Protectorate Haiti, Part II

This comes via Marguerite Laurent of the Haitian Lawyer’s Network. I include her introductory note and the document she send around. It speaks for itself, but stay tuned for more analysis in the coming days.

The International Community’s intentions for Haiti are revealed.

The Canadian plan for Haiti to be occupied by the international community in the way that James Foley helped fixed in Kosovo as predicted and specified by Michel Chossudovsky an article entitled “The destabilization of Haiti at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html ) has now been crystallized in the Canadian document enclosed. Below is the international community’s UN Mandate Structure for Haiti. The point of the Coup d’etat was to reach this idea of a “protectorate.” For, it is clear if free and fair elections were help in Haiti today, Lavalas, the party that these warmongers unseated would again win. Thus, free and fair elections, or democracy in Haiti must be avoided at all cost. With the help of the Chalabis of Haiti, the tiny morally repugnant Haitian elites, Canada, who has been outsourced the U.S.’s traditional role in the Western Hemisphere with regard to Haiti due to Mr. Bush’s overextension in Iraq, proposes to hold a conference, where the resolutions for this “protectorate” among other pronouncement in contravention of Haiti’s sovereignty, shall be rubber stamped by its Haitian proxies.

Again Haitians of the Diaspora state categorically that neither Canada, France, the UN nor the United States have the legal right, moral or any competence whatsoever to substitute an elected government in Haiti with dictatorship or colonial rule. Only free and fair elections in Haiti shall lead to good governance, stability and security in Haiti.

While all these Internationals are supposedly in Iraq replacing dictatorship with democracy, the document below from Canada formally notes how the U.S./France and Canada along with their selected Haitian stooges are attempting to permanently replace Haiti’s democracy with dictatorship.

The integrity and sovereign right of the Haitian people for self-rule shall not be sold. The only solutions to the overthrow of Haiti’s elected government is 1) its return and for free and fair elections to be held, 2) for the international community to stop turning a blind eye, or worst participating in the targeted political assassinations of Lavalas supporters and for there to be a plan for the disarming of the ex-Haitian military and FRAPH paramilitary. Those are the demands of the Haitian people. A UN protectorate run by UN officials such as Gerald Latortue is as unthinkable to Haitians as the Coup d’etat that first brought the UN occupying troops and its “interim government” to Haiti.

The destabilization campaign which led to this juncture shall not find ultimate success in the complete occupation of Haiti. for ten, twenty or thirty years ( See below and in the context of Schossudovsky’s article at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html )

Marguerite Laurent, Esq. Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network December 7, 2004

* www.focal.ca

The Role for Canada in Post-Aristide Haiti: Structures, Options and Leadership

This paper has been prepared for the House of Commons Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade in response to the Committee’s request by Carlo Dade, Senior Advisor with FOCAL (Canadian Foundation for the Americas) and John W. Graham, Chair of FOCAL.

1. Summary

For the third time in 20 years the government in Haiti has collapsed once again leaving the poorest country in the hemisphere as a destabilizing influence on its neighbours, a growing narcotics and transnational crime base and a major source of apprehension to Haitian and Caribbean descendant populations in Canada. These are sources of concern for Canada both domestically and regionally.

Past attempts to improve governance and quality of life have largely failed through a combination of Haitian truculence, corruption, donor fatigue and impatience. Continued failure will make reform more difficult as the repercussions from lawlessness and poverty increasingly impact the region.

The situation in Haiti is dire but not yet at the level of concern as in Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia, though Haiti clearly is heading in that direction. The challenge is to learn from past mistakes at State building in Haiti and elsewhere to find a development model that will work. Without a forceful and committed advocate from the developed world, discussions at the UN, the OAS, and CARICOM will continue to lack urgency and focus and Haiti will again slip from the forefront of international conscience. Canada has a unique combination of national interest and comparative advantage to work in Haiti. Given its commitments elsewhere, the United States appears reluctant take on long-term leadership. Canada remains the only country in the hemisphere with the appropriate experience and qualifications. This is an opportunity for Canada to assert the leadership, which the Prime Minister is seeking, complement multilateral measures that Canada already has supported and raise Canada’s hemispheric profile. This paper offers a brief analysis, outlines a plan of action and concludes with discussion of the exit strategy.

2. Background and Legal Authority

In Haiti, institutions that support law and order and exercise the functions of government have broken down under internal violence and economic collapse. The remnants of a 2/6 Haitian State persist as a shadow presence; it retains a flimsy legal standing but, for all practical purposes, has lost the ability to exercise authority in its own territory. Haiti has become a ‘failed state’.

States which lack control over their territory and which cannot guarantee law and order threaten international peace by serving as a base for crime, public health threats, refugee crisis and regional unrest. Such States also harm the basic human rights of their own citizens. Failed States have thus become subject to intervention by the international community through actions most often initiated and carried out by the U.N. Security Council under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter.

Haiti clearly meets the definition of a failed State and U.N. Security Council Resolution 1529 of February 2004 on Haiti grants authority both for a peacekeeping intervention (Section 2: “Authorizes the immediate deployment of a Multinational Interim Force…” and Section 3: “Declares its readiness to establish a follow-on U.N. stabilization force…”) as well as a longer-term intervention (Section 10. “Calls upon the international community, in particular the U.N., the OAS and CARICOM to work with the people of Haiti in a long-term effort to promote the rebuilding of democratic institutions and to assist in the development of a strategy to promote social and economic development and to combat poverty.”)

3. Situation in Haiti

While conditions in Haiti are neither as dire nor dangerous as in Afghanistan or Iraq, the vacuum of governance and the scale of appalling human misery is a reproach to the hemisphere and to the principal donor nations. Haiti is in the bottom tier of the UN Human Development Index. Ranked 150 out of 175 countries surveyed it sits below countries such as Sudan and Bangladesh. The next closest country in the Americas is Nicaragua, which is ranked at 121. It is estimated that one of every twelve Haitians has contracted HIV/AIDS and a ten year forecast sets the number of orphaned children at approximately 350,000. Transnational crime is a grave issues. Haiti is a major drug transhipment point. A U.S. DEA spokesman estimates that close to 21 per cent of cocaine leaving Colombia for the US and Canada passes through Haiti. Guy Phillipe, one of the leaders of the insurgency, has been under investigation by US Drug Enforcement Agencies. Money from the drug trade fuels lawlessness, weakens governance and increases instability. Without a competent functioning government in Haiti these problems, and their impacts on Canada and the region, will become more severe.

Given the chaos of the last several months all of these statistics are worsening. Haiti has not been neglected by donor agencies, humanitarian assistance has continued to flow, but the country is a notorious sinkhole for foreign aid. A recent World Bank study indicated that 15 years of development assistance have produced “no noticeable effect”.

It is not the purpose of this paper to determine to what extent this situation is selfinflicted. Without question, governance has been incompetent, corrupt and frequently brutal over the 200 years of independence and these adjectives can all be applied to the government of Jean Bertrand Aristide.

In fairness it should be recalled the birth of a black republic was not welcomed by the international community of the time. Soon after independence in 1804, Haitians were compelled to pay crippling ‘reparations’ to France. A slave owning United States imposed a trade embargo that remained in some form for almost a hundred years. Frustration with Haitian performance, followed by international censure and punishment, was the pattern for the next hundred years. Withholding aid to leverage reform has failed – invariably reversing the little progress achieved during periods of international support.

4. Rebuilding Haiti

The old models for the rehabilitation of Haiti have failed. This paper recommends that a new model should be examined. In our view its major components should be:

Long-term commitment. The UN Secretary General has called for a commitment of ten years. This is emerging as the minimum commitment subscribed to by principal international and bilateral donors based on examination of the most recent State building exercise in Haiti and lessons learned from Kosovo and East Timor. Canada should support this consensus.

Support not control. Most State building as well as traditional development programmes now stress the importance of local ‘ownership’. For example, ‘Afghan solutions for Afghan problems’ was a mantra of the preparations for Afghanistan’s reconstruction. But, Development is notoriously supply- rather than demand-driven process as some donors seek to advance national interest, including pushing pet causes carried out by favoured NGOs. Canada is in a strong position to advocate a more rational developmental approach and stress the prioritization of the development of Haitian institutional capacity.

Trust fund and donor support. Donors should be encouraged to pool funds needed to support an interim Haitian government into a trust fund managed either by an international organization or a private firm. A board including Haitian, UN and major donor members would oversee the fund and sign off on disbursements. Such a fund would encourage fiscal responsibility on the part of the new regime and offer incentive for the more rapid development of institutional capacity in government ministries. Also, evidence from Afghanistan and elsewhere shows that donors actually disburse only about 60 per cent of promised aid. A trust fund would help with planning in Haiti.

Sustained commitment and leadership. It is well known from experience with Haiti and elsewhere that commitment erodes and funding declines as the crisis that first precipitated international engagement fades from media attention. This situation has been avoided only when a major donor nation has taken on the responsibility to lead and sustain the initiative, as did Australia in East Timor and Norway in Sri Lanka. This is not something that the United Nations has proven able to do by itself. The US will be the main donor, but with other more pressing responsibilities and a troubled history in Haiti, it appears to be actively seeking another nation to assume leadership on Haiti. Canada is a natural candidate. Brazil already has committed troops to the planned long-term UN peacekeeping force. But , it is unlikely that Brazil would be able to offer the political leadership to guide UN intervention. Again, Canada has the credentials.

Security. No progress on any front is possible without the restoration and maintenance of security and the rule of law. The first step to restoring order and the rule of law is to move to arrest the leaders of the armed insurgency, for whom criminal charges are already outstanding. Foreign military and police units should remain until they can be gradually replaced by adequately trained local constabulary. Recalling frustrated Canadian experience in the nineties, equal attention must be given to the parallel establishment of a reasonably reliable judicial and penal system. While Brazil will assume primary peacekeeping duties, Canada could take the lead in providing long-term support to the rebuilding of the police and justice system.

International and Multilateral Support. Discussions in Washington indicate plans for a tripartite UN/OAS/CARICOM international framework. The World Bank, the Inter- American Development Bank, the US, Canada, France and the EU should be invited to subscribe to sustained funding over a ten-year period. Canada should continue to take the lead at the UN and other international bodies in promoting wider support for the effort in Haiti. CIDA is already addressing the issue of Hispaniola wide (including the Dominican Republic) planning on environmental and cross border issues.

Bosnia/Dayton, E Timor, Cambodian political models. The present interim government in Haiti is non-elected, exercises almost no control over the territory, lacks popular support and its legitimacy is questioned in Haiti and the region. Discussions on re-establishing the State in Haiti should reflect a new model including agreement between the international community (OAS/UN/CARICOM) and the interim government to delegate authority for a limited period for limited purposes to develop security and the judiciary, to supervise the distribution of aid, to support municipal governance and, rehabilitate essential services including health. The agreement should include a timetable for the devolution of authority and control to Haitians and supervising bodies should increasingly include Haitian participation. The agreement should flow from UN Security Council Resolution 1529.

Elections. The ‘model’ should include approximate parameters for an electoral calendar. Given the chaotic political landscape, the error of a rush to elections in Bosnia must be avoided. First elections should be at the municipal level.

The Haitian Diaspora. Due to out-migration and flight, there is an acute shortage of competent professionals in every vital category throughout government ministries and civil society organizations. Joint and independent CIDA and USAID efforts are underway to incorporate the Haitian Diaspora in the rebuilding process. Canada has long-standing experience in this area and should continue to promote efforts to recruit qualified members of the Haitian diaspora.

Urgency. With the crisis beginning to lose attention in Canada and elsewhere, it is essential to move rapidly to obtain a commitment to a new model and long-term support.

For example, CIDA and the Provincial Ministry of Education in Quebec could agree on a plan for working with the Ministry of Education in Haiti and would draft a budget and assign a project leader, ideally a Haitian-Canadian who would be seconded from the Ministry in Quebec. This person could serve as deputy minister but would report to the UN Special Representative. In reviewing the needs of the Education sector in Haiti CIDA could decide that an intensive intervention would be needed for five years to bring the Ministry of Education to a point where it could work directly with international donors and manage the ministry. The relationship with the Ministry of Education of Quebec ideally would continue either formally or informally past this five-year period. International experience has demonstrated that the concept of the ‘ripeness’ of circumstances is crucial to achieving agreements that are tough enough to be viable. International players have a short attention span.

5. Structure for Rebuilding.

In recent State building interventions, authority has typically flowed from the Security Council to the Secretary General, who appoints a Special Representative and a force commander. The Special Representative is responsible to the Secretary General for all aspects of the intervention as defined in the Security Council resolution. The force commander is responsible for the military effort and may also have “command and control” of the national military contingents deployed to support the mandate. In some cases command and responsibility for executing the mission can flow from the Security Council to a U.N. member state or other organization, such as NATO.

This model should continue in Haiti where, the U.N. already has assigned both a Special Advisor for Haiti and a force commander for a three-month period with stipulations that longer-term arrangements be negotiated at the end of this time. The U.N. resolution also calls for the participation of the OAS and CARICOM.

6. Exit Strategy

A key factor in designing the structure and mechanisms is to plan for the graduation of the Haitian State to independence and a return to the international community. This should be sequenced on a ministry-by-ministry basis – in other words return to full Haitian authority would depend not on a fixed date for all ministries, but on case-by-case basis of the institutional maturity of each ministry. The end of the UN Special Representative’s tenure would signal the formal end of the State building process. Engagements with the line ministries could end earlier or later. In essence, the Donor’s Group would divide/assign responsibility and funding for each ministry. The oversight and coordination for this work would be done by the UN Special Representative The primary goal would be to identify agencies in donor countries that have significant resources, and especially those involving the Haitian Diaspora, that could be seconded to work in Haiti to jump-start the rebuilding process. The secondary goal in doing this is to build donor confidence and attract the resources needed for reconstruction. The third goal is to establish long-term relationships that could allow for continued, sometimes informal, transfers of knowledge and skills. Under the UN programme, peacekeepers should remain for one to three years while police would remain for up to 10 years. An initial force of two to three thousand peacekeepers would be needed to provide overwhelming force to disarm gangs and restore the rule of law. Once this is accomplished the force could be reduced to 500 police advisors and trainers who would support the Haitian police.

Peacekeeping requirements will be lighter in Haiti than in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Iraq because the country lacks cadres of seasoned, trained, well-armed fighters. Given time and improved narco-connections, armed gangs in Haiti could develop into formidable gang bosses or warlords along the Jamaican and Somali models. But organized Haitian gangs have not yet reached this stage and one goal of this intervention is to prevent that scenario from emerging. For peacekeeping to be effective the international community must move decisively now to disarm the population and then re-establish the police and judiciary.

The key to successful disarmament is tying it to reconstruction in the popular view. Those who hold weapons must be portrayed by the international community, and must be understood by Haitians, to be impediments to the resumption of aid, rebuilding of the country and the creation of jobs.

******* Forwarded by the Haitian Lawyers Leadership ******

“Men anpil chay pa lou” Â is Kreyol for – “Many hands make light a heavy load.”

See, The Haitian Leadership Networks’ Â 7 “Men Anpil Chay Pa Lou” campaigns to help restore Haiti’s independence, the will of the mass electorate and the rule of law. See, http://www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaigns.html and http://www.margueritelaurent.com/law/lawpress.html .

******** To subscribe or unsubscribe, contact Erzilidanto@aol.com

yes, we should talk about orchard, etc. Please circulate this. We’ll need some folks to support Vwa Zanset who will be out in numbers for sure…I’ll call you tomorrow, time?

Montreal Conference with the Chalabis of Haiti

Below is an announcement of a Conference to be held by the Chalabis of Haiti and their International sponsors in Canada on December 11 and 12, 2004.

The same Canadian officials, who conspired to destroy Haiti’s democracy with the forceful removal of Haiti’s elected government, are currently in the process of following through with the international communities’ ultimate plans to place Haiti under direct occupation with the pretext of an “international protectorate.” To that end, Canadian foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew iis holding a meeting with the Chalabis of Haiti on December 10, 11, 2004. The Government of Canada is proceeding with its war on the Haitian people in the form of this new conference ostensibly to be attended by the “leaders in the Haitian community abroad.” However, the leaders in the Haitian community who have credibility with the grassroots movements for democracy in Haiti are not invited or welcomed to attend this meeting. Yes! Authorized Lavalas officials and grassroots leaders from Haiti and abroad are not invited. Thus, this is simply another Canadian attempt, like to Ottawa Initiative, to further humiliate the people of Haiti.

We at the Haitian Lawyers Leadership take this opportunity to state that the Chalabis of Canada, like Gerald Latortue and his “interim government,” have absolutely no popular base in Haiti or abroad. Nothing shall endow the Chalabis of Haiti with credibility they do not own. We again denounce, in the strongest of terms, all efforts whatsoever, by these un-electable warmongers to take completely from the Haitian people, their right to self-rule, their independence and dignity.

Moreover, the Canadian officials calling for this conference have no credibility with protecting the rule of law in Haiti. (http://www.haiti-progres.com/2003/sm030305/eng03-05.html ) They are not unbiased. This new “Ottawa Initiative” conference to be held in Canada next week is just as reprehensible as the first one in 2002.

No resolution to come out of this new “Ottawa Initiative”, this time with the Chalabis of Haiti, actually in the room in attendance with the foreign interventionist, shall have any validity or be relevant whatsoever to the pro-democracy movement and resistance agaisnt such organized tyranny in Haiti or aborad.

“We are under extreme pressure from the international community to use violence,” General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro told a congressional commission in Brazil. “I command a peacekeeping force, not an occupation force … we are not there to carry out violence, this will not happen for as long as I’m in charge of the force.”

He cited the United States, France and Canada among countries pressing for the use of force against armed groups.” ( http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6983380&src=rss/worldNews )

For two hundred years, Haiti’s greatest problem has been foreign domination, debt and dependency. No receivership by the U.N. nor by any U.N official, whether his name is Gerald Latortue or Kofi Annan, is an acceptable solution to the problem forced-on the Haitian people when Canada, France and the U.S. conspired to overthrow the democratically elected government of Haiti.

By any means necessary, we commit, that, in this year marking Haiti’s 200 anniversary of independence, no occupation shall be legitimized. This new attempt by Canada, to choose Haitians with absolutely no democratic constituency, both abroad and in Haiti, to better exploit what is left of the Haitian people’s dignity and revolutionary legacy is evil and reprehensible.

Colonialism is an act of war. Haitians worldwide intend to come together to denounce, in one voice, all efforts by the morally repugnant elite of Haiti to legitimaze their rule by gun. Only free and fair elections in Haiti is acceptable to good-willed Haitians authentically concerned with peace and security for the currently disenfranchised Haitian nation. No Bosnia or African-continent-type receivership by the Western powers shall be deemed a “helpful alternative” to the current chaos and destruction forced upon the Haitian people by the international community led by the United States, Canada and France and the Chalabis of Haiti.

We demand the immediate return of the rule of law to Haiti and respect for the ballot box.

Paul Martin and Pierre Pettigrew’s efforts to cement the Feb. 29, 2004 victory over the ballot by putting a “Haitian face” to the Canadian/France/US-led effort to re-colonize the people of Haiti are transparent and repulsive to the extreme, not to mention another callous example of their bottomless racism.

No Haitian worthy of the gift of liberty fought and bled for by our African ancestors shall stand silent as this final humiliation is being metered upon all of us by Paul Martin, Pierre Petttigrew, Jack Chirac or George W. Bush and the Chalabis of Haiti. We shall agitate, agitate, agitate until Haiti is free, all political prisoner liberated and the Chalabis of Haiti and their death squad mercenaries are brought to justice.

Marguerite Laurent, Esq. Chair, Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network December 7, 2004

***** GOUVERNEMENT DU CANADA

Invitation

Conférence de Montréal avec la Diaspora Haïtienne 10-11 Décembre 2004 Centre Mont-Royal, 2222 rue Mansfield Montréal, Québec, Canada

Le Ministre des Affaires étrangères du Canada,l’honorable Pierre Petttigrew,et la Ministre de la coopération internationale du Canada,l’honorable Alleen Caroll,sont heureux de vous inviter à la conférence de Montréal avec la Diaspora haïtienne ,les 10-11 décembre 2004.A cette occasion,le Premier Ministre du Canada,le très honorable Paul Martin s’adressa à l’assistance samedi en matinée. Nous espérons pouvoir vous compter parmi nous pour cet événement important.Veuillez noter que l’accés à cette conférence se fait sur invitation seulement.Nous vous prions donc de confirmer par courriel: focal@focal.ca ou par téléphone au 613562-0005 poste 227,avant mardi le 7décembre.

Merci aux organisations de limiter leur participation à deux représentants.

Programme

Vendredi 10 décembre

17:00-19:00 Inscription des participants

19:00-21:00 Ouverture de la Conférence-Allocutions

1 Ministre des affaires du canada,co-président de la conférence 2 Ministre de la coopération internationle Alleen Carroll,co-présidente de la conférence 3 Premier Ministre du Québec Jean Charest 4 Maire de Montréal M Gérald Tremblay 5 Présentation du Ministre haïtien des Haïtiens vivant à l’étranger,Le défacto Alix Baptiste.

Réception.

Samedi 11 décembre

9:00-9:15 Iinauguration officielle de la conférence par le Premier Ministre du Canada.. 9:15-9:30 Mots de bienvenue par les Ministres Pierre Pettigrew et Allen Carroll 9:30-10 Le ministre défacto Roland Pierre Planification et de la Coopération Externe. 10:00-10:40 Ambassadeur Juan Gabriel Valdés(MINUSTAH) sur la situation Actuelle en Haïti 10;40-11:25 Panel 1-L’engagement du Canada au CCI 11:25-13:00 Panel 2 Modes D’engagement de la Diaspora Représentant de la Diaspora des Etats-unis et De la France Projet du Premier Congrès Mondial de la Diaspora Haïtienne Suivi de questions NB (à noter qu’il y aura un modérateur et un rapporteur professionel pour chaque Parnel)

13:00-14:30 Déjeuner et intervention du Premier Ministre Défacto Gérard Latortue Le théme de l’intervention portera sur l’apport potentiel additionnel de la diaspora dans le cadre du CCI.

14:30-16:15 Discussions en Groupes de travail Secteurs prioritaires du CCI et la contribution de la diaspora. Gouvernance Politique Dialogue Nationale Gouvernance économique et développement institutionnel Relance économique Accès aux services de base.

16:15-16:30 Pause Santé 16:30-17:30 Résultats des groupes de travail présentés par les rapporteurs en pléniére

17:30_17:45 Conclusion de la Conférence par les Ministres Allen Carroll et Pierre Petttigrew

Conseil d’administration de la Journée

Coordonnateurs: Une équipe sous la Direction de Guillaume B(Babaras Chanteuse), Jonas Pierre-louis,Faroll? Harry Clerveau (syndicaliste ) Romain E(Eugenia) B.Dorvil

Ordre et Discipline : Anne Métellus

Adresse du Spectacle : Centre Mont-Royal. 2220, rue Mansfield, Montréal, Canada (centreville)

Protectorate Haiti, Part I

For readers in Montreal, there will be a demonstration tomorrow (Saturday Dec 11) at a conference where Canada’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister will be meeting the coup-installed Prime Minister Latortue. It is billed as a meeting with the Haitian diaspora, but the Lavalas party, which is being exterminated in Haiti right now, will not have a chance to participate.

I will be posting the document motivating the conference in another entry. It is an amazing piece, with all its talk on ‘state failure’ and the need to intervene to stop it. The question of why or how the state failed — as a direct result of external intervention, or why it is an ongoing failure (same reason) doesn’t seem to come up.

Below is the hastily put together urgent note about the demonstration. The Haitians meeting Martin and Pettigrew are denounced in it as the ‘Chalabis of Haiti’. This might be uncharitable to Chalabi. Allawi is probably a better analogue.

DEMONSTRATION * DEMONSTRATION* DEMONSTRATION

SUPPORT THE HAITIAN COMMUNITY IN THEIR PROTEST AGAINST THE ARRIVAL OF THE DE FACTO PRIME MINISTER OF HAITI IN MONTREAL.

Conference de Montreal avec la Diaspora Haitienne 10-11 Decembre 2004 Centre Mont-Royal, 2222 rue Mansfield Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Friday 5-9 PM, Saturday 11AM – 5PM

**Paul Martin and murderer Latortue speak at around 12:00 Saturday**

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUESTED – URGENT ACTION ALERT

On December 10 and 11, 2004 Gerald Latortue and others from the Haitian diaspora with zero credibility with the masses in Haiti will be meeting in Montreal with Canadian Prime Minister, Paul Martin, Foreign Minister Pierre Pettigreww and others to decide the destiny of Haiti. None of the officially designated spokespersons for the Lavalas party nor any credible grassroots peace and justice leaders for Haiti, abroad or in Haiti, with an active following, are invited.

In fact, it is these participants opinion that “Lavalas is the past” and only those chosen by Canada to attend shall have a say in what is to be done with Haiti and its nine million people, their culture, domestic economy, group identity and revolutionary legacy.

The Canadians and internationals are talking, among other things, about putting Haiti under the long term tutelage of foreigners as a “protectorate.” Obviously, with this talk of a “protectorate” the idea of free and fair elections has taken a back seat, perhaps for as long as 10 to 20 years, the numbers being thrown about for this “protectorate” to be imposed on Haiti’s helpless peoples.

We urge our entire network in Canada to write, call and fax Paul Martin and Pierre Pettigrew to denounce this flagrant attempt to further isolate Haiti’s poor and steal their right to choose their own leaders and representatives. Those who live in the U.S. may e-mail Paul Martin and Pierre Pettigrew as follows: pmartin@fin.qc.ca , pm@pm.qc.ca , pierre@pierrepettigrew.ca , pettip@parl.qc.ca , pettigrew.p@parl.qc.ca and Pettigrew.P@parl.gc.ca with cc’s to: pettigrew.p@parl.qc.ca, info@oneconservativevoice.com, grahab8@parl.gc.ca , grahab@teammartin.ca, cotlei1@parl.gc.ca, jsaada.mp@videotron.ca, harper.s@parl.gc.ca, kathieangelo@shaw.ca, Reynolds.J@parl.qc.ca, menziest@tetus.net, Menzies.T@parl.qc.ca, mp@chuckstrahl.com, Strahl.C@parl.gc.ca, ducepg1@parl.qc.ca, Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca, ducepg@parl.qc.ca, Lalonde.F@parl.qc.ca, desroo@parl.qc.ca, desroo1@parl.qc.ca, bourgd1@parl.qc.ca, D.Bourgeois@parl.qc.ca, bourgd@parl.qc.ca, andreg1@parl.qc.ca, Andre_G@parl.qc.ca, layton.j@parl.gc.ca, Blaikie.B@parl.qc.ca, blaikbl@parl.qc.ca, mcdonough.a@parl.qc.ca, pierre@pierrepettigrew.ca, alexa@hfx.eastlink.ca .

bcc: vwazanset@mail.com Erzilidanto@aol.com (See, Canadian Officials Contact info below for detail on these e-mails addresses.)

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

l. Montreal Conference with the Chalabis of Haiti by Marguerite Laurent, December 6, 2004 2.The Official invitation to the Canadian Conference on Dec. 11-12, 2004 (See also, The Focal paper at: www.focal.ca , (in French & English). This Canadian Foundation For the America’s paper reveals part of the agenda to be discussed: The Role for Canada in Post-Aristide Haiti: Structures, Options and Leadership!!!)

*

Montreal Conference with the Chalabis of Haiti by Marguerite Laurent, December 6, 2004

Below is an announcement of a Conference to be held by the Chalabis of Haiti* and their International sponsors in Canada on December 10 and 11, 2004.

The same Canadian officials, who conspired to destroy Haiti’s democracy with the forceful removal of Haiti’s elected government, are currently in the process of following through with the international community’s ultimate plans to place Haiti under direct occupation with the pretext of an “international protectorate.” To that end, Canadian foreign Minister Pierre Pettigrew is holding a meeting with the Chalabis of Haiti on December 10-11, 2004 in Montreal. The Government of Canada is proceeding with its war on the Haitian people in the form of this new conference ostensibly to be attended by the “leaders in the Haitian community abroad.” However, the leaders in the Haitian community who have credibility with the grassroots movements for democracy in Haiti are not invited or welcomed to attend this meeting. Yes! Authorized Lavalas officials and grassroots leaders from Haiti and abroad are not invited. Thus, this is simply another Canadian attempt, like to Ottawa Initiative, to further humiliate the people of Haiti.

We at the Haitian Lawyers’ Leadership take this opportunity to state that the Chalabis of Canada, like Gerald Latortue and his “interim government,” have absolutely no popular base in Haiti or abroad.

Nothing shall endow the Chalabis of Haiti with credibility they do not own. We again denounce, in the strongest of terms, all efforts whatsoever, by these un-electable warmongers to take completely from the Haitian people, their right to self-rule, their independence and dignity.

Moreover, the Canadian officials calling for this conference have no credibility with protecting the rule of law in Haiti. (http://www.haiti-progres.com/2003/sm030305/eng03-05.html ) They are not unbiased. This new “Ottawa Initiative” conference, to be held in Canada next week, is just as reprehensible as the first one in January 2003.

No resolution to come out of this new “Ottawa Initiative”, this time with the Chalabis of Haiti actually in the room, in attendance with the foreign interventionist, shall have any validity or be relevant whatsoever to the pro-democracy movement and resistance against such organized tyranny in Haiti or aborad.

“We are under extreme pressure from the international community to use violence,” General Augusto Heleno Ribeiro told a congressional commission in Brazil. “I command a peacekeeping force, not an occupation force … we are not there to carry out violence, this will not happen for as long as I’m in charge of the force.”

He cited the United States, France and Canada among countries pressing for the use of force against armed groups.” ( http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6983380&src=rss/worldNews )

For two hundred years, Haiti’s greatest problem has been foreign domination, debt and dependency.

No receivership by the U.N. nor by any U.N official, whether his name is Gerald Latortue or Kofi Annan, is an acceptable solution to the problem forced-on the Haitian people when Canada, France and the U.S. conspired with these Chalabis of Haiti to overthrow the democratically elected government of Haiti.

By any means necessary, we commit, that, in this year marking Haiti’s 200th anniversary of independence, no occupation shall be legitimized or given a credible “Haitian” facade. This new attempt by Canada, to choose Haitians with absolutely no democratic constituency, both abroad and in Haiti, to better exploit what is left of the Haitian people’s dignity and revolutionary legacy is evil and reprehensible.

Colonialism is an act of war. Haitians worldwide intend to come together to denounce, in one voice, all efforts by the morally repugnant elites of Haiti and their various petit bourgeois wannabees, abroad or in Haiti, to legitimize rule by gun, violence, foreign troops and through feeding the world lies about their dirty hands and good and benevolent intentions. Only free and fair elections in Haiti is acceptable to good-willed Haitians authentically concerned with peace and security for the currently disenfranchised Haitian nation. No Bosnia or African-continent-type receivership by the Western powers shall be deemed a “helpful alternative” to the current chaos and destruction forced upon the Haitian people by the international community led by the United States, Canada and France and the Chalabis of Haiti.

We demand the immediate return of the rule of law to Haiti and respect for the ballot box. Paul Martin and Pierre Pettigrew’s efforts to cement the Feb. 29, 2004 victory over the ballot by putting a “Haitian face” to the Canadian/France/US-led effort to re-colonize the people of Haiti are transparent and repulsive to the extreme, not to mention another callous example of their bottomless racism.

No Haitian worthy of the gift of liberty fought and bled for by our African ancestors shall stand silent as this final humiliation is being metered upon all of us by Paul Martin, Pierre Petttigrew, Jack Chirac or George W. Bush and the Chalabis of Haiti. We shall agitate, agitate, agitate until Haiti is free, all political prisoner liberated and the Chalabis of Haiti and their death squad mercenaries are brought to justice.

Marguerite Laurent, Esq. Founder and Chair, Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network December 7, 2004 www.ezilidanto.com erzilidanto@aol.com

*The Chalabis of Haiti spread disinformation about the destabilization and overthrow of Haiti’s Constitutional government, recognize the illegitimate Latitude as their leader and cannot agree to free and fair elections in Haiti because they owe their jobs and positions with the international community from supporting the rule of force, the former military, the FRAPH assassins and drug dealers, the killing of the poor resisters of their brutality and from the orchestrated chaos and social inequities in Haiti. With reference to this Montreal Conference, they are all Haitians who attend this travesty and, in particular those publicly identified to be going to said thieving gathering to further try and sell the last shreds of the Haitian peoples” sovereignty and dignity:

Gerald Latortue Guillaume B(Babaras Chanteuse), Jonas Pierre-louis, Faroll? Harry Clerveau (syndicaliste ) Romain E(Eugenia) B.Dorvil Anne Métellus Group 184 Members of the former Haitian military and FRAPH All supporters of the violent overthrow of Haiti’s democratically elected government. And, bitter ex-Lavalas with an ax to grind or who bought-off by the Chalabis and Mr. Let’s-Hoard-It-All-Imperialist.

Immigration news from Canuckistan

I think it was Pat Buchanan who called Canada “Soviet Canuckistan” but I don’t quite remember.

At any rate, Canada’s latest moves in the immigration sphere (and Haiti, see next entry) would probably go a ways to placate folks like Pat, since they do just what the empire dreamed of.

Got this note in email about the Orwellian-named ‘Safe Third Country’ agreement. Simply put, it means that if the US kicks you out, Canada won’t take you. Nice!

US-CANADA AGREEMENT KICKS IN

On Nov. 24 US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Eduardo Aguirre announced the Nov. 29 publication of a final rule implementing a bilateral agreement affecting asylum seekers at US-Canada land border ports-of-entry. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule, which takes effect Dec. 29, requires migrants seeking asylum in the US or Canada to apply in whichever of the countries they arrived in first. The rule does allow those with a close relative in Canada to claim asylum at a border crossing, and bars removal of applicants to a third country pending a final ruling on their case.

Some 12,000 to 15,000 immigrants in the US apply for asylum in Canada, according to official statistics. The rule also affects about 200 migrants a year who enter the US through Canada each year to seek asylum. Advocates fear the rule will fuel illegal border crossings, since those who enter Canada without detection can still seek asylum there.

The “Safe Third Country Agreement” was signed by the US and Canada on Dec. 5, 2002, after being introduced in a 30-point “Smart Border Declaration” signed by the two countries in December 2001 [see INB 1/10/03]. The agreement could not take effect until both countries published final regulations. Canada published its regulations on Nov. 3. [DHS Press Release 11/24/04; Federal Register 11/29/04; AP 11/29/04; Vive Inc. Press Release 11/29/04; Immigration Equality Press Release 11/29/04]

In addition to this agreement, Canada’s Court of Appeals has ruled that the ‘security certificate’ system, by which a couple of officials signing a warrant means that an immigrant can be detained indefinitely without due process (and that means without even access to the evidence against them), is ‘constitutional’. That would seem to suggest a problem either with the court or with the constitution. Using these ‘certificates’, Adil Charkaoui has been ‘held’ for 20 months. Mohammad Harkat was arrested two years ago. And of course Maher Arar was deported to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for 10 months.

The text of the decision contains typical contortions: “The appellant has been unable to demonstrate that the procedure for reviewing the reasonableness of the security certificate issued against him … do not meet the requirements of the Charter.” The judges said that if evidence could harm ‘national security’, then the authorities can suppress it.

The things that are done in the name of ‘national security’…

But it won’t all happen without a fight. Below is a note from a group called the ‘Human Rights Action Committee’. They are camping out in front of Immigration Canada offices for 4 days on rotating hunger strike (in the cold!)

Details below.

— Refugees camping out in front of Immigration Canada offices for 3 nights and 4 days

— Protesters burn documents to protest “racist and incompetent” IRB

[There are 18 photos to accompany this article, available at: http://gallery.cmaq.net/Refugee-camp-out-at-Montreal-IRB

Article available at: http://www.cmaq.net

An audio interview with one of the organizers of the protest is available at: http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=10589]

MONTREAL (December 9, 2004) — At least two dozen refugee claimants, members of the Human Rights Action Committee (HRAC), have been camping outside the Montreal offices of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) since this past Tuesday. They will remain on their camp-out until the evening of December 10, which is International Human Rights Day.

The protesters have also been maintaining a rotating hunger strike, for at least 24 hours each. Their actions are aimed to raise awareness about the unjust practices of the IRB, and the potential deportation of hundreds of refugee claimants from India in the coming months.

The HRAC is comprised of self-organized, mainly Punjabi-speaking, refugees. The protesters at the IRB range in age from 24 to 70. All the hunger strikers are refused refugee claimants who personally face deportation.

The HRAC’s main demands include an end to deportations and the regularization of all non-status people in Canada. As well, they are demanding specific changes in the refugee-determination process, including a refugee appeal division, an end to single-judge panels.

Currently, a single judge determines whether a claimant is a refugee or not, and there is no appeal on the merits of a claim, despite promises by the federal government to establish an appeals division in 2002. As part of the protest, the HRAC is highlighting the “racist and incompetent” practices of IRB judges, and were naming specific judges who were notorious for their rejection of refugee claims.

To denounce the behavior of certain judges, the protesters burned various articles and reports documenting human rights abuses by the Indian police and government in the Punjab. Their action was meant to highlight how some judges don’t even bother to read the extensive documentation that support refugee claims.

The rotating hunger strike and camp-out began on Tuesday morning, and demonstrators have slept overnight outside the IRB since then. Two large mattresses have been placed beside the building, as well as dozens of heavy blankets to keep the demonstrators warm in the sub-zero winter weather.

The Human Rights Action Committee’s rotating hunger strike and camp-out follows many months of protests, lobbying and media work on behalf of hundreds of failed refugee claimants and illegal immigrants in Montreal and Toronto. They have demonstrated outside of both Prime Minister Paul Martin’s and Immigration Minister Judy Sgro’s constituency offices multiple times, and have met with dozens of Members of Parliament, as well as collecting thousands of names on a petition.

The HRAC is part of the Solidarity Across Borders network in Montreal, which brings together self-organized, directly-affected refugee groups and individuals, and their allies, in a common campaign for justice and dignity for all immigrants and refugees. Solidarity Across Borders and the HRAC will be planning more actions and activities in the coming months.

–> To get in touch with the Human Rights Action Committee: hrac@sympatico.ca or 514-952-2279.

–> To get in touch with the Solidarity Across Borders network in Montreal: noii-montreal@resist.ca or 514-859-9023.

Text by JBS Photos by Kumar and Singh Audio by Samira Rahmani

Dear Pierre Pettigrew

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister wrote an article in the National Post, a far-right daily pamphlet dressed up as a newspaper, about Canada’s new posture at the United Nations, on Dec 4. Given that the paper’s late owner, Israel Asper, publicly denounced the Canadian public media for being ‘anti-Israel’ (the evidence on the Canadian media points in the opposite direction) it is telling that Pettigrew would use the Post as the organ in which to write to the Canadian public. The article is telling in other ways as well. Here I paste the article and reply to it point-by point, as if I were writing an email to Mr. Pettigrew.

National Post
Saturday, December 4, 2004

Page A22
Canada’s role in the Middle East peace process
Pierre Pettigrew, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Recent weeks have witnessed rumours that Canada has a new Middle East policy, and that our government will change the way it votes on United Nations resolutions pertaining to that region. In the interests of dispelling confusion, I am eager to share with your readers the principles underlying our continuing policy.

Pierre, they were not ‘rumours’. They were statements by Canada’s ambassador to the UN, Allan Rock. Rock said that these resolutions – which are introduced into the general assembly year after year because any resolution that gets to the Security Council that might provide some protection for the Palestinians is instantly vetoed by the United States – are ‘unhelpful’ and that Canada will now be voting against them. There are usually only a handful of countries who vote against them – The US, Micronesia, Israel itself, and a handful of other islands utterly beholden to the US. With this change, Canada will be joining the US and Israel in international isolation. Your hope, and the hope of Israel and the US, is no doubt that this will break the international isolation of Israel and the US. It could happen. But while Israel and the US (and soon Canada) will be isolated in world opinion, it is the Palestinians who will be more isolated in real terms by Canada’s abandonment of any pretense of wanting justice in Israel/Palestine.

Canada’s Middle East policy is focused above all on the goal of peace and security for all peoples of the region. It is anchored in our support for international law and our desire to play a constructive role in the search for a lasting settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

Surely, Pierre, you understand that if Canada had ‘support for international law’ it would have to get Israel to declare its borders? Surely it would support the UN resolutions 194 and 242 so that the general assembly wouldn’t have to keep introducing resolutions that are routinely violated and ignored? Do you know how many international laws Israel is currently violating? Do you realize that collective punishment is a daily reality in Israel, that hundreds of children have been killed, that 22% of children in Gaza were malnourished due to Israel’s closures policy as of last October according to the UN Special Rapporteur for food? If Canada ‘supported international law’, it would be doing the exact opposite of what it is doing.

Canada continues to oppose all actions in contravention of international law, in particular when they might prejudge the outcome of negotiations.

Do you have any specific actions in mind? Perhaps the high profile assassinations Israel engages in whenever there is any kind of ceasfire? The major bombings in Gaza that killed dozens of people in each assassination?

The core tenets of Canada’s Middle East policy can be summarized as follows:

In these tenets, and their order, you reveal a lot about Canada’s policy.

support for Israel and its security;

You mention this first, even though Israel is a massive military power with unconditional support from the world’s only superpower and faces no threats to its security. Israeli citizens face a threat to their security, but this threat is nowhere near close to the threat to that Palestinians face, on any scale and in any time period, and the only real way to deal with this threat is through an end to the occupation.

support for Palestinian aspirations to statehood to be achieved through negotiation;

This is also very telling. Palestinian security is not a tenet of Canadian Middle East policy, evidently. Only ‘aspirations to statehood’, and there qualified that these are to be achieved through negotiation. Israel’s statehood was not achieved through negotiation, but through war and ethnic cleansing. Likewise the United States, through war and genocide. Canada’s statehood was achieved through a combination of negotiation and dispossession of the indigenous peoples. Palestinian statehood will be achieved when Palestinians have enough power – mostly political power – to force Israel and the United States to stop the project of dispossessing and destroying them. Without a change in the power relation or in the US/Israel agenda, negotiation will mean nothing. It is interesting that Canada is willing to stand unconditionally to protect something that is already assured (Israel’s security) but only willing to support Palestinian aspirations if they are achieved through negotiation. This contribution makes an unbalanced situation less balanced.

support for the peace process as currently defined in the Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Crisis, which was endorsed by the international community in 2003;

But Pierre, the only meaningful and formal institution of the ‘international community’ is the United Nations itself. This ‘international community’ that endorsed the road map was a committee put together by the United States to circumvent the UN, and the resolutions that offer a basis for a really just solution. Making the road map, which Bush and Sharon have already scrapped, a ‘core tenet’ of Canadian policy, is turning your back on international law, on the world, on reality, and of course on the Palestinians.

an abhorrence for terrorism;

It might be helpful, Pierre, if you would offer a coherent definition of terrorism. If you define it like the US army does, ‘violence directed against civilians for political goals’, then Israel’s terrorism is far greater, more systematic, and more abhorrent than anything the Palestinians could do. What is more, Israel’s terrorism is that of a state, guided by a democratic (for some) system, and supported from the outside (by the US and by Canada), whereas Palestinian terrorism is that of an utterly hopeless, desperate people who are fighting against extermination. The former could be turned off with a simple decision. The latter, being a reaction to the former, would stop shortly afterwards. If you really ‘abhorred terrorism’, you would be changing Canada’s policy in the opposite direction.

our condemnation of incitement to hate;

This is odd, considering you are writing for the National Post, which ran a picture of a Palestinian militant shortly after 9/11, explicitly linking Palestinians with ‘terrorism’, when there were hate crimes going on against Muslims in Canada. Perhaps you should consider condemning the paper you are writing for. You could also consider condemning the Toronto Star’s Rosie Dimanno and the Globe’s Margaret Wente. They do frequent incitements to hate.

our support for democracy and human rights;

Do Foreign Ministers read? If so, can I recommend a few books for you? Start with Uri Davis, ‘Apartheid Israel’. That might tell you something about what you need to do to support ‘democracy’ in Israel. On human rights, try the Israeli human rights organization, Btselem. You might find that ‘support for democracy and human rights’ would entail a different change in Canada’s policy.

and our commitment to the fairness of international efforts to promote peace, notably at the United Nations.

But not UN resolutions on the conflict, including the crucial ones, 194 and 242?

These principles have been developed and upheld by successive Canadian governments over the past six decades. In expressing these principles, governments have always had to take into account the situation in the region.

This is true, though perhaps not in the way you mean. The situation in the region today is dire. Israel’s wall has turned the West Bank into a set of prisons. Gaza has long since been a prison. Palestinians are starving inside the walls, and it is Israel’s deliberate policy to starve them. There are 400,000 colonists in the Occupied Territories, who travel on Jewish-only roads and have many rights over Palestinians that Palestinians do not have. There are hundreds of children in Israeli prisons. There are hundreds of Palestinians being killed and injured each month by the occupying army. And more, the United States is unconditionally supporting all of this. Israel is deliberately trying to make life intolerable for Palestinians, and Palestinian society and infrastructure is collapsing under the strain. The need for the ‘international community’ to intervene somehow to protect Palestinians is urgent. And Canada is moving instead towards Israel.

In this regard, a conjunction of events has created a historic window of opportunity.

This is preposterous, and it is unfortunate that you think so. I assume this is code language for the idea that Arafat’s death now makes peace possible. The truth is that, as the 81-year old Gush Shalom founder Uri Avnery argued, Arafat was the one Palestinian figure who would actually have been able to concede a tremendous amount to Israel and make peace on terms very favourable to Israel. Now that he is gone, Israelis can celebrate in the streets and Canadian pundits can pontificate about opportunities, but Palestinians will not accept colonization. Israel won’t accept anything else unless it has to. Since Canada will be helping Israel, Canada will be supporting the further violent destruction of Palestinian society. And providing a cover for it.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has stated unequivocally that the international community must be prepared to act decisively to help the Palestinians and Israelis transform this opportunity into real progress. The Prime Minister has indicated that Canada will contribute actively to a revived peace process. Canada has long been associated with international monitoring and support for democracy and good governance. All of these will be highly relevant in the Middle East in months ahead.

They could be, if Israel were to end the occupation. But no one, not even you, believes that Israel has any intention of doing so. That means that Canada won’t have anything to ‘monitor’, and any ‘monitoring’ will actually be providing a sleazy political cover for an ongoing project of ethnic cleansing.

Each time I consider a United Nations General Assembly resolution pertaining to the Middle East conflict, I ask myself how it contributes to the overall objective of a just and lasting settlement. I aim to judge each resolution on its merits.

Perhaps then, in your reply, you could provide your assessment of the several dozen UN resolutions that Israel is in violation of. Your assessment of the key resolutions, mentioned several times now, would also be appreciated.

In reviewing the long history of the resolutions adopted every year at the General Assembly, I have concluded that some, including some that Canada supported, have contributed neither to strengthening dialogue nor enhancing trust between the parties. The scrutiny of the practices and responsibilities of only one of the parties undermines the likelihood of any implementation effort.

This is the most appalling section of your article, Pierre. There are not ‘two parties’ in this conflict that can be equated. The problem is not that they need to ‘dialogue’ and build trust. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening. There is a stateless, defenseless population on the one hand and one of the world’s most powerful states, backed by the world’s most powerful state, on the other. The Palestinians are trying to survive and Israel, with the support of the US, is trying to drive them out. There are no conditions for ‘dialogue’. Israel is the occupying power. Palestinians are the occupied. The idea that ‘scrutinizing’ the occupier is somehow unbalancing can only be interpreted as an unequivocal statement in favour of ongoing occupation and ethnic cleansing.

The responsibilities of both parties should be emphasized, consistent with their Roadmap obligations, and fair criticism should be applied on both sides when appropriate.

If that were the case, you should be applying a vast preponderance of criticism to the Israeli side and the Israeli party, since it is the most powerful, the most responsible, and by far the worse violator of human rights, principles of law, and justice.

For example, references to Israeli security needs are often overlooked in General Assembly resolutions.

This is ironic, since you couldn’t find it in yourself to say a word about security for Palestinians in your article. Nor would this specious argument about Israeli security hold up in the face of any facts (see btselem.org for some such facts).

It is in light of such considerations that I recently decided that Canada must oppose two particularly unhelpful UN resolutions expressing support for the conclusions of the UN’s Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices, and its Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People.

I want to stress that these votes do not mean that Canada is somehow opposed to Palestinian rights.

They do not mean that Canada is ‘somehow’ opposed, they mean that Canada is specifically opposed to international law as it pertains to Palestinian human rights. They mean that Canada has aligned itself with the US and Israel’s policies of occupation and invasion against the ideas that motivate the United Nations and the whole idea of international law.

Rather, they reflect our growing dissatisfaction with the work of the two UN Committees and the contents of the resolutions dealing with them.

Dissatisfaction, it’s worth repeating, based on the idea that the occupier is being scrutinized too much and the occupied too little.

At the same time, I decided to support the General Assembly’s resolution on
the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East, which is consistent with the Canadian government’s nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy, and our ongoing non-proliferation efforts in the region.

Is this code language as well? Will you be making public statements against Israel’s nuclear arsenal the way Rock made public chastisements against the UN general assembly?

These decisions, taken together, reflect Canada’s policy and are a testament to our determination to make UN processes more relevant, fair and useful.

Again, Pierre, an interesting choice of words: ‘relevant’ and ‘useful’. You have accomplished both. It was George Bush, after all, who, last year, warned that if the UN didn’t ratify the Iraq invasion and occupation it would be ‘irrelevant’. This decision helps make the UN more ‘relevant’ in Bush’s sense: it makes the UN more subservient to US power. As for ‘useful’, you have made the UN more ‘useful’ to those who want to pursue the goals of ethnic cleansing and colonization.

We shall continue to align our votes with evolving conditions on the ground and our hopes for the region, and we hope others will do likewise.

And there, in the ‘we hope others will do likewise’, lies the key to the whole maneuver: to try to break the international consensus on justice for Palestinians.

While a peaceful solution to the Middle East conflict can only come from a negotiated agreement between the parties, the international community can play a greater, more constructive role.

This is again true, though again not in the sense you mean.

Prime Minister Martin’s commitment to assist the parties on the ground is real, and will require us to consider a broad range of initiatives aimed at promoting peace and stability. We have offered to help with the coming Palestinian elections. We also want to support the Palestinian people in their efforts at building the capacities that are critical to a stable government. The seriousness of our commitment will be actively reflected in the extent of our engagement.

We look forward to working with other nations of the world to enhance the prospects for a true and lasting peace in the Middle East.

If you want to enhance those prospects, you shall have to not only reverse the course you are on, but go considerably farther in the other direction. You would have to find a way to say the word ‘occupation’ in your public statements. You would have to actually ‘support international law’. You would have to do some reading beyond the National Post – perhaps some literature by Israeli scholars and journalists would help, if you’re not ready to read Palestinians (your penchant for ‘both parties’, though, should mean you ought to be willing to do that). I could give you plenty of material. It might make you less ‘useful’ and ‘relevant’ in your chosen career path, though. On the other hand, it would be worth it if it could make you understand that everyone loses from this policy. Palestinians, because they lose another potentially neutral party and gain another powerful adversary. Israelis, because the path of ethnic cleansing they are on is ultimately suicidal. And Canadians, too, because even if you don’t, others understand that Canada has decided to fan the flames of destruction by supporting the vastly more powerful side at a crucial time.

American Empire and the Fourth World

Since the US election, I have been thinking more about North America. I’ve been thinking about what it means for those of us who focus on foreign policy and imperialism issues to focus on those parts of the world that are affected by these things. We try to present the voices of people there who never get heard, to present stories about the consequences of what ‘our’ governments and ‘our’ corporations are doing, to try to motivate people here to pressure those institutions to give people in the third world some breathing room.

Continue reading “American Empire and the Fourth World”

Dec 6 and massacre(s)

On this day 15 years ago a man named Marc Lepine walked into the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and murdered 14 women with a shotgun before killing himself. Lepine said: “You’re all a bunch of feminists!” as he did the killing.

On the one hand it was the act of a crazed individual. On the other it was a symptom of sexism, misogyny, and violence against women that plagues our society. The choice of an engineering school was deliberate. In a time when the models for sexual relations are those offered by theocracy and served up in movements of puritans and Christian fundamentalists on one side and the exploitative and dehumanizing world of commercial sex industry (and its lite versions on reality TV) it is a good day to reflect on how far we still have to go.

I also wanted to note a massacre that occurred on November 20, by landowners in Brazil against landless peasants. 5 peasants were murdered rancher gunmen (I am including the note from the MST, Brazil’s landless peasant’s movement, below). Because this blog so often discusses conflicts like those in Colombia, Palestine, or Iraq, it is worth noting that in this case there appears to be a chance that justice will be done. Paramilitarism might have arrived in Brazil, but there is still a chance that the battle against impunity could succeed.

URGENT ACTION NEEDED: Massacre of Landless Workers in Felizburgo – MG

So Paulo, November 23 2004.
From: MST Human Rights Sector of the MST

Dear friends,

By means of this letter we want to inform you of what happened in Minas Gerais, where five landless workers living in encampments were killed.

On November 20, around noon, about 200 families who were occupying the Nova Alegria Ranch since May 1, 2002, were surprised by a volley of bullets fired off by 18 gunmen, three of them hooded. The men, coordinated by Sr. Adriano Shafico and his cousin who were strongly armed, killed five workers. Four died on the spot and another died after being taken to the hospital.

The comrades slain were Iraguiar Ferreira da Silva (23), Miguel Jos dos Santos (56) Francisco Nascimento Rocha (62), Juvenal Jorge da Silva (between 65 and 70) and Joaquim Jos dos Santos, (between 65 and 70)

More than 13 workers were shot and three are in serious condition (transferred to the hospital in the municipality of Te filo Otoni/MG). Among the wounded there is a 12 year-old child. Besides the shootings, the gunmen set fire to all the shacks. The Nova Alegria Ranch is located in the municipality of Felizburgo, In the region of Vale do Jequitinhonha, state of Minas Gerais.

The Land Institute of Minas Gerais (ITER) has stated that the ranch is vacant and belongs to the state of Minas Gerais. But because of the slowness of the Judiciary, the process of settling the families has not been completed.

Aware of this situation, the rancher spent these past two years making every type of provocation and threats and even kidnapped teenagers, trying to do everything to drive the landless out of the area.

The solidarity pouring in to the encampment is great: many people, including workers, popular leaders, unionists, supporters and authorities from all over the country are arriving.

On Sunday the 21st Sunday, Miguel Rosseto (Minister of Agrarian Development), Holf Hackbart (President of the Institute for Colonization and Land Reform – INCRA) and Nilmario Miranda (Special Presidential Secretary for Human Rights) were there, promising to make an example of the punishment in this case.

The surviving victims testified and three gunmen are already jailed. Arrest warrants have been issued for Adriano Shafico and another nine people. Evidence against the rancher is substantial: he planned, contracted the gunmen, and personally participated in the massacre, according to the testimony of nearly all the victim witnesses.

The Landless Workers Movement (MST) hopes that Justice will be established, that all the gunmen and the rancher who hired them are immediately arrested. And that the government of the state of Minas Gerais take possession of the area to distribute the land to the workers.

The state government and the unproductive latifndio are responsible for this massacre. The state of Minas Gerais possesses 11 million hectares of vacant land and does nothing to speed up land reform in the state and the judiciary does not respond rapidly to the processes of expropriation.

While Land Reform remains on paper, the landless farmers continue being victimized.

We ask you to send messages to the authorities listed below, demanding the arrest of the gunmen and those who gave them orders, the immediate settlement of the families in the area and a speedy implementation of land reform:

Governor of Minas Gerais – A cio Neves
Praa da Liberdade S/n (Palacio da Liberdade) – Funcionarios Belo Horizonte – CEP: 30.140-912
Fax: (31) 3250 6339
email: governadorgab@governo.mg.gov.br

Minister of Justice – Marcio Thomaz Bastos
Esplanada dos Ministrios – Bloco T – 4 Andar – Sala 400
CEP: 70064-900 – Bras lia/DF
Fax: 61 322 – 6817
email: gabinetemj@mj.gov.br

Special Secretary for Human Rights – Nilmario Miranda
Esplanada dos Ministrios – Bloco T – 4 Andar – Sala 422
CEP: 70064-900 – Bras lia/DF
Fax: 61 223 – 2260
email: nilmario.miranda@sedh.gov.br or direitoshumanos@sedh.gov.br

Please send a copy of the message to
Human Rights Sector of the MST
Alameda Baro de Limeira, 1232
Campos El seos, SP/SP
CEP: 01202-002
fax: (11) 3361-3866
sdh@mst.org.br

Abuse, real and metaphorical

I know readers might be sick of hearing torture described as ‘abuse’, so let’s talk about a form of abuse that even the abused describe as abuse: domestic abuse.

I want to talk about two examples. First, is an article that came in the email. I’m not sure where it was published, so I’m posting it below as an appendix. It’s by Mel Gilles, who is an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, who makes the analogy between abuse and politics. It is an interesting piece on political psychology. I really don’t like analogies to domestic abuse or rape generally. I feel that some things ought not to be made analogies of. But this one, perhaps because it comes from someone who really understands abuse, isn’t like most of the superficial parallels that are drawn. All of it is quotable and it is a nice short piece, so read it. But I’ll just give you a flavor:

They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive.

Having recommended that, I want to tell you of a case of real abuse and its bizarre handling by the various immigration systems of the world. I heard of this case from OCAP and I am pasting their appeals on it below.

This is the story of a mother and an 11-year old boy, Daniel Isakov and his mom Irina. They tried to claim refugee status, coming here from Israel. They are Russian jews who came to Canada to flee from Daniel’s abusive father. They’ve been in Canada 6 years. Canada refused their claim and then their appeal. Meanwhile Israel, it turns out, has a policy of stripping people of citizenship if they apply for refugee status. This is obviously a policy designed to try to take citizenship away from Israeli Palestinians who might be fleeing persecution, but an automatic policy is an automatic policy and Israel has applied it to the Daniel and Irina. To quote OCAP’s appeal:

Being forced to return to Israel has always been Irina and Daniel’s greatest fear. When they arrive in Israel on December 1st, they will have no money and no place to live. They have no family or friends there and Irina has no prospects for employment. As well, Daniel has excelled in school here. The Israeli public school system caters strongly to Hebrew-speaking Jews. Daniel does not speak Hebrew and does not practice Judaism, given this, it will be very difficult for him to find appropriate public schooling. Irina has tried desperately to negotiate their return to Russia instead, where at least her mother and sister live and they have a home to move into. Immigration Canada refused to do even this.

It’s now December 3. Were Daniel and Irina deported? No:

Last night, December 1st, 11 year old Daniel and his mother were supposed to board a plane to be deported to Israel. They did not show up for their deportation. Instead, they joined the estimated 200 000 Immigrants living “underground” in Canada.

This is how people who are abused can be abused again by cold bureaucracies and racist policies. See Appendix 2 for details.

Appendix 1 : Mel Gilles’s article

Deride and Conquer
The Politics of Victimization

[By: Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.]

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, ‘Why did they beat me?’
And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can’t stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can’t seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.
Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won’t; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don’t do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don’t do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don’t resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you’ve learned, and that you aren’t going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it’s better than the abuse.
We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don’t know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don’t let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he’ll win, not because he’s right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, ‘loose’, irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.
Even if you do everything right, they’ll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don’t even know they are being hit.

Mel Gilles at 07:31 PM on November 07, 2004