Haiti: US Orchastrates Coup, Kidnaps Aristide : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

Corporate media and the Bush administration would have people believe that the recent revolt in Haiti was the work of oppressed citizens fighting for independence. Documentation of US "involvement" in Haiti, however, tells a different story.

Jean Bertrand Aristide, the democratically elected president of Haiti since 1990, has faced US pressure to resign since the Clinton administration. Haiti, one of the world's poorest nations, currently suffers a US embargo of $500 million foreign aid. Previous US involvement also includes support for dictatorial regimes and efforts to prevent a higher minimum wage.

The opposition, described by the corporate media as "freedom fighters", are actually a US sponsored ruthless and brutal militia, many of whom were involved in the US-backed death squads of the 1991-1994 coup attempt. Louis Jodel Chamblain, a former leader in the FRAPH paramilitary death squad, Guy Philippe, once a police chief, and others were trained in Ecuador by US Special Forces during the previous coup. Many people view Haiti as simply one more example of an illegal CIA orchastrated coup, as it has does so often before. Not surprisingly, these "rebel leaders" have established relationships with Colin Powell and George W. Bush throughout the years.

Unfortunately for the people of Haiti, these paramilitary coup attempts also have disasterous consequences on the nation's poor, and only promise future dictatorial regimes.

Washington has been working closely with corporate media sources to distort the coup, downplaying US involvement. Among these distortions include the claim Aristide recently "stepped down" from the presidency, while various interviews instead suggest that he was forcibly kidnapped and being detained by the US government.

Here's an important analysis from the Revolutionary Worker newspaper U.S. Hand in Haiti's Agony --RW/OR ONLINEU.S. Hand in Haiti's Agony

Revolutionary Worker #1231, March 7, 2004, posted at rwor.org

Ten years ago, in September 1994, U.S. President Bill Clinton sent 20,000 U.S.
troops to invade and occupy Haiti. The U.S. claimed to be "liberators" who were
restoring "peace and democracy" to this Caribbean nation--by forcing out the
military dictatorship that had seized power in 1991 and reinstalling
Jean-Bertrand Aristide as the elected president.

Almost 10 years later, on February 29, 2004, Aristide was forced to flee Haiti
after his government was besieged for weeks by hostile forces--which include
"civilian" elements from Haiti's capitalist elite with ties to sections of the
U.S. ruling class, reactionary military figures linked to past dictatorships,
and former Aristide supporters.

U.S. officials said that a force of several hundred Marines might be sent to
Haiti to ensure "stability" and to pave the way for a "multinational
peacekeeping force."

Armed opposition forces took the northern city of Gonaives in early February. By
the end of February, anti-government forces had seized control of much of Haiti
and were marching on the capital, Port-au-Prince. They threatened to choke the
city into submission and to take it by force if Aristide did not capitulate.
The U.S. at first claimed to be against a coup to overthrow Aristide. But as the
anti-Aristide forces gained steam, the U.S. began issuing gangster-like threats
to Aristide. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Aristide should "examine his
position carefully"--which amounted to "step aside or face the consequences."
Aristide had insisted that he would serve out his current presidential term,
scheduled to end in 2006. But as the U.S. began more openly calling for Aristide
to depart the scene, it became unmistakably clear that the very power that had
put him into office at the point of the gun was now pointing the gun at him.
Aristide officially "resigned"--but this was in essence a U.S.-backed coup. Even
as they masterminded the forced departure of an elected president, the U.S.
government once again insisted that they were acting in the interests of "peace
and democracy."

And, like Clinton in 1994, George W. Bush cold-bloodedly declared that the door
would remain shut on Haitian refugees trying to sail to Florida in the hope of
escaping the chaos and poverty. He said that the refugees would be intercepted
at sea and forced back. The U.S. Coast Guard had already stopped around 700
Haitian refugees in February, and plans were reportedly in place for temporary
detention of thousands of Haitians at the U.S. base at Guantánamo, Cuba--next to
hundreds of detainees captured by the U.S. in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The agony of Haiti's oppressed people has only deepened since the U.S.'s
"humanitarian" invasion and occupation in 1994. The developments over the past
decade and the horrific political and economic crisis now gripping the country
make clear that U.S. imperialism can not rescue or liberate Haiti's people.
***

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, and one of the poorest
in the entire world. About 85 percent of the 8 million people in Haiti live on
less than $1 a day. Almost three out of four Haitians have no regular work. Life
expectancy is only 52 years for women and 48 for men.
While the vast majority suffer in the depths of poverty, there is a small elite
of the powerful and the wealthy--the richest 1 percent of the population
controls half of Haiti's wealth.

There is a long history to the U.S. domination of Haiti. The U.S. Marines
invaded Haiti in 1915 and occupied the country for 19 years--part of the bloody
consolidation of the U.S. empire in the Caribbean and Latin America. Then, for
decades, the father-son dictator team of "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier was propped up by U.S. power.

The Haitian people also have a long and proud tradition of fierce resistance
against oppressors. This year marks 200 years since Haiti's slave armies
defeated the invading armies of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte. Powerful
struggles of the people forced Baby Doc to flee to France in 1986. And when a
military coup led by Raoul Cédras overthrew the Aristide presidency in 1991,
Haitians once again rose up in rebellion.

It was in part to contain and defuse this mass upsurge that Clinton engineered
the departure of the Cédras regime and dispatched an occupation force to Haiti
in 1994. Aristide--an activist priest who had played a key role in the struggle
against the Duvalier regime--was reinstated as president on the condition that
he agree to faithfully follow the "neoliberal" agenda of imperialist financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
This pledge by Aristide meant that the masses of Haitian people went from the
fascistic rule of the Cédras regime to the tightening noose of capitalist
"privatization" and globalization under a "democratic" setup. Aristide's
credentials as an anti-Duvalier leader had won him a lot of following among the
people. But increasingly, there was a sense among the masses that the Aristide
government was not much different from other imperialist-dominated Third World
regimes around the world--corrupt, resistant to any basic change, and beholden
to international capital and major world powers.

At the same time, the U.S. and other imperialists loudly insisted that Aristide
was not obedient enough to their dictates. Even the smallest reluctance to
comply fully with the demands of foreign capitalists became cause for
denunciation and punishment. For instance, when Aristide lowered import tariffs
as demanded, Haiti was suddenly flooded with rice from the U.S., produced by
major growers who receive government subsidies. Haitian rice growers went
bankrupt, and the country was forced to import rice. When the Haitian government
fined U.S. rice exporters for evading custom duties, the U.S. government
retaliated by withholding tens of millions of dollars in aid to Haiti.

Then U.S. pressure on Aristide intensified after the 2000 elections in Haiti,
when opposition groups complained of election fraud. The Bush administration
forced the Inter-American Development Bank to cancel more than $650 million in
aid. The money had been scheduled to go to health services, literacy programs,
and improvements in drinking water. The U.S. ordered an embargo on further aid
to Haiti.

The aid cutoff put a deadly squeeze on the Aristide government, because of its
heavy dependence on the U.S. and other powers. The people plummeted into even deeper depths of poverty and desperation. The anti-Aristide forces took
advantage of this situation to step up their activities.

The crisis hitting Haiti arises from imperialist domination and the U.S. moves
to undercut Aristide. The situation in Haiti also shows that attempts to plot
some "third way" between imperialism and revolution is a dead end that is bound
to lead to disaster for the people.
***
Bush administration officials haven't talked much about the actual nature of the
anti-Aristide forces, focusing their remarks on attacking Aristide for being
"anti-democratic." But some of these forces have bloody backgrounds, and there
are various ties between these forces and the U.S.

One of the heads of the anti-Aristide military groups is Guy Philippe, former
officer in the Haitian army under Cédras. Philippe, along with other Haitian
army officers, was trained by U.S. special forces in Ecuador. The Haitian army
was disbanded when the U.S. reinstalled Aristide in 1994 and replaced with a
national police force. Philippe became a police chief but fled Haiti in 2000
when he was discovered plotting a coup with other police chiefs. Another
anti-Aristide military leader is Jodel Chamberlain, who was a top figure in
FRAPH--the notorious death squad under the Cédras regime that was closely linked with the CIA.

Philippe and other opposition military leaders reportedly returned to Haiti from
exile by crossing over the border with the Dominican Republic. There are also
reports that the anti-government forces are equipped with M-16 rifles and other
U.S. weapons not available to Aristide's police forces.

The "civilian" component of the anti-Aristide forces, who call themselves the
Democratic Platform, is led by a U.S. citizen named Andy Apaid. The Platform
includes ambitious capitalist elements from Haiti's traditional elite and some
former Aristide supporters. This grouping was reportedly organized with the help
of the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican
Institute, which have ties to the Bush White House.

The Bush administration at first said they did not back the immediate toppling
of Aristide. After all, Aristide had been brought back in 1994 with the backing
of the U.S. Marines, and he had been reelected in 2001 to a five-year term in an
internationally recognized election. Open support of a coup to topple Aristide
might lay bare the total hypocrisy of the U.S.'s posturing as upholders of
"democracy" around the world.

As the anti-Aristide military forces advanced, the U.S. endorsed a "compromise"
plan. Under this plan, Aristide would remain in office until the end of his term
in 2006--but he would be reduced to a figurehead, with most of the executive
power of state transferred to other government bodies. Aristide said he would
sign on to the U.S.-backed plan--but the opposition forces refused, demanding
that Aristide immediately quit.

As the anti-Aristide forces reached the outskirts of Port-au-Prince, an unamed
"senior U.S. official" told the Associated Press that "the best way to prevent
armed rebels from taking over Haiti is for President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to
resign" and that this "tougher line" on Aristide was endorsed by Bush.
***
Whatever happens in the coming days and weeks in Haiti, one thing is absolutely
certain: the U.S. moves in Haiti are NOT motivated by a desire to help the
Haitian people break out of the chains of oppression and poverty.
Behind the U.S. actions and pronouncements on Haiti are imperialist interests
and calculations. The U.S. rulers want to prevent a chaotic collapse of order in
a nearby country while preserving the fa‡ade of U.S.-sponsored "democracy."
They want to keep other powers, especially France, from meddling in what they
consider their "backyard." They want to stop a flood of desperate refugees from
reaching U.S. shores.

U.S. intervention in Haiti--in any form--can do no good for the people of Haiti.
The U.S. bourgeoisie talks of "failed states"--countries like Haiti, Liberia,
and others around the world. By this, the U.S. rulers mean to blame the people
themselves for the intense poverty and brutality they suffer.

In reality, the situation in Haiti points to the utter failure of the
imperialist system to provide a way forward toward genuine liberation.

This article is posted in English and Spanish on Revolutionary Worker Online
rwor.org

Former death squad and military leaders from the darkest periods of Haiti's past have been leading an armed struggle against the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide for the past two weeks. The paramilitary groups, formerly called the Cannibals, have taken over a dozen cities in northern Haiti and control several key supply routes. Although the paramilitaries are few in number, they are well armed and are controlling the north through the use of terror. The 'mainstream' bourgeois opposition had previously been encouraging these groups, as they saw them as means to overthrow Aristide and take power. In response to the crisis, Aristide's government has asked for international assistance to prevent a coup.

Aristide agreed this past Saturday to a peace plan brokered by diplomats from the US, Canada, France and CARICOM. It is not clear whether the 'mainstream' bourgeois opposition in the capital, Port-au-Prince, will agree to the deal by the late Monday afternoon deadline. It in fact appears quite unlikely, as the only thing they are demanding is the resignation of Aristide.

The Opposition

Former military leaders from the disbanded Haitian army and former death squad leaders continued their armed campaign against the Aristide government on Sunday by taking Cap-Haïtien, the country's second largest city. These armed groups, formerly called "the Cannibals" and now renamed the Gonaïves Resistance Front (GRF), had taken the city of Gonaïves on Thursday and declared an independent country of 'l'Arbonite'. The new so-called government is headed by Buter Métayer, who was a former Aristide supporter. Guy Philippe, former police chief of Cap-Haïtien and Duvalier death squad leader in the 1980s, was named l'Arbonite's chief of armed forces. Philippe fled Haiti in 2002 to the Dominican Republic after it was discovered that he was plotting a coup. Philippe returned to Haiti with former death squad leader Louis Jodel Chamblain, and had up to 50 armed supporters with him. Jean Pierre Baptiste, who calls himself General Tatoune, lead the march into the city. He was one of the leaders of the uprising that overthrew Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier in 1986. Under the military regime of the early 1990's, he joined the paramilitary outfit FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti) and was serving life in prison in Gonaïves for his role in a 1994 massacre. A close associate of Chamblain, Emmanueal 'Toto' Constant, who lead the coup against Aristide in 1991, has admitted CIA financing for the movement. It has also been claimed that these paramilitaries received "some form" of training while in the Dominican Republic. These paramilitary thugs now control most of Haiti's north, and the rebels are today threatening an attempt to take Port-au-Prince.

The mainstream opposition, including groups such as the Group of 184 and the Convergence Democratique have distanced themselves from the (GRF) as of late, but were previously encouraging them as they felt they could come to power on the back of a coup against Aristide. There are also rumours that the GRF is in fact the armed wing of the US funded and backed Convergence Democratique. Tensions are high between the Creole-speaking black majority, most of whom live in absolute poverty and the minority French-speaking mullattos, one percent of whom own approximately 45% of the country's wealth. One Haitian claimed "the dominant class speaks French, but all Haitians speak Kreyol. When the dominant class doesn't want the people to know what it's doing, it speaks French." US congresswoman Maxine Waters, upon returning from a visit to Haiti exposed opposition leader Andre Apaid Jr. as a 'Duvalier supporter', and that he along with his Group of 184, is "attempting to instigate a bloodbath in Haiti and the blame the government for the resulting disaster in the belief that the US will aid the so-called protestors against President Aristide".

Clearly reflecting the bourgeois, pro-imperialist and reactionary nature of these "democratic" opposition leaders, Apaid himself never renounced his US citizenship, and he is a major factory owner.

Aristide's government is in serious danger of being overthrown by a bloody coup. His government only has a police force of about 4,000, and there are reports that the police are demoralized and out-gunned. A successful coup would obviously be a nightmare for the Haitian people, as the old paramilitaries, who instated a murderous regime in the early 1990s would exact a terrible revenge upon Aristide, his supporters, and the Haitian workers and urban poor. In response to the threats of a coup and assassination attempts, Aristide claimed last week that he would stay and fight, saying he would die for his country. In desperation, Haitian Prime Minister Yvon Neptune issued a plea for international troops to be sent to Haiti to quell the 'uprising' and aid the fledgling national police.

US Imperialism

Members of the Haitian opposition have claimed that if the US, under Clinton, was responsible for re-instating Aristide, then it is the Bush administration's responsibility to correct the mistake and overthrow him. Many in the US State Department see Aristide as a 'beardless Castro', and he is well hated by Jesse Helms, and his clique of extreme right wing allies Roger Noriega and Otto Reich in the State Department (all involved in previous US interventions in countries like Nicaragua in the 1980s and more recently in Venezuela).

After Aristide was overthrown, his re-instatement as President on the back of a US invasion of the island in 1994 was only made possible when he embraced the Haitian ruling class and the dictates of Washington and the IMF. In order to maintain US support and receive aid, Aristide needed to maintain the standard 'structural adjustment' package, with foreign funds going to debt repayment and the needs of the bourgeois, as well as maintaining and open foreign investment policy.

This was a recipe for disaster for Haiti. Of course many state owned and subsidized industries were privatized and lead to a further concentration of wealth – 1 percent of the population controls about 45 percent of the wealth. By the end of the 1990s Haiti's local rice production had been reduced by half and rice imports from the US accounted for over half of local rice sales. The local farming population was devastated, and the price of rice rose drastically.

On the other hand, in order to appease the masses the Haitian government has invested heavily in agriculture, public transport and infrastructure. The minimum wage was doubled recently from 36 to 70 gourdes per day. Health care and education have also become major priorities. More schools were built in Haiti between 1994 and 2000 than between 1804 and 1994. The government subsidizes meals and public transport for school children and has maintained the controversial fuel subsidy. Perhaps this is why we see such a determined opposition from the bourgeois and imperialist forces in Haiti?

These social policies, which were really minor concessions, were intolerable for US imperialism. This shows the current situation of crisis of capitalism where they cannot accept reforms of any kind, even minor ones. When Aristide won the election in February 2000, the US froze hundreds of millions of dollars in aid claiming that the elections had been flawed. Out of 7,500 positions filled nation wide, election observers recommended that seven senate seats go to a run off. Haiti's electoral commission disagreed. This was the only international concern surrounding the election. In the end, in order to avoid 'the wrath of the mighty', these senators resigned

Although it seems clear that the US has been involved in some way in the armed conflict, the Bush administration has been reluctant to get openly involved because as US National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said a few years ago the US administration will only intervene militarily when there is a clear and compelling interest for the US ruling class. The Bush administration also doesn't need any more foreign policy risks in an election year. There is also the issue of cost. The US defence budget has ballooned over the past few years with the 'War on Terror' and the invasion of Iraq.

The US has had to draw a distinction between the 'mainstream' bourgeois political opposition and the armed gangs that have taken over the north. In order to avoid a foreign policy disaster around the policy of 'regime change', much like the one brewing around Iraq, Colin Powell claimed that the US political plan for Haiti does not include Aristide's stepping down, although he added that the US would not object if, as part of the negotiations with the opposition Aristide would agree to leave before the end of his term in 2006. And now along with the diplomatic initiative from the US this weekend, the administration is planning on sending a military inspection team to investigate the safety of the embassy. This is only an excuse to send a military team in to Haiti to check out conditions for a military intervention.

One of the major concerns of the US government is the threat of a mass exodus of Haitians similar to that in 1991. People have begun to flee to the neighbouring Dominican Republic and to Jamaica. The US has opened more space at Guantanamo Bay to deal with refugees, but doesn't want a mass exodus to the US. There is a great deal of pressure now coming from the state of Florida, where governor Bush is concerned about a mass of refugees coming over. This has also prompted the US government to act.

The US is ultimately concerned that Aristide cannot maintain control of the situation. Revolutionary events and processes have opened all across the Caribbean and Latin America and the US is attempting to shut the floodgates. They would like to see Aristide gone and put someone more reliable in place. They would prefer the bourgeois opposition to come to power, but this doesn't seem very likely. Now that the paramilitaries appear to winning the US is thinking twice. Its seems obvious that the US doesn't want to see the armed gangs attain power in Haiti, as this would undoubtedly lead to a civil war and would not be well received at home, and could cause problems in an election year. What the US would prefer is to broker a deal with the opposition and Aristide. The best deal for US interests would be if Aristide compromises and/or steps down. The problem with this though is that the bourgeois opposition is digging in its heels, believing that they can come to power on the backs of a coup by the paramilitaries. The bourgeois opposition will find though, that if these criminal gangsters are allowed to return to power, that they will be crushed just the same as everyone else; the paramilitaries are out of control and will not take orders from anyone.

France

It was not until the French expressed an interest in sending troops to Haiti that the US government responded. In an absolute diplomatic manoeuvre, French foreign minister Mr. De Villepin said last week that they were considering sending troops to Haiti, although he hadn't mentioned this in his visit with Colin Powell just a few days before. This has taken the US by surprise and embarrassed the administration, adding to the already high tensions between the two nations as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Naturally, the US does not want the French to begin military operations in its backyard. This is yet a further reflection of the deep crisis of the world economy and the contradictions between the imperialist powers. The world economy is edging ever closer to a crisis and there is a monstrous struggle for markets, and French military operations in Haiti would be a good way for the French to encroach upon US interests in the Caribbean and Latin America, perhaps as a retaliation for the loss of French interests in Iraq.

The French claim they have 2,000 citizens living in Haiti and that the must send a 'rescue mission' to protect them from the violence. This is a familiar story. The French have used this pretext in Congo, Ivory Coast, Chad and elsewhere whenever they need to install friendlier dictators and protect French interests.

France, Haiti's former colonizer, has about 3,000 troops in the Antilles as well as transport aircraft, helicopters and warships that they could send in.

In order to head off a collision between the two countries the US agreed to a diplomatic intervention including France, Canada, and CARICOM. Many are commenting that this is a way of healing the rifts caused by the invasion in Iraq and re-affirming the US's commitment to the UN. It is however a cynical self-interested move to prevent unilateral French action. Canada has been invited because of its 'long record' of 'assistance' to Haiti, and because there is an attitude in the US government that Canada appears more neutral, and less imperialistic than the US. It is also an attempt at "outsourcing" the costs and risks of military intervention abroad to complying allies. This could prevent an anti-US backlash in Haiti, and make negotiations with Aristide easier, whose relations with the US have obviously been strained as of late. This gives the US the suitable diplomatic cover to move in, undercut its competitors and protect its own interests in Haiti.

The Dominican Republic and the threat of war

Tensions have also been running high on the border between the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The Haitian government has been demanding that the Dominican government explain how their troops allowed armed Haitian gangs and criminals to cross in Haiti. It is obvious that they could not have crossed without the complicity of the Dominican army. The Dominican army said it had no information about how the exiles crossed over the 362 km border that is barely patrolled. In the meantime, the Dominican army is still trying to find out who ambushed and killed two Dominican soldiers at a remote area of the border. The killing of the border guards is an obvious provocation, and could prove to be a pretext for war.

The Dominican government has also stepped up its complaints about illegal Haitian immigrants. It is estimated that more than 1 million Haitians, mainly workers, are living in the Dominican Republic.

Another serious point of contention is the fact that the exiled paramilitary leaders who just returned to Haiti from the Dominican Republic were armed with new M16s. Is it just a coincidence that, as is well known, the Dominican Republic had recently received a shipment of 20,000 US made M16s?

There is a danger that the US, if it fails to diplomatically secure its interests may rely on its Dominican colonial ally to enforce 'regime change' in Haiti. This would provide a smokescreen for the US's role and involvement in the affair, because once again it is an election year, and could also be seen by the Dominican Republic as a useful tool to quell its own growing social unrest. As we reported at the end of January, there was a two day general strike in the Dominican Republic against privatization, low wages, rising fuel costs, and unemployment, which now stands at 17 percent. This came after another general strike on November 11 last year. Given the pretext of instability in Haiti and a flood of refugees, it could be the excuse the Dominican government needs to invade Haiti and use the army to crush the working class opposition and quell the developing revolutionary situation in its own country.

The so-called Peace Plan

Aristide agreed on Saturday to the peace plan proposed by the US, Canada, France and CARICOM nations. The rebels are to be disarmed and a new government will be formed with a new prime minister. The peace plan requires that the government and the opposition agree to a tripartite commission, including an international representative by Tuesday to move ahead with forming a new government and electing parliament, which has not functioned since January. The Canadian government has also offered to send police to reinforce the small out-gunned Haitian police force. The real meaning of this peace plan is to keep Aristide at the top as a way of containing his supporters amongst the masses, but at the same time give real power to the representatives of the bourgeois opposition, and win time to disarm the armed thugs who are out of control. But if this "deal" went ahead it would mean political suicide for Aristide, who would have compromised with the hated imperialists and local elite for the second time.

Meanwhile the armed gangs have continued their offensive. Cap-Haïtien fell on Sunday and there is talk that an attack on Port-au-Prince is imminent. It as yet unclear, but the police force, the bulk of which is located in Port-au-Prince may be demoralized. Before Cap-Haïtien fell, police made it very clear that they were too afraid to patrol the streets. They barricaded themselves in their station but could not hold off the assault. The police have been the targets of attacks by paramilitaries for quite some time, and seem unable and possibly unwilling to defend themselves. The one thing that Aristide has going for him is his popularity with the urban poor and the working class. Pierre Frandley, a carpenter, told the Associated Press 02/20/2004 that "we have machetes and guns, and we will resist. The police might have been scared, but the people got together and organized…We blocked the streets."

It was also noted in the Observer that "in the sprawling slums of Port-au-Prince, Aristide continues to be widely seen as a hero fighting against a powerful and tiny elite and its international backers". The bourgeois media has reporting major demonstrations of the opposition against Aristide for some time, but continually neglect to mention that these protests are met with mass counter-demonstrations of workers who support Aristide. As the rumours of the armed thugs and gangs approaching Port-au-Prince grow, workers from the slums and working-class neighbourhoods, the 'bastion' of Aristide's support in Port-au-Prince are arming themselves and throwing up barricades in order to support the government. It seems that the masses of the workers and the urban poor who had probably been disillusioned by Aristide, are now rallying to defend him faced with the threat of return of the cutthroat gangs of criminals who ruled the country under the Duvaliers. In this they are showing a very clear class instinct. As Marx commented, sometimes the revolution needs the whip of counter-revolution.

In the event that there is an attack on Port-au-Prince, Aristide's only defence would be to arm the working class and call on their support to defeat the coup. The problem with this, as far as Aristide is concerned, is that if he were to arm the workers it would mean revolution – power would pass onto the hands of the working people and it will put the socialist transformation of Haitian society on the order of the day.

The crisis in the world economy has led to revolutionary developments across the Caribbean and Latin America. Revolutionary situations are developing in the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. The US is trying to stem the tide of the revolutionary awakening of the masses. The US has been forced to respond in order to stop the spread of the revolution. In some cases, like in Venezuela and in Georgia US has not intervened militarily to overthrow "uncooperative" regimes but has done so in an indirect way by whipping up a "popular" uprising, in reality a counter-revolution. In fact the situation in Haiti reminds us very much of that which led to the April 2002 coup against Chavez in Venezuela, where a coalition between the ruling elite and US imperialism, used the masses of the middle class as cannon fodder, and tried to overthrow the government. In the case of Venezuela, the masses responded immediately and defeated the coup. Whether this will be the case in Haiti, where Aristide's image has already been tarnished in the eyes of the masses by his collaboration with the US after he was reinstated in 1994, remains to be seen.

Now, the US doesn't necessarily want to remove Aristide, but rather, use him to prevent the development of a revolutionary situation. They are not sure that Aristide can control the situation. They might sit back and watch the developments and the battles, and when the time is right they may rely on the Dominican army, under the pretext of 'stopping bloodshed' and an 'international humanitarian mission' in order to crush the movement of the masses. Given the fact that it is an election year, and given the loss of American life in Iraq, the US will be reluctant to send in their own troops and risks the lives of more US soldiers.

This crisis in the world economy and politics into which the world has entered is such that there can be no solution to the problems in Haiti, or elsewhere such as in Venezuela or Argentina on a capitalist or reformist basis. The contradictions are too great and too many, and the divisions in society are too deep. That is precisely why Aristide and his government are in such a mess. The only solution would have been to expropriate the imperialist interests and the bourgeois in Haiti. It seems unlikely however, that a reformist politician like Aristide would carry out such a programme.

Contrary to the opinion of the US administration, Aristide is no communist or socialist, in fact he can hardly pass as a reformist and the working class will find him to be a barrier to genuine socialism and liberation from imperialism and poverty. The workers and urban poor, along with the poor peasants must organize themselves into defence committees, democratically organized and linked across the country, in order to defend themselves against the return of the hated macoutistes and take the future into their own hands. The arming of the workers and the people and the defeat of the coup would effectively put power in the hands of the workers. They must use this to push the socialist transformation of society. This however, will not be enough on its own. Haiti is a small, poor, and isolated country that could never survive on its own. A socialist revolution in Haiti could be the catalyst that sparks off a socialist revolution in the Dominican Republic, which is the only way out of the current crisis for the workers of both countries. The Haitian workers must appeal to and link up in struggle with the working class of the Dominican Republic, and appeal to all of the workers of the Caribbean and Latin America to join them in solidarity and struggle for socialism.

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

Visit Social Nerve for up to date coverage of Haiti, Latin America, and the World: http://www.socialnerve.org

The above article, "Haiti - There is No Solution Under Capitalism", was originally written by Rob Lyon, and can be found on Marxist.com.

these articles can be found on

http://www.newyouth.com
http://www.marxist.com
http://argentina.elmilitante.org/
http://www.socialist.net/
http://www.marxist.dk/
http://www.derfunke.de/
http://www.militante.org/

and many more, please visit these very important Marxist sites that have the articles of Ted Grant and Alan Woods, who are the foremost thinkers of Marxism today. I urge everyone to read these articles, to spread them around the internet as much as possible, to print them out, distribute them, quote them, etc.

On Social Nerve we publish a lot of these articles, with citation and links to the original marxist site, where you can read books by Alan Woods and the extremely important Ted Grant.

Youth For International Socialism!
Workers of the World Unite!

Jean-Bertrand Aristide stepped down as President and left Haiti early in the morning on Sunday February 29 under threat of a coup d'etat from former death squad leaders and Duvalier supporters. Shortly thereafter the US announced that it was sending in marines to help 'stabilize' the country and make way for a UN 'peacekeeping' force. The UN Security Council also, in a unanimous decision, decided that it will send a multi-national 'peacekeeping force' for at least three months as well as a 'stabilizing force' that it will send later in the year. These developments clearly demonstrate the reactionary role played by US imperialism in the region and far from solving the crisis in Haiti it is setting the stage for further unrest and instability in the whole area.

The role of US imperialism

With the threat of an assault on Port-au-Prince from the paramilitaries, who were armed with brand new M-16s, M-60s, armour piercing weapons, all terrain vehicles, and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, the US joined in the chorus for Aristide to step down the day before Aristide left. US officials also kindly informed Aristide that in the event that the 'rebels', who claimed they would put him on trail and kill him, entered Port-au-Prince they would not protect him. The US role in Aristide being overthrown is far from clear, as there are rumours that a helicopter landed near Aristide's residence and that armed soldiers entered the house and took him out of his bed and on to a waiting plane. Contrary to a letter Aristide wrote during his final hours in Haiti claiming that he was leaving to avoid bloodshed, he is now claiming that he was forced to leave by US military forces, and that he was kidnapped and forced to leave the country. Adding further to the rumours are Randall Robinson, Rep.Charles Rangel, and Rep. Maxine Waters, all of whom have been on CNN and alternative media claiming that Aristide had been abducted by US marines and forced to leave.

The US administration, while denying these charges, seemed quite happy that Aristide had finally left. President Bush claimed that it was the opening of a new chapter for Haiti, and he called for an end to the political violence. As we pointed out in our previous article, Haiti – There can be no solution under capitalism, it was clear that the US was willing to simply wait and see how things developed in Haiti before committing to a firm stance on the crisis. In this way, the US could wait for the most suitable outcome for securing their own interests. Shortly after Aristide agreed to the 'deal' brokered by the imperialist powers, the bourgeois opposition refused the terms, feeling themselves in a position of power on the basis of the paramilitaries who controlled the north of the country. They clearly felt that Aristide was not in a position to bargain. For a time it seemed that the easiest solution in the eyes of the US was to broker a compromise between the opposition and Aristide. Although many in the current administration wanted to get rid of Aristide, it could have been possible to use him in an attempt to control the situation and stop the development of a messy bloodbath. In the end though, a deal along these lines seemed unlikely, as Aristide was besieged in Port-au-Prince and it looked as though the paramilitaries would attack and possibly assume power, something the US did not want as it seemed unlikely that they could control the paramilitaries. As explained in Haiti – Which Way Forward Against Imperialism?, the US is not interested in establishing or supporting open military dictatorships at the present time, as these regimes are more difficult to control and don't always listen to US dictates. It is far easier for the US to control a weak 'democratic' regime from Washington, as a weak regime is more reliant upon US support.

The most suitable outcome for the US was then to have Aristide leave before an attack on Port-au-Prince had been made, as both the paramilitaries and the bourgeois opposition would be easier to control before an attack, not during or after they seized power. It is much easier, and infinitely more favourable for the US to send in a 'stabilizing' or 'peacekeeping force' than to send in an invasion force which would have to pacify the paramilitaries and embroil the US in another messy situation abroad. Either way, the US wanted someone in power in Haiti that they could control, whether it was a weakened Aristide government along with the opposition, or the opposition on its own. In the end, with Aristide weak and under siege, the US made its move and added to the pressure for Aristide to step down, thereby getting rid of a thorn in their side and allowing them to find a new candidate to control the situation.

The view from the left

From the point of view of Marxism, it would be an absolute crime to support the so-called 'opposition', comprised of factory and sweatshop owners, media moguls, and wealthy students, or to proclaim and support the operations of the paramilitaries as a popular uprising as some on the left had done. The situation in Haiti is far from black and white. In Haiti it is not a clear cut case of supporting one side or another. Neither does it do any good to try to paint one side as progressive, or 'democratic'. Given the crushing poverty, it is natural that there is widespread confusion in Haiti. Both sides of the conflict received support from elements of the urban poor and elements of the working class. This is due mainly to that fact that there is no mass, independent organization of the working class which could have lead the workers forward on their own path.

It is clear, especially in light of current events, that the paramilitaries and the opposition represent the forces of counter-revolution. This is not to say that Aristide is a revolutionary, he is also a counter-revolutionary, but we must look at what outcome would be better for the Haitian working class, peasants, and urban poor. To support the uprising and the opposition is to tailcoat the bourgeois and submit the interests of the workers and poor to the counter-revolutionaries and imperialism. And now, in supporting the 'uprising', many on the left have found themselves in a difficult situation, as this means supporting the US and UN imperialist intervention, as these are clearly linked to and supporting the opposition. This is a clear case of opportunism. To support the 'opposition' and the 'uprising' is to support now the imperialist intervention. It also demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the basics of Marxism. Many of these so-called revolutionary groups have not understood the processes at work in Haiti, and are contributing to the miseducation on the nature of the uprising and the general political situation in the region. As revolutionary Marxists we must explain what is happening in Haiti in class terms and in the context of a developing revolutionary situation across the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean, and base ourselves on a class, that is a working class perspective.

The new regime

With the arrival of US troops, the paramilitaries have said that they will put down their arms, and that they will cooperate with the US and UN 'peacekeeping force'. The bourgeois opposition has quickly denied all connections with the paramilitaries but has said that they are willing to work with them to restore order and stability and rebuild Haiti.

The US administration and their imperialist allies are singing the chorus of bringing 'democracy' and 'stability' to Haiti. We've heard this talk before, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the US vision of democracy can be seen to mean democracy with no elections and based on the barrel of a gun.

And what of this stability? The arrival of US marines was taken as a clear signal by the paramilitaries to move into Port-au-Prince and establish themselves as a security force. Among their first acts was to free some 2,000 prisoners from jail, the main aim of which seemed to be the liberation of a number of notorious killers from previous dictatorships, including Prosper Avril, who headed a military junta that ruled the country from 1988 to 1990 and was responsible for terrible acts of violence against political opponents. These freed criminals are also providing fresh recruits for the terror squads that are operating in Port-au-Prince.

There are now reports that the paramilitaries and death squads are hunting down and beating and murdering Aristide supporters. Canadian officials who were, at the time of Aristide's 'resignation', still counting on a deal being reached that would allow him to remain in office have claimed that the US seems to have a 'high tolerance' for further bloodshed in Haiti, and are standing by as Aristide supporters are being attacked, although the US would not allow the pressure of violence to force them into defending Aristide.

The US is now trying to gain control over the paramilitaries, who have been flexing their muscles over the past few days. Guy Philippe, the leader of the 'rebels', proclaimed himself Haiti's "military chief" and announced his intention to arrest Prime Minister Yvon Neptune. The US administration, clearly worried about losing control of the situation and the rebels, has said that Philippe leads nothing but a ragtag band and that they should make themselves scarce as the international force deploys. The US State Department has said that the rebels should go home and that they will have no role in the political process in Haiti. Philippe has now said that his rebels would not put down their arms until Aristide's supporters had been crushed, although he maintains that they will cooperate with the intervention forces. His band of criminals and murderers, apparently in cooperation with the police, are roaming throughout Port-au-Prince 'cleaning up the streets'. It has been reported that scores of Aristide supporters have been murdered.

As an indication of the nature of the opposition and the uprising, and the political tendencies that this has unleashed, it has also been reported that former dictator, Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier, has announced that he intends to return to Haiti from exile in France.

Although the exact composition of the new regime is not clear, what can be established is that the new regime will not possibly be able to establish democracy or stability. Any new government in Haiti will obviously be comprised of members from the so-called opposition, who are members of the hated elite of media and sweatshop and moguls, and/or the paramilitaries, who are all members of former death squads, and Tonton Macoutes from the Duvalier days as well as former military leaders. The Haitian people will not appreciate a return of hated figures and murderers from the past. The US wants a regime in Haiti that will be prepared to carry out IMF dictates will much more zeal, élan and conviction than Aristide. Although Aristide at first seemed prepared to carry out the IMF austerity package, pressure from the urban poor and working class, the bastion of his support and the basis of his popularity and electoral victories, forced him into a series of half measures and concessions in the form of minor reforms and social programs. The crisis of capitalism is such that the problems facing any country in the world, let alone the poorest in the Western Hemisphere, cannot be solved on the basis of capitalism or reformism. This is what got Aristide into such a mess. Due to pressure from US imperialism and Haiti's ruling class, he pushed through IMF policies, on the other hand, pressure from the Haitian workers and urban poor forced him to halt certain aspects of IMF policy (such as discontinuing fuel subsidies) and initiate minor reforms. Aristide tried to be everything to everyone and play the classes off one another, to his own demise. So what the US is now looking for is a regime that will push through IMF policies to their full extent. This is a finished recipe for further unrest, instability, as the workers and poor will undoubtedly not be pleased with this and cannot accept any further impositions into their already meagre income and standard of living.

The Venezuelan connection

It is no secret that the US State Department's section of Latin American and Caribbean policymakers is full of extreme right-wing allies of Jesse Helms and John Burton. These include Otto Reich, John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams and one Roger Noriega, the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. He is also a senior staff member of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate, and a senior advisor to both Helms and Burton. He has had Aristide 'in his sights' for over a decade and was part of a three year propaganda campaign aimed at defaming Aristide and preventing his return to power. They even went so far as to claim that Aristide had been treated for mental illness in Canada, producing evidence from the CIA. The only problem was that Aristide at the time this was supposed to be happening was teaching and studying in Israel!

For the past two years Noriega had been openly advertising his intentions to oust Aristide. In April of last year he openly linked US policies in Haiti to those in Venezuela and Cuba. He congratulated the Organization of American States for adopting the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Article 20 of this charter calls for a series of actions to be taken if a member state fails to 'uphold the essential elements of democratic life'. He then added that "President Chavez and President Aristide have contributed wilfully to a polarized and confrontational environment. It is my hope that the good people of Cuba are studying the Democratic Charter". This is a tad ominous to say the least. Given the fact the US is clearly involved in the current counter-revolutionary provocations in Venezuela, this would almost seem to confirm that they played a role in Haiti and that they have something planned for Cuba. The US is well aware that many workers and peasants across the entire region look to Cuba as an example, an inspiration and as a ray of hope. The US is aware of the importance Cuba can play in the developing revolutionary situation. This does not mean necessarily in the direct role Cuba could play in the situation, mainly because Castro seems reluctant to do so and is in fact urging Chavez to not go too far out of fear or provoking the US, but in terms of the consciousness and imagination of the working class in Latin America. In the context of this developing revolutionary situation in Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba will be seen as a point of reference for millions, and the US would be interested in isolating and removing the Cuban regime.

Of the three regimes mentioned above, Aristide's was the weakest, and he has now been removed. The next one on the list is Chavez, although the US will find it much more difficult to oust Chavez than they did Aristide. We cannot view these events and crises in isolation. The situation is entirely linked by the developing revolutionary situation across the Caribbean and Latin America. As we have commented many times before, there is not a single stable bourgeois regime from Tierra del Fuego to the Rio Grande. There are revolutionary developments in Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia and Brazil is on the brink. The US is desperate to stop the growing instability and halt the developing revolutionary situation across the entire region, which has forced them to intervene in Haiti and may force them to intervene in Venezuela and elsewhere.

It is possible that the Venezuelan opposition, either with or without direct US involvement, having failed in their bid for a referendum to oust Chavez, saw the events in Haiti over the weekend and the past few weeks and decided to go on the offensive. This was however a serious miscalculation. Although there are some similarities in the situation in Venezuela and Haiti, there are some serious differences. Aristide had given in to IMF pressure, and as a result he had discredited himself in the eyes of his supporters – the urban poor and working class. Although he still had support from these sections of society, mainly in Port-au-Prince, it was not enough in the end to save his regime.

Chavez on the other hand has not given into the pressures of imperialism and is still seen as a champion of the working class and as a hero. Time and time again the workers of Venezuela have come out to the streets en masse to defend his regime from the threat of a coup. The most recent example is over this past weekend, where the counter-revolutionaries have provoked violence, only to be met with a strong response from the working class in the form of mass demonstrations in support of Chavez. It is possible that the counter-revolutionaries and the right-wing opposition in Venezuela saw events in Haiti and thought that they could achieve the same results. Perhaps they thought that if they provoked violence, that a prolonged crisis would develop based on a determined opposition and that Chavez would be forced to resign, or flee, and that the US would be forced to intervene. This attempt at a reproduction of Haitian events is a pipedream in the present period. Working class support for Chavez is far too strong, and neither the right-wing opposition, a group of paramilitaries as in the case of Haiti, or even the US army are capable of overthrowing Chavez at the moment because of it. It is also clear that the right-wing does not have the necessary support or forces for an attempted coup against Chavez as was the case against Aristide, and at present they will not be able to drum up support, in fact they are losing support and their forces are much weaker now than during the two coup attempts.

The Working Class

The real tragedy of the events in Haiti is that, unlike in Venezuela, there is no mass independent movement of the working class. Had there been, the situation would have developed along much different lines. Although many workers and urban poor, mainly in Port-au-Prince supported Aristide, he did not enjoy the mass support of the working class that Chavez enjoys, mainly due to the fact that he was a US stooge who had been returned to power on the back of US military operations. Aristide discredited himself and lost support when he initiated IMF dictates.

The independent organizations of the Haitian working class have been decimated during the years of coups, dictatorships and civil strife. This is a great tragedy in Haiti, because had there been mass independent organizations of the working class, and a revolutionary Marxist leadership, the outcome of the present crisis would have been entirely different.

There is a wealth of historical lessons upon which the Haitian workers can base themselves. The situation Aristide found himself in was similar in many ways to the situation Kerensky faced in Russia 1917. Aristide was a bourgeois who was trying to be all things to all people in a desperate attempt to maintain control of a rapidly disintegrating political and economic situation. Many people had illusions in Kerensky and his ability to initiate reforms, just as many had illusions in Aristide as some sort of hero and champion of the Haitian workers and poor. Kerensky, like Aristide, demonstrated that a solution is not possible along capitalist or reformist lines. General Kornilov represented the black flag of reaction, and the Bolsheviks took a clear principled and class position. The first task for the workers was to crush the reaction to safeguard the revolution. The weak and corrupt bourgeois government could then be dealt with later, as was done in the October Revolution of 1917. But in order to do this the reaction had to be defeated. So in a similar way, just as Marxists did not support Kornilov, it is not permissible for so-called Marxists to support Philippe and his gang of paramilitaries or their allies in the bourgeois opposition. This means supporting the counter-revolution, a gang of criminals and murders who carry the black flag of reaction. Ultimately what was missing in Haiti was a mass revolutionary party, which could have defeated the paramilitaries and set the ground for a socialist revolutionary struggle against Aristide's bourgeois regime.

The arrival of imperialist troops is a recipe for further unrest and instability in Haiti, and the only way out of the present crisis will be for the Haitian working class to build mass, independent organizations, ie trade unions and a revolutionary party, capable of leading the workers to victory and commencing the socialist transformation of Haitian society. Given the widespread instability and unrest across the entire region, the only way out for the working class will be to build these organizations under the leadership of a revolutionary, internationalist Marxist leadership. Without this there will be no way out of the current crisis and Haiti will be doomed to further instability and bloodshed.

As we have explained, the situation in Haiti is not occurring in isolation. As Lenin explained in relation to Russia, capitalism is breaking at one of its weakest links in Haiti. The events in Haiti are a reflection of the general instability and unrest across the entire region. The tasks of the workers across Latin America and the Caribbean are to forge international links to battle the counter-revolutionary role of US imperialism and move forward with the construction of a socialist federation of Latin America and the Caribbean, as part of a world socialist federation.

I came across this while reading up on some news. Another possible side of the story to ponder.

Aristide wasn't forced out
March 06,2004
ERIC STEINKOPFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF

If Jim Refinger knows one thing it's this: Ousted Haitian president Jean Bertrand Aristide is safe.

There was no kidnapping, as some sources reported. There was no injury. And for Refinger there was no mystery.

Refinger was there. The former Jacksonville police sniper and retired Marine was part of a private security team hired to protect Aristide's inner circle.

"We left with him (but) I won't talk about where we went," Refinger said Friday from his home in Jacksonville where he just returned. "We escorted him safely out.

"Everything was done with the full knowledge and cooperation of the president. There was no forcing the president to go anywhere. We protected our principal without a shot fired and he is safe."

Refinger works for Steele Foundation, a security firm based in San Francisco. The company has protection details all over the world and does industrial security and risk analysis, Refinger said.

Aristide had a presidential protection unit, and a team from Steele mirrored the unit in an inner circle. Refinger's job was running the outer circle that kept the inner circle safe.

"We were protecting the protectors, and we worked closely with the Haitian counter-ambush team," he said.

A good fit

Refinger, 55, seems a natural to train and lead a quick reaction force in Port-au-Prince.

He was a Marine 1st sergeant and worked for 16 years with the Jacksonville police department's special incident response team before retiring in July 2002 and going to work for Steele.

"When I got to the Jacksonville police department I wanted to be on their (special weapons and tactics) team," Refinger said. "I started out as a sniper on the SWAT team and later was a sniper instructor for the police department. Now they probably have one of the better teams in the state."

Little wonder. Refinger was with 3rd Force Reconnaissance Company from the end of 1966 to the end of 1969. He said he received "a little ding in the leg" from North Vietnamese rocket shrapnel before training enlisted recruits as a drill instructor at Parris Island, S.C.

In 1983, he was an adviser to the Lebanese Army before the terrorist bombing at the Beirut International Airport Oct. 23 that year.

Refinger was the senior enlisted member of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, and later first sergeant of Headquarters Company of the regiment before retiring from the Marine Corps in 1986.

In addition to his time as a sniper and sniper instructor at the Jacksonville Police Department, he worked as a patrol officer, narcotics officer and later a patrol supervisor.

After he retired from the department, Refinger's Marine buddy and former Camp Lejeune special incident response team member Mark Moore asked Refinger if he'd work for the Steele.

On speaking terms

While working in Haiti, Refinger has picked up a little of the Creole language, especially terms like "stay back," "kneel," "stand there" and "put your hands behind your back."

"Once you are their teacher in a basic course you become special to them," Refinger said. "We did our best to teach them proper police procedures and to treat people with respect because it reflects on the presidency."

Although the country was considered unstable, Refinger said it really wasn't a combat area.

"The threat of rebels didn't really happen until the first of the year," he said. "Most of the time we were protecting (Aristide) from people who loved him too much."

Thousands of people would show up at public events threatening to crush the president with sick children in the belief that somehow the former Catholic priest would cure them.

A lot of people also hated Aristide, seemingly to Refinger because the president came from the poor, lower class.

"It never really came to Port-au-Prince," Refinger said. "We saw some demonstrations and started hearing about it in Gonaives and Cap Haitien. The police got pretty overwhelmed, especially in the small towns, but Port-au-Prince is probably 80 percent pro-Aristide."

The Shamir or ghost pro-Aristide supporters blocked roads leading into the capital, making it difficult, if not impossible for rebels to enter the city.

Refinger speculated that Aristide may have decided to leave to avoid further bloodshed, but questioned whether it was possible to avoid that in Haiti.

The matter is under investigation, said Refinger, who added that he may be called to testify and, therefore, could not go into details about Aristide's departure.

"We got out slick and fast, before they even knew what was happening," Refinger said. "It wasn't until after it was all said and done that we heard a report about kidnapping, but we knew that wasn't the case."

More help

While Refinger was in Haiti, his wife Dee visited a couple of times, once for 30 days and most recently for four months. The couple was married in November 2002.

"Our first real date was a gun show and our first movie was 'Hamburger Hill,'" said Dee.

What struck them most about Haiti was the poverty. Wild pigs, cows and chickens wandered the streets and countryside. Infant mortality was so high, they said, that families waited a year to name their children in case they didn't survive.

"When you fly over it you can smell the rancid countryside," Refinger said. "The bugs and mosquitoes are bad, the filth comes up over your shoes and people live in that."

The couple also recalled mansions manned by servants who lived in mud huts packed 12 to a room just across the street.

The situation convinced Dee Refinger to help. The couple is sponsoring three children in Haiti.

"They fight to live and survive every day," Dee said.

"There's no middle class in Haiti," Refinger said. "There are haves who have a whole lot and the poor who have nothing."

Contact Eric Steinkopff at esteinkopff@jdnews.com or 353-1171, Ext. 236.

By Patricia Zengerle

MIAMI (Reuters) - Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide says his departure from his country was a "kidnapping" as heavily armed "white men" surrounded the National Palace, according to a statement released on Saturday.

"During the night of the 28th of February 2004, there was a coup d'etat. One could say that it was a geopolitical kidnapping. I can clearly say that it was terrorism disguised as diplomacy," Aristide said in the statement, a transcript of a Friday radio address "to the Haitian People and the World" delivered by cellular telephone to a California radio station.

The United States has repeatedly dismissed Aristide's contentions that he was kidnapped when he left Haiti on Feb. 29. The Bush administration blames the crisis in Haiti on Aristide, who was restored to power a decade earlier by 20,000 U.S. troops after his ouster in a military coup.

A former slum priest, Aristide lost public support during his presidency amid charges of corruption, failure to alleviate Haiti's desperate poverty and election fraud.

But he remains fiercely popular in Haiti's slums, from which tens of thousands of supporters emerged on Friday to call for his return to Haiti and denounce the United States.

Aristide said U.S. military personnel in Port-au-Prince came to the palace before dawn on Sunday and told him "the foreigners" and armed gangs leading a month-long revolt were near the capital and "already in position to open fire."

He said the Americans also said his security detail would have to fight to the death and that 25 more guards hired from the United States had been barred from coming to Haiti.

"There was going to be a bloodbath because we were already under an illegal foreign occupation which was ready to drop bodies on the ground, to spill blood, and then kidnap me dead or alive," he said.

Aristide said in the statement that he agreed to go to avoid a bloodbath, was forced to sign his letter of resignation and did not know he was going to the Central African Republic until shortly before landing there.

He urged his supporters to stand together under the Haitian constitution. "... we also know that back home there are people who understand the game, but will not give up because if they give up, instead of finding peace, we will find death."

Authorities in the Central African Republic, where Aristide is in exile, have voiced concern about Aristide's inflammatory comments about the United States since arriving in its capital Bangui.

I was just pointing out there is another side to this story. I do find it somewhat amusing that some people are so anxious to find a reason to hate the United States they turn a blind eye to what a corrupt piece of shit Aristide was and immediately take him at his word.

More on HaitiHaiti: Coup, Kidnapping, and Business as Usual --RW/OR ONLINE

Revolutionary Worker #1232, March 14, 2004, posted at rwor.org

As the U.S. rulers seek to impose a phony and oppressive "democratic" process in
occupied Iraq, they have been deeply involved in undermining Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, the "democratically" elected leader in Haiti. On February 29, Aristide
was forced to leave Haiti as anti-government military forces closed in on the
capital city, Port-au-Prince, and turmoil rocked the country. Since then, the
hand of the U.S. in the removal of Aristide--not only from his position as
president but from Haiti itself--has become even clearer.
Substantial charges have come out that Aristide was in fact directly threatened
by the U.S. military and diplomats--that if he did not leave the country
immediately, the U.S. would not be able to protect him from the anti-Aristide
military forces that were speeding toward the capital.
U.S. officials painted Aristide's so-called resignation from the presidency and
departure from the country as "voluntary." But Aristide himself has been telling
a very different story.
According to reports originally aired on Democracy Now , Aristide called U.S.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters and long-time friend Randall Robinson on a cell
phone to say that he in fact had been "kidnapped" by the U.S. He said he had
effectively been forced out of Haiti and flown on a plane for more than 20
hours--unaware of his final destination--before landing in the Central African
Republic. During this whole time, he was under the guard of U.S. marines. He
charged that a statement he wrote had been rewritten by U.S. officials to make
it appear as if he had agreed to resign.
Upon arriving in the Central African Republic, Aristide was taken to an
undisclosed location where his communication with the outside world has been
severely limited. He told Waters that the cell phone he used to call her had to
be smuggled in to him. The president of the Central African Republic, citing the
concerns coming from Washington, instructed Aristide to not talk to the press.
However, Aristide did speak to CNN and stated emphatically that what happened
was a "real coup d'etat...a modern way to have a modern kidnapping."
The French imperialists--who have had their own beef with Aristide, partly
because he had been demanding hundreds of billions of dollars in reparation for
French colonial domination of Haiti--are playing a secondary role within all
this. France was the first to call for Aristide to resign and has sent hundreds
of troops to Haiti.
***
U.S. authorities have continued to deny that they took Aristide against his
will. But their denials take on comic proportions, as when U.S. Secretary of
State Colin Powell--infamous around the world for his lie- filled presentation
to the UN about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction"--told the press that
Aristide left Haiti on a U.S. charter plane "willingly, and that's the truth."
Powell, in fact, was deeply involved in the U.S. moves against Aristide. This
self-proclaimed purveyor of the "truth" has continuously been in liaison with
Andre Apaid--the head of the Group of 184 Civil Society Organizations, which is
part of the Democratic Platform, the "civil" forces within the anti-Aristide
opposition. Apaid owns Alpha Industries, which manufactures textile products and
assembles electronic products for U.S. companies. He is the largest industrial
employer in Haiti and part of the bourgeois "civil society opposition" that has
been targeting Aristide.
While the Democratic Platform has functioned as a sort of political wing of the
anti-Aristide opposition, while the military wing has been led by Guy Philippe,
a former Haiti military officer during the 1991-1994 military dictatorship
headed by Raoul Cedras. Another leader of the anti-Aristide military forces is
Jodel Chamberlain, a top figure in FRAPH--the notorious death squad under the
Cedras regime closely linked with the CIA.
Now that Aristide has been forced out, U.S. officials are calling the military
opposition a "rag tag" army, demanding that they disarm and declaring that they
will not have any say in the running of the country. Full of imperialist
arrogance, the U.S. has not only removed an elected president of a country at
the point of the gun but is now dictating who can and cannot be in the new
government.
The U.S. statements about the anti-Aristide opposition are also filled with sick
hypocrisy. The "rag tag" army led by Philippe and other brutal thugs have been
well equipped with M-16 rifles and other weapons not available to Aristide's
police. There is speculation that the arms were supplied by the U.S., through
the Dominican Republic. The U.S. did not call for this "rag tag" army to disarm
when they were moving through Haiti in February, taking city after city. While
some U.S. ruling class spokesmen called for "calm" in Haiti, what mainly came
out from the Bush White House was blaming Aristide for the chaotic situation.
Another blatant example of U.S. hypocrisy is the fact that only a day after
Powell and others were warning Aristide he had to leave or risk a "bloodbath,"
the U.S. military (along with troops from France and several other countries)
quickly moved in to occupy and "stabilize" Haiti.
Why didn't the U.S. protect Aristide against a couple of hundred armed men of a
"rag- tag" army? Why did the U.S. wait until Aristide was out to come in?
The obvious answer is that the destabilization and overthrow of the Aristide
government was a very deliberate U.S. move.
***
The U.S., under the Clinton administration, carried out Aristide's restoration
to power in 1994 with a military invasion and occupation. Clinton's aim was to
quell and defuse the mass upsurge against the Cedras dictatorship by installing
a "democratic" government. In return for putting him back in power, the U.S.
made Aristide agree to certain conditions--for example, that he would faithfully
follow the "neoliberal" economic and social agenda of imperialist financial
institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In this
way, Clinton tried to make sure Aristide was firmly under imperialist control.
But powerful forces within the U.S. ruling class opposed the restoration of
Aristide. Those like right- wing Republican Senator Jesse Helms thought Aristide
was not obedient and subservient enough to U.S. imperial dictates.
When George W. Bush became president, the anti-Aristide views in the top levels
of the U.S. government became even more prominent. Roger Noriega, who worked for
Jesse Helms, is currently the assistant secretary of state under Colin Powell,
in charge of the U.S.'s Haiti policy. The U.S. has withheld hundreds of millions
of dollars in developmental funds to Haiti in recent years. And this was
disastrous for a country so dependent on such imperialist "aid."
Why have these forces within the U.S. ruling class gone so viciously after
Aristide? There were different times when Aristide was not in full compliance
with U.S. demands and wishes. He raised some questions about the "neoliberal"
policies in Haiti. And his history as a populist leader of a mass movement
against the U.S.-backed Duvalier dictatorship in the 1980s also was too much for
certain forces within the U.S. bourgeoisie.
But still, Aristide's politics is far from revolutionary or even radical--he
certainly has not presented any threat to the U.S., or served as some kind of
example for anti-U.S. forces elsewhere. Haiti doesn't have rich resources like
Venezuela, where the U.S. tried to orchestrate a similar coup against Hugo
Chavez.
Aristide bent over backwards several times for the IMF and World Bank to
implement austerity measures in Haiti. This included lowering import tariffs,
cutting what little services the people have, lowering minimum wage, and opening
the door wider for foreign investors to come in and exploit the population. In
this recent crisis, he had even agreed to a U.S.-backed plan for "sharing power"
with the opposition that would have reduced him to a virtual figurehead.
The lengths to which the U.S. went to oust Aristide points to the extreme
missionary zeal of Bush and Co. to "remake" the world in their image--to force
on the world their view of how societies and countries must and must not be run.
What has gone down in Haiti reveals the orientation of those holding the reins
of power in the U.S. today that anyone and anything--no matter how seemingly
inconsequential--that gets in their way, or represents something even a slightly
different from what they find tolerable, must be swept aside.
***
There are many outrages in what has happened in Haiti. After directly fomenting
the economic instability in Haiti by denying greatly needed aid, the Bush White
House blamed Aristide for the resulting chaos and engineered his fall. And while
pinning blame for Haiti's deep poverty on Aristide, Bush declared that the U.S.
would turn back any people from Haiti who tried to flee the turmoil and
hardships manufactured by the U.S.
As we go to press (March 7), the U.S. has some 1,250 Marines in Haiti, and an
additional 1,500- 2,000 troops are expected to arrive. They are backed up by
hundreds of troops from France, Chile, Canada, and Brazil. The situation
continues to be in flux. The U.S. occupiers are promoting a "council of
elders"--like the puppet council set up in Iraq under U.S. occupation. U.S.
troops are moving into cities around Haiti that had been taken over last month
by the anti-Aristide paramilitary forces--but some of those forces are refusing
to put down their guns as ordered by the U.S. Thousands have taken to the
streets in demonstrations, angry at the U.S. occupation of Haiti and the
abduction of Aristide. In some cases, demonstrators have compared the situation
in Haiti to the occupation of Iraq and vowed to struggle until the U.S. was out.
The people of Haiti have the heart and desire for real liberation. There is a
crying need to find the revolutionary path to get there.

"...corrupt piece of shit..."? MK, as usual, you disguise your racism behind the patriotic facade of an article which quotes a Marine Corps hero who claims to contradict the objections of an elected head of state. Occasionally you make the mistake of adding your own editorial comments, which tend to clarify your true motives. Get a life, and get off the site.

Kucinich is expected to call for:

-An investigation into the role the US played in arming the forces that arose in opposition to Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and in removing Aristide from office

-A broadening of the investigation into the role the US played in blocking funds earmarked for Haiti from the World Bank and the IMF

-Immediate release of those funds to Haiti now that it needs them more than ever

-Sweeping reforms in US immigration policy towards Haitians, which now appears to be racially motivated and discriminatory (one policy for Cubans, another more harsh policy for Haitians)

-Reaffirmation of Democratic principles in which the US fairly and impartially support democratically-elected leaders regardless of the Administration's particular regard for specific individuals elected, and a renewed commitment to stand firmly against armed aggression and coup d'etats.

-A broad investigation into the facts surrounding Jean-Bertrand Aristide's controversial Feb. 29th departure from Haiti

For information about the National campaign: http://www.kucinich.us

Funny how Kucinich is making such a big deal about US involvement in Haiti, when he didn't have shit to say for the last 10 years about the US involvement in the Philippines, El Salvador, Columbia, or a number of other places where the US sponsored dictators and genocide.

Oh yeah. He wasn't running for president then. Guess we'll just throw this issue in with the rest of the issues DK "re-evaluated" when it was time to come up with a platform. Did someone say anti-choice and pro-Iraqi sanctions?

How is calling someone a "corrupt piece of shit" racism? And if you do not like what I post DON'T READ IT.

Source for MK's article wrt Aristide. Scroll down to Eric Steinkopff's article. Steinkopff is a former Marine who writes for the Jacksonville Daily News in Jacksonville, North Carolina, home to Camp LeJeune (USMC). The Nixatron Blog is a conservative christian website. Check out the other articles and their authors and the advertised literature.

http://members.cox.net/nixatron/weblog/blogger.html

Click here for a great article from 2000 about DK and the Dept of Peace and how it would adress the US history of supporting opressive regimes that you speak of.
http://www.officeoftheamericas.org/docs/2000/0004peace_dept.htm

Click Here to read DK's pledge to close SOA
http://www.kucinich.us/pressreleases/pr_112103c.php

Click here to see where DK's major focus has been in international relations and the legislation he has supported.
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/issues/internationalrelations.htm#Lifting%20Economic%20Sanctions%20on%20Iraq

Click Here to Read DK's speach on Peace and DIsarmament. He DOES talk about our involvement with the Philippines and other developing countries.
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020320-disarmanent.htm

Click here for DK's letter calling for labor negotiations in El Salvador
http://www.house.gov/evans/legislative/dear_colleague/elsavador_healthcare_workers.htm

Click here for DK calling for workers rights in El Salvador
http://www.cleanclothes.org/publications/01-05-16.htm

Click here to read how DK spoke out against Plan Colombia legislation, repression, and human rights abuses in Colombia.
http://www.dailygamecock.com/news/2003/10/06/News/Kucinich.Phones.Usc-519645.shtml

Click here to read how DK supported aid to Colombia for fighting AIDs - Not the Drug War.
http://www.ciponline.org/colombia/030723kuci.htm

Click here for the Colombia friends of Kucinich site
http://www.friendsofkucinich.com/colombia.htm

"What is Aristide?" Avoiding the temptation to say "what WAS Aristide? I am amazed that nowhere on the internet am I reading an answer to this question. The "piece of shit" dialog on this site at least starts to pose the question, which is CRYING OUT for a response.

Aristide is a former priest. When one thinks of "Liberation Theology" one thinks of Latin America, not Haiti, but it is in Haiti that the question of what Liberation Theology could accomplish in office has first been tested. Please note I said "in office", not "in power".

Its been a flop. There has been no social transformation, just a new and hopeful face to administer the oppression, and the government couldn't even put up a token resistance to the US walking in and taking over. Its not even a shadow of the great Slave Revolt that established Haiti.

The abolition of the army is what strikes one first. The idea follows Costa Rica, long a beacon for church activists and assorted First World liberals because it has abolished its army. The idea is that "no army" means an end to the "coups" that have plagued Latin America for ever. But Costa Rica gets away with it because it is unabashedly prostrate before the "Colossus of the North". The Communist movement has been outlawed for decades, and there is intense exploitation of the agricultural workers. It is a nice little showpiece of stability for the middle/upper classes where Western tourists and expatriates like to hang out, and that provides the image.

But in a country like Haiti where the class contradictions and the poverty are so intense and US intervention so blatant, it simply doesn't work. All "no army" means is defenselessness. The coup-minded have no trouble putting togethr a force to take over. After all, the Yankees will send in enough Marines (shades of 1900!) to clear the way. And then a "consultative process" of Western govenments and financiers, and local businessmen, will pick a new President. Talk about Naked Oppression!

The question of lack of social transformation and the existence of corruption is a more
complicated one. Without abolishing the old state and setting up a new one, and without popular mobilization, and yes, the great bugaboo of a Revolutionary Party based on an ideology of the supremacy of the downtrodden such as Marxism, all the old
ways continue. (The mere existence of a Party is not enough without the supervision of the masses, look at Zimbabwe or China. ....(on and on) )

Anyway, in Haiti the top was headed by Aristide, but underneath him all the old structures of exploitation, oppression and corruption continued. There was "peace" with them. Right? The rich stayed in their mansions, counted their money, and plotted their revival. Opportunists flocked into government to make a buck, and there weas no filter of popular supervision to keep them out. And most importantly, there was no new society based on common property starting to take form. There was not even the first step of cofiscation of the blood money of the rich gotten by their connections with the foreigners and by the rip-off of the hard working lower classes of Haiti.

This is where the Catholic social philosophy showed its emptiness. Peace between the rich and the poor. If the Lamb lays down with the Lion..... its Dinner Time.

Stop looking it from the perspective of Political Science and start looking at it from the perspective of the underemployed day-laborer in Port au Prince. What did SHE get out of Aristide? Still no job stability, still no political power, stiill having to serve the wealthy. ......(on and on).

Aristide still commands the loyalty of those he did not help because of the symbolism.
But he's got no answers to the problems of the Third World.

Those who have any concern for Haiti will naturally want to understand how its most recent tragedy has been unfolding. And for those who have had the privilege of any contact with the people of this tortured land, it is not just natural but inescapable. Nevertheless, we make a serious error if we focus too narrowly on the events of the recent past, or even on Haiti alone. The crucial issue for us is what we should be doing about what is taking place. That would be true even if our options and our responsibility were limited; far more so when they are immense and decisive, as in the case of Haiti. And even more so because the course of the terrible story was predictable years ago -- if we failed to act to prevent it. And fail we did. The lessons are clear, and so important that they would be the topic of daily front-page articles in a free press.

Reviewing what was taking place in Haiti shortly after Clinton "restored democracy" in 1994, I was compelled to conclude, unhappily, in Z Magazine that "It would not be very surprising, then, if the Haitian operations become another catastrophe," and if so, "It is not a difficult chore to trot out the familiar phrases that will explain the failure of our mission of benevolence in this failed society." The reasons were evident to anyone who chose to look. And the familiar phrases again resound, sadly and predictably.

There is much solemn discussion today explaining, correctly, that democracy means more than flipping a lever every few years. Functioning democracy has preconditions. One is that the population should have some way to learn what is happening in the world. The real world, not the self-serving portrait offered by the "establishment press," which is disfigured by its "subservience to state power" and "the usual hostility to popular movements" - the accurate words of Paul Farmer, whose work on Haiti is, in its own way, perhaps even as remarkable as what he has accomplished within the country. Farmer was writing in 1993, reviewing mainstream commentary and reporting on Haiti, a disgraceful record that goes back to the days of Wilson's vicious and destructive invasion in 1915, and on to the present. The facts are extensively documented, appalling, and shameful. And they are deemed irrelevant for the usual reasons: they do not conform to the required self-image, and so are efficiently dispatched deep into the memory hole, though they can be unearthed by those who have some interest in the real world.

They will rarely be found, however, in the "establishment press." Keeping to the more liberal and knowledgeable end of the spectrum, the standard version is that in "failed states" like Haiti and Iraq the US must become engaged in benevolent "nation-building" to "enhance democracy," a "noble goal" but one that may be beyond our means because of the inadequacies of the objects of our solicitude. In Haiti, despite Washington's dedicated efforts from Wilson to FDR while the country was under Marine occupation, "the new dawn of Haitian democracy never came." And "not all America's good wishes, nor all its Marines, can achieve [democracy today] until the Haitians do it themselves" (H.D.S. Greenway, Boston Globe). As New York Times correspondent R.W. Apple recounted two centuries of history in 1994, reflecting on the prospects for Clinton's endeavor to "restore democracy" then underway, "Like the French in the 19th century, like the Marines who occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, the American forces who are trying to impose a new order will confront a complex and violent society with no history of democracy."

Apple does appear to go a bit beyond the norm in his reference to Napoleon's savage assault on Haiti, leaving it in ruins, in order to prevent the crime of liberation in the world's richest colony, the source of much of France's wealth. But perhaps that undertaking too satisfies the fundamental criterion of benevolence: it was supported by the United States, which was naturally outraged and frightened by "the first nation in the world to argue the case of universal freedom for all humankind, revealing the limited definition of freedom adopted by the French and American revolutions." So Haitian historian Patrick Bellegarde-Smith writes, accurately describing the terror in the slave state next door, which was not relieved even when Haiti's successful liberation struggle, at enormous cost, opened the way to the expansion to the West by compelling Napoleon to accept the Louisiana Purchase. The US continued to do what it could to strangle Haiti, even supporting France's insistence that Haiti pay a huge indemnity for the crime of liberating itself, a burden it has never escaped - and France, of course, dismisses with elegant disdain Haiti's request, recently under Aristide, that it at least repay the indemnity, forgetting the responsibilities that a civilized society would accept.

The basic contours of what led to the current tragedy are pretty clear. Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (far too narrow a time frame), Washington was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a grass-roots constituency just as it had been appalled by the prospect of the hem

Cleveland Indy Media Center