Free Trade And Security Indeed
You have to absolutely adore hypocrisy. Unfortunately, that’s the only word one can think of with regards to Haiti given Canada’s complicity in the coup d’état that removed Aristide from power in 2004.
First, I will not entirely condemn the Prime Minister, being that his government wasn’t in power when the coup took place, nor was it in power when the Ottawa Initiative on Haiti took place in Montreal. But even that only provides the thinnest of ice on which to skate.
With regards to Haitian poverty, as it is the poorest nation in the entire Western Hemisphere, the Prime Minister stated that Canada wants to help…
“…break the cycle of poverty and violence.”
…and…
“To do so requires a firm foundation of security”.
The reality of the Prime Minister’s recent trip was, in truth, to promote free trade in a region whose economic influence is increasing, and one in which leftist governments have become incredibly popular. And that is precisely why Aristide was removed from power in 2004 under the guise of deposing a would-be despot – because he favoured the nationalization of Haitian industry as a way to combat poverty. Would the people of the Maritimes be so lucky with regards to the enormous wealth spreading through Alberta like wildfire.
Our desire to exploit Latin American markets is not a new prospect, and the name given that exploitation has changed over the centuries to fit the niceties required to make it seem all the more benign.
In the beginning it was simply conquest. Conquest then turned to the outright and unabashed exploitation of the region by various powers. That was then followed by foreign trading companies, such as, for example, The East India Company, who were given monopolies over regions controlled by certain powers (in that case, Great Britain). In that respect, Canada is no different, as it too was exploited by foreign powers and foreign trading companies, the most notable being The Hudson’s Bay Company.
So here we find ourselves, centuries later, with new terms having taken place of the old, and slyer methods replacing the outright exploitation of regions. We have various names for it, and just as many justifications to warrant them. We call it ‘free trade’, ‘globalization’, and ‘liberalization’. Yet, the truth of the matter is, whether the tenets of these philosophies claim the world to be economically shrinking or not, or that those who enter into agreements with the world’s foremost industrialized nations will reap significant rewards, is that it’s simply neocolonialism packaged and sold like a shiny new bike.
In the end, if those who hold office stand in the way of ‘progress’, they can be removed, just as Aristide was in 2004 - whisked away by US Marines in a plane at an airport that Canadian forces were entrusted to hold until the operation was complete.
Whether most Canadians know it or not, we played a role in the destabilization of Haiti precisely so that our government could wax political about the benefits of free trade to a Haitian government that is entirely open to the idea, not one that would rather attempt something independently that does not take our interests into consideration.
Free trade and security indeed.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Friday, July 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
July 20th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
“”"is that it’s simply neocolonialism packaged and sold like a shiny new bike.”"”"
Amen.
The Romans just expanded their borders to meet their insatiable appetite…..
England, France, Portugal, Spain, etc., all just conquered new lands and called them colonies……
and we here in the northwestern world simply quench our greedy thirst by controlling economically…
July 20th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hypocrisy is the most overused word in political discussions and I, for one, would prefer a total ban on it. We’re all hypocrites, afterall, and it does no good to stand around and point out each other’s hypocrisy like a game of elementary school tag. Conservatives, afterall, are actually economically Liberal and only socially Conservative. Liberals, on the other hand, are only socially Liberal and are actually economically Conservative.
As for Nationalism, I am irked whenever someone believes that forced Nationalism (which is now being actively practiced in parts of South America) is a good thing. Afterall, domestic cases of Nationalism have all been highly dubious, the worst being the ‘Nationalism’ of Native Lands.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Matt,
I meant the Government forcibly taking land from the Natives.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Money, its a hit.
Dont give me that do goody good bullshit.
July 20th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
DGephardt, hypocrisy may be an overused word, but there is an absolute need to continue to remind people of the truth of historical events. To twist, spin or ignore the truth is undermine the credibility of one’s stated efforts. That’s what we have with Harper in his Latin American tour. The relationships he is seeking to build are not with the people of Columbia, Chile or Haiti. The relationships are between capital here and capital there through the mechanism of trade agreements. To do so, he has chosen to be a hypocrite.
Harper’s musings are all for internal consumption. The one piece I find to be the most embarassing actually occurred in Chile. How this neocon minority Prime Minister thinks he has the right to lecture the Chilean President on democractic rights and American foreign policy is unimaginable. What can this man possibly tell a Chilean who personally suffered from the imposition of American interests under Pinochet. It would have been far more appropriate for this hypocrite (yes, hypocrite) to have listened and learned.
With respect to Haiti, it is a blatant example of the paucity of the pretend policy that the mission of Canada, the United States and other developed countries is to “export democracy and freedom”. As the overthrow of Aristide demonstrates (recalling Allende’s fate as well), the encouragement of democracy ends if the people are “irresponsible” in their choice of leaders.
July 20th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
[quote post="1322"]because he favoured the nationalization of Haitian industry as a way to combat poverty[/quote]
And maybe it’s because Aristde became corrupted by power and turned into an undemocratic dick:
“In 1993, the director of Human Rights Watch pointed out that during his brief stint as president, Aristide had refused to condemn 25 lynchings perpetrated by his followers, and that ‘he condoned threats of popular violence against the judiciary and the legislature.’ In a memoir released that same year, Aristide said that representative democracy was not an ‘indispensable corollary’ to human rights.”
Arming militias loyal to your party and political ends tends to make the populace nervous.
July 20th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Matt, I apologise if rasing the Chilean leg of the Harper trip wandered off topic. It is just that the context for the entire trip became a mockery when Harper held up Canada’s institutions as a “third way”. This in a country whose democratic institutions date back to 1830 and, but for Pinochet’s CIA sponsored coup, may well have survived unbroken.
Canadian complicity in the Haitian coup has been discussed in various publications, but virtually ignored in the mass media. I fully concur that Harper’s position was completely hypocritical.
Nothing at the voyage’s core is intended to assist people or promote human values. It has been all about facilitating the flow of capital for the benefit of those who already have. Harper’s dismissal of human rights concerns in Columbia, his insult to Chileans and his avoidance of Canada’s role in recent Haitian history have been unacceptable. He should not be able to spin away from these issues to gain a domestic political advantage.
July 20th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
[quote comment="20287"]Harper’s dismissal of human rights concerns in Columbia, his insult to Chileans and his avoidance of Canada’s role in recent Haitian history have been unacceptable. He should not be able to spin away from these issues to gain a domestic political advantage.[/quote]
This is the most aggregious of distortions that I have read on this post yet.
1) Harper didn’t dismiss human rights concerns in Columbia, he addressed them full on by stating that he believed that more could be done by engaging Columbians than by staying at home and condemning from abroad. You may disagree with that position, but it’s not a ‘dismissal of human rights concerns’.
2) How did he insult Chileans? He was using Canada AND CHILE as examples of the 3rd way for the people of South America. He was COMPLIMENTING them on choosing moderation between the extremes of Nationalism and US style Capitalism.
3) You obviously have a far different perspective on the Haitian situation than I do. That said, I will take the side of Michaëlle Jean who endorses Canada’s position.
I don’t even like Harper, and I know he spins the hell out of things. But at least when he goes back on his word, he has the common courtesy to tell us so.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
D, I disagree with you on the first two points and accept we have a different perspective on Haiti.
The position Harper took in Columbia was tantamount to dismissing the human rights issue. All there was was the typical rhetorical statements about engagement.
You evidently did not read the same news accounts as I on the Chilean speech. In any event, the Chileans chose democratic institutions before Canada was a country only to be undermined by American foreign policy and support for Pinochet. Through a courageous and long term struggle with militarism have taken back those institutions. Thisi s a significant contrast with the direction Harper is taking us into a “deep integration” with our southern neighbour.
July 20th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
This is one example and it is far from a leftwing news source. You can see Harper discussed the “Canada Model” in Chile. I see no mention of praise for Chile.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/07/17/4347101-cp.html