The research is going well. I am now getting ready for my interviews that will be held on wednesday. The first interview in the morning will be with Ginette Martin, director of the project in Haiti under the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa. Tonight, I worked on sketching some questions for the interview. I got a camera and a MP3 player to record the interview. I already asked permission to tape the interview and Ms. Martin kindly agreed.
In the afternoon, I will meet with Ms. Claudette Amboise, the delegate minister of the Haitian Embassy located in Ottawa as well. Several of the questions I will ask her will be the same as ms. Martin's interview because I want to see where would lie the difference in expectations between the two parties.
In addition, the outline is also done. Of course, there will be certain changes but I know where my research is leading me. Several sections of the final paper are also already written.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Thursday, March 22, 2007
preliminary outline
Questions:
After the recession of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Canadian government shifted its way of getting involved in international crisis thus focusing more on multilateralism and the 3Ds- namely Diplomacy, Development and Defense. The main goal of this paper is to look at each component of the 3Ds and to assess if this new method is effective. This paper will take Haiti as a case study for two reasons. 1) According to the CIDA website, Canada's involvement in Haiti has been extensive since it is the country that collects more Canadian's aid in terms of humanitarian, military and political after Afghanistan and 2) Haiti is an actual example of the implementation of the focus on the multilateralism and 3Ds. That being said, we will see in this paper if each component of the 3D taken in order to help Haiti is actually effective.
This is a broad outline of my paper (a completed version will be posted in the next couple of days)
I. Introduction
II. Theory section (this section will focus on the link between international relations and
development)
III. History of Canada and humanitarian aid (how Canada got involved in helping other
countries)
A) The world context after the WWII
a) Europe destroyed and western world's economy blooming
b) Canada stepping up to help ex-colonies and Europe with their economic
difficulties
i) Pearson Commission and target
B) The threat of the Soviet Union and communism
a) Crash of 1930s and growing power of Soviet Union
b) fear of communism from American under McCarthy and consequence on
Canadian Foreign Policies
i) Canada gives a lot of money without much guidelines
C) The shift in Canadian's foreign policy
a) 1980s-90s recession
i) the need for canadian government to focus their help: creation of CIDA
b) the implementation of multilateralism and 3Ds
IV. Case Study: Haiti
A) History of the turbulence in Haiti
a) rebellion against mother country (France)
b) overview of dictatorships and rebellion
i) overview on Duvaliers' reign
ii) Haiti's situation (economic-politic)
ii) boat people and Haitian diaspora
B) The events surrounding 1991
a) Arrival of Aristide and the Lavalas movement
i) seen as savior and elected by population (also supported by Americans)
ii) coup d'etat by Cedras
iii) return of Aristide (but than not supported anymore by Americans)
- violence, corruption, political unrest, socialist talk by president,
dictatorship?
b) Departure of Aristide in 1991
i) Aristide ousted out of the country
-political unrest, chaos
-international comunity's response and Canada's involvement in the
crisis
V) Discussion of Canada's shift to multilateralism and 3Ds in Haiti's context (in this section I
will pull all the information collected above and put all the elements mentionned
together;ie going back to the theory and draw examples from the situation of Haiti while
looking at Canada's involvement)
A) Development
a) CIDA's plan
B) Defense
a) the involvement of MINUTSTAH
C) Diplomacy
a) Canada's involvement in Haiti through OAS and UN
VI) Conclusion
After the recession of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Canadian government shifted its way of getting involved in international crisis thus focusing more on multilateralism and the 3Ds- namely Diplomacy, Development and Defense. The main goal of this paper is to look at each component of the 3Ds and to assess if this new method is effective. This paper will take Haiti as a case study for two reasons. 1) According to the CIDA website, Canada's involvement in Haiti has been extensive since it is the country that collects more Canadian's aid in terms of humanitarian, military and political after Afghanistan and 2) Haiti is an actual example of the implementation of the focus on the multilateralism and 3Ds. That being said, we will see in this paper if each component of the 3D taken in order to help Haiti is actually effective.
This is a broad outline of my paper (a completed version will be posted in the next couple of days)
I. Introduction
II. Theory section (this section will focus on the link between international relations and
development)
III. History of Canada and humanitarian aid (how Canada got involved in helping other
countries)
A) The world context after the WWII
a) Europe destroyed and western world's economy blooming
b) Canada stepping up to help ex-colonies and Europe with their economic
difficulties
i) Pearson Commission and target
B) The threat of the Soviet Union and communism
a) Crash of 1930s and growing power of Soviet Union
b) fear of communism from American under McCarthy and consequence on
Canadian Foreign Policies
i) Canada gives a lot of money without much guidelines
C) The shift in Canadian's foreign policy
a) 1980s-90s recession
i) the need for canadian government to focus their help: creation of CIDA
b) the implementation of multilateralism and 3Ds
IV. Case Study: Haiti
A) History of the turbulence in Haiti
a) rebellion against mother country (France)
b) overview of dictatorships and rebellion
i) overview on Duvaliers' reign
ii) Haiti's situation (economic-politic)
ii) boat people and Haitian diaspora
B) The events surrounding 1991
a) Arrival of Aristide and the Lavalas movement
i) seen as savior and elected by population (also supported by Americans)
ii) coup d'etat by Cedras
iii) return of Aristide (but than not supported anymore by Americans)
- violence, corruption, political unrest, socialist talk by president,
dictatorship?
b) Departure of Aristide in 1991
i) Aristide ousted out of the country
-political unrest, chaos
-international comunity's response and Canada's involvement in the
crisis
V) Discussion of Canada's shift to multilateralism and 3Ds in Haiti's context (in this section I
will pull all the information collected above and put all the elements mentionned
together;ie going back to the theory and draw examples from the situation of Haiti while
looking at Canada's involvement)
A) Development
a) CIDA's plan
B) Defense
a) the involvement of MINUTSTAH
C) Diplomacy
a) Canada's involvement in Haiti through OAS and UN
VI) Conclusion
more interviews coming up!!!
Okay!
I finally booked an interview time with Ms. Ginette Martin from the federal Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa. Ms. Martin is the director of the project in Haiti. Despite her busy schedule she has been kind enough to give me some of her time. The interview will be held in Ottawa on Wednesday March 28. The interview will focus about the Canadian government 's stance on Haiti's situation. The questions will probably focus on the 3Ds and the way the canadian government implement this method in Haiti.
Moreover, I have another interview with Raymond Laurent, a reknowed journalist in the Haitian community in Montreal, on Saturday March 31st. He will definitely give me the diaspora's perspective on Canada's involvement in Haiti. Moreover, he has extensive knowledge of Haiti's history and political situation. Hence, I will most likely ask him to talk to me about Aristide, his chaotic departure, the implication of the international community and of course Canada's position.
I think these 3 interviews (including professor Berry's) should cover the different points of my paper. If I found that anything is missing, I will ask my contacts if I can call them with further questions or I also have other contact in Toronto I could potentially use in order to complete the project.
I finally booked an interview time with Ms. Ginette Martin from the federal Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa. Ms. Martin is the director of the project in Haiti. Despite her busy schedule she has been kind enough to give me some of her time. The interview will be held in Ottawa on Wednesday March 28. The interview will focus about the Canadian government 's stance on Haiti's situation. The questions will probably focus on the 3Ds and the way the canadian government implement this method in Haiti.
Moreover, I have another interview with Raymond Laurent, a reknowed journalist in the Haitian community in Montreal, on Saturday March 31st. He will definitely give me the diaspora's perspective on Canada's involvement in Haiti. Moreover, he has extensive knowledge of Haiti's history and political situation. Hence, I will most likely ask him to talk to me about Aristide, his chaotic departure, the implication of the international community and of course Canada's position.
I think these 3 interviews (including professor Berry's) should cover the different points of my paper. If I found that anything is missing, I will ask my contacts if I can call them with further questions or I also have other contact in Toronto I could potentially use in order to complete the project.
Professor Berry's interview
As said yesterday, I got an interview with professor Berry, professor in IDS at UofT.
Professor Berry had extensive knowledge about the history of development in Canada. From our interview, I got the confirmation that Canada is not 'helping' other countries in order to be philantropic but instead to gain more international recognition. Thus, Canada has been losing a lot of its influence -mainly in the last 50 years- and is trying to get at least some back.
After WWII, Canada, who had a significant role in the war, was in an excellent position in the world since the territory did not suffer from the devastation of the war like the European countries. Hence, canadians and americans found themselves in a position of power and able to help others. Since the process of decolonisation was at its peak, development was the main goal of these small countries. As a result, there was a rush after the war to provide foreign aid from the rich countries to the poor ones.
In this case, Canada, but mostly the United States, were not just helping because of these ex-colonies needs, but mainly because they were afraid of the soviets growing power. In the 1930s, americans went through the big Crash, a dark era in their history. Since the Soviets, that were communists, did not have the same experience as in the western world, their system attracted a lot of ex-colonies. In order to remain an hegemony, the US started pouring money in trying to develop small countries and hence making sure that they would not become communist as well. The United States were in a period of fear and hysteria under McCarthy since he perceived communists as a military and a ideological threat. Hence, it was important for Canada to maintain an excellent relationship with the United States since they are their major partner in terms of trades. It is in this context that Canada also started to donate intensively to smaller countries and simultaneously built their world wide reputation of humanitarian.
Lester B. Pearson, who was a famous diplomat before becoming Canada's Prime Minister, created the Pearson Commission whose target in terms of development elsewhere was quoted at 0.7%. Canada is a land made of immigrants fom all areas in the world, hence, the government often felt the pressure from the electorat to help other countries where these immigrants were from. It is for these main reasons that Canada started sending money everywhere without really any guidelines. Canada got in a position where the country's money allocated to development overseas was too spread thin . It needed to find a way to be more efficient in terms of the help given.
To fix the problem of being to spread out, Canada decided to set some guidelines for aid and this is how CIDA- Canadian International Development Agency- was created around the 1960s-1970s. Again in this time, Canada was very involved in the world because of its immigrant population. But soon enough, the country ran out of money. The 1980s and early 1990s were very difficult years for Canadians as their were fiscal, recession and public deficit. As a result of this situation, focus was imparative. The government decided to focus on lower income countries and strenghening our ties with selected countries that would give them economic advantages as well as recognition on the international scene. Canada wanted to draw an example on Scandinavian countries who would develop an expertize of specific areas to develop instead of sending money everywhere.
And this is how the shift in Canada's help overseas happened.
Professor Berry also talked about the concept of development as a business. He explains that according to him their is not really anything wrong with wanting to have some advantage in helping someone else, but the problem would arise if the business side if it would prevail over the philantropy; which would result in an unbalance. Hence, since the Canadian market is much smaller than the American one, it is not uncommon to see the Canadian governement to tie the aid or in order words to provide things we have an expertize at producing in the countries it is helping. For example, Canada could promise a country to give them money at the condition they would use that money for their infrastructure instead of their educational system. Canada does so because it knows that Sweden, that have a much better educational system than theirs has much more chance to get the contract from this LDC. As a result, this method is a way of insuring that Canada gets his money back from the LDC since Canada's material for infrastructure is widely reknowed. Hence, we give money from the left hand and than take it back from the right since the country in question would buy the product from us.
When I asked Professor Berry why did Canada got involved in Haiti, he explained to me that Haiti is everything Canada could ask for in terms of country to help. First of all, there is the geographic location. Haiti is very close to Canada: it is only a 4 hours flight. Morover, there are also historical connections: Haiti used to be a French colony. Quebec, one of Canada's biggest province, has a majority of french speakers since it was also colonized by the French in the 1600s. Because of its cultural differences, Quebec was able to enjoy a great amount of priviledges in the federal ladder, such as an overrepresentation in the government, including in CIDA. Since Quebec and Haiti share several similarities in terms of culture and language, Quebec feels a certain duty toward the latter. One should not forget also that because of the similarities in cultures, numerous Haitians fled the island, due to political instability, to established themselves in the "Belle Province". Hence, Montreal is the 3rd city in the world after Miami and New York, that Haitians call 'home'. As a result, Haitians have a fair barganing power with politicians in Quebec and Canada.
As said earlier, Canada lost a lot of its prestige in the past 50 years. Hence, it needs to provide help where it will feel recognized. Because of Papa Doc and Baby Doc, two notorious dictators from the 1950s to the end of 1980s, Haiti got a lot of publicity internationally. Hence, for Canada to stand up and 'volunterely' help this country in need is the best way for canadians to feel good about themselves.
One question that professor Berry was asking out loud was how much do Canada actually mimic the US. He explains that since a big part of our market depends on Americans, Canada is constantly trying to get to good favors of the Unites States and hence avoid to upset them. Hence, the Canadian government chose its battles. In history, there are 2 times worth of remembering when Canada actually stood up to its giant neighbour; when Canada refused to join for the Vietnam war in the 1960s and the Iraq 4 years ago. Of course, in these two cases, the Americans were upset and expressed their disaproval by becoming stricter with the northern side of their border. In this context, we see why Canada is always trying to please the americans.
According to one article I read, Canada volunteered to send aid to Haiti. How much did Canada actually volunteered? Was the US behind our government volunteering in this country in crisis? TO some respect, were we trying to please our neighbour one more time? Neighter professor Berry or I could come up with an answer to these questions, but we both agree that wether or not Canada received any suggestion from the US to help Haiti, Canada had already all the reasons to provide aid.
Professor Berry had extensive knowledge about the history of development in Canada. From our interview, I got the confirmation that Canada is not 'helping' other countries in order to be philantropic but instead to gain more international recognition. Thus, Canada has been losing a lot of its influence -mainly in the last 50 years- and is trying to get at least some back.
After WWII, Canada, who had a significant role in the war, was in an excellent position in the world since the territory did not suffer from the devastation of the war like the European countries. Hence, canadians and americans found themselves in a position of power and able to help others. Since the process of decolonisation was at its peak, development was the main goal of these small countries. As a result, there was a rush after the war to provide foreign aid from the rich countries to the poor ones.
In this case, Canada, but mostly the United States, were not just helping because of these ex-colonies needs, but mainly because they were afraid of the soviets growing power. In the 1930s, americans went through the big Crash, a dark era in their history. Since the Soviets, that were communists, did not have the same experience as in the western world, their system attracted a lot of ex-colonies. In order to remain an hegemony, the US started pouring money in trying to develop small countries and hence making sure that they would not become communist as well. The United States were in a period of fear and hysteria under McCarthy since he perceived communists as a military and a ideological threat. Hence, it was important for Canada to maintain an excellent relationship with the United States since they are their major partner in terms of trades. It is in this context that Canada also started to donate intensively to smaller countries and simultaneously built their world wide reputation of humanitarian.
Lester B. Pearson, who was a famous diplomat before becoming Canada's Prime Minister, created the Pearson Commission whose target in terms of development elsewhere was quoted at 0.7%. Canada is a land made of immigrants fom all areas in the world, hence, the government often felt the pressure from the electorat to help other countries where these immigrants were from. It is for these main reasons that Canada started sending money everywhere without really any guidelines. Canada got in a position where the country's money allocated to development overseas was too spread thin . It needed to find a way to be more efficient in terms of the help given.
To fix the problem of being to spread out, Canada decided to set some guidelines for aid and this is how CIDA- Canadian International Development Agency- was created around the 1960s-1970s. Again in this time, Canada was very involved in the world because of its immigrant population. But soon enough, the country ran out of money. The 1980s and early 1990s were very difficult years for Canadians as their were fiscal, recession and public deficit. As a result of this situation, focus was imparative. The government decided to focus on lower income countries and strenghening our ties with selected countries that would give them economic advantages as well as recognition on the international scene. Canada wanted to draw an example on Scandinavian countries who would develop an expertize of specific areas to develop instead of sending money everywhere.
And this is how the shift in Canada's help overseas happened.
Professor Berry also talked about the concept of development as a business. He explains that according to him their is not really anything wrong with wanting to have some advantage in helping someone else, but the problem would arise if the business side if it would prevail over the philantropy; which would result in an unbalance. Hence, since the Canadian market is much smaller than the American one, it is not uncommon to see the Canadian governement to tie the aid or in order words to provide things we have an expertize at producing in the countries it is helping. For example, Canada could promise a country to give them money at the condition they would use that money for their infrastructure instead of their educational system. Canada does so because it knows that Sweden, that have a much better educational system than theirs has much more chance to get the contract from this LDC. As a result, this method is a way of insuring that Canada gets his money back from the LDC since Canada's material for infrastructure is widely reknowed. Hence, we give money from the left hand and than take it back from the right since the country in question would buy the product from us.
When I asked Professor Berry why did Canada got involved in Haiti, he explained to me that Haiti is everything Canada could ask for in terms of country to help. First of all, there is the geographic location. Haiti is very close to Canada: it is only a 4 hours flight. Morover, there are also historical connections: Haiti used to be a French colony. Quebec, one of Canada's biggest province, has a majority of french speakers since it was also colonized by the French in the 1600s. Because of its cultural differences, Quebec was able to enjoy a great amount of priviledges in the federal ladder, such as an overrepresentation in the government, including in CIDA. Since Quebec and Haiti share several similarities in terms of culture and language, Quebec feels a certain duty toward the latter. One should not forget also that because of the similarities in cultures, numerous Haitians fled the island, due to political instability, to established themselves in the "Belle Province". Hence, Montreal is the 3rd city in the world after Miami and New York, that Haitians call 'home'. As a result, Haitians have a fair barganing power with politicians in Quebec and Canada.
As said earlier, Canada lost a lot of its prestige in the past 50 years. Hence, it needs to provide help where it will feel recognized. Because of Papa Doc and Baby Doc, two notorious dictators from the 1950s to the end of 1980s, Haiti got a lot of publicity internationally. Hence, for Canada to stand up and 'volunterely' help this country in need is the best way for canadians to feel good about themselves.
One question that professor Berry was asking out loud was how much do Canada actually mimic the US. He explains that since a big part of our market depends on Americans, Canada is constantly trying to get to good favors of the Unites States and hence avoid to upset them. Hence, the Canadian government chose its battles. In history, there are 2 times worth of remembering when Canada actually stood up to its giant neighbour; when Canada refused to join for the Vietnam war in the 1960s and the Iraq 4 years ago. Of course, in these two cases, the Americans were upset and expressed their disaproval by becoming stricter with the northern side of their border. In this context, we see why Canada is always trying to please the americans.
According to one article I read, Canada volunteered to send aid to Haiti. How much did Canada actually volunteered? Was the US behind our government volunteering in this country in crisis? TO some respect, were we trying to please our neighbour one more time? Neighter professor Berry or I could come up with an answer to these questions, but we both agree that wether or not Canada received any suggestion from the US to help Haiti, Canada had already all the reasons to provide aid.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
interview with Professor Berry
Ealier today I had a meeting with Professor Berry. It was a excellent experience. Now, I have a lot more information concerning the history of Canada and development. Tomorrow I will give more details about the information I gathered in this interview.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
interviews
the end of last week and yesterday was about getting some people to conduct interviews. I got in touch with the foreign affairs department in Ottawa and I might get a chance to interview mme Ginette Martin, director of the direction in Haiti by the end of March. There is also a good chance I go to Ottawa to meet her (if that does not work, I also can do the onterview via telephone). I was speaking to Marlene Zalatta her administrative assistant and she said she would confirm to me by the beginning of next week.
I also called the Haitian Consulate in Toronto, but Dr Eric Pierre, the person in charge of the consulate is absent until March 18th. Hence, I will call back on monday March 19 to book an interview with him.
I also sent an email to professor Voegeli Juste-Constant, contact that I use very often in my radio show in Fusion Radio. He reports the news from Haiti and from the Black/haitian community in Toronto. If I do not hear from him early this week, I will most likely talk to him on saturday. Professor Voegeli has extensive knowledge on the relations between Canada and Haiti. Moreover, he has tremendous knowledge on Haiti's history which would be great to make connections and links.
I also called the Haitian Consulate in Toronto, but Dr Eric Pierre, the person in charge of the consulate is absent until March 18th. Hence, I will call back on monday March 19 to book an interview with him.
I also sent an email to professor Voegeli Juste-Constant, contact that I use very often in my radio show in Fusion Radio. He reports the news from Haiti and from the Black/haitian community in Toronto. If I do not hear from him early this week, I will most likely talk to him on saturday. Professor Voegeli has extensive knowledge on the relations between Canada and Haiti. Moreover, he has tremendous knowledge on Haiti's history which would be great to make connections and links.
Monday, March 5, 2007
McKenna's paper
Canada and the Haitian Crisis
by McKenna, P. Journal of Canadian Studies, Peterborough: Fall 1997. Vol.32, Iss.3; pg.77
This article examined the nature and extend of Canada's involvement in the crisis in Haiti. It also explains how much the Canadian government had a leading role- within the OAS (Organization of Amrican States) in reestablishing democracy in Haiti after Aristide was ousted out of the country. The focus of this article was from 1991 to 1994 when Aristide came back to power.
McKenna's article argues that Canada's leading role in Haitian crisis was tremendous, but that it was a crisis where the Canadian government could look relatively good at a very little cost politically and economically. In addition, Canadian foreign policy is geared towards multiculturalism since Canada's interventions in foreign affairs are always within an organization (such as OAS, UNSC and NATO).
by McKenna, P. Journal of Canadian Studies, Peterborough: Fall 1997. Vol.32, Iss.3; pg.77
This article examined the nature and extend of Canada's involvement in the crisis in Haiti. It also explains how much the Canadian government had a leading role- within the OAS (Organization of Amrican States) in reestablishing democracy in Haiti after Aristide was ousted out of the country. The focus of this article was from 1991 to 1994 when Aristide came back to power.
McKenna's article argues that Canada's leading role in Haitian crisis was tremendous, but that it was a crisis where the Canadian government could look relatively good at a very little cost politically and economically. In addition, Canadian foreign policy is geared towards multiculturalism since Canada's interventions in foreign affairs are always within an organization (such as OAS, UNSC and NATO).
Sunday, March 4, 2007
book to get asap
I must get the book written by David Malone in Trinity College Library
Decision-making in the UN Security Council: the case of Haiti, 1990-1997
This book seems to have a lot of information about Canada's involvement in Haiti's crisis.
The exert I read online talked about Aristide taking over office and the coup.
(p.58)
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, commonly called Titide by the population, took office from February 7 to September 30 1991. He had huge challenges: hostility of the elite unconcealed, the loyalty of Armed Force uncertain and the violence in the country perduring.
Aristide appointed individuals be believed to be reformed minded to replace the country's highest ranking military officers. He underetimated the anxiety these appointments created amongst soldiers and officers who, according to the information collected, sparked the september 1991 coup against him.
One must recognize though that Aristide, unlike most of its predecessor made serious efforts to come to grips with the major challenges facing him: fractionalized army, civilian opposition groups ranging from hard core Duvalierists who have never accepted their defeat, an a reluctant business community. Aristide had big reform ideas for the country but the new administration seemed overwhelmed by the scope of the reforms and the extremely limited means at its disposal.
The military coup started on September 29th 1991. Aristide's life was at stake since he was handcuffed, physically abused and threatened by a number of officer. It is only because of the pressure from the US and France, that the rebels let Aristide fly to Caracas on an aircraft sent for him by President Perez from Venezuela.
Decision-making in the UN Security Council: the case of Haiti, 1990-1997
This book seems to have a lot of information about Canada's involvement in Haiti's crisis.
The exert I read online talked about Aristide taking over office and the coup.
(p.58)
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, commonly called Titide by the population, took office from February 7 to September 30 1991. He had huge challenges: hostility of the elite unconcealed, the loyalty of Armed Force uncertain and the violence in the country perduring.
Aristide appointed individuals be believed to be reformed minded to replace the country's highest ranking military officers. He underetimated the anxiety these appointments created amongst soldiers and officers who, according to the information collected, sparked the september 1991 coup against him.
One must recognize though that Aristide, unlike most of its predecessor made serious efforts to come to grips with the major challenges facing him: fractionalized army, civilian opposition groups ranging from hard core Duvalierists who have never accepted their defeat, an a reluctant business community. Aristide had big reform ideas for the country but the new administration seemed overwhelmed by the scope of the reforms and the extremely limited means at its disposal.
The military coup started on September 29th 1991. Aristide's life was at stake since he was handcuffed, physically abused and threatened by a number of officer. It is only because of the pressure from the US and France, that the rebels let Aristide fly to Caracas on an aircraft sent for him by President Perez from Venezuela.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
canadas foreign policy change
Discovering the Americas: The Evolution of Canadian Foreign Policy Towards Latin
by James Francis
(p.11)
Canada's foreign policy was handles by the british until the statute of westminter in 1931.
Facing tremendous difficulties after the Great Depression and serious droughts in the West, Ottawa remained passive in international relations in these years. This scenario changed drastically with the outbreak of the 2nd World War (September 3, 1939); an event that altered Canada by enabling it to become a major power power in the world.
by James Francis
(p.11)
Canada's foreign policy was handles by the british until the statute of westminter in 1931.
Facing tremendous difficulties after the Great Depression and serious droughts in the West, Ottawa remained passive in international relations in these years. This scenario changed drastically with the outbreak of the 2nd World War (September 3, 1939); an event that altered Canada by enabling it to become a major power power in the world.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Khoon's article
Khoon, J.(Februaru 16, 2007) Le mandat (contesté) des Casques bleus en Haïti prolongé.
La Presse. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from
http://www.canadahaitiaction.ca/article.php?id=241
This article explains that the Canadian presence in Haiti is actually contested by population of the islands and the Haitian diaspora. In a resolution that was adopted unanimity by the United Nations Security Council, the operation on Haiti was prolonged for an extra 8 months and requested to see the actions against the rebel intensify in order to regain security and order in the small island.
According to the International Crisis Group(ICG), some Haitian NGOs and ActionAid, the mandate's priorities are wrong. To concentrate on military actions against armed groups cannot be a long term strategy. These groups also explains that the challenge is to help Haiti rebuild strong civil institutions along with restore the state of law, rebuild the judiciary system ruined by corruption and incompetency. ICG adds that crime is increasing, the prison have too many people and the poors do not have the right to a lawyer.
ActionAid insist that the fight against the rebel group is only going to bring a temporary peace to the country since the MINUSTAH retains good relations with other armed groups. According to ActionAid, it is imperative to rebuild the judiciary system.
Furthermore, according to documents obtained by the Haiti Information Project (HIP) under the information access law, the MINUSTAH admited to the US embassy that they used an "excessive force" during an operation on July 6 2005 at Cité Soleil. Theembassy wrote that more than 22 000 bullets were shot for about 7 hours and that they could have go in one of the fortune houses of Cite Soleil and kill civilians. As a result, Edmond Mulet, the person directing the MINUSTAH admited that they were collateral damages; Mulet said that 12 or 13 people were killed including 10 gangsters. After a study, the HIP concluded that 50 to 70 people were killed in that one evening.
When 2 albanophones from Kosovo got killed around the same time by Canadian troops, the interior minister quit and the UN police chief faced tremendous and harsh critism. In Haiti, "all the investigations were without a closing" says Lovinski Pierre-Antoine, from a Haitian NGO.
La Presse. Retrieved February 20, 2007, from
http://www.canadahaitiaction.ca/article.php?id=241
This article explains that the Canadian presence in Haiti is actually contested by population of the islands and the Haitian diaspora. In a resolution that was adopted unanimity by the United Nations Security Council, the operation on Haiti was prolonged for an extra 8 months and requested to see the actions against the rebel intensify in order to regain security and order in the small island.
According to the International Crisis Group(ICG), some Haitian NGOs and ActionAid, the mandate's priorities are wrong. To concentrate on military actions against armed groups cannot be a long term strategy. These groups also explains that the challenge is to help Haiti rebuild strong civil institutions along with restore the state of law, rebuild the judiciary system ruined by corruption and incompetency. ICG adds that crime is increasing, the prison have too many people and the poors do not have the right to a lawyer.
ActionAid insist that the fight against the rebel group is only going to bring a temporary peace to the country since the MINUSTAH retains good relations with other armed groups. According to ActionAid, it is imperative to rebuild the judiciary system.
Furthermore, according to documents obtained by the Haiti Information Project (HIP) under the information access law, the MINUSTAH admited to the US embassy that they used an "excessive force" during an operation on July 6 2005 at Cité Soleil. Theembassy wrote that more than 22 000 bullets were shot for about 7 hours and that they could have go in one of the fortune houses of Cite Soleil and kill civilians. As a result, Edmond Mulet, the person directing the MINUSTAH admited that they were collateral damages; Mulet said that 12 or 13 people were killed including 10 gangsters. After a study, the HIP concluded that 50 to 70 people were killed in that one evening.
When 2 albanophones from Kosovo got killed around the same time by Canadian troops, the interior minister quit and the UN police chief faced tremendous and harsh critism. In Haiti, "all the investigations were without a closing" says Lovinski Pierre-Antoine, from a Haitian NGO.
more readings...
Yunnus, M. 'Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Introduction' (p.183)
The little extract I read was talking about Canada's foreign policy in the international scene. The author explains that consistency and stability in past foreign policy tends to be related to perceptions of power. Hence, 'consistency of clear cut foreign policy over time, particularly if that policy is successful, also tends to allot a leadership role to the country concerned.' As appropriate examples one could look at the foreign aid and the peacekeeping components of Canada's foreign policy. As a consequence, "the impact of a change in this policy in Canada's image in the world can be adverse and act as a constraint on suggestions for that change".
__________________________
(p.175)
In this section of the book, Yunnus explains how the role of external affairs ministers are very often limited by bureaucratic pressures and lack of time. Thus, very often, the external affairs ministers are expected to respond a crisis as promtly as possible with solely their own background knowledge. When in the event that the ministers, for whatever reasons (like being new in the position), is not able to come up with a decision/suggestions, he has no choice but to approve his advisors' decisions. In Canada, we have witnessed this case with Peter McKay who became the external affairs minister last year under the Harper government. He had to deal with several big issues such as if the Canadian troops would stay longer to Afghanistan without being fully preped for the position. He had no other choice than to rely on its advisors...and of course Harper himself.
_____________
Massie explained in his article that one of Canada's agenda in helping other countries, including Haiti, is to have a bigger role in the international stage. Hence, often, in other to be part of the "leaders", Canada would usually join US, France and UK to intervene in certain situations. Here I make the link with Yunus' extract, since I would suspect that several times, Canada feels "pressure" to intervene in some crisis. For instance, I recall George W. Bush talking about the axis of evil after the event of 9/11. If one country was not fighting along the US, then you were against them. Obviously, here we can see the pressure put upon the canadian government to be acting a certain way.
The little extract I read was talking about Canada's foreign policy in the international scene. The author explains that consistency and stability in past foreign policy tends to be related to perceptions of power. Hence, 'consistency of clear cut foreign policy over time, particularly if that policy is successful, also tends to allot a leadership role to the country concerned.' As appropriate examples one could look at the foreign aid and the peacekeeping components of Canada's foreign policy. As a consequence, "the impact of a change in this policy in Canada's image in the world can be adverse and act as a constraint on suggestions for that change".
__________________________
(p.175)
In this section of the book, Yunnus explains how the role of external affairs ministers are very often limited by bureaucratic pressures and lack of time. Thus, very often, the external affairs ministers are expected to respond a crisis as promtly as possible with solely their own background knowledge. When in the event that the ministers, for whatever reasons (like being new in the position), is not able to come up with a decision/suggestions, he has no choice but to approve his advisors' decisions. In Canada, we have witnessed this case with Peter McKay who became the external affairs minister last year under the Harper government. He had to deal with several big issues such as if the Canadian troops would stay longer to Afghanistan without being fully preped for the position. He had no other choice than to rely on its advisors...and of course Harper himself.
_____________
Massie explained in his article that one of Canada's agenda in helping other countries, including Haiti, is to have a bigger role in the international stage. Hence, often, in other to be part of the "leaders", Canada would usually join US, France and UK to intervene in certain situations. Here I make the link with Yunus' extract, since I would suspect that several times, Canada feels "pressure" to intervene in some crisis. For instance, I recall George W. Bush talking about the axis of evil after the event of 9/11. If one country was not fighting along the US, then you were against them. Obviously, here we can see the pressure put upon the canadian government to be acting a certain way.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
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.
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.
proposal
Due to the heavy crunch time, I will submit my proposal this upcoming friday. I would also like to know that if my proposal is not its best, would a be able to submit a second one the following week?
Thank you
Thank you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
