We have some other people. Can you come to the table now?
Are you together?
[Translation]
Cébert Hermann (Individual Presentation):
No, I am alone.
38th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 3, 2005
The Chair: Fine.
Cébert Hermann: I will be speaking French.
The Chair: That is no problem.
Could you tell us your name, please?
Cébert Hermann: My name is Cébert Hermann and I am a political science student at UQAM.
The Chair: Thank you.
Cébert Hermann: Canada‘s International Policy Statement signed by the Prime Minister and Minister Pettigrew attracted my attention and I have read it. I would like to take this opportunity today to state my views, given that my country of origin, Haiti, is one of the places in the world where Canada intends to do certain things. I am quite flattered to be able to state my views and to share some of my thoughts about international relations and ways of resolving disputes throughout the world.
The comments I heard some people make today cause me to weep a little, because in my opinion they do not understand the current danger. Canada must affirm itself and must define its major orientation in order first to affirm itself, and next to come up with some solutions to problems facing certain countries in the south. That is the concept for some of my remarks.
I would like to start by making this point: Canada has imitated its powerful neighbour, the United States in almost all regards, except one. The United States is an imperialistic, conquering power with which Canada has developed a business relationship. Everything that happens in the United States is heard in Canada and we react right away. In financial affairs, every time the Americans dream about dropping their prime rate, Canada reacts the next morning. In other words, we listen to the United States very carefully on some matters, but there is one for which we do not do that. I will tell you what that is.
The cover page of Canada’s International Policy Statement states the following: « A role of pride and influence in the world ». I would like to emphasize that in my opinion, Europe stopped being an imperial power and has been overtaken by the former east bloc countries, which had socialist, community-focused programs—in other words socialist policies and economies. France, Germany, Italy to some extent and Belgium are no longer imperialist countries in my view, and this means that Europe—or the European Economic Community—is no longer an imperial power.
Benjamin Constant’s theory is that in any given situation where everyone works together, there is some equality. The most powerful player, the United States at the moment, must affirm itself. The country that must assume responsibility for governing others plays this leadership role.
I come back to the point I made at the beginning. What Canada has not imitated about the United States is its desire for power.
½ 
(1935)
Nietzsche talks about this theory. He says clearly that the superman reaches his peak and creates and invents things that become a new grammar, and this new grammar becomes the rule. Consequently, this superman sets the standards.
The grammar about which Nietzsche speaks is quite simply the financial, economic and military ability to dictate the rules of the game.
In order to compete with this great friend of ours, the United States, I think, contrary to what a number of speakers said today, that Canada must take on this desire for power, by defining its own rules, setting its own limits, and so on.
Earlier, Mr. Sorenson was speaking about the changes that must be made to the UN. However, we cannot change the UN if we do not have the financial ability to do so. As you said, some 23 per cent of its budget comes from the U.S. contribution, and 19 per cent from Japan, not to mention the sovereign powers that define and draw up an investment plan in this regard.
As a result, we can define the rules according to our ability to provide financial and other support to international bodies such as the European Union, which is a supraregional organization which is tending to become a political organization. Canada must respond to these needs.
I have not heard any proposals today, and that is what concerns me. So here is what I propose. First of all, we must redefine Canada’s role in the world: Canada must decide to affirm itself in the world. If no country can play a leadership role in the world just by being fair to other countries, that is by taking into account the little countries in the south with very little voice, no country will do this in the interest of these countries. The fact is that Canada is recognized throughout the world as one of the countries that allow small countries to resist and to have access to certain opportunities.
Consequently, Canada’s policy must be directed toward an exceptional affirmation. It must assume its role and create new institutions. As Nietzsche would say, the process of exceptional affirmation makes it possible to create new institutions. These new institutions are complex; as they are adapted to the needs, to the new realities and trends, institutions are created that are exactly in keeping with Canada’s national needs.
I think Canada must redefine its international policy by affirming itself, by choosing to affirm itself in the world and to play its role beside the big players so as to redefine things.
Let me turn now to solutions for small southern countries, which include my native country.
I will not be flowery. I would rather go straight to the point.
I think that western civilization has created institutions in keeping with its reality and it needs, such as democracy, the free market, the free circulation of goods, services, people and so on.
Here is what I think must be done to help countries such Haiti where living conditions are so difficult. The support that western capitalism has established is a patriation of social values. In other words, labour struggles have produced mechanisms that enable the individual to leave behind the family circle, and the constraints and fragility of families to bring him to a state of perfect freedom.
½ (1940)
What I mean is that in the countries of the south, there are no means that allow an individual to become a consumer. When liberal, capitalist policies are proposed, these countries do not heed the call. What do we do then? An individual’s transition from living in famine to self-affirmation must be supported, so that he can become self-sufficient. That is what the gauge should be.
According to CIDA, only 7¢ of each dollar of international aid is spent in southern countries. Eighty-seven per cent of monies given to southern countries returns to the donor country. Development must take place at the local level. In order for that to happen, southern countries must be able to create transition mechanisms that allow for individuals to leave their families, on which they depend, and enter a society of production, consumption, and so on.
In the west, and in Canada in particular, I can decide to leave my family and live out my freedom, regardless of my family’s intention to force me to stay. The « Tanguy » phenomenon, where a person lives at home until the age of 30, can be countered.
In the west, particularly in Canada, a person may benefit from social assistance and employment insurance. These are both mechanisms that allow an individual to break free from family constraints and become a consumer, in other words, someone who absorbs and assimilates liberal values. Everything I speak of today stems from my thesis entitled « Appropriation of liberal values by southern countries. »
Financing this transition is something Canada can propose to the world. It can be done. Now, where do we get the money to do this? That is always the question being asked. Where do we get the money?
Western countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France do not have enough soldiers in their respective countries. We witnessed this during the Iraq war, where people, companies, and mercenary groups offered their services to the powers that wanted to invade Iraq.
Therefore, why not institutionalize these mercenary groups? To illustrate the best way of going about things, factoring in the problems, let us take Haiti as an example, my home country. In Haiti, people still draw upon the military tradition. They seek power, weapons, and believe that they are powerful. Yet, when they obtain weapons, they end up killing the population. As a consequence, they are opposed to rival groups—including popular organizations—and seek to destroy the country.
½ (1945)
Canada could provide funding for training military personnel in this country. There could be an army of 50,000 to 100,000, but it would not be able to use weapons in Haiti. It would provide the services that a country such as Canada and the United States want to have. These powers could use this human resource to their advantage. In return, these countries would get some revenues.
Rather than giving Haiti the money directly—because we know that only seven per cent will be invested in the country, we could lend the money to Haiti, which would finance an army composed of its own people. We are on the brink of major change in this XXIst century. An army of between 50,000 and 100,000 could be created in countries such as Haiti.
So the money would be loaned, not given. It would not be a gift. That means that it could not become tainted.
Since there are no blacks in the American, Canadian, French, German, Italian or other armies, we could use this resource in certain conflicts throughout the world.
That is one suggestion.
So these soldiers could be trained in Haiti and given the power they require. However, this power must become a productive force, an agent of change. In Haiti itself, these people would be involved only in building bridges and highways. In addition, their services could be sold.
I am not being cynical! I am sorry, this is not cynicism, but rather political realism.
Given that fewer Canadians from ethnic communities decide to enrol in the Canadian army, we could use the services of these armies, in light of the current energy situation, and the fact that we are seeking new sources of energy.
As we know, western Africa has enough energy resources at the moment to meet certain needs. American companies such as Exxon/Esso and Shell are already in Africa doing some prospecting work and defining the possibilities.
Canada could turn towards this universe, because there will be conflicts. We must be realistic: There will be conflicts in the future.
If there are conflicts in these countries, the best way of dealing with money would be to have Canada buy military services from Haiti or other countries. I imagine this could be worldwide in scope.
I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that this week, the United Nations will be sending soldiers from Cameroon and other African countries to Haiti. These black soldiers will be in our country. That will help calm tensions.
We also forget that the people of Haiti revolted against the white man, the French man. The French man was a white man. Every time a white soldier arrives in Haiti, there is a reaction. Haitians object to the presence of whites. On a number of occasions since 1994 or after 2001, this has caused some unfortunate incidents.
Haitians tolerate tourists and others; they are very welcoming in fact. But when people come to us as colonists, there is a unified national response in opposition to these people.
½ (1950)
In other words, the presence of Haitian soldiers in Africa or African soldiers in Haiti may have a calming effect. I will stop there. I think this could give rise to a debate.
Let us talk about security. I’ve heard many people asking questions about terrorism today. Let me say one thing at the outset. The theoretical model of intelligence services that made it possible to identify future terrorists is not in keeping with the new reality, with the new facts.
Terrorists are no longer only people from Afghanistan, Pakistan or elsewhere. Terrorists are already among us. They know the country and its structures well.
I apologize for making an aside, but I did have an opportunity to do an internship program in political science in Ontario. There I worked for the Department of Community Security and Correctional Services and for the Ontario Police College. I was able to make some suggestions, because I was a trainee. I saw that people did not understand the current issues surrounding terrorism. I will therefore make a suggestion to you. That is what I am here for. I do not want to get into a discussion, because I am not skilled at rhetoric and I have not written anything.
Let us start by redefining the way in which terrorists are recruited. Terrorists are located in the west. They no longer have to get on a plane, they are already here. People in France found that out. I remember a discussion that I had with some friends. I was saying that soon there would be a war in France and that soon there would be a revolt. The communities that are not being integrated into French society are misunderstood, neglected and rejected and they end up paying the price and reacting.
In east Montreal at the moment there are groups that are clearly calling for a black revolution. This is a racist movement. Last Monday or Friday, certain events occurred in the eastern part of the city. Some whites hit some blacks with baseball bats. I think people will react and the blacks will decide to respond directly to this type of behaviour. I do not know, and I hope this does not happen.
My point is that to some extent we are involved in recruiting terrorists. Let me explain what I mean. Often an Arab or a black works in a manufacturing company. These are people with university degrees, skills, and so on. They have had to take many tests, and they are offered deplorable living conditions. Some manage to adapt and integrate. I know there is a theory which says that when immigrants arrive in a new country, they do not come to achieve that country’s dream, but rather to achieve their own dream and to meet their own needs. They come to Canada because they have fled from natural disasters: poverty, civil war, political problems, and so on. They do not come to solve Canada’s problems. They come here because they have determined rationally that they could achieve their dream here. That is why the American dream works.
½ (1955)
Today, we have to define the Canadian dream. It must be a place where people can achieve their potential, work from what they know and enjoy prosperity.
Let me come back to the recruitment of terrorists. In my opinion, if there is no program to acknowledge the credentials obtained by immigrants in their country of origin when they arrive here, some of them could become terrorists. Why is that? Let us go through the process, without delving into too much detail.
Let us assume that someone comes here and is working in a manufacturing plant. One of the conditions the person had to meet in order to come here was to have a university degree and to speak French or English. So the person arrives here and is offered what? There is nothing to welcome such people here. Since there is nothing, the people decide to survive, and end up working in a manufacturing plant. They are not working with intellectuals, with people who have university degrees—I’ve travelled around Canada quite a bit, so I know whereof I speak—rather, they will be working with people who have a high school graduation at the most. These Canadians or Quebeckers, because they feel they are at home, tell these people that they are not superior to them, that they have nothing, and that they are merely claiming to have a degree even though they are working in a manufacturing plant. They tell these immigrants that they have only a high school certificate and all they know how to do is read and write, and they will ask what the immigrants are doing in that place. That is where the frustration starts.
Imagine these immigrants in a bar having a drink. If a white person is sitting beside one of them and decides that the immigrant smells bad, the frustration just continues.
Imagine what happens if this person tries to find a place to live. I’m talking about visible minorities—Arabs, Haitians, Africans, Latin-Americans and Asians. There is more frustration. Hatred develops. Immigrants start by hating their neighbour, then they hate their job, the boss, and other aspects of their world until they feel they have to act. This is what I call the process that leads to recruitment, something that requires these people to go somewhere.
Let us assume that these individuals are Muslems, and that there are groups in place to help them achieve what they want the most: obtain revenge on those who have hurt them. Let us assume as well that they have the financial resources required to do that. Subsequently, because they are drifting, they decide to attack the system. They no longer see the person beside them or the country in which they are living, all they see is the world system.
¾ (2000)
The Chair: We would like to hear your conclusions, please.
Cébert Hermann: I will conclude.
The Chair: We have a number of people here. Could you conclude your remarks, please?
Cébert Hermann: So to conclude, these people will find themselves beside someone who will be able to finance their activity. So they will be recruited and ready. These people will not have been recruited, they will have recruited themselves. We will have forced them to recruit themselves, and they will be able to act, explode, implode or even attempt suicide in order to put an end to the system. It is the symbolism of death. They commit suicide in the hope that the system itself will die following their death.
Because of the new international reality and the system being established—which is called « globalization », but which I call « the west expanding to the rest of the world »—more than ever, Canada must remain beside the country that has decided to be the biggest power, namely the United States, in order to meet the requests of small countries. If we leave the United States alone, it will not do much. It will continue to act like a giant, and no small power anywhere will remind it that the small countries are at its side. The giant is not concerned about the small players beside it, but dwarfs are aware of those around them.
I hope all of this will be useful and will change the relationship. Canada must assume its place, because it represents the hope of countries in the south such as Haiti and the African countries. Canada must get involved. In order to do that, it must focus its international policy on other small countries through its commitments.
Thank you very much.
Hermann cebert
Related articles
- When Things Go Wrong (psypress.com)
En savoir plus sur Le Vrai Discours Actuel de Hermann Cebert
Abonnez-vous pour recevoir les derniers articles par e-mail.
