The Case of Manuel Rozental

He’s a friend and mentor of mine, so this is a matter of personal interest for me as well. Here is a communique from the indigenous movement in Northern Cauca about how Manuel was forced to flee. I did the translation.

The Price of Our Struggle: Individuals and Groups, using threats and dirty war, seek to silence us
Action Alert

Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN)

October 29, 2005

The Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca (ACIN) –CXAB WALA KIWE, announces the following to national and international public opinion.

Continue reading “The Case of Manuel Rozental”

Sometimes Why is the Wrong Question

I’ve never met Joe Emersberger, but he’s a tireless letter-writer, relentlessly logical, interested in Canada’s role in the world and the Americas, and so I can’t help but encourage his move towards article-writing and blogging. Here’s a short one he sent as a guest blog for the Killing Train:

WHY WOULD CANADA HELP HAITI’S POOR?
by Joe Emersberger

I’ve often stumbled over a simple question about Haiti – and I’ve seen others either struggle with it or evade it. Why is Canada involved with trampling over democracy and human rights in Haiti? Similar questions about the UN and US role in Haiti have left me sputtering. I haven’t been prepared for the question. I’ve underestimated the importance people would attach to it. Even when you provide compelling evidence of Canada’s crime people still look for a motive. That’s surprised me. Wary of giving a longwinded (and inevitably speculative) reply I’ve been tempted to respond “Why worry so much about the motive when guilt is so evident? If you catch murderers in the act do you worry about establishing their motives more than you do about stopping them?” But a reply like that is condescending and ineffective – as is an overly detailed history or economics lesson. I’ve decided to try something that I hope will make me more succinct and effective by appealing to common sense. I’m going to try to answer the question “why?” with “why not?”.

Why is Canada on the side of a brutal regime in Haiti?

Why would Canada defy the US over Haiti? If the US were willing to let Haitian democracy develop then so would Canada. But in the absence of serious opposition – as existed against the Iraq war or against co-operation with US missile “defense” – Canada will do the bidding of the US. Thanks to the mainstream media, among other actors, Canada pays a negligible price as it helps its largest trading partner crush Haiti. Canada isn’t going out of it’s way. It is following the path of least resistance. Reversing course, especially now, would be costly. It would take quite a public outcry to bring about.

Why does Canada’s mainstream news media cover up what’s going on?

Why wouldn’t they? Why would they stand up for the rights of millions of Haitians who make less than $2 per day, who don’t buy their newspapers, or buy what advertisers sell? Why would they anger wealthy owners and advertisers who are members of the class that is pushing for deeper integration with the US? The media doesn’t even have to put out a large quantity of biased reports to cover things up. It isn’t a story, like the war in Iraq, that is too big to bury. Ignoring Haiti is fairly easy.

Why is the US so eager to support repression in Haiti?

Why should the US allow meaningful democracy to develop in Haiti? Why would the US risk having such a development get out of hand and spread to other poor countries? The bargaining power the US (and Canadian) elite have over their workforce depends largely on the poverty and desperation of people in poor countries. Why would the US elite risk losing any bargaining power because of the dangerous example set in small countries like Haiti? Why take that risk, even if it’s minimal, if they can very inexpensively back the Haitian elite who pose no threat at all? They’ve backed them for over a century. Why stop now? Who is going to stop them?

I’m happy to report that people, even very conservative people, that I’ve encountered aren’t naive about what the Canadian government is capable of. However, they (and I) can easily lose sight of the fact that our government, like any other that exists, is a repression maximizing institution (part of being accountable mainly to profit maximizing institutions). It doesn’t need to be strongly coerced or enticed to do horrible things. All it needs is for the public to look the other way.

Serenity and Firefly (movie review)

A review of a seemingly little-known science fiction film called ‘Serenity’. Serenity is the creation of Joss Whedon, who is also the creator of the TV shows ‘Buffy’ and ‘Angel’. I didn’t follow either show, but occasionally tuning in, I found the dialogue and plot lines to be good.

So when a friend of mine bought the DVDs to the precursor of the ‘Serenity’ film, which was a TV series called ‘Firefly’, and loaned them to me, I was interested enough to give them a try. I ended up watching 14 episodes in about 3 days.

The TV show aired on Fox in 2002 and was cancelled before its first season was through. Its creators blame ‘reality tv’. In fact it was quite demanding of the audience.

The series and movie are of interest to me because, like any pop culture, I impose my own political views on it. The premise of the show is that, 500 years in the future, an ‘Alliance’ has ‘unified’ all of the inhabited planets (inhabited by humans, there are no alien races) of the galaxy in a massive war. On the other side of this war of ‘unification’ were the ‘Independents’, or ‘browncoats’, who fought for – well, independence, presumably. Among these independents was the main character of the show, captain Malcolm Reynolds, and his first officer, Zoe. Six years after the war ends, the show’s action starts – with the two of them and a handful of others doing small-scale smuggling operations and other little jobs and avoiding the Alliance.

It was so interesting to me because the captain is a character with really profound principles who had given up on the possibility of changing the world – the time for fighting had past, and he had to accept that his side had lost. Given the way the alliance forces look and act, the ‘independents’ had a kind of anti-imperialist flavour, to me. So how does one live one’s principles if one has already fought and lost? It’s interesting to watch it all play out.

The movie, ‘Serenity’, seemed to me in some ways to break with this a little. I hadn’t seen this break until a friend called attention to an ‘inspirational speech’ the captain gives the crew before they embark on a risky conflict with the Alliance. A friend of mine suggested she could almost see the American Flag unfurling in the background as the captain finished his speech. I didn’t see it that way and I’m still unsure whether that was there somewhere in the writer’s consciousness. From a war of colonial liberation, I wondered whether I had to recast the war between the ‘Alliance’ and the ‘Independents’ as a historical parallel with the American Civil War. That makes the captain an ex-Confederate soldier – which, for someone like me, makes him somewhat more difficult to identify with or admire.

The series, and the film, remain ambiguous enough that I believe one can impose one’s own politics on them. Like ‘Lord of the Rings’, which I know in some respects is probably a white supremacist fantasy about beating back the brown hordes – respects I decided I would ignore so that I could enjoy the story and the film.

If anyone’s watched it, I’d be curious what you think.

Two Faced in Haiti: Call it ‘social’ and not ‘political’

Last week we talked to Desmond Molloy, an old soldier who heads the ‘DDR’ program for MINUSTAH, the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti. ‘DDR’ stands for Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration. Molloy’s previous experience, among other conflicts, was in Sierra Leone. There, he explained, there were two armed sides – rebels and the government – waging a political and military conflict. In such conflicts opponents try to maximize advantages anticipating a solution, either by negotiation and treaty or total victory for one side and defeat for the other.

Continue reading “Two Faced in Haiti: Call it ‘social’ and not ‘political’”

If you don’t call it political, you can pretend it isn’t

[from port au prince]

Last week we talked to Desmond Molloy, an old soldier who heads the ‘DDR’ program for MINUSTAH, the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti. ‘DDR’ stands for Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration. Molloy’s previous experience, among other conflicts, was in Sierra Leone. There, he explained, there were two armed sides – rebels and the government – waging a political and military conflict. In such conflicts opponents try to maximize advantages anticipating a solution, either by negotiation and treaty or total victory for one side and defeat for the other.

Continue reading “If you don’t call it political, you can pretend it isn’t”

The Elections Game is On

The Southeast

We spent the weekend outside Port au Prince in the Southeast – in the city of Jacmel. Jacmel operates according to a slightly different logic. People are keen to tell you that things are a little less polarized there, unlike Port au Prince. Also unlike Port au Prince, there is 24-hour electricity.

That latter is something CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, might want to take credit for. CIDA contracted with Quebec’s energy company, Hydro-Quebec, to improve the electricity infrastructure in and around Jacmel. Impressed, we thought we would visit the hydroelectric facility, a small dam in Jacmel’s hinterland that produces some 1/7 of the capacity for the region (most of the rest is geothermal). The facility hadn’t been working though, since September 12. The man who was watching the place while they waited for a spare part to repair the machinery couldn’t tell us about the Canadian participation in the project.

The road between Port au Prince and Jacmel is in bad shape. We had been told that Canadian firms had a contract for improvement of some of the road, as had the Taiwanese. The Taiwanese section was complete, but the Canadian section was not.

These two problems were enough to upset Dr. Georges Frantz Large, an eye doctor and Senate candidate in the upcoming elections who also happens to be the President of the Chamber of Commerce for the Southeast. We met him at the hotel he owns, where he ensured us that he was no communist – but that he was unhappy with the coup in 2004 and the international community’s participation in it, which he views as punishment for Haiti’s original sin of liberating itself in 1804. Another Jacmel businessman, Eric Denis, wondered how Canada could claim it was helping Haiti when it was the ultimate destination for so much of Haiti’s human resources. There are more Haitian medical doctors in Canada than there are in Haiti, Denis said. If Canada wanted to help, why not hand over money for those doctors to work in Haiti itself? Denis, a member of the elite, said his own class had lost money from the coup. His hotel is operating at 35% of capacity, where it had operated at 65% before. He thinks that even those elites who helped orchestrate the coup are making less money than they had before.

Of course, they also have more power – maybe it is worth taking a hit to profits to prevent loss of control of the future of the country, which is what they believed Aristide threatened.

The Electoral List

On the topic of power, back to Port au Prince, where the list of 54 candidates for president in the November 2005 election has been pruned by the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) to a short list of 32. They disqualified a Texas millionaire named Dumarsais Simeus, an ex-Lavalas senator named Louis Gerard Gilles, and 22 others. Those who are still on the list: Marc Bazin, who ran against Aristide in 1990 and lost; Rene Preval, who was the only Lavalas president to finish out his term; Dany Toussaint, who is suspected of the murder of famous pro-Lavalas journalist Jean Dominique; Guy Philippe, who organized and led the armed coup against Aristide in 2004.

There are also 316 senatorial candidates and 1123 candidates for parliament.

The publication of the final list of presidential candidates actually takes the strategy that opened with the coup to another stage, according to Patrick Elie, Haiti’s former ‘drug czar’, who led the fight against drug trafficking and who also helped create the Haitian National Police (PNH) under Aristide, who now characterizes himself as a militant in the pro-democracy movement. Elie calls his creation, the PNH, a ‘bastard child’ of Aristide’s government’s need for an independent police force to guarantee security for the public after the disbanding of the Haitian Army, and the ‘international community’ (mainly the US, Canada, and France) desire for an instrument of social control and repression against the people.

The strategy for the elections, Elie explained, goes like this. Militant leaders like So Ann and Fr. Jean Juste are in jail. Others are in hiding. Aristide is in exile. The capacity to mobilize is much reduced. With the PNH, United Nations troops are crushing resistance in the poor areas neighbourhood by neighbourhood by killing and terrorizing civilians. Bel Air, according to some UNPOL officials, has been ‘pacified’ in just this way. Cite Soleil is next. Meanwhile, the elections approach. What are those remnants of the Lavalas organization, those who are not in hiding and not in jail, to do? Should they avoid registering to vote? Should they register and then not vote? Should they boycott elections until the political prisoners are freed? If they call for a boycott and participation is high, they lose. If they participate in a rigged election – and it is rigged already because of the jailings and killings of their leaders and destruction of their organization – they legitimate it and lose.

Elie, like So Ann (who we talked to in prison last week), believed the Lavalas base should call for their people to register to vote, holding both the threat of abstention over the elections as a bargaining chip for freedom from repression for their people, and the possibility of uniting behind a Lavalas candidate and winning the election at the last minute, as occurred under Aristide in 1990.

So far, though, the strategy of trying to divide the electorate is effective. Regional Lavalas organizations like the one in Jacmel are endorsing Marc Bazin, the former World Bank employee who lost to Aristide in 1990. Since the 2004 coup, Bazin has spoken out against the repression of Lavalas. This was why Lavalas organizer and former senator Jn. Mary Luisner said he was telling his people in the Southeast to vote for Bazin. Many other Lavalas voters will vote for Rene Preval, a candidate who has a mixed record as a former president (which, when contrasted with an unmixed record as a paramilitary implicated in massacres, can look quite good). Others will abstain, in protest that Jean Juste was not allowed to run.

If the strategy works, there won’t be any need for blatant rigging at the polls or violence to drive people away from them, even though it is too early to discount those possibilities. Instead, by smashing Lavalas, setting up a bewildering array of candidates, and letting the machinery run its course, the governments of the US, Canada and France will have legitimated their coup, with a lot of help from so many of the countries of the UN.

The Elections Game is On

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-elections-game-is-on-by-justin-podur

September 26, 2005

The Southeast

We spent the weekend outside Port au Prince in the Southeast — in the city of Jacmel. Jacmel operates according to a slightly different logic. People are keen to tell you that things are a little less polarized there, unlike Port au Prince. Also unlike Port au Prince, there is 24-hour electricity.

Continue reading “The Elections Game is On”