A-Infos (en) Canada, Defiance not Compliance! #2 April 2005, A publication of Anti-capitalist Community Action (ACA) - War and Imperialism Issue [EXCERPT]

[a-infos-en@ainfos.ca]

Editorial ------- Welcome to the second issue of Defiance Not Compliance. The theme for this
------------issue is war and imperialism. What exactly is imperialism? How does it
explain what is going on in the world? How do we oppose it? The articles in
this issue represent attempts to answer those questions.
The term "imperialism" is frequently used by radicals without ever
explaining what it is or how it works in terms that ordinary people can
understand. The first article, Imperialism 101, attempts to explain what it
is and how it is related to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Canadians are frequently smug about the actions of the US government.
However, the Canadian state has a long history of involvement in
imperialism, often under the guise of "peace-keeping." Canadian governments
are frequently the junior partner of more powerful imperialist states such
as the US. This was certainly the role the Canadian government played in the
recent overthrow of the government of Haiti. The role of Canada is described
in Canadian Imperialism in Haiti. A second article, Canada: In Through the
Backdoor describes the Canadian role in Haiti, Vietnam and Iraq.

The article on the Question of Anti-colonialism tackles the thorny issue of
how anti-authoritarians should oppose US imperialism in Iraq and whether we
should uncritically support the insurgency. Israeli Anarchism describes how
Israeli anarchists are working in solidarity with the Palestinian people.

-------------------------------------------------
Imperialism 101

What is it?
   The word "imperialism" is often used without explaining what it means.
Imperialism is the domination of one country, region or economy by another.
In the past this took the form of conquest and direct rule or colonization
of one country by another. It may also take place indirectly through client
states dominated by a much more economically and militarily powerful state.
This is normally the case today.
    Economic factors are the major driving force behind imperialism. Under
modern capitalism, corporations require access to
* resources: for example, Russian and French oil companies had signed
contracts with Saddam Hussein prior to the Iraq war. The war has insured
that US corporations will be given preference.
* cheap labour: for example, US and Canadian corporations  exploit cheap
labour in Mexico.
* markets for exports: for example, dumping of goods such as cigarettes into
Africa for much lower prices.
Such economic imperialism does not benefit the entire population of the
imperialist country. Instead it mainly benefits the economic elites while
any costs are paid by the entire population through taxes.
      Modern imperialism takes in the context of the system of nation-states
and may not be driven by economics alone. States often have their own
reasons for imperialism that go beyond mere economic motivations. States
compete with one another for dominance or control over particular regions.
Imperial states also act to pre-empt potential rival states from becoming
stronger or gaining a foothold in a particular region. Nationalism can also
be a driving force behind imperialism.

How it works
   Prior to World War II, the Western European countries were the dominant
imperialist powers and held vast colonial empires which they ruled directly.
This is referred to as "colonialism."
    After World War II, the US and Soviet Union emerged as the major
imperialist powers. Unlike the previous colonial phase of imperialism,
modern capitalists prefer to rule through a local proxy or "comprador" who
grants some legitimacy to this form of domination. This is sometimes called
"neo-colonialism."
    Internal US State Department documents make the imperialist nature of
the US in this period quite clear. A 1948 document by George Kennan, former
head of the US State Department policy planning staff states:
We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population.
This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of
Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and
resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of
relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity.
[1]
Maintaining the status quo in which the US (and Europe) are
disproportionately wealthy and consume the bulk of the world's resources
requires force or at least the threat of force. As New York Times columnist
Thomas Friedman wrote in a rare moment of honesty:
The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist.
McDonalds cannot flourish without McDonnell-Douglas...And the hidden fist
that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is
called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. [2]
    This is a candid admission of the imperialist nature of modern
capitalism with the US military as its enforcer or "hidden fist". Similar to
the colonial period, poorer countries are treated as a vast pool of cheap
labour and resources to be exploited. However, as Friedman points out, such
exploitation is impossible without the coercive force of the "hidden fist"
i.e. the US military.
     The recent trend under so-called economic "globalization" is to
institutionalize imperial domination through "free" trade deals which force
open the markets of weaker nations to imports from powerful nations while
allowing powerful nations to continue subsidies to their economies. Foreign
debt is also used to blackmail subject countries into putting in place the
policies which maximize profits for corporations. This is euphemistically
referred to as a "Structural Adjustment Program."
    If a particular state or its population fail to obey imperial demands,
there are a number of steps the imperial power may take:
1. Intervention in elections by funding opposition parties more friendly to
imperial interests. A recent example of this was the recent elections in
Ukraine where both the US and Russia were funding and supporting competing
parties.
2. Economic sanctions to impose a cost to defying imperial power. One of the
most infamous examples of this is the sanctions against Iraq during the
1990's which resulted in the death of perhaps 500,000 children.
3. Find cooperative members in military and attempt a coup. The US was
involved in planning and helping execute virtually every coup in Latin
America. An example is the CIA-planned 1973 coup in Chile which displaced an
elected socialist government by a brutal military dictatorship.
4. Destabilization i.e. fund/arm/create a guerrilla army. For example,
during the 1980's the US government created and armed a guerrilla army
("Contras") to destabilize and displace the left-leaning government of
Nicaragua.
5. Invasion is used as last resort. Imperial superpowers have a long history
of this. Examples include US invasions of Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq or
the Soviet Union's invasions of Afghanistan, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia.
Invasion has added benefit of intimidating other uncooperative states.
Military invasion may also be used if a proxy regime is under threat from
popular uprising.
The power imbalance between the imperial power and its victim is generally
so great that the imperial power cannot be defeated militarily.
   One of the few ways that imperialism can be stopped is popular action
within the country itself. For example, the US pulled out of Vietnam largely
because of domestic opposition rather than for military reasons. This
movement was so successful that for almost 10 years afterward, US
governments were unwilling to engage in direct imperialist military
adventures.

The Iraq War As Imperialism
     The 2002 US invasion of Iraq is a classic example of modern
imperialism. Sanctions had failed to make the regime more compliant and
covert action such as a coup had little chance of success. As noted above,
the next logical step in the imperial playbook is military invasion. As
early as 1998, those who would become the key players in the Bush
administration were advocating military action against Iraq. A letter to
then president Clinton signed by current secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld and his assistant Paul Wolfowitz among others advocated "removing
Saddam's regime from power" in order to "protect our vital interests in the
Gulf" [3].
    It is no secret what those "vital interests" are. When asked at an Asian
security summit in Singapore why the US invaded Iraq instead of North Korea,
US deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz said:
Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea
and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country
swims on a sea of oil. [4]
He later claimed he was misquoted. However, in a 1992 Defense Planning
Guidance document, Wolfowitz was also quite candid about US interests in the
region:
In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain
the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western
access to the region's oil. [5]
Despite Bush's public claims to the contrary, it is clear that "access to
the region's oil" was an important motivating factor in the invasion. It is
no coincidence that the US invaded the country with the second largest oil
reserves in the world.
   However, the invasion is about more than pillaging Iraqi oil reserves.
Control of oil is part of a broader strategy to ensure US global dominance.
This strategy is laid out in two documents written by the key members of the
Bush regime, the "Defense Planning Guidance" document of 1992 and a document
entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" put out by a neo-conservative
think-tank called the Project For a New American Century.
    Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been unchallenged as the
only superpower. Since that time, preventing the rise of any challengers to
US power has been a goal of American planners. According to a leaked 1992
Defense Department document, "Our first objective is to prevent the
re-emergence of a new rival" [5].
    This document was written by current Vice-President Dick Cheney and
current Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. Similar ideas are
contained in a 2000 document by the Project for a New American Century, a
think-tank which included Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld among others. That
document similarly states that:
At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the
future as possible...[The military's job is] to deter the rise of a new
greatpower competitor; defend key regions of Europe, East Asia and the
Middle East; and to preserve American preeminence through the coming
transformation of war made possible by new technologies. [6]
The US "grand strategy" in the Middle East is not merely furthering US
economic interests but with ensuring that the US remain the only superpower.
Oil is the key to this goal. European and east Asian countries depend on
Middle East oil. Control over this resource gives US tremendous leverage
over any potential rival, specifically the European Union or China. As
Cheney and Wolfowitz put it:
First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect
a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that
they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture
to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we
must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial
nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to
overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must
maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even
aspiring to a larger regional or global role. [5]
Through its invasion of Iraq, the US is attempting to assert its
unchallenged control over the oil-rich Gulf region. The US seeks to become
the enforcer (i.e. "the hidden fist") for global capitalism and as part of
that aim was seeking to ensure future access to Middle East oil for itself
and it's dependent European allies. Control of that oil and the ability to
deny it to potential rivals like China would ensure US dominance in the 21st
century.
    However, this plan has not gone as smoothly as the Bush regime had
initially thought.  The ongoing insurgency in Iraq has raised the cost of
this venture considerably. Despite this, Bush has now been re-elected for a
second term thanks to the support of the quasi-fascist Christian right. Only
a popular anti-imperialist movement within North America can raise the cost
of US imperialism to an intolerable level and ultimately put it to an end.

References
[1] - State Department Document PPS23, 24th February 1948
http://www.firethistime.org/georgekennanpps23.htm
[2] - Thomas Friedman  - The Lexus and the Olive Tree
 Douglas & McIntyre, 1999
[3] - Letter to President Clinton, Project For A New American Century, 1998
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
[4] - as reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt
[5] - Defense Planning Guidance, US Department of Defense (leaked document)
1992
http://www.manifestor.org/imperium/archive/DPG1992.htm
[6] - Rebuilding America's Defenses, Project For A New American Century,
2000 http://www.manifestor.org/imperium/archive/PNAC.pdf

--------------------------------------------------------------

The question of anti-colonialism
Michael Handelman

    In the anti-war movement, the demand that is often being raised is "US
out of Iraq!". While, I certainly agree with this statement, I'm not
entirely clear if it is a sufficient demand. One of the key 'justifications'
that Bush and his cohorts are using is that the U.S. needs to have a strong
presence in Iraq because if they leave prematurely, the Islamic
fundamentalists will take over.
    Coming from someone like Bush, who is so closely tied to the Christian
fundamentalists, is a sign of the radical hypocrisy that seems to under-gird
the Bush administration. Nonetheless, anyone who cares about human rights
should be extremely critical before embracing concepts like Iraq's 'national
self-determination'. If we accept the notion that states, should have
'sovereignty' and 'self-determination', how can we criticize a state for
oppressive practices? By criticizing them, we are violating their national
'sovereignty'.
    The U.S. getting out of Iraq, may eliminate one of the oppressive forces
in Iraq, but there will still be other forms of oppression in Iraq such as
class oppression. Given the growing strength of religious fundamentalists in
Iraq, it's likely that many people's freedom will continue to be abrogated
in Iraq.
    We come to, the major issue that my article wants to deal with, which it
is the question of anti-colonialist projects. I feel somewhat uncomfortable
about this question, because it seems kind of arrogant and condescending for
me living relatively comfortably in the first world, saying to the colonized
of the world 'this is how you should revolt'. But in my defense, these are
issues that also effect people within the 'first world', i.e. we have to
have some sort of analysis about which side we should 'critically support'.
    Historically, without this analysis, many people who are sympathetic to
anti-colonialist movements end up supporting highly repressive regimes. When
some anti-colonialist movements came to power in the third world (e.g. Pol
Pot), they were often extra-ordinarily repressive. What is perhaps more
disturbing, is that quite a few people sympathetic to the anti-colonialist
struggles, ended up supporting these repressive regimes. It is obviously
wrong to claim, that 'anti-colonialist' movements inherently lead to
totalitarianism, both because that is not accurate and it is racist, because
it is making the claim that people in the colonized world, can't live
'democratically', and need others to govern them. Rather, to put it
simplistically, the colonized often utilize a type of nationalism which
unifies the largest number of the indigenous opposition to the colonialist
power. However, after the colonizers have been driven out, the nationalist
ideology can become dangerous. The assumption that under-girds this type of
nationalism is that all the members of the society have the exact same
interest. Obviously, there are gender, class and other distinctions, which
make a uniformity of interest impossible, so what happens is that the state
attempts to impose conformity on the population, 'make everyone have the
same interest', and this has deep possible totalitarian implications to it.
It for instance, legitimizes a radical suppression of class conflict for
instance, because class conflict, suggests that workers and capitalist class
have different interests, contra nationalist arguments.
    This analysis doesn't really fit what's happening in Iraq. In Iraq,
there is not the unified nationalist opposition such as that which occurred
in Vietnam. Opposition in Iraq is much more fragmented in nature. While,
admitting our access to information is severely limited, there doesn't seem
to be any coherent political project that crops up in Iraq, as there was in
Vietnam where there was a National Liberation Front (NLF) which advanced a
nationalist anti-colonialist political program. The absence of a national
political program, has promises and pitfalls for us in the 'first world.' We
don't know who to support, but at the same time, it seems doubtful that
we're going to become uncritical in our anti-colonialist support (as what
happened in the late 1960s and 1970s). In the absence of an anti-colonialist
political project, anti-colonial resistance in Iraq may take the form of a
highly reactionary religious fundamentalist regime along the lines of Iran.
However, it could be that the fragmented nature of the resistance could make
such a fundamentalist project difficult to achieve.
    A successful anti-colonialist project, must tie anti-colonialism
struggle to class struggle. Resistance must be something that occurs against
the domination of the factory as well as the domination of the colonialist.
Furthermore, a class based resistance must make alliance with other
oppressed groups (e.g. women, ethnic minorities etc). An anti-colonialist
project is ideally a project against hierarchical domination (i.e. against
the domination of colonialist over the colonized), and thus it follows the
best way to achieve this, is through an attack on the hierarchical
domination in general.

-----------------------------------
Israeli Anarchism:
Being Young, Queer, and Radical in the Promised Land

<Snipped>
See:
http://www.ainfos.org/05/feb/ainfos00185.html
(en) Israeli Anarchism – Being Young, Queer, and Radical in the 'Promised Land'

--------------------------------------------------------------

Canadian Imperialism in Haiti
Gordie Wornoff

It's early 2003 and Chretien is riding high with a majority Liberal
government.  "Beware the Ides of March," softly grumbles throughout the
House.  Canadian corpses are being shipped home from Afghanistan and Canada
deliberates on joining the 'coalition of the willing' to invade Iraq.
    Colin Powell delivers a slideshow to the UN on Feb. 5, describing what
has turned out to be a make-believe nest of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq.
    The resounding blast from the American jet which dropped a half-ton,
laser-guided bomb on Canadian soldiers training in Afghanistan the year
before left citizens wary of another invasion - peace-lovers and military
families alike.
    Thousands of activists across the country took to the streets on
weekends to amplify the anger that the invasion creates.  A quarter million
march in Montreal on Feb. 15 - the largest mobilization against war for at
least 25 years in Canada.
    Canada chooses to abandon the coalition of the willing - in Iraq at
least.  Even with a full majority in the House, Chretien had his legacy in
mind and chose to stay out of the war.
    As US-led military invasions pan out in the Canadian Parliament and the
deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, there is massive plotting in Haiti which no
one speaks about at this time.  Rebel armies, funded by the CIA are training
in the mountains of the Dominican Republic, waiting for their chance to
overthrow Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, according to
Haitian-based journalist Kevin Pina.  Guy Philippe and Paul Arcelin are
arrested that spring for attacking a hydroelectric plant.  They will later
participate in armed insurgency in Haiti that will see Aristide be removed
from power.
    Rewind one month to January 2003: Denis Paradis (Lib-Brome-Missisquio)
former Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa in La Francophonie
(54 French-speaking nations) called a meeting at Meech Lake to discuss
Haiti's future.  French, American and Canadian delegates were all invited,
but no Haitians.
    Canadian journalist Anthony Fenton says Paradis and his cohorts
discussed the removal of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, putting
Haiti under UN tutelage, and reinstating the disbanded Forces Armee D'Haiti
(FADH).  Paradis says no such ouster was planned that early, and the fact
that these three things have happened was the result of a UN-sponsored
report published in Canada entitled The Responsibility to Protect.
    Published in 2001, the report encourages world leaders to override the
fundamental UN rule of state-sovereignty if they feel there is a "failed
state."  "I've been around the world, I started a couple of years ago to
sell this book," says Paradis.
    Kevin Skerrett, with the Ottawa-Haiti Solidarity Committee says the
report is "troubling because it's cleverly structured to talk about current
political conflict in poor countries in such a way that it presents them as
problems for wealthy countries to solve with military removals and passed on
to economic multilateral bodies."
    While the Canadian government erupted with the sponsorship scandal in
Feb. 2003, an invasion of Haiti would seem to be the last thing on the
agenda.  "This decision is made by the government, not the House of
Commons," says Paradis.
    Chretien stepped down as Prime Minister in December 2003, leaving Paul
Martin the reins and no official opposition leader.  There is scant
documented mention of Canada intervening in Haiti until Feb. 27, 2004 - two
days before Aristide is removed from his position as president by US Marines
and flown to exile in the heart of Africa.  Aristide claims it was a coup
d'etat - a terrorist kidnaping.  The American government says it was done to
prevent bloodshed in Haiti.  Since then, at hundreds of lives have been
taken by the new government and countless unmarked graves have been filled,
according to a Haitian human rights investigation conducted by Thomas
Griffin.  The report states that the Haitian police will not even take
bodies to the morgue anymore, just borrow the dump truck.
    A few days before Aristide's removal, Skerrett says he felt very
strongly that a coup d'etat was about to happen.  "I felt sick about it. I
felt awful.  I went to an anti-war meeting with a bunch of students and told
them what I knew and they gave me the strangest looks.  After that, I spent
18 hours a day at the news.  I called up Fenton, and he agreed."
    Ottawa-based Haitian journalist Jean St-Vil says Paul Martin was looking
to be a major international player, and contributing to the invasion Haiti
in 2004 was his chance.  "Choose between sending your troops to Iraq or
Haiti.  They'll come back with a tan from Haiti or a body bag from Iraq,"
St-Vil says.
    Parliament had a week-long break after this session and came back to sit
on March 8, 2004.  David Pratt, Minister of National Defence announced that
Canada would be sending a force of 500 and a squadron of Griffon helicopters
immediately.
    Despite American journalist Alan Nairn's coverage that the CIA was
responsible for organizing Haitian death squads who have killed up to 5000
Lavalas supporters before 1995 alone, the Canadian government went ahead to
support the Haitian interim government made up of these same men.
    "It would have been impossible for them [the Canadian government] not to
know," Pina says.
    Capt. Holly Apostoliuk says the Canadian Forces do not consider the
consequences of their operations.  "We are the government's tool," she says,
noting that the minority government made no difference in the decision to
intervene.  Just as Paradis asserted, the government decides, not the House.
    Canadian Forces have since returned from Haiti and Canadians have prided
themselves on providing 100 RCMP officers to train the Haitian National
Police (HNP) and millions of dollars of aid money to help the poor in Haiti.
    Haitian-based journalist Kevin Pina has been living in Haiti for the
past five years, and bears witness to these contributions.  "Unfortunately,
the UN, Canada and France are covering what is a US foreign policy
adventure," he says.  He adds that the RCMP have been training and
re-integrating former members of the disbanded brutal military FADH into the
Haitian National Police "death squads" who routinely execute members of
Aristide's Lavalas party.  "We don't know their [RCMP] rules of engagement
in Haiti, the human rights components, they [HNP] are routinely violating
every law and the RCMP washes their hands of it," Pina says.
    RCMP Corporal Laford says police are trained to be neutral.  "It's tough
to tell from my ivory tower in Ottawa," he says, "but they're all
well-trained to make judgement calls on the ground, and most of the time we
can recognize a bad apple in the crowd."
    Pina said that two days ago, in one of the poorest slums on the island,
a peaceful demonstration took place in support of Aristide.  "Haitian police
and SWAT open-fired and killed several people," he says.  Pina has filmed
several executions of Aristide supporters and has seen even more.  He spoke
of a colleague in Haiti who witnessed the HNP shoot three demonstrators in
the back of their heads.  The police then chased the journalist into a
restaurant, who locked the door behind him.  The police tore down the door,
dragged him into the street and "pumped three bullets into his head."
    Canada's minority government has faced little criticism for supporting
the brutal regime so far, but "there's the potential for great embarrassment
here, the outcome remains unwritten," Pina says.  "the body count mounts and
it becomes clearer that this is a campaign through physical violence to
eliminate Jean-Bertrand Aristide's supporters."

--------------------------------------------------------------

Shut Down SNC-Lavalin!

   Canadian corporations contribute to the war against Iraq and other acts
of brutality and destruction. Driven by profits they produce the weapons and
offer the material and logistical support that make possible occupation,
killing and torture around the world.
    The war they are waging is more than bullets and bombers. It stretches
to nations where public services are privatized. It extends to sweatshops
where corporations seek ever lower wages. It occurs where indigenous people
are pushed off the land to make way for mining and oil exploration. The war
is here at home where the corporate executives live and operate. These
war-profiteers function in cities across the country. One Canadian
corporation stands above the rest in profiting from war and other forms of
domination: SNC-Lavalin.
    SNC is one of Canada's biggest arms manufacturers. It currently provides
ammunition to US Occupation Forces in Iraq. However, the extent of the
violence it perpetrates reaches around the world.
    SNC's slogan of "health, safety, the environment" cannot cover-up the
harm it does to all three in the interest of profit. From dams and  mining
projects in Cree and Innu territory in Quebec, to oil, to nuclear reactors
in China, to biotech, to privatizatization worldwide, SNC-Lavalin is one of
the engines that feeds indigenous peoples, workers, and all aspects of the
environment into the Capitalist machine.
    Community activists and organizers from Catapult! (Ottawa), June 30th
Coalition (Toronto), and Block the Empire (Montreal) have launched a
campaign to "Take Down SNC." We are putting the executives and share-holders
of SNC Lavalin on notice: profiting from war and occupation will not be
tolerated. Equally intolerable is the Canadian government's practice of
subsidizing war-profiteers, whether directly or by way of so-called
"development" plans and loans to impoverished countries brokered by Export
Development Canada.
    We plan to extend a broad-based education and action campaign that
exposes Canadian involvement in war, (neo)colonialism, displacement, racism,
privatization, the reconfiguration of civil liberties and other forms of
domination. We will map the links between government subsidies and military
operations, corporate actions and the devastation of communities and the
environment.
    We call everyone living inside Fortress North America, to join this
campaign. We call on all groups working for Justice to support it.
Coordinate actions that open a space of resistance and disrupt the non-stop
exploitation that is lauded as the smooth performance of Capital.
    There are many ways you can participate in this campaign. Here are some
examples:
* research and disseminate information about SNC and other war-profiteers,
as it relates to your issues of concern;
* if you work for SNC or anyone of its subsidiaries, DIVEST! Sell the stock
that the corporation has "shared" with you;
* if you have a pension plan, make sure that it is not invested in
war-profiteers like SNC;
* make a map of locations where war-profiteers, corporate criminals,
political elites, and police and military institutions converge in your
community -- see www.fortressnorthamerica.net;
* form an affinity group and do an autonomous actions to shut-down SNC's
day-to-day exploitation;
* join groups actively participating in this campaign, Catapult! (Ottawa),
June 30th (Toronto), Block the Empire (Montreal).

For more information contact:
CATAPULT!: http://www.catapultcollective.org , catapult@resist.ca
June 30th: june30th@riseup.net
Block the Empire: http://clac.taktic.org, bloquezlempiremontreal@resist.ca

Send maps of your locale to inside@fortressnorthamerica.net

--------------------------------------------------------------

Canada: In Through the Backdoor

    It's often thought that Canada has no imperial inclinations itself,
unlike our American cousins to the south. It is claimed that Canada believes
in multilateralism and peacekeeping over invasion and domination. For
example, Canada politely declined to join the US invasion of Vietnam and the
coalition of the willing to invade Iraq in 2003. Neither of these invasions
fit with Canada's longstanding policy of diplomacy and peaceful resolution.
    Sometimes if lies are told often enough they have a way of becoming the
"truth."

Vietnam
    One of the lasting images of Canada during the Vietnam War was that of a
safe-haven for draft-dodgers and Vietnamese alike. However, if the American
draft-dodgers or Vietnamese thought they were fleeing the US war machine by
coming to Canada they were sadly mistaken.
    During the period of 1964 to 1973 Canada was one of the primary weapons
suppliers to the US war machine. (1) The same government that did not want
to participate had no problem allowing Canadian corporations to profit from
a war which it did not approve.
    The powerful herbicide Agent Orange, which was used to kill the thick
vegetation of Vietnam, is a product of Canada.  It was manufactured in
Elmira Ontario and tested at CFB Gagetown in New Brunswick. (2)
    When questioned about the morality of selling arms, then Liberal
Minister of
Manpower Jean Marchand said "Do you want to be the one to tell 150,000
Canadian workers that they are out of work because we discontinued producing
war material for the USA under the defense contracts we hold with them?" (3)
    As if approving the sale of arms wasn't enough, Canadian government
peace negotiators spied for the CIA instead of working on a peaceful
resolution.  On top of this, Canadian officials helped spot for US bombers
over
North Vietnam. (4)
    To make matters worse, medical relief sponsored by religious groups
destined for North Vietnam, was blocked by the Canadian government. In fact,
between 1950 and 1975 $29 million dollars in aid from Canada went to South
Vietnam and none made its way to North Vietnam. (5)
    While it's true that Canada did take in thousands of American
draft-dodgers and tens of thousands of Vietnamese, it is also true that
Canadian corporations benefited tremendously from the destruction of
Vietnam.

(1) CBC - As It Happens
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/asithappens/vietnam/
 (2) Victor Levant, QUIET COMPLICITY:
CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR (1986)
Between the Lines, Toronto, Canada
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
(3) CBC - As It Happens
-23-
http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/asithappens/vietnam/
(4) Victor Levant, QUIET COMPLICITY:
CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR (1986)
Between the Lines, Toronto, Canada
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
(5) Victor Levant, QUIET COMPLICITY:
CANADIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE VIETNAM WAR (1986)
Between the Lines, Toronto, Canada
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/

Iraq
    In March 2003 former Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced that Canada
would not join the US-led invasion forces unless there was a second United
Nations resolution. Iraq was invaded despite massive worldwide peace
rallies, but at least a small victory was won because Canada did not join
the coalition of the willing. But was it really a victory?
    In documents obtained by the National Post, there were plans up until
October 2002 or November 2002 to send as many as 800 troops to Iraq. (1)
Then the plans were nixed. Around this time, the anti-war movement was
kicking into full gear and talk of Canada helping the US invade Iraq was
becoming increasingly unpopular. (2)
    There was a clear desire to participate in the invasion of Iraq.  Such
Participation would have been very unpopular. It could have hurt the
"legacy" of PM Chretien and the re-election chances of the government.
    Not only is there evidence that Canadian military personnel participated
in the invasion alongside US forces, but Canadians may have helped plan the
attack in the first place. On February 11, 2003 the Canadian government
transferred 25 military planners to the US base in Qatar. (3) When asked,
then Minister of Defense John McCallum told reporters, "This is prudent
military contingency planning. In the military, you have to hope for the
best and plan for the worst."
    Former US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci once noted in a March 2003
speech to the Economic Club of Toronto, "Ironically, the Canadian naval
vessels, aircraft and personnel in the Persian Gulf I mentioned earlier who
are fighting terrorism will provide more support indirectly to this war in
Iraq than most of the 46 countries that are fully supporting our efforts
there." (4) Yes, Paul, ironic indeed.

(1) Canada planned Iraq deployment, report reveals
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1069949934013_19
(2) Majority (54%) of Canadians Do Not Approve of Sending Canadian Troops If
the
United States Takes Military Action To Overthrow Iraq President Saddam
Hussein
http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1609
(3) Canada Quietly Supported U.S. Iraq Invasion
http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d0206cs.htm
(4) Speech by U.S. Ambassador Cellucci to the Economic Club of Toronto
http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/documents/cellucci030325.html


Haiti
    On the rare occasion that you hear anything about what has been going on
in Haiti it's typically stories of pro-Aristide "thugs" ruining the chances
for democracy or how much money and effort "developed" nations are pouring
into the beleaguered country.
    In reality, the one year anniversary of the overthrow of a
democratically elected government in Haiti has come and gone without as much
as a whisper in the news.  While the US and Canadian governments speak about
"spreading" democracy around the world they seem to neglect to mention their
role in shattering democracy in Haiti.
    If the media does not report Canada's crimes, perhaps they didn't
happen?
   So what has been going on?  First, lets back up a little bit and bring
some context to what is happening today.  In 1804 Haiti kicked out the
French and became an independent nation.  Since then, the US has invaded
several times and even occupied the island nation for a period of two
decades in the early 1900's.
    What followed was one corrupt government or dictatorship after another.
These regimes typically supported by the US either overtly or covertly
through the CIA.
    Fast forward to 1990 and Jean-Bertrand Aristide is overwhelmingly
elected as President.  Nine months later he was overthrown, with help from
the CIA, by the military. After a few years of violence against opponents to
the military dictatorship and general looting of the country, US President
Clinton sends in the troops to reverse the coup that the US had helped stage
in the first place.
    Unfortunately for Aristide, he made the mistake of not agreeing to the
neo-liberal trade agenda expected of him after his reinstatement put
forward, in part, by Canada.  Or perhaps his loyalty to those living in
poverty over the wealthy was too much for the "developed" world to bear.
    It appears that Canadian officials took part in planning Aristide's
ouster from as earlier on as January 2003.  It was then that Liberal MP
Denis Paradis hosted a meeting in Ottawa between French, US, and Canadian
officials. In a March 2003 interview with L'Actualité reporter Michel
Vastel, Paradis told Vastel of Airside's possible removal, the return of
Haiti's disbanded military (who overthrew Aristide in 1991), and the
possibility of a Kosovo-like trusteeship for Haiti.
    On the evening of February 29, 2004 news reports suggested that Canadian
soldiers were occupying the Haitian airport in Port au Prince. Minutes later
it was reported that the soldiers were only there to assist Canadian
nationals seeking to flee the Island. In a strange coincidence it was
learned that Aristide had been "escorted" out of Haiti that very same
evening from the very same airport. You do the math.
    Since then Canada has continued its shameful role in legitimizing the
overthrow of a duly elected government.
    Canada sent in the Mounties (RCMP) to help train Haiti's new police
force, known as the Haitian National Police (HNP).  David Beer, head of the
RCMP, is the commissioner of the UN police force. It has also been
discovered that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) has a
working relationship with the Haitian Justice Ministry.  Philippe Vixamar,
who has been on CIDA's payroll for the past 4 years, is working with the
Latortue's Justice Ministry.
    It is interesting to note that the HNP has been accused of committing
many human rights abuses including open firing on and killing several
pro-Aristide demonstrators.  Could it be that some of members of the HNP,
made up in part by former Haitian soldiers who took part in Aristide's first
ouster, have reverted
to their old ways?  Or is this the kind of training that the RCMP has always
hoped to employ?  Tough call.  But what we do know is that any abuses the
HNP are involved with have taken place while RCMP and CIDA officials have
influence in the Haitian Justice Ministry.
    Another way in which Canada is trying to legitimize Latortue's
government is by giving tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid.
It's probably true that financial support is needed.  However, why couldn't
Canada and the international community offered up the dough sooner?  Or do
we only give humanitarian aid to our friends?
   But the coup de grace is the complete silence, let alone interest in the
truth,
of the Canadian media. Even the allegedly left-leaning CBC has spent
considerably more time following the death march of the Pope than on how
Canada helped steal Haiti's democracy.  Other media outlets like CTV, the
Globe and Mail, National Post, Montreal gazette, Ottawa Citizen, Toronto
Star, Quebec's Le Soleil, and Montreal's La Presse mainly take interest when
Canada sends more money Haiti's way or how great it is that we are "help"
Haiti out.
    Sadly, one could write a lengthy book on the imperialist adventures of
the "developed" nations in Haiti. I'm afraid these short paragraphs cannot
and will not do the people of Haiti justice.  So I encourage you to read the
backgrounders at the end of this section for more information and as
reference.
    Finally, let me leave you with this. It's not hard to believe that at
least part of the reason why Haiti has been a focal point for aggression by
the US, France, and Canada is that former slaves had the audacity to run out
their white European masters 200 years ago.

Background:
(1) Interview with Michel Vastel and Jean Saint-Vil on
CBC's "The Current" Broadcast August 6, 2004
(2) Abuse after Aristide's ouster
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-wohait134145201feb14,0,4411
693.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
(3) Griffin Report: Haiti: Human Rights Investigation
http://www.law.miami.edu/cshr/CSHR_Report_02082005_v2.pdf
(4) Mainstream media misleads on Haiti
http://www.rabble.ca/for_the_sake_of_argument.shtml?x=36916
(5) Canada's role in Haiti is 'destructive'
http://www.rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=386159c0efb60f0a107e05c5f8
926fdc&r=1
(6) Kosovo Liberation Army helps establish "Protectorate" in Haiti
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/FEN411A.html
(7) Canada Haiti Action Network Mailing List
http://lists.cupe.ca/mailman/listinfo/chan

What's next?
    Celebrations were recently held in Ottawa after Prime Minister Paul
Martin
politely declined the US's invitation to join their ballistic missile
defence (BMD) program. The BMD program by its very nature will weaponize
space and further US dominance over the entire planet.
    What you should ask yourself is whether the Canadian government will
find a way to enter through the backdoor (i.e NORAD) and if so, will you
still believe in the lie or will the lie have become the truth?

--------------------------------------------------------------

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

The theme for the next issue is work in celebration of May Day.  We welcome
any article or original artwork or graphic related to our theme. Some
suggestions of articles we'd like to print include your experiences:

* as a person who is 'working poor'
* on EI or welfare/workfare
* with harassment (sexist, racist, homophobic, classist, etc.) at work
* trying to unionize your workplace
* as a woman or person of colour or immigrant or First Nations person in the
* labour movement
* dealing with an asshole boss
* running scams in the workplace
* swimming in student debt
* trying to make ends meet while juggling 2, 3, or 4 jobs
* working full time and going to school
* avoiding work altogether

The deadline for submissions is April 24. The suggested maximum length is
750 words. Submit articles electronically to aca@mutualaid.org. Material
will be selected based upon concordance with ACA's principles and basis of
unity, diversity of voices, and overall quality of submissions. Offers of
help with editing, layout and design, production and distribution are also
welcome and needed.


---------------------------------------------------------

What Is ACA?

Anti-capitalist Community Action (ACA) is an Ottawa-Outaouais-based group
focusing on local struggles and global struggles against capitalism and
imperialism. As a revolutionary anti-capitalist group, our goal is to
achieve a decentralized, non-hierarchical, directly democratic, and
non-oppressive society. ACA is dedicated to fighting against all forms of
oppression. In the past 3 years we have been involved with numerous actions,
campaigns, and projects. To get involved, you can join any of ACA's
workgroups or projects or participate in our monthly general assemblies.

What has ACA been up to?

* Angry Grrls: angry girrls is a group of radical women that came out of our
frustrations with the exploitation of our bodies and lives, as well as our
dreams of a world free of sexism, patriarchy and all oppression. we have
been involved in putting out a zine, having stitch and bitches/making
menstrual pads, and have much more planned! we will not be told to behave or
ask permission for our equality.
* Raise The Rates: Join ACA and other members of your community in
organizing for an immediate increase of 40% to social assistance rates. We
are building a local Raise the Rates organization as part of a province-wide
campaign.
* Popular Education: ACA regularly hosts freeskools, talks, discussion
groups and workshops to educate the public and ourselves about the issues
which concern us all.
* Black and Red Flying Squad: We attempt to make links between worker's
struggles and other struggles. We support worker's struggles through
picket-line support and direct action.
* Housing Issues: ACA was one of the groups responsible for the squat action
at 246 Gilmour Street. We worked in solidarity with the 2004 tent city
protest at Ottawa City Hall.
* No To Bush Committee/PGA Bloc Ottawa: Members of ACA, along with many
other community groups and individuals, organized and supported 3 days of
protest surrounding the 2004 visit by George W Bush to Ottawa.
* Anti-imperialism: As part of the Coalition for Peace in Iraq, ACA drew
links between imperialist wars abroad and the war at home against refugees
and the poor.
* ACME: ACA played a role in disrupting the annual CME (Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters) Awards gala in January 2003.  The gala, dubbed
'Serving the Poor Profitably', was more about propping up WTO sponsored
trade agreements and lining corporate pockets than fighting poverty.

Workgroups currently on hiatus include Direct Action Casework Ottawa (DACO),
Copwatch, and the Latin-American Solidarity Workgroup.

How do I contact ACA?
aca@mutulaid.org or www.a-c-a.net

Basis of Unity

ACA has adopted the People's Global Action <http://www.agp.org> hallmarks as
our basis of unity:

1.  A very clear rejection of capitalism, imperialism and feudalism; all
trade agreements, institutions and governments that promote destructive
globalization.
2.  We reject all forms and systems of domination and discrimination
including, but not limited to, patriarchy, racism and religious
fundamentalism of all creeds. We embrace the full dignity of all human
beings.
3.   A confrontational attitude, since we do not think that lobbying can
have a major impact in such biased and undemocratic organizations, in which
transnational capital is the only real policy-maker;
4.  A call to direct action and civil disobedience, support for social
movements' struggles, advocating forms of resistance which maximize respect
for life and oppressed peoples' rights, as well as the construction of local
alternatives to global capitalism.
5.  An organizational philosophy based on decentralization and autonomy.

-------------------------------------------
Copies are available at Octopus Books and other fine establishments
throughout Ottawa.
_______________________________________________
A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en