[Bloquez l'empire!] (fw) An Open Letter to the Directors of Alternatives from a Former Alternatives Intern]

[Bloquez l'empire]

----- Original Message -----
From: <rgreen at sdf.lonestar.org>
>
>
> *Please Forward*
>
> An Open Letter to the Directors of Alternatives from a Former Alternatives
> Intern
>
> As a former intern who has participated in two internships with
> Alternatives in Senegal I am writing to express my outrage at the current
> position being propagated by Alternatives regarding events in Haiti. While
> I have always been aware that Alternatives is not without its faults, I
> have supported the organization nonetheless for its solid work providing
> Quebecers with what I consider to be badly-needed information and analysis
> about issues of political and economic injustices around the world.
> However, recent events have caused me to question this assessment to the
> extent to which I feel obliged to speak out. This is not simply to 'sling
> the mud', but rather is being done in the hopes that Alternatives will
> consider changing its dubious and incomprehensible position on Haiti.
>
> Several weeks ago I received an email containing an article by Haiti
> Action Montreal activist Nikolas Barry-Shaw (copied below) entitled "Why
> is Alternatives in the same boat as Noriega on Haiti? Mr. Contra and
> Montreal-based NGO share same analysis." The article was a critique of an
> article by François L'Ecuyer entitled "The Militarization of Peace in
> Haiti" which Alternatives ran on the front page of their insert in le
> Devoir. Barry-Shaw criticized L'Ecuyer and Alternatives for characterizing
> the violence currently taking place in Haiti as being the sole product of
> deposed elected leader Jean-Bertand Aristide and his supporters in the
> Fanmi Lavalas party. In so doing, wrote Barry-Shaw, Alternatives was
> repeating the same false characterization of events in Haiti being offered
> by those involved in supporting the coup d'état against Aristide and the
> post-coup regime: the Bush administration; the Canadian and French
> governments; the Haitian elite.
>
> Having followed events in Haiti during and after the coup in a number of
> respected independent media sources such as Democracy Now and ZNet, I was
> immediately perplexed that Alternatives would be taking such a position. I
> forwarded Barry-Shaw's article to the other Alternatives interns I was in
> Senegal with to see if any of them knew something about this problematic
> and uncharacteristic position being taken by Alternatives. One of the
> friends who received this email wrote to Francois L'Ecuyer directly to ask
> him what was up. Rather than addressing any of the points raised by
> Barry-Shaw's article L'Ecuyer responded rather paternalistically that my
> friend "should not believe everything he reads" and that for clarification
> he should attend a panel discussion on Haiti being held as part of
> Alternatives' Jounées d'Etudes. I therefore decided to withhold any
> judgment until I had heard what the panel had to say.
>
> Having witnessed this panel discussion I am more convinced than ever that
> Alternatives' analysis of the situation in Haiti is extremely problematic
> and in direct contradiction with its ostensible mission "to promote
> justice and equality amongst individuals and communities located in the
> North and the South."
>
> The first problem was that the panel spent a good part of the evening
> demonizing Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristide was characterized as a
> recognized enemy of Haiti's social movements with no legitimate base of
> popular support. At one point a panelist compared his government to the
> former Duvalier dictatorship suggesting that both Aristide and Duvalier
> represented exactly the same interests: namely Haiti's corrupt elite.
> Despite the fact that Montreal's Haitian community is extremely divided on
> the question of Aristide, not a single pro-Aristide perspective was
> present on the panel. This in itself is somewhat alarming given that
> Aristide was the country's first and only democratically elected leader
> and that polls have consistently shown him to have the support of the
> majority of Haitians, notably in Haiti's poorest districts. As an
> organization ostensibly committed to "international solidarity" it seems
> somewhat contradictory to be advocating solidarity with the Haitian people
> in an abstract sense while simultaneously opposing their most basic
> democratic demands.
>
> Part of this demonization of Aristide was to cast him as a neoliberal
> ideologue, without any reference to the pressures and conditions that had
> been imposed on his government by the United States and the IMF. While it
> is undeniable that Aristide's government enacted a number of neoliberal
> policies, it is also a fact that he was constantly criticized by both the
> US and the IMF for not implementing them with enough vigour. It is also a
> fact that prior to the 2004 coup Haiti was under an IMF-imposed aid
> embargo largely because Aristide's government had decided to devote
> resources to training badly-needed doctors rather than paying off Haiti's
> illegitimate foreign debt. These are hardly the actions of a neoliberal
> ideologue. It is particularly ironic hearing such an analysis at an
> Alternatives event. Over the years Alternatives has been such an outspoken
> critic of the IMF that when discussing neoliberalism in Africa, for
> example, heads of state are rarely even mentioned. All of the
> responsibility for these policies is directed towards the IMF. Yet at this
> panel discussion the IMF wasn't even mentioned. Aristide was presented as
> the sole perpetrator of neoliberalism in Haiti.
>
> But for me the worst aspect of this panel discussion was the near total
> silence with respect to the violence and injustice being perpetrated by
> Haiti's current US-installed regime. There was no mention of the well
> documented massacres which have been committed by Haitian police, nor was
> there any mention of the growing number of political prisoners that have
> been documented by Amnesty International amongst others. When Haiti Action
> Montreal activist Yves Engler rose during the question period and began
> reciting a long list of such documented atrocities and injustices, he was
> hastily interrupted by the moderator, Monique Simard, and encouraged to
> keep his comments brief. When the panelists eventually responded they
> essentially ignored the issues raised by both Engler and Nikolas
> Barry-Shaw, instead attempting to smear them both as partisan apologists
> for Aristide. Considering the one-sided nature of the panel's composition,
> the characterizations of Aristide which lacked any sense of balance or
> nuance, and most importantly the complete silence regarding the well
> documented violence that has been unleashed by the current regime, I was
> left wondering who the real partisan apologists were.
>
> But more importantly I was left wondering why Alternatives was taking such
> a position. As one of Canada's most active proponents of the World Social
> Forum (WSF), why would Alternatives take a position that is in direct
> contradiction to the WSF 2005 declaration on Haiti? This declaration
> warrants some discussion here as it illustrates just how far Alternatives
> has strayed from its usual progressive stance. The first demand of this
> declaration is to "Return President Aristide and the democratic process to
> Haiti..." It seems hard for me to imagine the WSF making such a plea on
> behalf of the violent neoliberal ideologue which the Alternatives panel
> characterized Aristide to be. The third demand is that "UN 'stabilization
> forces' must cease all illegal arrests, indiscriminate raids on poor
> neighborhoods and support for illegal activities by the puppet regime's
> police force and members of the former army."
>
> After listing the various atrocities that were utterly ignored by the
> panel, Yves Engler asked if Alternatives' position was due to the fact
> that Canada is playing a key role in the very "stabilization forces"
> mentioned in the WSF declaration, and that Alternatives receives a large
> portion of its funding from the Canadian government via the Canadian
> International Development Agency (CIDA). Without addressing the issue of
> CIDA money at all, moderator Monique Simard responded by stating that
> "Alternatives is a completely independent organization." While this may be
> true, it by no means precludes the possibility of Alternatives
> 'independently' choosing to bow to the pressure of one of its primary
> sponsors. By providing no public response to the serious issues raised by
> Barry-Shaw and Engler, Alternatives is leaving people such as myself with
> no other plausible explanation for their position.
>
> If CIDA funding is creating such pressures within the organization, this
> is an extremely disappointing development indeed, and one which I hope
> will provoke other previous and present supporters of Alternatives to
> speak out. Perhaps what is needed here is some grassroots pressure to
> counterbalance whatever pressure CIDA dollars might be placing on the
> organization. If this is not the case then Alternatives needs to make a
> clear and public response to the concerns that have been raised by
> Barry-Shaw, Engler, and myself in this letter. Thus far these concerns
> have not been addressed, leaving CIDA funding as the only plausible
> explanation for Alternatives' bizarre and uncharacteristic position on
> Haiti. If Alternatives wants its supporters to take seriously its
> assertion to be an independent organization it must either attempt to
> justify, or preferably retract its current indefensible position on Haiti.
>
>
> In Solidarity,
>
> Rob Green
> Alternatives intern 2002 and 2003
>
> Former Alternatives interns who support this letter:
> Christopher Scott - 2003 (Senegal) et 2004 (Armenia)
> Alexandre St.Germain-Lapointe - 2003 (Senegal) et 2004 (Chile)
> Vicky Potvin - 2003 (Senegal)
> Dawn Paley - 2003/2004 (South Africa)
>
>
> Why is Alternatives in the same boat as Noriega on Haiti?
> Mr. Contra and Montreal-based NGO share same analysis
>
> By Nikolas Barry-Shaw
>
> It is a strange day indeed when a progressive NGO finds itself on the same
> side of an issue as Roger Noriega, the U.S. diplomat notorious for his
> role in organizing the Contra army that terrorized Nicaragua throughout
> the 1980s.  Yet this is precisely the case with Alternatives, a
> Quebec-based "non-governmental international solidarity organization"
> dedicated to promoting "democracy" and "socio-economic justice and
> equality". Its mandate and prominent contributors, including Naomi Klein
> and Judy Rebick, would normally put such a group at odds with Noriega.
> Not so, reveals the July edition of the Alternatives newspaper, a
> publication inserted in Montreal's daily Le Devoir with the express
> purpose of "creating a window of alternative information on our world".
>
> François L'Ecuyer's front-page article titled "The Militarization of Peace
> in Haiti" is a shameful parody of journalism: unsubstantiated assertions,
> illogical arguments, anonymous sources and anecdotes masquerade as hard
> evidence throughout the article.  Chief among these transgressions is
> L'Ecuyer's claim that "Chimères, gangs loyal to and armed by President
> Aristide," have launched a campaign to destabilize the country called
> "Operation Baghdad" in an effort to derail elections planned for October
> and November 2005.  Deposed Haitian President Jean Bertrand Aristide is
> said to be profiting politically from the violence afflicting Haiti, while
> other sectors benefit from the chaos financially.
>
> L'Ecuyer's analysis of the situation in Haiti bears a disturbing
> resemblance to the propaganda disseminated by high-level U.S. and Canadian
> government officials. A week before L'Ecuyer's article appeared, Roger
> Noriega, Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, gave
> a similar account: "Aristide and his camp are singularly responsible for
> most of the violence and for the concerted nature of the violence," (Miami
> Herald, June 24, 2005).  Like L'Ecuyer, Noriega argues that while some
> "opportunistic criminal organizations" are engaged in kidnappings and
> other crimes, "Aristide and his gangs are playing a central role in
> generating violence, and trying to sow insecurity," in a desperate "last
> stand to terrorize the Haitian people and deny them good government."
>
> L'Ecuyer uncritically repeats the "Operation Baghdad" fiction spun by the
> Haitian elite to justify increased repression of the poor.  Notably, the
> label "Operation Baghdad" was concocted by Jean-Claude Bajeux, a member of
> an anti-Aristide political party, and repeated incessantly by the interim
> government and the international press.  Fanmi Lavalas spokespersons
> immediately denounced the violence of September 30 - the day that
> supposedly heralded the start of the destabilization effort - claiming
> that "Operation Baghdad" was "a calculated attempt to manipulate the media
> and U.S. public opinion".  Lavalas' base also rejected the label: on
> December 16, 2004, in Cap-Haitien, ten thousand
> Lavalas supporters marched behind a banner reading "Operation Baghdad is a
> plot by Group 184 to put an end to Lavalas. They will fail!"  One is left
> to wonder what groups L'Ecuyer has in mind whose "admitted purpose" is the
> destabilization campaign called "Operation Baghdad", given the distancing
> of Lavalas and their supporters from the title.
>
> On September 30, 2004 masked policemen killed several unarmed protestors
> commemorating Aristide's first overthrow.  Installed Prime Minister Gerard
> Latortue, in a radio interview on October 1, was unrepentant: "We fired on
> them. Some died, others were wounded, and others fled."  Police and
> government officials subsequently claimed protestors attacked police,
> killing and decapitating three officers.  The government declined to
> release the identity of the police officers or allow journalists and human
> rights investigators to view the bodies.  No photos of the bodies were
> provided either. CARLI (Comité des Avocats pour le Respect des Libertés
> Individuelles), a severe critic of
> Aristide during his time in office, investigated "Operation Baghdad" and
> concluded that no such operation had been launched by Lavalas supporters.
> CARLI found that two
> officers, Ancelme Milfrane and Jean Janvier, had been decapitated, but
> they were killed on September 29 by former soldiers.  It was not until
> after the massive demonstration on September 30 that the government and
> elite-owned media began to blame Lavalas for the killings.  Beheading,
> incidentally, was (and is) a common practice of the hated and feared
> former Haitian military (FAd'H).
>
> L'Ecuyer also bizarrely announces that "it's not a secret anymore" that
> MINUSTAH
> (the UN peacekeeping mission in Haiti) has a pro-Lavalas bias, yet can
> only muster one rather vague incident in as evidence: "In February 2005,
> demonstrations of Aristide's armed partisans unrolled under the heightened
> protection of UN forces, who took great care in keeping police aside. Then
> Minister of Justice [and former USAID employee], Bernard Gousse, even
> argued that among the demonstrators, there were escaped prisoners."
> Without giving a specific date, we can only presume which demonstrations
> L'Ecuyer is referring to; perhaps the February 8 demonstration by
> thousands of peaceful Lavalas supporters that, according to Agence Haitien
> Presse, "was interrupted by a police patrol accompanied by individuals in
> civilian dress, known as attachés, who reportedly began shooting at the
> demonstrators, injuring several of them," before UN troops intervened.  Or
> maybe L'Ecuyer had in mind the February 28 demo, where MINUSTAH troops
> stood by as police opened fire on unarmed demonstrators, killing five and
> wounding dozens. A serious case of pro-Chimère bias indeed.
>
> This last incident proved to be such an embarrassment to the UN that it
> felt compelled to provide a modicum of protection to demonstrators and
> even began cracking down on the reconstituted FAd'H in the countryside.
> Under the heightened protection of the UN, numbers swelled at peaceful
> demonstrations calling for the return of President Aristide and the
> release of hundreds of political prisoners.  MINUSTAH, however, soon
> returned to its habit of letting the HNP terrorize peaceful protestors.
> On March 24, police opened fire on a demonstration in Cite Soleil, killing
> 3 to 5 demonstrators and on April 27, nine more protestors from Bel-Air
> were killed despite UN supervision.  The UN's quick reversal was largely
> due to the badgering by the interim government and elite-owned Haitian
> media accusing the UN of defending Lavalas "gangsters".
>
> L'Ecuyer's hazy accusations are flatly contradicted by a detailed Harvard
> Law School human rights report studying the performance of the UN in
> Haiti.  The Harvard report, conducted in October 2004 and January 2005,
> found that "MINUSTAH has effectively provided cover for the police to wage
> a campaign of terror in Port-au-Prince's slums.  Even more distressing
> than MINUSTAH's complicity in HNP abuses are credible allegations of human
> rights abuses perpetrated by MINUSTAH itself."  On July 6, Reuters
> reported, "about 400 U.N. troops with 41 armored vehicles and helicopters,
> and several dozen Haitian police officers, conducted a raid in Cite
> Soleil, Haiti's largest slum."  While the UN claimed only 5 "criminals"
> had been killed, "[r]esidents said the number of people killed ... ranged
> from 25 to 40."  The Reuters article also quoted Ali Besnaci, head of the
> Medecins Sans Frontiers mission in Haiti: "We received 27 people wounded
> by gunshots on July 6. Three quarters were children and women."
>
> By thoughtlessly regurgitating claims of the U.N's pro-Lavalas bias,
> L'Ecuyer is not only obscuring serious human rights abuses being committed
> by the UN in Haiti, but also aiding the elite's push for more repressive
> UN actions against the poor, such as the July 6 massacre.
>
> L'Ecuyer's solution to the problem of insecurity in Haiti's capital (given
> the allegedly compromised nature of MINUSTAH) is to provide more arms and
> support to the HNP.  The Bush administration complied with another
> shipment of weapons to the installed government in early August, despite a
> long-standing arms embargo. According to numerous human rights reports,
> however, the HNP are the leading cause of Haiti's escalating violence: a
> recent International Crisis Group report notes that the HNP "have taken
> over old FAd'H practices, including military-style operations in the
> capital's poor neighbourhoods with little regard for collateral damage to
> civilians."  Hardly a surprise, considering more than 500 ex-soldiers have
> been integrated into the HNP, with the top ranks of the HNP now staffed
> almost exclusively with former FAd'H officers, while another 500-1000 are
> in the process of being trained.  In addition to their wanton attacks on
> the poor, according to the ICG report and other sources, the new HNP are
> engaged in kidnapping and drug running, an old habit of the FAd'H.
> Astonishingly, in an article about the sources of instability and
> "militarization" in Haiti, L'Ecuyer does not make any mention of the
> former military, rebranded first as "rebels" while they helped overthrow
> Aristide and now as  "police" as they repress the poor neighbourhoods.
>
> Correcting L'Ecuyer's erroneous views on "Operation Baghdad" and MINUSTAH
> leads to an inversion of the article's main arguments. The cries of UN
> bias or "softness" towards pro-Lavalas gangs are no longer justified
> complaints but rather attempts to bully MINUSTAH into even greater
> repression of the poor majority.  Sadly, the increased frequency of brutal
> "anti-gang" raids into neighborhoods like Bel-Air and Cite Soleil appears
> to indicate that the UN forces are heeding these calls.  Likewise,
> "Operation Baghdad" no longer appears as a violent political tool of
> Lavalas, but as a major disinformation effort serving to justify
> intensified anti-Lavalas attacks.  L'Ecuyer joins this effort when he
> accuses, without a shred of evidence, prominent Bel-Air activist Samba
> Boukman and human rights worker Ronald St. Jean of being "notorious
> criminals." In an environment where the victims of police operations are
> routinely labelled "bandits" and "criminals" post-humously, this is
> exceedingly dangerous.
>
> Alternatives' website gives an indication of the forces behind their
> reprehensible position on Haiti: over 50% of the organization's funding
> comes from the Canadian government, with the bulk received from CIDA
> (Canadian International Development Agency).  Moreover, in a recent
> interview, François L'Ecuyer admitted that all 15 groups Alternatives
> works with in Haiti (many of whom are themselves funded by CIDA) are
> anti-Lavalas.  Not coincidentally, L'Ecuyer and Alternatives have said
> little about the widespread human rights abuses being committed by Haiti's
> interim government, a regime strongly supported by Canada. This severely
> undermines Alternatives credibility as an organization committed to social
> justice.  While Alternatives would no doubt object to being called a tool
> of Canadian imperialism, L'Ecuyer's article may lead many to such a
> conclusion.
>
> Please forward this article to François L'Ecuyer and Alternatives and
> demand that Alternatives print in full the World Social Forum's January
> 2005 Declaration on Haiti (available at
> http://haitiaction.net/News/FL/1_30_5.html) in their newspaper's next
issue.
>
> François L'Ecuyer
> Africa Project Director
> francois at alternatives.ca
>
> Alternatives
> alternatives at alternatives.ca
>
> François L'Ecuyer's original article (in French) can be found here:
> http://www.alternatives.ca/article1913.html
>
> An English translation of L'Ecuyer's article is available at
> www.canadahaitiaction.ca
>
> For an introduction to Canada's role in Haiti: www.outofhaiti.ca
> For in depth and up-to-date news and analysis: www.canadahaitiaction.ca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> rgreen at freeshell.org
> rgreen at sdf.lonestar.org
> (They're both the same account. I switched to the 'freeshell' one cause
> it's easier to remember. You can send mail to either and I'll get it.)
> **********
> MOBMTL LISTSERV:
> -Mobilisation Montréalais pour les manifestations contre George W. Bush à
l'occasion de sa première 'visite d'état' à Ottawa (30 nov. - 1 dec. 2004)
>
> -Montreal mobilization for protests against George W. Bush's on the
occasion of his 'state visit' to Ottawa (Nov. 30 - Dec 1 2004).
> **********
> To subscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to:
mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net
> To unsubscribe to mobmtl, send a blank email to:
mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>
> Pour abonner à mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide à:
mobmtl-subscribe at lists.riseup.net
> Pour désabonner à mobmtl, envoyer un courriel vide à:
mobmtl-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>