Justin Massie's article

'L'application de la stratégie pangouvernementale canadienne en Haiti. Un cas marginal?'
by Justin Massie

This article talks about the Canadian foreign policies overseas. It goes in detail about the shift Canada did in the last couple of years to focus on the 3Ds when dealing with crisis situation in foreign countries: Development, Diplomacy and Defense. Despite the ratification of the 'Enoncé Politique International' in April 2005, where it stipulates its desire to help countries in need of democracy and stability, Canada's involvement in Haiti has been quite disappointing.

For instance, when Aristide 'quit' from presidency on February 29 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted the resolution 1529, where it authorize the immediate intervention of an interim multinational force within an operation called Halo (from march to august 2004). As said in the resume of one of the videos seen, it is in Halo that Canada sent the 500 military and the 6 helicoptered in order to help restore the stability and security in Haiti, to better the transport of humanitarian aid as well as to help to military police in Haiti to maintain law and order, and protect the human rights in order to help to stabilize the country. The part of the story we did not hear in the news is when the IMF (interim multinational force) transfered into the MINUTSTAH (the UN's mission for the stabilization in Haiti) on June 25 2004, Canada only left 5 soldiers as well as 125 policemen in Haiti. These numbers are on a total of 2800 militaries sent overseas. In addition to the military aspect, the same conclusion can be drawn from the economical aspect. Canada promised Haiti a bilateral aid of 180 million dollar over a period of 2 years for the reconstruction of the country. In absolute terms, it seems like a lot of money. Nonetheless, when one compare to Afghanistan who received 600 millions for one year to achieve the exact same thing as in Haiti, meaning reconstruction of the country, there are questions to be asked.

Massie argues that Canada's help in Haiti is actually marginal especially if one would compare it to the help given to other countries such as Afghanistan. Still, according to Massie, the reason why Haiti is in margin is because it does not fit the criteria that Canada has set for itself in terms of foreign policy ie: 1)to obtain concrete results 2)to have influence and 3) to sanction a 'new multilateralism'

1)the fact that Canada wants concrete results, coerces it to give more attention to interventions that are short and punctual as was the IMF program in Haiti. The objectives were clear and achievable. When the program changed to MINUTSTAH, the lines were blurry since they were no dates and no clear termination of contract. One must also remember that the Canadian Force faced tremendous difficulties when it intervened in Somalia, Rwanda and in the Balkans; all of which did not have any clear mandate and were linked to UN's missions. As a result, in the beginning of 1990s, Canada shifted its missions from the UN to the NATO. Thus, Canada went from being one of the biggest contributors in the world in the 70s and 80s to 33th place this year.

2)being involved in world crisis allows Canada to have much more influence in the world stage. Canada does not want to play a secondary role anymore; it desires to habe a more active role on the international scene. In order to achieve that, Canada's participation in big military action along with its usual allies -ie US, France and UK- is a way to increase its sphere of influence.

3)the 'new multilateralism' allows to preserve the transatlantic solidarity. Thus, the historical, geographical, economical and political links that united Canada, US and Europe probably represent one of the most important factors regarding the its military engagements overseas. This attachment draws Canada to priviledge interventions along with his traditinal allies, US -UK-France, versus the others. Hence it is easier for Canada to achieve its goals and then it can pretend to have helped to the amelioration of the situation. We can take for example the operations Halo in Haiti and also Archer -happening right now- in Afghanistan.
__________

When I first read this article, I could not help myself from being soooo disappointed. One would call me naive if they want, but in my mind, Canada was almost this utopic land that genuily cares about people. Again in this case, I ask myself if there is such a thing as a philanthropist (person or country or company)? Obviously in this case, Canada has its own agenda and I do not believe it will really change under the Harper government since its foreign policies are all about following the US (we have seen a great example with our troops sent to Afghanistan for a longer term). What happen to Lester B. Pearson's Canada? Along the way, I believe that our government forgot that our traditional role IS to actually help as much as we can others.