“We should definitely focus on what we can most affect—I think that that’s a very important point that should always be front and center whenever people discuss any political issue and especially when people discuss any international issue.”
“Before Canada’s overthrow of the Haitian government, most of the Haitian population had a very difficult life. And then we very consciously and very overtly made most of those people—who already had a very difficult life—even more impoverished and even more vulnerable.”
“Ultimately, Canada is number two in the world after the US in supporting what’s going on regarding Palestine, so we’re deeply implicated in that whole situation.”
Yves Engler is a Montreal-based writer and political activist. I was honored and thrilled to interview Engler—see below my interview with him that I edited for flow, organized by topic, and added hyperlinks to.
Before we get to the interview, let me share some thoughts and information on Canadian foreign policy.
Engler has lots of challenging things to say about Canadian foreign policy, but unfortunately Engler doesn’t get invited to discuss Canadian foreign policy at the Munk School of Global Affairs and at universities across Canada, so my hope is that this piece will induce people to give Engler a proper platform.
My view isn’t that Engler is necessarily correct regarding various accusations against Ottawa, but rather my view is that Engler’s voice should be part of the discussion—if Engler’s wrong, then I would like to see someone engage with Engler’s arguments and explain why Engler’s wrong, since we’ll all benefit from that thorough engagement.
I think that Canadians will benefit from better discussion that features critical voices like Engler’s. And I think that in our world we see many instances where:
(1) you don’t know how much water a given commentator’s arguments hold
(2) you know for sure that the arguments merit engagement and that we’d all benefit from seeing a thorough engagement with the arguments
I have many pieces in the works on Canadian atrocities. We know that Ottawa has skeletons in its closet and blood on its hands—that’s easy to document. And we know that Ottawa is engaged in ongoing atrocities in 2022 as well.
But it’s hard to know our atrocities’ precise contours and nature without proper engagement, hence the need to include voices like Engler’s in the discussion.
I’ll give an example where the facts aren’t clear to me—apparently this article supports the idea that Canada was involved in planning a coup in Haiti in 2004 that occurred 13 months after the Meech Lake meeting described in the article:
“Haïti mise en tutelle par l’ONU?” (15 March 2003)
But I asked my friend about the article and they said this about it:
Not very clear what the article is advocating. The general description of Haiti’s torment is accurate (contrary to the article, it’s the elite that are Francophone; most of the population speak Kreyol). The Canadian-sponsored Commission on Responsibility to Project (R2P) was a sick joke, designed to provide NATO alone with the right to intervene without Security Council authorization (contrary to the UN version of R2P). The details described about the meetings sound plausible, but I don’t know how to confirm them.
If the details of the meeting are correct—I don’t know how to check—it would lend support to the conclusion that the coup had long been planned. That assumes that it was a Canadian initiative. That seems doubtful to me. I suspect that Canada followed along.
And then another friend told me these points (I’m paraphrasing):
it’s true that Canada was following the US lead—Haitians call Canada “The Devil’s Shoeshine Boy”
the US and France pushed Canada in front—the US and France are Haiti’s former colonizers, so the optics wouldn’t have been great if either of them had appeared to be in the lead on this
we don’t know what actually took place at the meeting because we lack transcripts
We have the following documentation regarding the Meech Lake meeting thanks to an Access to Information Act request:
It’s good that the Access to Information Act exists so that it’s possible for Canadians to obtain some documentation about things, but we don’t know what actually happened at the meeting.
Anthony Fenton wrote the following in his 25 August 2004 piece “Canada in Haiti”:
Canada made itself complicit in disinformation about the Haitian elections circulated by the OAS, hosted meetings to plot the overthrow of a democratically elected government, illegally occupied the country, and knowingly participated or was complicit in the murder of Haitians opposed to the coup. For months, Martin’s Liberal government ignored Aristide’s requests for “a few dozen” peacekeepers. On the day he was escorted out of office by US troops, however, Canada had 500 soldiers available to occupy the country and enforce his departure.
Everyone should watch Elaine Briere’s 2019 film Haiti Betrayed as a good introduction to this topic:
So there’s a whole investigation for me to do on the topic of Haiti in order to find out what’s fact and what’s conjecture and what Canada is responsible for.
To return to Engler, he’s written many books, but the following 2009 review is the only review of an Yves Engler book that has ever appeared in a major daily:
Is Canada a force for good in the world? Most Canadians would probably answer this question with a resounding “Yes!”
Yves Engler would like to disabuse them of this notion. And to do so, he sets out to tear down Canadian foreign policy myths that have become an inalienable part of our national psyche.
From peacekeeping, to foreign aid, to Canada’s cheerleading for democracy and human rights, no sacred cow is left untouched. Even the title of his new work, The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, suggests that it’s a laundry list of perceived wrongs committed by the Canadian government and corporate elites.
Given Engler’s well known leftist perspective, it comes as no surprise that The Black Book, a finalist for a Quebec Writers’ Federation prize, is underpinned by an essentially Marxist worldview: Capitalism is bad and western governments are hypocrites that preach virtues of democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting corrupt and tyrannical regimes.
Readers who haven’t spent their formative years having Marxism-Leninism hammered into their heads might find Engler’s approach very refreshing, but I found it hard to get over my initial allergic reaction to his discourse.
In Engler’s eyes, even former Liberal Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy reeks of a hidden imperialist agenda. Axworthy, arguably one of the most left-leaning foreign affairs ministers in recent history, championed the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which advocates international intervention in places like Darfur or Rwanda to protect civilian populations against their own governments.
“The ‘responsibility to protect’ is essentially a justification for imperialism using the dialect of policing instead of the old language of empire and militarism,” Engler writes. “It says there are ‘failed states’ that must be overthrown because they do not provide adequately for their own citizens and because they threaten world order.”
Engler cites Canada’s controversial participation in the U.S.-led plot to overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti as a perfect example of how this seemingly benign concept can be used to advance an “imperialist” agenda.
“The coup in Haiti was a Canadian-managed experiment in the use of the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine,” Engler writes. “Aristide was overthrown precisely because Haiti is so unimportant to the world economic system and because cracking down on it is the international economic equivalent of the New York City police cracking down on graffiti writers.”
Engler takes the reader on a global tour of Canada’s foreign policy misdeeds—from our early involvement in the Caribbean, to the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Latin America. This country does not even get any credit for things that did end up making a positive contribution to the international order. Those things were often done for the wrong reasons, Engler says. For example, Canada’s pioneering foray into peacekeeping during the Suez crisis—some would say the finest hour of Canadian diplomacy—had more to do with finding a way for Britain and France to save face and currying favour with Uncle Sam, Canada’s new imperial master, than promoting peace, Engler argues.
“Ottawa was primarily concerned with disagreement between the U.S. and the U.K. over the intervention, not Egyptian sovereignty or the plight of that country’s people,” Engler writes. What Engler does not appear to understand is that Canada acted in the Suez crisis because it was in its national interests and because it had the military and diplomatic capacity to do so.
In the end, Engler presents a predictable list of fixes for Canada’s foreign policy woes.
“Canada should pull out of NATO immediately,” Engler argues. “If there was ever a justification for this alliance, two decades after the Cold War, it no longer exists.”
Drastically cutting the size of Canada’s already undermanned military is next on his list, followed by well-meaning and hard to oppose suggestions like supporting elected governments, directing Canadian foreign aid to the poorest countries and making sure that Canadian aid does no harm.
While I don’t share Engler’s ideological starting point, his book does have at least one important redeeming quality: It helps get rid of the annoying holier-than-thou attitude among many Canadians when it comes to international politics.
The review apparently appeared in both the Montreal Gazette and the Ottawa Citizen, and it’s good that the review appeared, but it’s the only time that that’s ever happened.
And I’d expect people unfamiliar with Marxist–Leninist ideology to find that ideological approach dubious—or possibly even offensive—instead of “refreshing”, so there might be a typo regarding “haven’t spent”:
Readers who haven’t spent their formative years having Marxism-Leninism hammered into their heads might find Engler’s approach very refreshing, but I found it hard to get over my initial allergic reaction to his discourse.
I hope that you find the interview with Engler informative and interesting.
Note that I replaced—with Wayback Machine links—two dead links in a 2016 article that Engler quotes.
1) What are the most exciting projects that you’re currently working on?
The Canadian Foreign Policy Institute (CFPI) is my most exciting current project—I think that CFPI is really important.
2) What are the most exciting projects that you know of that others are working on?
Canadian Dimension is a really good media outlet that does great work.
Extinction Rebellion does important activism.
A Montreal World Beyond War chapter just started up and is doing good stuff around fighter jets:
CFPI did an event on 17 June where a ton of groups gathered—here are the groups that came together for that event:
MiningWatch Canada
Solidarité Québec-Haïti
Stop Ecocide Canada
Palestine House
Labour Against the Arms Trade
Mines Action Canada
Collectif Échec à la guerre
Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Solidarity Network
WILPF Canada
World Beyond War Canada
Peace Brigades International - Canada
Project Ploughshares
Canadian Iranian Congress
Regina Peace Council
Rights Action
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada
Canadians for Justice & Peace in the Middle East
Canadian Latin America Alliance (CLAA)
Canadian Voice of Women for Peace (VOW)
Hiroshima Nagasaki Day Coalition
Independent Jewish Voices
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
Common Frontiers
Just Peace Advocates
Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War
International League of Peoples’ Struggle
Niagara Movement for Justice in Palestine-Israel
Peace Alliance Winnipeg
Socialist Action
ALBA Social Movements Canada
Anti-Imperialist Alliance
Barnard-Becker Centre Foundation
Canada-China Council for Cooperation & Development Youth Association
Fire This Time
Frente Hugo Chávez para la Defensa de los Pueblos Vancouver
Canadian Peace Congress
Protest Barrick
Peace Magazine
Canadian Friends Service Committee (Quakers)
NB Media Co-op
Women of Diverse Origins
Canadian Network on Humanitarian History
East Timor Action Network
Victoria Peace Coalition
Victoria Central America Support Committee
International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group
Ottawa Peace Council
Canadian Palestinian Social Association
Harbinger Media Network
Spring Magazine
Nova Scotia Voice of Women for Peace
Global Peace Alliance BC Society
The Breach
Artistes pour la Paix
Design with Dialogue
Pax Christi Toronto
Canadian Network on Cuba
Climate Justice Montreal
Canadian Muslim Peace Alliance
IJV-Winnipeg
Mining Injustice Solidarity Network
It’s true that these are mostly small little groups, but these groups represent some of the important work that’s going on when it comes to fighting Canadian imperialism on various fronts ranging from Palestine to the mining sector to Haiti.
3) Do you include in “foreign policy” things like mining and global heating?
For sure. In probably about 50 countries, mining is the top foreign policy issue for Canada—the primary thing that the Canadian ambassador in Burkina Faso does is to advance Canadian mining companies’ interests.
I wouldn’t include mining that takes place within Canada—I tend to compartmentalize the domestic and the international when it comes to mining, although you can’t really disconnect the whole history of domestic Canadian mining from Canada’s emergence as a global mining superpower.
And the climate crisis is of course a global issue. But unfortunately and somewhat oddly, you often see a failure to look at climate from an internationalist perspective on the part of people in general and even on the part of environmental activists.
4) How do you respond to the point that Canada doesn’t emit that much carbon gas as a percentage of global emissions? You might respond that Canada can decarbonize and then:
influence others to follow suit
inspire others to follow suit
share with others the knowledge developed during decarbonization
share with others the technology developed during decarbonization
And you might also respond that Canadians should focus on what Canadians can most affect, which is almost never Beijing’s climate policy and is almost always Ottawa’s climate policy.
We should definitely focus on what we can most affect—I think that that’s a very important point that should always be front and center whenever people discuss any political issue and especially when people discuss any international issue.
There’s a big moral problem when our media focuses our attention outward instead of inward—our media tries to get us to focus on what China is doing to the Uyghurs instead of what Canada is doing to the Haitians.
Remember that global heating’s main victims are people who have contributed very little to the climate crisis—that’s a huge moral crisis.
On a per-capita basis, Canada emits a substantial amount more than China does and up to 100 times more than many African countries.
And it would be madness to suggest that poor countries should keep hydrocarbons underground while rich countries are still extracting hydrocarbons—people in a poor country like Nigeria understand that the rich countries are supposed to lead the way, so when we drag our feet in Canada it actually weakens Nigeria’s environmental movement, since pro-extraction people in Nigeria will just point the finger at Canada and ask why a country way poorer than Canada should do more to protect the climate than Canada is doing.
5) So if we stop extracting, it’ll help environmentalists in Nigeria?
Of course!
Actions in one country have an effect all around the world—that’s the dynamic.
6) What should people read on Canadian foreign policy?
The best thing to do is to take a look at the various books that we listed on the CFPI website.
Tyler Shipley has a new book that’s really good:
Canada in the World (2020)
Todd Gordon has a really good book too:
Imperialist Canada (2010)
You can find my own books in libraries across the country—here are my two latest books:
House of Mirrors (2020)
Stand on Guard for Whom? (2021)
And my 2009 book The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy lists these important books, some of which are pretty old:
7) What are the best critiques of your work on Canada’s foreign policy?
There was an interesting 2010 review of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy:
“Imperial History, Liberal Response” (18 May 2010)
It said that my critique of Canadian foreign policy was very good, but it said that my suggestion about what to do was very liberal. And I basically agree with that.
Left-wing people will review my books for left-wing publications and usually say: “This is great work that provides tons of good information and challenges the myth of Canada’s role in the world!”
But apart from that, my work is basically just ignored—there are some tantrums from establishment people, but there’s basically zero engagement from liberals or from right-wingers.
The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy is the only book of mine that a major daily reviewed—the reviewer dismissed the book as propaganda, but I was obviously very happy that the review appeared because being attacked in a corporate media outlet at least makes people aware of your book.
It’s unfortunate that there’s no invitation to debate—a professor invited me to do an organized debate in Calgary about Canada’s policy on Palestine, but that was a few years ago.
And it’s not just that I don’t get invited to do formal debates—putting aside formal debate, I don’t even get invited to appear on panels where a few people will represent a few distinct views.
So over the past 15 years, I’ve only had about 10 opportunities to speak to people who weren’t left-wingers or activists.
8) Does the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy never invite you to have a discussion?
I spoke there once—it was just after The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy came out, and it was a small little afternoon presentation, and I’ve never been invited back.
9) That’s unfortunate, since it would be useful and informative and interesting for the public to be able to see you engage in discussion with liberals and right-wingers.
Exactly.
10) Do you sufficiently criticize enemy states like Russia, China, Iran, Nicaragua, and Venezuela?
Like you said earlier, people should focus on what they can influence.
And I don’t always put my personal views into the public domain—for example, it might not be politically helpful for me to put my criticisms of Cuba into the public domain, given that those criticisms might feed into the propaganda regarding Cuba.
It’s also important to be honest about Canada’s position in the way that the world is run—Canada is tied into the US system, and the US empire is the biggest threat to humanity and the biggest aggressor.
Russia and China do terrible things and pose serious threats, but Russia and China are much smaller players than the US in terms of military spending and military power. For example, Russia has amassed troops near Ukraine, but those troops are inside Russia, whereas Canada is on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and nevertheless has fighter jets in Romania and a warship patrolling the Black Sea—it’s not that these policies are inherently bad or inherently evil, but rather that these policies tell you something about the balance of power.
11) What’s your take on China’s approach toward the Uyghurs?
I’m sure that China is engaged in serious human rights abuses regarding the Uyghurs, but I’m not much of an expert on that situation.
It’s not clear to me that that situation is any worse than Narendra Modi’s anti-Muslim policies.
It’s also kind of farcical when countries that have been rampaging in the Middle East—and killing vast numbers of Muslims—act like they’re so concerned about the Uyghur population.
Our House of Commons voted unanimously to call what China is doing to the Uyghurs genocide, but our House of Commons is totally uninterested in what the Canadian government has done to Haitians over the past two decades.
And the vote had very little to do with an assessment of what the Chinese government was up to—the vote was mostly about Washington’s desire to ramp up tensions with China.
12) So these MPs would condemn India if they really cared about attacks on Muslims’ rights?
China does terrible things.
But my view is that you have very little standing to criticize any Chinese government policy if you’re a Canadian public figure who hasn’t criticized the role that Canada has—over the past two decades—played in Haiti. I think that that goes for all public figures—I think that that goes for politicians as well as commentators at the National Post or the Globe and Mail or the Toronto Star.
Before Canada’s overthrow of the Haitian government, most of the Haitian population had a very difficult life. And then we very consciously and very overtly made most of those people—who already had a very difficult life—even more impoverished and even more vulnerable.
13) What documentation would you show to people who are skeptical about whether Canada really does have skeletons in the closet regarding Haiti?
After the 2004 coup in Haiti, there were some human rights reports—here’s one from the University of Miami:
And here’s some coverage of a report from the Lancet:
“Shocking Lancet Study: 8,000 Murders, 35,000 Rapes and Sexual Assaults in Haiti During U.S.-Backed Coup Regime After Aristide Ouster” (31 August 2006)
13 months before the coup, there was a meeting at Meech Lake just outside Ottawa that Michel Vastel reported on for L’actualité:
“Haïti mise en tutelle par l’ONU?” (15 March 2003)
And here’s the opening paragraph of Vastel’s 15 March 2003 L’actualité piece:
La dernière fin de semaine de janvier, une rencontre secrète s’est tenue à Ottawa et sur les bords du lac Meech, dans le parc de la Gatineau. Le secrétaire d’État du Canada pour l’Amérique latine, l’Afrique et la Francophonie, Denis Paradis, a invité des représentants de l’Organisation des États américains (OEA), de la Commission économique européenne (CEE) et de l’Agence intergouvernementale de la Francophonie à « brasser des idées » sur le drame haïtien. La France avait délégué son ministre de la Coopération, Pierre-André Wiltzer; le Secrétariat d’État américain avait envoyé deux fonctionnaires de haut rang; et le Salvador, sa ministre des Affaires étrangères, Maria Da Silva.
That reporting from Vastel basically proves that Canada was involved in planning the coup, but unfortunately the media ignored Vastel’s reporting.
And after the 2010 earthquake, Canada sent troops to Haiti and there was another incident where the media ignored crucial information:
I searched Canadian Newsstand to confirm no media outlet commented on or investigated a 2011 Canadian Press report demonstrating Ottawa militarized its response to control the population. According to an internal file uncovered through an access to information request, Canadian officials worried that “political fragility has increased the risks of a popular uprising, and has fed the rumour that ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, currently in exile in South Africa, wants to organize a return to power.” The government documents also explain the importance of strengthening the Haitian authorities’ ability “to contain the risks of a popular uprising.”
To police Haiti’s traumatized and suffering population, 2,000 Canadian troops were deployed (alongside 10,000 U.S. soldiers). At the same time the half-dozen Heavy Urban Search and Rescue Teams in cities across the country were readied but never sent because, reported the Toronto Sun, five days after the earthquake, foreign affairs “opted to send Canadian Armed Forces instead.”
I assumed the Canadian Press article had been picked up by various media outlets but its revelations ignored in subsequent reporting. But the suppression was far more significant than I remembered or imagined. Canadian Newsstand shows only the Kamloops Daily News ran the initial Canadian Press report in its paper. A recent Google search found three outlets put it on their website. In a remarkable example of bias, news editors across the country, who mostly have access to Canadian Press and often rely on the wire service for a significant share of their copy, considered this explosive information un-newsworthy.
So in this instance the Canadian government basically said—in internal government documents—that they militarized this horrible humanitarian disaster because they didn’t want Jean-Bertrand Aristide to return to Haiti. And if you do a search then you’ll find that the only newspaper in the country that reported this information in print was the Kamloops Daily News.
Fortunately, Radio-Canada did a report about Haiti in January 2020, so that’s an important journalistic breakthrough on this matter:
14) You might consider Human Rights Watch’s detailed 2021 report about Israel’s actions to be the “gold standard” when it comes to documentation:
“A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution” (27 April 2021)
Are there any comparable reports on Canada’s atrocities, including mining and global heating?
Regarding Palestine, the injustice is so clear and the issue has had decades and decades of attention.
So it’s true that there’s a similar level of injustice when you look at Canada’s role in Haiti:
“Haitians march on Canadian Embassy” (30 March 2021)
Or Canada’s role in Afghanistan:
“Afghanistan was based on lies. Will the militarists apologize?” (18 August 2021)
Or Canada’s role in bombing Libya:
“Why Canada attacked Libya” (29 March 2011)
Or Canada’s role in Iraq:
“Canadian troops in Saudi Arabia a legacy of support for Iraq war” (10 September 2020)
Or Canada’s role in bombing Syria:
“Canada should support peace in Syria, not US missiles” (14 April 2018)
But relative to Palestine, all of these injustices took place over a much shorter period of time and also involved messier politics.
And it takes a lot of resources to put out a report like the Human Rights Watch report that you cite—you can’t look into issues like Human Rights Watch does unless you have the necessary resources.
And there’s also a lot of political activism that went on that allowed that report to happen—that report became possible after decades and decades of campaigning on the part of global civil society.
In the case of Haiti, there hasn’t been as much political activism against US or Canadian policy, so the human right organizations don’t see as much of a self-interest in making the effort to do a report like the one that you cite.
I don’t know about any reports on mining and global heating, but you’ll learn a lot about these topics if you interview experts.
15) There’s no big thick detailed report called “Canada’s Involvement in the Coup in Haiti” that you can read, right?
There are bits and pieces of documentation, but these bits and pieces wouldn’t be regarded as credible—for instance, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade did a series on Haiti:
“A Very Canadian Coup in Haiti” (March 2007)
“CIDA’s Key Role in Haiti’s 2004 Coup” (September 2007)
“Putting the Aid in Aiding and Abetting” (May 2008)
“Lies Without Borders” (November 2008)
And I have a 2006 book with Anthony Fenton on Canada’s role in the coup in Haiti:
Canada in Haiti (2006)
But these things are nowhere close to being as credible as Human Rights Watch.
16) Apart from mining and global heating, what are Canada’s worst ongoing atrocities?
There’s Canada’s role regarding Palestine, including illegal recruitment for the Israeli military:
“Challenging illegal Israeli military recruitment in Canada” (24 April 2021)
“The innumerable ways Canada supports Israeli apartheid” (14 May 2021)
“Yes Ms. Diplomat, Canada does arm and fund Israel” (16 December 2021)
CFPI has campaigned to get the RCMP to actually take the illegal recruitment issue seriously:
“Evidence delivered to RCMP for their investigation into illegal recruitment for Israeli military” (3 January 2021)
The Canada Revenue Agency subsidizes charities that raise funds for groups that support the Israeli military, for groups that support settlements in the West Bank, and for explicitly racist groups:
“Charities Fund Israeli Apartheid” (5 September 2021)
“‘Charities’ push Israeli university-military ties” (8 November 2021)
“Time to revoke charitable status from group funding Israeli military” (15 January 2022)
The Canada–Israel Free Trade Agreement enables the occupation:
“End the Canada Israel Free Trade Agreement” (4 August 2020)
Ultimately, Canada is number two in the world after the US in supporting what’s going on regarding Palestine, so we’re deeply implicated in that whole situation.
And Canada is also the number two player in Haiti after the US:
“Remarkable Haitian revolt targets Canada” (27 October 2019)
“Haitian commission sends message to Canada, U.S.—stop meddling in our government” (8 December 2021)
“Honesty needed in media coverage of Canada-Haiti relations” (23 January 2022)
You didn’t want to include mining, but so much of Canadian foreign policy is about supporting mining companies’ rights. Canadian mining companies are responsible for human rights abuses and ecological damage in a whole bunch of countries in the Global South—you can look at countries like Tanzania and Ecuador and the Philippines and Mexico and you’ll find a terrible record on the part of Canadian mining companies:
“Canada enables Barrick’s bad corporate behaviour” (3 August 2017)
“‘Ugly Canadian’ mining policies continue with Trudeau” (9 May 2021)
Regarding these countries, usually Canada will either directly support mining companies or else Canada will support the mining industry more generally:
“Canada’s Mining Industry Is Spreading Havoc Around the World—With Justin Trudeau’s Support” (7 May 2021)
To support the mining industry, Canada has even written multiple countries’ mining codes:
“Mining companies receive Canadian ‘aid’” (3 October 2016)
MiningWatch brings a lot of useful information to the public about Canada’s activities regarding mining—take a look at these pieces on Canadian “economic diplomacy”:
“Backgrounder: A Dozen Examples of Canadian Mining Diplomacy” (8 October 2013)
“‘Cracks’ in Canadian Policy for Overseas Mining, Evidence of an Abyss” (30 October 2014)
“Ottawa, we have a problem” (13 October 2015)
“More than a few bad apples: ‘Militarized neoliberalism’ and the Canadian state in Latin America” (7 November 2016)
“The Feds, Not Just Companies, Should Be Held to Account for Mining Harms Abroad” (10 November 2021)
And take a look at these pieces on Tanzania and the Philippines and Mexico and Ecuador:
“Barrick’s Tanzanian project tests ethical mining policies” (29 September 2011)
“Women Speak Out About Abuse at Barrick Gold’s North Mara Mine in Tanzania” (25 June 2018)
“Land Defenders Are Killed in the Philippines for Protesting Canadian Mining” (1 October 2020)
“Fortuna Silver Mines: Licence to Pollute” (26 March 2021)
“INV Metals Says It Won’t Respect Ecuador Referendum Favouring Water Over Mining” (19 April 2021)
“International Organizations Join Shuar Arutam People to Press Canadian Embassy in Ecuador to Condemn Canadian Company’s Threats and Abuses” (31 August 2021)
And to raise a disturbing issue that’s much more narrow in scope than these other things, Canada is backing neo-Nazi types in the Ukraine:
“Military knows it looks bad but works with neo-Nazis anyway” (9 November 2021)
17) Canada’s role in the atrocities in East Timor was absolutely horrific, but that’s no longer ongoing:
There’s nothing ongoing that’s as bad as East Timor, correct?
Regarding human rights violations, there’s definitely nothing ongoing that’s as bad as East Timor.
The clearest ongoing human rights violations are:
Canada’s support for Israeli atrocities
Canada’s imperial policy toward Haiti
There are Canadian troops in Iraq, but it’s messy politics in Iraq because Iraq is a disaster zone and there are legitimate reasons to have troops there.
18) What activist organizations can people join to help bring Canada’s ongoing atrocities to an end?
On Palestine there are tons of groups:
On Haiti there’s less activity—Solidarité Québec–Haiti was pretty active for a couple years, but we’ve become more dormant in the past year.
These groups are active on mining:
And these groups are active on war issues:
19) Let me tell you about my vision—I’d like to see Ottawa do the following for each post-WW2 atrocity that Canada has committed:
(A) conduct a massive investigation that shines the spotlight on what actually happened—and on the present-day consequences of what actually happened—and then release a detailed report based on that investigation
(B) pay reparations to the victims
(C) make a detailed and sincere and self-reflective apology so that the victims can hear the apology; and so that Canadians can think about the apology; and so that moral consciousness can increase worldwide as the whole world thinks about the apology
What will it take to bring about my vision?
I support the sentiment.
But I think that that would require some form of revolution—it’s a very difficult political battle, and I think you need to go much more narrow if you want to have any realistic chance at success.
So more narrowly, two parliamentary petitions related to Haiti have been submitted over the past two years:
The first petition asked for the government to do the following:
1. Publish all documents relating to the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”; and
2. Hold a hearing of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to learn everything there is to know about the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti,” including its link to the “Core Group.”
That petition got the required number of signatures, so it ultimately got read in the House of Commons, but the government of course didn’t act.
The second petition came out of Elaine Briere’s excellent 2019 documentary that looks at Canada’s role in the 2004 coup:
Haiti Betrayed (2019)
The second petition asked for the government to do the following:
1. Order the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to conduct a comprehensive study on Canada’s alleged political interference in Haiti, including the Ottawa Initiative on Haiti and its role in the creation of the Core Group; and
2. Order the publication of all documents related to the Ottawa Initiative on Haiti.
The second petition also got the required signatures, but it wasn’t read in the House of Commons because Trudeau called the election. And once again the government of course didn’t act.
20) Briere’s 2019 documentary got a lot of praise—Noam Chomsky made the following comment about it:
The Haitian revolution established the first free country of free men in the Americas, but it drew the bitter hostility of a colonial world that has persisted through Haiti’s tortured history. This evocative film pointing to Canada’s role in the 2004 coup d’état portrays yet another chapter of sordid betrayal. This film should be a call to action.
And Bianca Mugyenyi made the following comment about it:
Haiti Betrayed may be the most important documentary ever made on Canadian foreign policy. It is a powerful indictment of Canada’s role in overthrowing the Jean-Bertrand Aristide/Lavalas democratic government in 2004 and the devastating consequences that decision had on Haitians. Haiti Betrayed also reveals the inhumanity of the Canadian military’s response to the 2010 earthquake and Ottawa’s continued backing of regressive political forces in Haiti. All Canadians should watch this film about a country born in struggle to make Black lives matter.
It’s an excellent documentary—people should definitely watch it.