Letter to Government and Corp. Media About Haiti
Though often futile, speaking truth to power can be therapeutic. Here's a copy of a letter I sent out to about 200 corporate lackeys regarding the crisis in Haiti. Some of the main addresses are at the bottom of the letter, for ease of clipping and pasting, if one is so inclined as to send their own letter...
February 17, 2004
To the Government of Canada and Canada’s corporate-owned media,
I am writing to you concerning the escalating crisis that is unfolding in Haiti, where the world is witnessing the attempted violent overthrow of a democratically elected leader, Jean Bertrand Aristide. By tacitly supporting an opposition that has repeatedly refused to negotiate peacefully with President Aristide, the Canadian government is effectively supporting this attempted coup d’etat. From a rational perspective this is unacceptable for several reasons, explored below. It is also unacceptable that the corporate news agencies are refusing to provide objective coverage of these harmful events, and are thereby also effectively supporting the attempted coup d’etat.
On January 13, 2004, speaking from Monterrey, Mexico at the Special Summit of the Americas, Paul Martin committed to help mediate a solution to the crisis in Haiti, which has since seen at least 60 people brutally murdered, and promises to soon see more in the absence of concrete efforts toward this professed end by Paul Martin’s government.
As of writing, the 8 million citizens of Haiti are in jeopardy of imminent destruction as a society and as a peoples in this, Haiti’s 200-year anniversary of independence from colonial rule. In a country that sees a majority of its inhabitants impoverished and lacking the necessities of life, the decision not to intervene on behalf of the Haitian population is jeopardizing an already desperately precarious state of living.
Canada is supporting the CARICOM proposal which claims to seek a peaceful and democratic solution to the democratic crisis in Haiti. For its part, the United States has also endorsed this proposal. Minister of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham refused Friday to assist the Haitian government by sending in a Canadian police contingent. Both Canada and the U.S. are refusing to assist the democratically elected President Aristide while claiming at the same time that they support a democratic resolution to this crisis.
The basis for this refusal is conveyed through repeated declarations as to the right of the opposition to voice its dissent and carry out peaceful protests. President Aristide has himself repeatedly recognized the legal and democratic right to opposition, a central feature of any truly democratic system. On several occasions and in full compliance with the recent CARICOM proposal, Aristide has called upon the opposition to sit down and engage in a peaceful dialogue with him. Consistently, the opposition has refused. And yet the Canadian and US governments are maintaining that the impetus for a peaceful political solution must come from Aristide.
Andre Apaid Jr., and Evans Pauls, both leaders of the opposition, have been quoted several times asserting that they will not, under any circumstances, enter into a dialogue with Aristide until he resigns. Such declarations have been commonplace since 2000, the year of the disputed elections, which have now culminated, according to many, in this crisis. The subsequent freezing of some $500 million of economic aid to Haiti by the US, in addition to some $140 million in loans that have been withdrawn by the World Bank, have functioned to cripple Haiti economically. This has prevented President Aristide from implementing Haiti’s desperately needed social and democratic reforms. This, in turn, has undermined the stability of his government. In spite of this, Aristide to this day carries a plurality of support from the impoverished masses who still see him as their only chance for democratic survival.
The Group of 184, the Democratic Convergence and other opposition groups have been generously funded by U.S. and European taxpayers according to COHA, and according to other independent sources, such as the Haiti Support Group. A primary source of opposition funding has come from the International Republican Institute and through USAID. Additional support for this opposition comes from the Haiti Democracy Project, which is affiliated with the conservative think-tank, the Brookings Institution.
It has been reported by independent journalist and filmmaker Kevin Pina that the majority of US humanitarian aid to Haiti bypasses the Haitian government and goes directly to opposition-run NGOs.
In response to the Canadian and US position toward Haiti, the corporate media in Canada have neglected to critically challenge these policies. Largely, this is due to a corporate media reliance on misinformation provided to it by Haitian opposition-owned media outlets, as has been reported by several independent journalist, in addition to COHA and U.S. Congresswoman Maxine Walters. None of the coverage by any of these corporate news outlets has been critical of the Canadian policy, despite having the means to do so at their every disposal.
Several of Rep. Waters other assertions relate to the government and several pertain to the corporate media, who are an important lynchpin in that their readers, viewers, and listeners, receive disinformation regarding Haiti that prevents positive actions from being taken on the part of this wider public.
I am calling on the Canadian government to encourage the U.S. government to discontinue its support of the opposition, which has repeatedly demonstrated its refusal to negotiate peacefully with President Aristide who himself has repeatedly reached out to them. It follows that if Canada and the U.S. were to condemn the opposition, which, as been documented, has very little popular support, the opposition would abandon its disruptive and violent efforts.
Kevin Pina, Rep. Maxine Walters, Tom Reeves, and various other credible sources of information have asserted that President Aristide still enjoys the support of a majority of the Haitian citizenry. That massive demonstrations in support of Aristide, such as the one on February 7 which drew at least 300,000 people, go unreported by corporate media outlets, is an example of disinformation that is fomenting the violence in Haiti.
It follows that I am calling on the corporate media to demand from their journalists honest and balanced reporting of the events as they unfold in Haiti. Continued deception on the part of the corporate media will have the most dire of consequences for the already heavily distressed Haitian population.
Canada has a history of humanitarian efforts throughout the world. I do not wish to see this devolve into mythology as Canada blindly accepts a policy of “complementary” relations with the U.S. The Canadian stance on Haiti, if continued, will set a dangerous precedent which can only undermine the many commitments that Canada has previously made to issues of human rights, civil and political liberty, the right of self-determination, and the prevention of genocide.
As a point of reference, I would like to draw your attention to the following internationally-binding agreements to which Canada has signed and ratified, as well as specific sections under which a certain scrutiny is necessitated given the dire situation in Haiti:
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
In Part 1, Article 1, it states:
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Article 4 States:
In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.
Secondly, I will draw your attention to the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ratified by Canada on September 3rd, 1952:
According to Article 1, Genocide is:
A crime under international law.
And Article 2:
…Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:
a] killing members of the group;
b] causing serious bodily harm to members of the group;
c] Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
Article 3 states:
The following acts shall be punishable:
a] Genocide
b] conspiring to commit genocide;
c] direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
d] complicity in genocide
Lastly, Article 4 states:
Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article 3
Shall be punishable, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public
Officials, or private individuals.
austij@sen.parl.gc.ca, Belanger.M@parl.gc.ca, Bennett.C@parl.gc.ca, Carrol.A@parl.gc.ca, Coderre.D@parl.gc.ca, Cotler.I@parl.gc.ca, Efford.J@parl.gc.ca, Frulla.L@parl.gc.ca, Goodale.R@parl.gc.ca, Graham.B@parl.gc.ca, bill.graham@dfait-maeci.gc.ca, Guarnieri.A@parl.gc.ca, Knutson.G@parl.gc.ca, Martin.P@parl.gc.ca, McCallum.J@parl.gc.ca, McLellan.A@parl.gc.ca, Mitchell.A@parl.gc.ca, Peterson.J@parl.gc.ca, Pettigrew.P@parl.gc.ca, Pratt.D@parl.gc.ca, Scada.J@parl.gc.ca
Scott.A@parl.gc.ca, Sgro.J@parl.gc.ca, Valeri.T@parl.gc.ca, Volpe.J@parl.gc.ca, jane.steward@hrdc-drhc.gc.ca, letters@macleans.ca, jstackhouse@globeandmail.ca, pknox@globeandmail.ca, egreenspon@globeandmail.ca, jking@globeandmail.ca, comments@globeandmail.ca, aframe@globeandmail.ca, bcox@globeandmail.ca, letters@globeandmail.ca, foreign@globeandmail.ca, pmartin@globeandmail.ca, enqserv@dfait-maeci.gc.ca, grahab8@parl.gc.ca, grahab@parl.gc.ca, pm@pm.gc.ca, rgoodale@fin.gc.ca, malej1@parl.gc.ca, info@gg.ca, info@pco-bcp.gc.ca, media@scc.csc.gc.ca, mfraser@nationalpost.com, dfrancis@nationalpost.com, mgee@globeandmail.ca, letters@globeandmail.ca
Mr. Fenton, how good of you to be so concerned for "democracy" as interpreted by Aristide in Haiti. If only you had the same concern for the people who have suffered because of Aristide's policies, particularly the gang rule of violence and crime he has imposed by arming young men, who are let loose to terrorize the Haitian population, just as the Tonton Macoutes did under the Duvaliers. But you probably don't believe these things, since they are denied by those you name as "credible sources,” although a wise person would question the “credibility” of paid lobbyists.
Where is your concern for the unending violence and crime in Haiti that has been so effective in forcing so many of the young educated people to flee to Canada, the United States and Europe? Many of these people want nothing more than to be able to use their intelligence and knowledge to improve life in the country they love; their goal was not to be part of the brain-drain begun by Duvalier 47 years ago.
Where is your concern for the young mother gunned down on her way home from work, the crime never even deemed worthy of investigation by Aristide’s police?
Where is your concern for the man who worked three or four decades in the U.S., finally able to vacation in his retirement home in his native land, only to be gunned down in front of his wife for not having thousands of dollars readily available to hand over to government thugs? Why isn’t the suffering of that widow, who has a bullet lodged in her leg, important to you?
Where is your concern for the people who have built businesses, investing everything they have in their country, only to have the fruits of their labour destroyed by government thugs?
Where is your concern for the 90 year old woman thrown out of the house her husband bought for her as a young bride, because someone in the Aristide government wants her land?
Where is your concern for the woman who suffered a stroke when government thugs put a gun in her mouth?
Where is your concern for the man who passes the police officer who robbed him at gunpoint each day on his drive to work?
Where is your concern for the young father shot to death for not putting his head down fast enough as government-connected thugs robbed the NGO where he worked?
Where is your concern for the woman brave enough to attempt to file a robbery report at the local police station, only to discover one of her attackers, in uniform, seated at the police desk?
Where is your concern for the daily victims of kidnapping, whose families are callously told to sell their homes and businesses if they wish their loved ones returned? Where is your concern when the secretly marked bills for one of those ransom payments turns up in Haitian government official's Miami bank account?
Where is your concern about the money Aristide spends on lobbying the United States government, on paying a California "foundation" millions of dollars to provide his security, on maintaining a private plane on a base in Texas and on building a monumental monstrosity in a park near the palace, when the money would be better spent on improvement schools, agricultural production and slowing the destruction of Haiti's environment?
Those truly interested in Haiti, might be interested in some examples of what Aristide chooses to do with Haiti's very limited resources. I am fascinated at how easily the "expertise" of paid lobbyists is accepted by certain media organizations, while the experiences and knowledge of Haitians who cannot afford to hire lobbyists are so easily dismissed.
http://haitipolicy.org/content/660.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobbyists/indusclient.asp?code=Q04&year=1999&txtSort=C
The right-wing in the United States has always disdained Haiti, but at least they are not hypocrites. However, the left-wing purporting to be concerned with Haiti now in some ways seems worse, because they willingly work as lobbyists for Aristide's government, despite the evidence of Aristide's complete ineptitude as president and his complete disregard for democracy. Rather than blindly accepting the Aristide government's propaganda, you should consider why so many of Aristide's Haitian partisans, including many who fought hard for his return to power after the 1991 coup d'état, have turned against him.
The people who have turned against Aristide are not the ones who have changed their beliefs; they are still struggling to establish democracy in Haiti, the difference is that they have come to recognize, unlike you, that Aristide is a threat to democracy, that he is a dictator following in the footsteps of most other Haitian “leaders.” Anyone who truly cares about the establishment of democracy in Haiti will realize that a great deal of education about democracy is necessary – the Haitian mentality itself needs to change, because Haitians need to rid themselves of the idea that the country needs a saviour in the form of a power-hungry megalomaniac. The current crisis is the inevitable outcome of Aristide’s policies; the Haitians protesting peacefully since Aristide returned to another term as president have been trying to tell the world the truth for a long time, no one wanted to listen until Aristide’s own thugs turned their violence against his government.
One question: if Aristide is toppled now, what will happen? Will democratic forces sieze power and make things better?
It seems there is a reason that many progressive Haitians who otherwise dislike Aristide are now supporting his five year mandate.
Aristide is likely to be toppled if democratic forces from abroad fail to intervene.
Since so-called democratic nation-states such as the U.S., Canada, and France cannot be relied on under the circumstances for this democratic impetus, that only leaves American, Canadian, French, and so on, people.
If convicted murderers are allowed to control Haiti again, it is likely that boatloads of people will flee Haiti, while the remaining millions will continue to endure a slow and drawn out death under a merciless eye.
We only need to look back at history for guidance on this issue. Many of the same players who were running the white house under Bush I are back running it under Bush II, as Chomsky has pointed out several times in relation to Iraq. What has changed is that the stakes are higher, what with ten more years of misery in a unipolar, neoliberal world added on.
Whether one likes Aristide or not, international law says that he has a right to see his mandate through. The reality is that the world is not allowed to enforce international law without first going through the U.S. don. This begs the question of course: can *we* the people force the don give Aristide a pass?