Haiti Q&A with Anthony Fenton #1: Rules of Engagement

[In the coming weeks, I'll be conducting a long-form debriefing interview with Anthony Fenton, who recently returned from Haiti. The goal is to get relevant information into public view. If you have any questions you'd like to ask Anthony, add them in the comments section below.]

What are the official rules of engagement for US and Canadian troops operating in Haiti? Can you talk about some examples of how their military power is used?

Essentially, all 'multinational' troops operating currently in Haiti fall under the rubric of the UN Security Council mandated force, effective March 1st, 2004. The US has of course been overseeing this force. The following summarizes neatly the rules of engagement that the US have been following since March 11th:

U.S. Marines sent to quell violence in Haiti have received new orders to seize guns from Haitians they encounter on patrol and to open fire, if necessary, to prevent further killings, the senior American commander in the region said yesterday." (Washington Post)

I endured a 2.5 hour meeting with Canadian Ambassador to Haiti Kenneth Cook, who made it clear that Canada was under US tutelage militarily speaking. He pointed out that Canada and the US differed from France, who have rules of engagement that explicitly precludes firing unless fired upon. Canada and the US, as the report quoted above suggests, can "preemptively" fire upon those who present a danger to them.

The timing of these new "formal rule changes" were supposedly in response to "ongoing bloodshed and the assertive tactics". From this same article we hear from CIA Director George Tenet:

What concerns me is the possibility that the interim government, backed by international forces, will have trouble establishing order," Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "A cycle of clashes and revenge killings could easily be set off, given the large number of angry, well-armed people on both sides.

Pro-Aristide militants I spoke to seemed baffled by the insistence that are "well-armed". One militant commented that there would not have been a coup had they been equipped to stave off the encroachment of "rebel" forces.

In any case, on March 12th, with new formal rules of engagement in hand, numerous parties have told me that international forces undertook targeted killings of Aristide supporters in the poorest areas in and around Port-au-Prince, such as Belair, La Salline, and Cite Soleil. Currently, a number of people are compiling testimony, photographs of morgues (dating back to March 1st where there were at least 1000 corpses reported to be filling local morgues), and other concrete evidence to expose these brutal atrocities that US Marines definitely took part in, and Canadian forces may have taken part in.

Having properly instilled the fear of the US and Canadian military machine into Lavalas supporters, a different climate is emerging, where these forces are trying to give the appearance of friendliness, helpfulness, in general, that they are there for the good of Haitians.

Had these forces not fired upon demonstrators and then stormed into their neighbourhoods into the dead of night with guns blazing, we might currently be seeing a different environment of resistance to the occupation. The US military made it clear after March 11th that there were to be no more demonstrations in Port au Prince. The Haiti Information Project's photographs on http://www.haitiaction.net foreshadow the violent military reaction to the last of the demonstrations.

My impression from those being targeted for persecution is those who have seized power are kidding themselves if they think they can silence the democratic impulses in Haiti for long. The militants I spoke with are adamant that while they may be stepping back in the face of obvious and immediate reprisal, they are not stepping down. They are observing things and are very confident that, should illegitimate elections arise from the Boca Raton Regime, the masses will not allow such elections to proceed.

A final note: the UN mandate was to be for 90 days. Brazil is slated to take this over in June, but Canada's Minister for Defense hinted while visiting Haiti the other day that Canada's presence could be extended. This should please the military hawks. Canada's presence in Haiti during an election run-up, as things stand, might benefit the Liberals. That is, if they see the Conservative Party as their primary opposition. As we saw on the "Take Note Debate" on Haiti in the house of Commons March 8th, Conservatives are only concerned about increasing military spending, and have harshly criticized the Liberals for cutting defense spending. A sustained force in Haiti contributes to quelling such criticism.