, Strong  
Future?” Canadian Foreign Policy, Vol. 12, No. 2, (Fall 2005)

[3] Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) website [www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/CIDAWEB/acdicida.nsf/EN/JUD-12912349-NLX 
]

[4] Michael Petrou, “Haiti: Are we helping?,” Mclean’s (April 7,  
2008)

[5] See Marguerite Laurent, “It's Neither Hope nor Progress when the  
International Community is Running Haiti,” Haitian Lawyers Leadership  
Network, [www.margueritelaurent.com] and Aaron Lakoff, “The Politics  
of Brutality in Haiti: Canada, the UN and "collateral damage,"  
Dominion Paper (January 21, 2006).

[6] Anthony Fenton and Dru Oja Jay, “Declassifying Canada in Haiti”  
Global Research [www.globalresearch.ca]; and Canada Haiti Action  
Network website  [www.canadahaitiaction.ca]

[7]Report No. 30882-HT, “Program Document of TheInternational  
Development Association to the Executive Directors for an Economic  
Governance Reform Operation”, World Bank, (December 10, 2004)

[8] DeWayne Wickham, “Payoffs to Haiti's renegade soldiers won't buy  
peace,” USA Today (January 3, 2005)
[9] Jean Saint-Vil, “Please Fix Canada's Policy Towards Haiti,”  
Letter to Minister Peter McKay, (May 29, 2008) [www. archivex-ht.com]

[10] Jean Saint-Vil. “New Canadian Premier Gets Sound Advice on  
Haiti,” Letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, (February 6, 2006)  
[www. windowsonhaiti.com]

[11] Five LDCs -- Haiti, Cape Verde, Samoa, Gambia and Somalia -- have  
lost more than half their university-educated professionals in recent  
years because these professionals have moved to industrialized  
countries in search of better working and living conditions. UNCTAD,  
“Least Developed Countries Report 2007: Knowledge, Technological  
Learning and Innovation for Development" [www.unctad.org] (July 19,  
2007)

[12] President René Préval's Inaugural Speech, Haiti, (May 14, 2006) [www.margueritelaurent.c 
om]

[13] The New York Times appears to have been better connected to the  
real powers running the show in Haiti. Because of its precipitous  
attribution of the price reduction measure to Mr. Préval, the Times  
issued a correction note dated April 10, 2008, in which one reads “A  
picture caption last Thursday about rioting in Haiti over high food  
prices misstated President Rene Préval’s position on the issue. He  
urged Haitians to become agriculturally self-sufficient; he did not  
say he would urge Haiti’s congress to cut taxes on imported food.”  
See “Haiti’s President Tries to Halt Crisis Over Food,” New York  
Times (April 10, 2008).

[14] Cited in Robert Muggah, “Securing Haiti’s Transition,” Small  
Arms Survey Occasional Paper no. 14 (October 2005)

[15] In interview with Haitian President René Préval, March 2006,  
Ottawa.

[16] “An Inside Look at Haiti’s Business Elite, An Interview with  
Patrick James,” Multinational Monitor (January/February 1995)

[17] HAITI: Fanmi Lavalas Banned, Voter Apprehension Widespread, By  
Jeb Sprague, IPS (april 17, 2009)

[18] Jean Saint-Vil, “Haiti's 'Ambassador' to Canada” Znet (June 9,  
2005) [www.zmag.com]

[19] Reed Lindsay, “Haiti's future glitters with gold,” Toronto  
Star (July 21, 2007)

[20]  Maj. J.M. Saint-Yves, “Defining Canada’s Role in Haiti”,  
(Toronto: Canadian Forces College Master of Defence Studies Research  
Project, 2006), [http://wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca]

[21] Marguerite Laurent, “Debt Breeds Dependency Equals Foreign &  
Corporate Domination” [www.margueritelaurent.com], (January 4, 2005)

[22] Hansard,House of Commons, 37th Parliament, 3rd Session (March 10,  
2004)

[23] Hansard, Debates of the Senate, 2nd Session, 37th Parliament,
  (March 19, 2003)

[24]  “Using NGOs to Destroy Democracy and the Canadian Military  
Connection,” excerpt from: Canada in Haiti  Waging War on the Poor  
Majority by Yves Engler and Anthony Fenton. Fernwood Publishing, 2005

[25] Peter Hallward,  “Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the  
Politics of Containment”, Verso Books, 2007

[26] Kevin Skerrett, “Faking Genocide: Canada’s Role in the  
Persecution of Yvon Neptune,” Znet (June 23, 2005) [www.zmag.org]

[27] Tom Reeves, “Haiti's Disappeared,” Znet [www.Zmag.org] (May 5,  
2004)

[28] Kevin Pina and Andrea Nicastro, “Interview with Prime Minister  
Yvon Neptune,” Haiti Action (March 2, 2004) [www.haitiaction.net]

[29] “Canada in Haiti for long run, says PM,” Caribbean Net News  
(November 19, 2004)

[30] Marcella Adey and Jean Saint-Vil, “Human Rights worker arrested  
for heckling Prime Minister Paul Martin” globalresearch.ca (December  
4, 2005)
[31] Hansard, 39th Parliament, 2nd Session, Number 021  “Evidence”  
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development,  
(April 3, 2008)

[32] Major Michael T. Ward, “The Case for International Trusteeship  
in Haiti” Canadian Forces Journal, vol. 7, no. 3 (Autumn 2006)

[33] Stephen Baranyi, “What kind of peace is possible in the  
post-9/11 era?” North-South Institute , (October 2005)

[34] ICISS (IBID)

[35] John Maxwell, “Is Starvation Contagious?” Jamaica Observer  
(April 13, 2008)

[36] Michel Vastel, “Haiti mise en tutelle par l’ONU?”  
L’Actualité, (March 15, 2003)

[37] Sherene H. Razack, “Black Threats & White Knights: The Somalia  
Affair, Peacekeeing, and the New Imperialism”, University of Toronto  
Press, (2004)

[38] ICISS, “Report of the International Commission on Intervention  
and State Sovereignty” (page 71), [www.iciss.ca] (December 2001)

[39] Sinclair Stewart, “Facing a food crisis, optimist finds hope in  
the dismal science,” The Globe and Mail (Wednesday April 30, 2008):  
B1, B14

Jean Saint-Vil is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global  
Research Articles by Jean Saint-Vil