First paragraph (Teaser):

Mounting evidence suggests Canada was planning Aristide's overthrow as early as 2000...

Rest of the text:

Adapted from Issue #21 of The Dominion
by Anthony Fenton

For those seeking to understand the roots of Canada's latest intervention in Haiti,
there appears to be no better place to begin than the central figure of the emerging
Canada-Haiti controversy, Quebec MP Denis Paradis.

In recent interview aired on CBC's "The Current", journalist Michel Vastel, who had
interviewed Paradis numerous times, had the following to say:

"Denis Paradis...had been in Haiti in the year 2000. And he was shocked by the
state of the people over there, and he decided, he almost made it a personal goal
about the problem of Haiti. Denis Paradis wanted to have a brainstorming session
with the players in Haiti." (August 6th, 2004)

In this "brainstorming session," it turns out, "the players" did not include a single
Haitian.

It is instructive to explore the path that Denis Paradis, once considered the "top
Canadian diplomat for the Americas," and former head of the Quebec Bar
Association, tread preceding this meeting.

Back in 2000, the year of Haiti's so-called "deeply flawed elections," Paradis was
Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy.

In May 2000, Haiti held local and parliamentary elections. The Organization of
American States (OAS) initially declared the elections to be "free and fair," but
reversed course suddenly a few weeks later, reporting the election as having been
"deeply flawed." Why the change?

In September 2000, Madeleine Albright convened the first "friends of Haiti" meeting.
The purpose of the meeting, according to CNN, was to "pressure Haiti to strengthen
democratic procedures in advance of presidential and legislative elections in
November." That is, the elections that everyone knew Aristide was going to win in a
huge landslide.

By this point, the OAS had updated its view of the elections: from minor
irregularites, where 10 out of 7000 overall positions were disputed due to
tabulation discrepancies, to "serious irregularities and deficiencies."

On this basis, and without providing any further evidence, the Clinton
administration had "already vowed to impose economic sanctions on Haiti if it [did]
not change its ways," as one CNN report put it. It was at this point also that Luis
Lauredo, U.S. ambassador to the OAS, announced that the U.S. government would
begin the economic strangulation of Haiti by sending "nearly all bilateral
assistance... through private and nongovernmental organizations, thus bypassing
the Haitian government." Clinton blocked Haiti from receiving international loans
and aid, a policy that continued with the Bush Administration. In four years, over
$300 million in aid and loans was blocked; the Haitian government's annual budget
is just over $400 million.

The reasons given for Clinton's drastic actions against Haiti cannot be taken
seriously. While a series of dictators were in power in Haiti in the 1980s, and the
murder of dissidents was a regular occurrence, no such sanctions were imposed.
Indeed, millions in US and Canadian aid flowed freely. For anyone with even a
tenuous grasp of US foreign policy, it is clear that Clinton's motives lay not in
maintaining democracy, but in maintaining control of Aristide. Indeed, the Clinton
administration's rhetoric emphasizes exactly this: "The elation [of the elections] has
turned sour as a result of the unwillingness of the Haitian authorities to address the
serious irregularities and deficiencies arising in the elections' aftermath"--so said
Luis Lauredo.

Nonetheless, Axworthy (presumably with Paradis in tow) threw Canada's weight
behind the US plan to back Aristide into a corner, with the eventual goal of
replacing him.

Denis Paradis was elevated from the backbenches in January 2002, to "Secretary of
State for Latin America, Africa and La Francophonie". Paradis was responsible for
Canada's relations with Latin America, Africa, and the 56-member La Francophonie,
where Canada, next to France, is the most powerful member.

Fittingly, the term 'francophonie' has colonial origins. According to Canada's own
Department of Foreign Affairs:

"La Francophonie was not born yesterday! In fact, the term "francophonie" was
coined in 1880 by French geographer Onesisme Reclus (1837-1916) to designate
the community of people and countries using French for various purposes... As was
the case with all the great powers, France's colonial past served as the foundation
that tied France -- primarily economically, but also socially and culturally -- to its
many colonies throughout the centuries."

In December of 2002, Paradis introduced the idea for "the creation of [a] watchdog
to clamp down on human rights abuses in the Francophonie grouping of French-
speaking nations, some of which have been accused of serious violations," during a
gathering of the 56-member La Francophonie group of countries in Lausanne,
Switzerland. Said Paradis, "There are eight million French-speakers in Haiti. If there
is a place on the planet where the words democracy, good governance and human
rights should apply, it's surely in Haiti."

Prior to the December meeting, Paradis had raised the issue of employing the
Bamako Declaration (made in Bamako, Mali, by La Francophonie member-countries in 2000)
in the case of Haiti in the House of Commons. Referring to the upcoming meeting in
Switzerland, Paradis said "We have proposed a mechanism, enabling the
implementation of Bamako, which will allow us to quickly apply this declaration
where there are problems with specific Francophone countries." Ominously, Paradis
added, "Whenever the Bamako declaration and its principles are mentioned, I think
of Haiti. This is a place where Bamako could be truly meaningful in terms of
democracy, human rights and good governance."

Paradis saw in the Bamako declaration an opportunity to formalize intervention so
as to "take action against states who fail to meet those standards."

In his interview with "The Current", Michel Vastel went on to describe who
participated and what the nature of the January 2003 "Ottawa Initiative" meeting
was:

"France, La Francophonie, the European Union, the [U.S.] Secretary of State sent two
what they call "high ranking officials" [Otto Reich and the OAS's Luigi Einaudi]. And,
for Latin America there was the Minister of Foreign Affairs for El Salvador, and the
idea was to just search for new ideas. So the meeting took place at the Meech Lake
resort, you know the place, the last week of January 2003. It lasted three days over
an extended weekend. Once again, all information that I'm giving you is coming
from Paradis and from the French government. There was a consensus that 'Aristide
should go.' But, how do you do that? This is the French government...who
suggested there should be a trusteeship like there was in Kosovo. That was not an
intervention, they said, that was their responsibility--all these countries--to
protect."

In Vastel's l'Actualite article, Paradis is quoted as saying: "If Canadians treated their
animals as the Haitian authorities treat their citizens, they [Canadian authorities]
would be jailed," and "In Africa I have seen poverty with dignity... but in Haiti there's
not even dignity."

Vastel continues: "Therefore, [Paradis] concludes that the international community
wouldn't want to wait for the five-year mandate of President Aristide to run its
course in 2005." Quoting Paradis, Vastel writes "Although the United Nations
wouldn't wish for the intervention to lead to a military occupation... that might be
inevitable until elections can be held."

Enthusiastically and publicly leading the overthrow of a democratically elected
government was a bit much for the Liberal government. Consequently, the
overzealous Paradis soon faded into the background. After his interview with Vastel
was published, he was quickly removed from the 'Haiti file,' while the plans to
overthrow Aristide proceeded, albeit a couple of months behind schedule. The
position of Secretary of State for Latin America was subsequently eliminated, and
Paradis has since been banished--once again--to the Liberal backbenches.
Subsequent meetings took place, such as the one in El Salvador; involving,
according to Vastel, "a White House official" and Canada's Marc Lortie, deputy
Minister for the Americas, as well as other "friends of Haiti."

According to Paul Martin, Canada's involvement in Haiti was the "morally
responsible" thing to do. He has also said that Haiti was a "failed state," that Canada
and other "friends of Haiti" intervened at just the right time to restore peace and
stability to Haiti. In July, Martin addressed what the Globe and Mail referred to as an
"exclusive gathering" of "media moguls" in
Idaho. The gathering was closed to the
press and the public, but the transcript of Martin's speech noted the following
about Haiti:

In short, just as companies have to improve their governance, so do
countries. Better governance within fragile, failing or failed states means
building effective public institutions. It is true that fragile states often
require military intervention to restore stability...we saw this in Haiti.
Almost 10 years ago Canada, the United States and some other countries
intervened...The problem is that none of us...though all of us were
involved, stayed long enough nor did we take the time and effort...to build
these institutions. So 10 years later, here we are, back with
the same problem and the same mess, but this time, we have got to stay
until the job is done properly.

Measured against the reality on the ground, Martin's claims take on an altogether
different meaning.

On July 29th, Lt. Colonel Jim Davis, Commander of the Canadian Forces contingent
in Haiti, acknowledged that at least 1000 bodies had been buried in a mass grave in
Port au Prince, within one month of "restoring stability." Davis also would not deny
the eyewitnesss testimony that spoke of a massacre of Aristide supporters
committed by occupying forces on March 12. According to the eyewitnesses,
international forces staged an attack in a Port-au-Prince slum, killing dozens of
people. These international forces reportedly took all but two bodies away in
ambulances. At the time, US, French and Canadian forces were stationed in Haiti, including
Canada's "Secret Commandos": Joint Task Force Two.
French troops had explicit rules of engagement: they were not to shoot unless they
were attacked. Canadian and American occupying forces had no such burdens.

Said Davis: "I do not deny that these things have happened."

* * *

Canada made itself complicit in disinformation about the Haitian elections
circulated by the OAS, hosted meetings to plot the overthrow of a democratically
elected government, illegally occupied the country, and knowingly participated or
was complicit in the murder of Haitians opposed to the coup. For months prior to the coup,
Martin's Liberal government ignored Aristide's requests for "a few dozen" peacekeepers. On
the day he was escorted out of office by US, French, and, possibly, Canadian troops, however,
Canada had 500
soldiers available to occupy the country illegally.

These actions have been carried out openly, but opposition within Canada has been
scarce or nonexistent. When asked, NDP leader Jack Layton has simply said that his
party "has questions" about the human rights situation; Layton agreed that
Canadian troops needed to be sent. This strange position is the opposite of the NDP demands
made on March 10 in the House of Commons, when they called for the tabling of the Ottawa
Initiative documents, and for an investigation into Aristide's departure. That same day, Layton
referred to the siuation in Haiti as "very grave." The subsequent murder of several thousand
Haitians did not compel Layton's NDP to pursue this "grave" matter, even as actual graves were
being filled with supporters of Haiti's Constitution.

The Globe and Mail, CanWest newspapers, and Canadian Press have actively
repeated the OAS allegations that elections were "deeply flawed" as fact, while
failing to mention the US funding of "opposition groups" or the fact that the actual irregularites can
be equated to a Canadian election riding calling for a recount, which is hardly indicative of "deep
flaws" and is a normal part of an election process.

Paul Martin has not been criticized at all for his use of Madeleine Albright's "failed
state" rhetoric to justify "responsible intervention." Canada's elite, it seems, is quite
comfortable with its government's increasingly overt colonial practices.

But was Canada's pre-occupation involvement limited to the "diplomatic steps"
necessary to remove Aristide?

On February 5, 2004, Pierre Pettigrew met with the self-styled rebel "intellectual author", Paul
Arcelin. Arcelin had been arrested, along with his "protege" Guy Philippe, for
plotting a coup against Aristide in 2003. Why was Pettigrew, whose Montreal riding
is populated by many prominent members of the Haitian diaspora, meeting with a
known coup-plotter?

During an exclusive post-coup interview with the Gazette's Sue Montgomery,
Arecelin revealed that he and Philippe had "spent 10 to 15 hours a day together,
plotting against Aristide...From time to time we'd cross the border through the
woods to conspire against Aristide, to meet with the opposition and regional
leaders to prepare for Aristide's downfall." This admission reveals that, contrary to the corporate
press version of events, there was a definite connection between Haiti's "political opposition" and
the paramilitary "rebels."

Arcelin also describes having "explained the reality of Haiti" to Pettigrew on
February 5th, the same day that his paramilitary colleagues entered and took over
the city of Gonaives. Arcelin's testimony conflicted with that of Pettigrew's office,
who downplayed the meeting in an interview with the Globe and Mail, claiming that
"the meeting was part of the minister's 'open-door policy' to the Haitian community
in his constituency, and did not affect Canadian policy."? But Arcelin, whose sister-
in-law, Nicole Roy-Arcelin is a former Conservative MP, claims to have taken
advantage of these "political connections to meet with Pierre Pettigrew." And,
concerning Canadian policy, Arcelin says that Pettigrew "promised to make a report
to the Canadian government about what I'd said."

Interestingly, Pettigrew was nowhere to be seen during the crisis, but is now
Foreign Affairs Minister, and recently met with Colin Powell to discuss the Haiti
'situation.'

On August 24, Pettigrew's Department of Foreign Affairs [DFAIT] sent out an e-mail, which stated:

"With regard to the initiative by the Honourable Denis Paradis, former Secretary of State (Latin
America and Africa) (Francophonie), an informal consultation meeting on Haiti’s political situation
was held at Meech Lake from January 31 to February 1, 2003. This informal meeting was an
opportunity for participants to reiterate their support for the Haitian people, the Organization of
American States and for Resolution 822. At no time during the meeting was a regime change in
Haiti considered."

One would do well here to recall William Blum's maxim: "Don't believe anything until its been
officially denied."

The DFAIT e-mail appears to be little more than 'damage control' in response to the many calls
that they and Denis Paradis have received concerning the revelations made by Michel Vastel during
the August 6th CBC broadcast. Interestingly, DFAIT announces that "Canada will keep its troops
currently deployed in Haiti until the end of August," contrary to the original plan which had
Canada's forces returning at the end of July. This announcement dovetails tragically with another
recent e-mail communique, this one from a human rights investigator on the ground in Haiti:

"There's been a real increase in human rights violations in the last week...Since the former
militaries entered Port-au-Prince, there has been a sharp increase in killing, especially in the
slums. This killing had subsided for a long time, but I fear it will continue. Much of it appears
random and related to insecurity, but I don't think that is what is going on based on the
conversations I've had with people living in these areas. I think that a lot of these attacks are being
carried out against communities that are supportive of Lavalas or that are just poor. On Friday, I
couldn't get into the morgue to count bodies, but someone else who talked with the director was
told that all day long bodies were being brought in."

While Canada's troops remain deployed during this "sharp increase in killing," DFAIT's Christian
Lapointe says, "Please be assured that Canada will continue to work to create a secure environment
in Haiti and the region that enables respect for human rights, including the well-being of civilians."

*The original version of this article appeared in issue #21 of The Dominion, which
can be found at www.dominionpaper.ca. Anthony can be reached at
apfe...@ualberta.ca.