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 hemisphere's first free country on its doorstep two centuries earlier. Washington's traditional allies in Haiti naturally agreed. "The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power," Bellegarde-Smith observes in his perceptive history of Haiti; whether in Haiti or the US or anywhere else.

The threat of democracy in Haiti in 1991 was even more ominous because of the favorable reaction of the international financial institutions (World Bank, IADB) to Aristide's programs, which awakened traditional concerns over the "virus" effect of successful independent development. These are familiar themes in international affairs: American independence aroused similar concerns among European leaders. The dangers are commonly perceived to be particularly grave in a country like Haiti, which had been ravaged by France and then reduced to utter misery by a century of US intervention. If even people in such dire circumstances can take their fate into their own hands, who knows what might happen elsewhere as the "contagion spreads."

The Bush I administration reacted to the disaster of democracy by shifting aid from the democratically elected government to what are called "democratic forces": the wealthy elites and the business sectors, who, along with the murderers and torturers of the military and paramilitaries, had been lauded by the current incumbents in Washington, in their Reaganite phase, for their progress in "democratic development," justifying lavish new aid. The praise came in response to ratification by the Haitian parliament of a law granting Washington's client killer and torturer Baby Doc Duvalier the authority to suspend the rights of any political party without reasons. The law passed by a majority of 99.98%. It therefore marked a positive step towards democracy as compared with the 99% approval of a 1918 law granting US corporations the right to turn the country into a US plantation, passed by 5% of the population after the Haitian Parliament was disbanded at gunpoint by Wilson's Marines when it refused to accept this "progressive measure," essential for "economic development." Their reaction to Baby Doc's encouraging progress towards democracy was characteristic - worldwide -- on the part of the visionaries who are now entrancing educated opinion with their dedication to bringing democracy to a suffering world - although, to be sure, their actual exploits are being tastefully rewritten to satisfy current needs.

Refugees fleeing to the US from the terror of the US-backed dictatorships were forcefully returned, in gross violation of international humanitarian law. The policy was reversed when a democratically elected government took office. Though the flow of refugees reduced to a trickle, they were mostly granted political asylum. Policy returned to normal when a military junta overthrew the Aristide government after seven months, and state terrorist atrocities rose to new heights. The perpetrators were the army - the inheritors of the National Guard left by Wilson's invaders to control the population - and its paramilitary forces. The most important of these, FRAPH, was founded by CIA asset Emmanuel Constant, who now lives happily in Queens, Clinton and Bush II having dismissed extradition requests -- because he would reveal US ties to the murderous junta, it is widely assumed. Constant's contributions to state terror were, after all, meager; merely prime responsibility for the murder of 4-5000 poor blacks.

Recall the core element of the Bush doctrine, which has "already become a de facto rule of international relations," Harvard's Graham Allison writes in Foreign Affairs: "those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves," in the President's words, and must be treated accordingly, by large-scale bombing and invasion.

When Aristide was overthrown by the 1991 military coup, the Organization of American States declared an embargo. Bush I announced that the US would violate it by exempting US firms. He was thus "fine tuning" the embargo for the benefit of the suffering population, the New York Times reported. Clinton authorized even more extreme violations of the embargo: US trade with the junta and its wealthy supporters sharply increased. The crucial element of the embargo was, of course, oil. While the CIA solemnly testified to Congress that the junta "probably will be out of fuel and power very shortly" and "Our intelligence efforts are focused on detecting attempts to circumvent the embargo and monitoring its impact," Clinton secretly authorized the Texaco Oil Company to ship oil to the junta illegally, in violation of presidential directives. This remarkable revelation was the lead story on the AP wires the day before Clinton sent the Marines to "restore democracy," impossible to miss - I happened to be monitoring AP wires that day and saw it repeated prominently over and over -- and obviously of enormous significance for anyone who wanted to understand what was happening. It was suppressed with truly impressive discipline, though reported in industry journals along with scant mention buried in the business press.

Also efficiently suppressed were the crucial conditions that Clinton imposed for Aristide's return: that he adopt the program of the defeated US candidate in the 1990 elections, a former World Bank official who had received 14% of the vote. We call this "restoring democracy," a prime illustration of how US foreign policy has entered a "noble phase" with a "saintly glow," the national press explained. The harsh neoliberal program that Aristide was compelled to adopt was virtually guaranteed to demolish the remaining shreds of economic sovereignty, extending Wilson's progressive legislation and similar US-imposed measures since.

As democracy was thereby restored, the World Bank announced that "The renovated state must focus on an economic strategy centered on the energy and initiative of Civil Society, especially the private sector, both national and foreign." That has the merit of honesty: Haitian Civil Society includes the tiny rich elite and US corporations, but not the vast majority of the population, the peasants and slum-dwellers who had committed the grave sin of organizing to elect their own president. World Bank officers explained that the neoliberal program would benefit the "more open, enlightened, business class" and foreign investors, but assured us that the program "is not going to hurt the poor to the extent it has in other countries" subjected to structural adjustment, because the Haitian poor already lacked minimal protection from proper economic policy, such as subsidies for basic goods. Aristide's Minister in charge of rural development and agrarian reform was not notified of the plans to be imposed on this largely peasant society, to be returned by "America's good wishes" to the track from which it veered briefly after the regrettable democratic election in 1990.

Matters then proceeded in their predictable course. A 1995 USAID report explained that the "export-driven trade and investment policy" that Washington imposed will "relentlessly squeeze the domestic rice farmer," who will be forced to turn to agroexport, with incidental benefits to US agribusiness and investors. Despite their extreme poverty, Haitian rice farmers are quite efficient, but cannot possibly compete with US agribusiness, even if it did not receive 40% of its profits from government subsidies, sharply increased under the Reaganites who are again in power, still producing enlightened rhetoric about the miracles of the market. We now read that Haiti cannot feed itself, another sign of a "failed state."

A few small industries were still able to function, for example, making chicken parts. But US conglomerates have a large surplus of dark meat, and therefore demanded the right to dump their excess products in Haiti. They tried to do the same in Canada and Mexico too, but there illegal dumping could be barred. Not in Haiti, compelled to submit to efficient market principles by the US government and the corporations it serves.

One might note that the Pentagon's proconsul in Iraq, Paul Bremer, ordered a very similar program to be instituted there, with the same beneficiaries in mind. That's also called "enhancing democracy." In fact, the record, highly revealing and important, goes back to the 18th century. Similar programs had a large role in creating today's third world. Meanwhile the powerful ignored the rules, except when they could benefit from them, and were able to become rich developed societies; dramatically the US, which led the way in modern protectionism and, particularly since World War II, has relied crucially on the dynamic state sector for innovation and development, socializing risk and cost.

The punishment of Haiti became much more severe under Bush II -- there are differences within the narrow spectrum of cruelty and greed. Aid was cut and international institutions were pressured to do likewise, under pretexts too outlandish to merit discussion. They are extensively reviewed in Paul Farmer's Uses of Haiti, and in some current press commentary, notably by Jeffrey Sachs (Financial Times) and Tracy Kidder (New York Times).

Putting details aside, what has happened since is eerily similar to the overthrow of Haiti's first democratic government in 1991. The Aristide government, once again, was undermined by US planners, who understood, under Clinton, that the threat of democracy can be overcome if economic sovereignty is eliminated, and presumably also understood that economic development will also be a faint hope under such conditions, one of the best-confirmed lessons of economic history. Bush II planners are even more dedicated to undermining democracy and independence, and despised Aristide and the popular organizations that swept him to power with perhaps even more passion than their predecessors. The forces that reconquered the country are mostly inheritors of the US-installed army and paramilitary terrorists.

Those who are intent on diverting attention from the US role will object that the situation is more complex -- as is always true -- and that Aristide too was guilty of many crimes. Correct, but if he had been a saint the situation would hardly have developed very differently, as was evident in 1994, when the only real hope was that a democratic revolution in the US would make it possible to shift policy in a more civilized direction.

What is happening now is awful, maybe beyond repair. And there is plenty of short-term responsibility on all sides. But the right way for the US and France to proceed is very clear. They should begin with payment of enormous reparations to Haiti (France is perhaps even more hypocritical and disgraceful in this regard than the US). That, however, requires construction of functioning democratic societies in which, at the very least, people have a prayer of knowing what's going on. Commentary on Haiti, Iraq, and other "failed societies" is quite right in stressing the importance of overcoming the "democratic deficit" that substantially reduces the significance of elections. It does not, however, draw the obvious corollary: the lesson applies in spades to a country where "politics is the shadow cast on society by big business," in the words of America's leading social philosopher, John Dewey, describing his own country in days when the blight had spread nowhere near as far as it has today.

For those who are concerned with the substance of democracy and human rights, the basic tasks at home are also clear enough. They have been carried out before, with no slight success, and under incomparably harsher conditions elsewhere, including the slums and hills of Haiti. We do not have to submit, voluntary, to living in a failed state suffering from an enormous democratic deficit.

The article I posted that for some reason caused "J" to call me a member of the KKK came off a Florida news paper website. Not only am I not a Klan member but I am also not a poster or a member of any conservative christian website / organization. I never claimed the author or the article was unbiased. I posted the article to show a man close to Aristide claims he was not kidnapped or forced out by the U.S. and to show there are members of the media / new organizations who are not buying this kidnapping story. Did I expect most of you to believe it? No. An artcile not showing the U.S. as the worlds Satan is generally not very well accepted here! I posted it to help get the debate going and to make some of you look at the story with an open mind and try to find out the truth. Personally, I would not be shocked either way. And personally, I do not believe Aristad was much of a leader. He made a bad situation worse. Somehow out of posting one story offering a different account of the event I was labeled a racist. Care to explain this, J? Also, excellent post Andy. That was the type of discussion I was attempting to get going.

M

Nice try, MKKK, but no cigar. I suppose a flame war between andy and myself might get you off the hook, at least long enough to distract us from your "piece of shit" reference to an elected leader which the leadership of our country, and especially the conservative leadership, has opposed since the popular deposition of Baby Doc Duvalier. Any time anyone calls you out on your chickenshit tactics, you claim to be either "shocked" or "amused" or both or neither ("Im no longer shocked, etc.").

Way to dodge the question. I'll ask again. How does calling Aristide a corrupt piece of shit make me a racist or a conservative? And what does being democratically elected have to do with anything? Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both democratically elected by large margins. Are you going to tell me neither of them were corrupt?? And please explain how posting this story in an effort to get a debate going and to show not everyone agrees with the assesment previously posted was a "chicken shit tactic". It may be hard but please try not to dodge the question this time.

M

Well, let's see. You quote a former Marine (who currently writes for the Jacksonville, North Carolina Daily News) who quotes a former Marine (who once worked as a sniper for the Jacksonville, North Carolina police SWAT team) who contradicts the testimony of a currently elected chief of state (nothing former there) who claims to have been kidnapped and forcibly expelled from his own country by, who else? The Marines, no less. I've monitored this site (and your posts) for quite some time and I've never seen you refer to another white man as a "corrupt piece of shit". You dredge up an obviously biased source to support your derogatory denigration, in one more pathetic attempt to poison the well of debate on this site. That's a chickenshit tactic and you, sir, are the chickenshit racist who never fails to employ it.

I explained why I posted the article I originally posted already. Just wanted to add another side to the debate. I cited the source so anyone who wanted to could look into the author, the newspaper, or any other website the author writes for and make up their own mind.

Aristide's race had nothing to do with my comment. So let me get this straight, because he is of color I cannot call him what he really his, a corrupt piece of shit? You also discredit your own arguement when you claim I have never described a white man as a corrupt piece of shit. In my last post I described both Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton as corrupt. The exact quote was "Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were both democratically elected by large margins. Are you going to tell me neither of them were corrupt?? " I would be more than happy to add both are/were corrupt pieces of shit if that would make you happy.

People like you are there reason there will always be racism in the world. You are just salivating at the mouth, ready to pounce on someone at any instance and play the race card. People like do more to divide the races in this world than bring them together. Making false accusations in an effort to win a debate makes you as credible as a corrupt piece of shit.

M

This has obviously turned personal for you for some unknown reason, "J". So if you wish to continue attempting to insult me and want to continue falsely lableing me as something I'm not please feel free to email me with your childish insults instead of waisting the space that should be used to debate the issue of Haiti.

I may have discredited my own argument by resorting to your tactics and describing them (and yourself) as chickenshit, but the distinction evidently seems to have eluded you and the opportunity in any case was irresistible. You've often referred to white folk as corrupt, misguided, deluded and just plain dumb. But none of them, not even your arch-nemisis, the Evil Kucinich, were ever described in such scatological terms, until now and after the fact, in order to disguise the racist reference. Adding insult to injury, you pretend to profess a monumental ignorance of your own intolerance, which is equally monumental

This is beginning to remind me of my debate with Mitchell Crooks. I have never described Dennis Kucinich as a corrupt piece of shit because I do not put him in that same class with Aristide. Dennis is just an idiot. I believe he isn't genuine at times but I would not call him corrupt. The same cannot be said for Aristide. He destroyed what little bit of a middle class was left in that country and got rich off the suffering of his own people. I work with a lady who worked in Haiti in the 90's (I believe with the Peace Corp.). Your finger pointing, race card playing, kill the white man ass wouldn't last a day in those conditions. While over 90% of the country lived in their own human waiste Aristide was the richest man in the country and continued to get richer by the year while his people got poorer. He did nothing for his countrymen. If the U.S. did infact kidnap Aristide and drop him off in Africa (funny how this man you seem to think was so great keeps getting tunred away by all these African countries. Are they racist too?) they were absolutely wrong for doing so. But please, save us all the B.S. of making this guy out to be something great. I stand by my original comment. Black, white, brown, grey, purple, mauve, Cuban, American, African, Alien, however you want to lable him, Aristide was a corrput piece of shit.

M

You really enjoy comparing human beings to human "waiste", don't you? You don't hesitate to repeat the invective at every available opportunity.

Well, at least we agree that racism is derived from class discrimination.

Incidentally, the folks who "got rich off the suffering of [the Haitian] people", Aristide notwithstanding, were overwhelmingly white and not entirely un-American. Haiti was a former French colony whose original inhabitants were exterminated by the Spanish colonizers who, a la Cristofero Columbo, exhausted what few resources the island may have possessed and subsequently imported African slaves for the local plantations and the more lucrative American colonial slave trade. The regional instability produced by, first, the British imperial defeat of the Spaniards and, then, the British imperial conflict with the French allowed the adopted natives to revolt against their French masters. Recognizing the social threat that a successful slave revolt would present to their American adversaries, the British allowed the revolt to remain, and the republic of Haiti thereby acquired its independance from the French, not long after the American colonists, with French naval assistance, acquired their own.

You seem to recognize that Haiti has virtually no middle class to speak of, although you disingenuously blame Aristide for its virtual destruction. The absence of a Haitian middle class (and a miniscule upper class) is the result of the Haitian slaves' liberation from their French masters. The slaves secured their own freedom, with British strategic acquiesence, and the colonial loyalists (the Haitian middle and upper classes) who weren't killed fled for their lives. A similar migration occured after the American revolution, and Canada today is populated with the descendants of British loyalists who fled from the colonies for the very same reasons. Comparing Canadian society with those of its southern neighbors, one might argue that both countries (Haiti and the US) might have benefited from a more equitable resolution of the revolution. But, hey, let's not let a little history impede the progress of our racist inclinations.

Thanks for the history lesson. What little bit of a middle class was left going into the Aristide era was destroyed while he was in office. And how you managed to spin my human waiste sentence, wow, you should be a campaign manager. Kucinich could use you! This whole racist thing is just too much. I will say again, my lack of respect for Aristide has nothing to do with the color of the man's skin. His actions and his actions alone have earned my harsh opinion of him.

I will also once again say to you if you are just going to continue posting insults and untrue statements directed at me quit waisting the space on the IMC and just email me.

Aristide's administration is barely ten years old, whereas the "era" of Haitian independence is two hundred years old, just fifteen years shorter than our own. Comparing Aristide's crimes against his people while ignoring those of the Spaniards, French, British and Americans who administered and profited from the colonial slave trade which created Haiti and the subsequent social conditions which every Haitian currently endures is blatantly racist. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Slavery is wrong. The Untied States was wrong for its involvement with slavery. The African kings and queens who sold their own people to the white slave traders were wrong. Slavery of the Haitian people by everyone you listed was wrong. The slavery that took place throughout Central and South America was wrong. The slavery that still exist today in sweatshops all over the world (including the U.S.) is wrong.

Slavery being a horrible event wherever it occurs and the Unitde States being at fault whenever and wherever they have been involved with slavery over the past two hundred years still does not change the fact that Aristide is a worthless piece of shit.

M

And if Aristide is "a worthless piece of shit" then the Bush administration is justified in "flushing" him from the system. Is that your point, Bubba?

You were too busy playing the race card to see my point. No, Michael Moore, the Bush admin. was not justified in kidnapping Arishit and removing him from the country if that really happened. That was my point in posting the original story; did that really happen??? You, some anti-america radicals, three congressmen/women (one of whom has a spouse who is a lobbiest for the Aristide government), and some foriegn journalists seem to think so. The rest of the media, most of the country, and most of the world do not think so. If the U.S. did what they claimed and escorted him out of the country at his request then they were justified in doing so.

Lets face another fact here too. If Aristide would have stayed he would dead right now. It would not surpise me to find out he really did ask for help in leaving the country and then started with the kidnapping story to save face with his supporters. This kidnapped, being held against his will by the U.S., leader in dire straights has moved pretty freely around Africa and is now in Jamaica (smell fishy yet J?). If his supporters do take back over the island he is now only a hop, skip, and a jump away. He can triumphantly return to the country looking like a brave hero who stood up to the big bad evil United States. Just a thought for everyone to ponder.

See, you were so excited and near climax because you saw a chance to lable someone a racist you missed the point. I hope the sensation was worth it. Now that you have had your cigarette and a nap I hope you can clearly see the point I was trying to make.

M

I made a mistake. I would like to retract and correct my comment that described some people as "anti-america radicals". I meant to write anti-Bush radicals. I have met some of you who do not hate America but you definitely hate Bush and the governement as a whole. There is a big difference between the two in my opinion. My apologies to anyone offended.

M

The only "race card" I'm aware of is the one rednecks whine about whenever anyone challenges their racist assumptions. Your original post was meant to establish the author's point that non-whites are capable of self-rule only with the benevolent, paternal assistance of American military support and financial supervision.

Get a life, and get off the site, chump.

I have probably been posting here longer than you. If you don't like what I post and write don't read it.

"Your original post was meant to establish the author's point that non-whites are capable of self-rule only with the benevolent, paternal assistance of American military support and financial supervision. " Well thank you Big Brother J for watching me and telling me what I really meant by my post! Thank God you are here to tell people what they really think and what they really mean by their posts.

Beware all posters! Nazi J of the Ministry of Information and Posting is watching you!! If you do not agree with him/her or dare to question the leadership of a person who happens not to be white you are a racist and not welcome here!!!

mking -
i think the question is why you give more credibility to white leaders and corporations who have done far more to attack humyn rights than Aristide ever did. For example, you seem to give Bush the benefit of the doubt when he talks about his policies, placing the burden of proof on those who criticize him (including countless political analysts, protesters, unions, and other groups you would certainly consider credible), while you read one random article about Aristide quoting a marine and immediately refer to Aristide as a "piece of crap". Hundreds of US corporations are guilty of humyn rights violations far worse than Aristide, such as Unocal's slave labor in Burma, Exxon's use of genocide, murder, and torture in Indonesia, or Coca-cola's death squads in Columbia, to name a few, yet you don't seem to think they're "pieces of crap".
Also, why is it Aristide is a piece of crap, however US funding and training "rebels" who are ruthless, murderous maniacs, such as Guy Philippe and Chamblain, doesn't make our leaders "pieces of crap". In 1991, when George H.W. Bush gave Hussein arms and troops to slaughter the democratic Shi'ite resistance in Basra, why doesn't that make him a "piece of crap"?
Get it?

I listed my reasons for disrespecting Aristide in an earlier post. I also stated I posted the original article to show there are people in the media who did not agree with your assumptions or those journalists who seem to think Aristide was kidnapped. I can post other articles from other news sources as well. The accusations that I have some type of subliminal racism running through my veins just because I think a "leader" who happens to be a minority is a worthless piece of crap is nuts. I can name you many leaders over the years who I think are pieces of crap who would not be considered minorities. I hate to say it Mike but this notion of not being critical of someone because of their race is bordering on liberalism! Sorry, didn't mean to insult you.

As far as corporations go, I believe this is getting off the subject, but I do agree with you in principle. I believe corporations should be held accountable for their actions in all parts of the world. Not just on the humanitarian side but when it comes to the environment as well. If what you claim these companies have done is actually true this time then yes, they are pieces of crap.

As far as Bush family and Iraq goes.....lets not start down this path again Mike, we've getting along so well as of late!

M

>I hate to say it Mike but this notion of not being critical >of someone because of their race is bordering on >liberalism!

"I hate to say this, folks, but this notion of not being critical of someone because of their race is bordering on liberalism."
-Rush Limbaugh

ok, so i've been following this for a while and it seems like you all are arguing about *anything* other than the central questions.

1. WAS Aristide forcibly removed from his office? (it seems the answer was yes)

2. WAS Aristide democraticly elected? (it seems yes, with a bit of a no towards the end)

3. WHAT was the u.s. involvement in this whole thing? (it seems ALOT)

so that's that. we need only to clarify those first three for this discussion. Aristide's personal traits are irrelevent. i think mking and his opponents both make some valid points, but who cares? i am only concerend with the well being of Haitians and weather or not Aritide was forcibly removed with or without u.s. assistance.

as for the rest of this argument, i've always noticed this gap between radical/revolutionary activists, and "normal" thinking americans. here it is: activivst make it their job to point out the flaws in our society/government etc...and that's wonderfull, we need that. but often times it comes across as a charge against all other americans, and that puts people on the defensive, people who don't think our country is that bad, but are still very open to criticism.

"loyalty to the country always, to the government when it deserves it" - mark twain. that puts me on the side of the country, the government certainly hasn't warranted my loyalty.

Well said middle man. No doubt the US was involved but were they asked to be invloved or did they forcefully remove the man? I am still skeptical but time will tell.

J, sorry again Big Brother but you are wrong. Like most people I work during the day. I cannot tell you the last time I listened to Rush Limbaugh. I have listened to him from time to time in the past but I was never a big fan of his. He is to close minded for me. Tows the company line basically. He is just a cheerleader for the conservative movement just like Al Franken will be little more than a cheerleader for the liberal movement when he gets on the air. My comment has a simple explanation. There are people, and you seem be one of them, who are extremely liberal and believe anytime someone who is white criticizes someone of a different race it is a form a racism even if what the white person is saying is true. This is hog wash in my opinion. I am an equal opportunity offender!

M

Let me spell it out for you, moron.

You do not have the right to compare a person to a piece of shit, not even in these United States of America. You are free, of course, to denigrate any person you please, even the democratically elected leader of a sovereign state. And I am free to label it for what it is: the racist libel of said head of state (however despotic you claim he may have been) and, by extension, the people whom he represents.

Let me spell it out for you, Big Brother J, self appointed policeman of the IMC.

If I do not have the right to compare someone to a piece of shit then neither do any of you. Yes, in the eyes of some Aristide was democratically elected. It is true that many feel there was corruption in the last election and that contributed to the push to overthrow him. Saddam Hussien was "elected" too. You do not have the right to label someone with something that is not true. The National Enquirer has been sued a number of times for this. I am as racist as you are conservative.

Once more, if you are just going to attack me personally quit waisting the space on here and email me. I thought this would be lesson two in your Third Reich Policeman Handbook after lesson one which teaches you to lie about and censor people who do not agree with you and are unwilling to follow you like sheep.

Finally, after forty-four comments and the invocation of countless counter-invective, we agree. The roadmap to peace is at hand. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters!

You're right, of course. No one has the right to denigrate another man (racism), or another woman (sexism), a queer (homophobia), an Israeli or a Palestinian (anti-semitism), a Jew (anti-Semitism) or an Arab (terrorism). No one has the right to dehumanize another nation's leadership in order to justify an invasion, occupation and appropriation of another nation's territory, resources, culture and population. No one has the right to intimidate an entire population in order to ratify a repressive, retrogressive nationalism. No one has the right to yell "fascist!" or "communist!" or "capitalist!" or "zionist!" or "terrorist!" in the middle of a crowded inferno.

I guess that makes me a conservative.

What does it make you?

I am not a conservative so thankfully I would not be grouped into a catagory with you. I think it is time we just agree to disagree, J. I am still open minded about the Haiti situation. Like many events throughout history time will tell what really happened. Let me say for the record even though I think Aristide is a horrible leader if history shows the United States did in fact kidnap him I believe they were wrong for doing so. On the other hand, your mind is made up and nothing will change that opinion even if facts to the contrary come out at a later date. You will continue to label me a racist because I think a Haitian man is a piece of shit even though his record shows he was an absolutely worthless leader and I will continue to disagree with your false accusation. You will keep trying to run me off the site and I will continue to give you the finger and keep posting. Lets move on Big Brother, time to monitor someone else.

THE TRUE HISTORY OF U.S./CIA INVOLVEMENT IN HAITI, AND THE 1991 COUP
by Drew Poe

The question of U.S. involvement is being strongly debated on this site. Many readers have expressed disbelief about certain statements regarding U.S. actions towards Haiti, most notably, concerning the role of the U.S. in the 1991 coup, the subsequent mass murders by FRAPH, and why the U.S. would have returned Aristide to power in 1994 in light of these other claims. Here, then, is a fairly comprehensive article I've put together to explain precisely the degree of U.S. involvement in Haiti in recent years, and specifically how the U.S. was in fact linked to the 1991 coup and the military dictatorship that ruled Haiti in its wake.

First, some background. In 1986, the CIA funded the National Intelligence Service, known by it's initials in French, SIN, in Haiti. It was supposedly to combat drug trafficking, but in fact it provided virtually NO intelligence whatsoever on the cocaine trade in Haiti. Instead, the organization was used for political repression in Haiti. It was staffed by Haitian military personnel.

The year 1986 might stand out to readers actually informed about Haiti's history---that is the year that the Duavlier family was overthrown. The Duavliers were of course "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc", and their almost 30 years in power was supported by the U.S., as is widely known. So this is the same year the CIA set up SIN.

A DIA document, from 1992, says SIN was a covert intelligence unit that worked with the CIA. Much information has come to light about the extensive involvement of SIN and the Haitian military in cocaine trafficing, and about the links between Haitian military personnel on the CIA payroll at SIN and the 1991 coup that toppled Aristide. At least three of SIN's chiefs were direct participants in the coup, and were still on the CIA payroll when it took place.

A key figure at SIN was Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, the son of a General under the Duvalier regimes. Constant was teaching a course at SIN headquarters when he was approached by Colonel Patrick Collins, the Defense Intelligence Agency attache at the U.S. embassy in Haiti. Collins and other intelligence personnel, in both the CIA and the DIA, eventually encouraged Constant to form FRAPH, the notorious death-squad.

So by 1990, the year Aristide won election, the CIA had on its payroll military personnel who were not only members of SIN, but who were linked to FRAPH (formed after the coup) and who were at the forefront of the coup which removed Aristide in September of 1991. This also includes Colonel Michel Francois (police chief, trained at the School of the Americas) and General Raoul Cedras (on the CIA payroll and the eventual leader of the 1991 coup), who were linked to SIN and the drug trade surrounding it.

Luis Moreno (State Department), Gunther Wagner (INS senior intelligence officer at Southwest regional office, former Nazi soldier, and former advisor to Somoza's National Guard in Nicaragua), and other U.S. officials involved in refugee policy also contributed to the links between SIN, the Haitian military, and the CIA. These men were involved in interviewing, assessing, etc Haitian refugee claims of repression. A database of these files was kept by the INS, and they made these files open to unrestricted review by the State Department, and then lists of the names of Haitians seeking political asylum were subsequently turned over to the Haitian authorities. This was directly linked to the SIN intelligence-gathering of information on Haitian citizens and their brutalization by SIN forces.

During its existence, SIN was responsible for intelligence-gathering, beatings, and political terror and murder. They were essentially a secret police force within the Haitian military, a role eventually played on a much larger scale by the paramilitary death-squad FRAPH during the coup years.

Now let's quickly review at this point: the U.S. backed the Duvaliers for decades; when civil unrest reached dangerous levels, the U.S. acted to reinstitute "stability" by flying "Baby Doc" out of Haiti to France, and the CIA fixed elections to ensure their prefered candidate would take control; further unrest prompted the CIA to strengthen ties to Haiti's military and to set up the SIN, which was used to terrorize and murder the population and which was fed a healthy diet of money and training, as well as intelligence, by the CIA; already, the future coup leaders were being trained and paid by the CIA, and FRAPH is just on the horizon.

So this is the environment in which the 1990 elections in Haiti were held. The U.S. had a prefered candidate---Marc Bazin, who was by the way (and not surprisingly) eventually appointed prime minister by the military regime after the 1991 coup. Aristide was far too leftwing for U.S. tastes, but he won with almost 70% of the popular vote. He was hated by the Haitian military, the Haitian business community, and many elements within the U.S. government. None of these facts are a secret, and the information is widely available.

Let us look at the links between the elements within the U.S. government, and the Haitian military and business community. Again, there is ample evidence and none of it is really a secret.

During the 1991 coup and afterwards, there were many wealthy Haitians who openly supported the overthrow of Aristide. Andre Apaid is among them, and is now the head of the Group of 184 Civil Society Organization. Democratic Convergence is another political group opposed to Aristide. Members of these current groups were, at the time of the 1991 coup, open supporters of the military regime's takeover, and were likewise harsh opponents of Aristide's return to power.

These business persons are currently responsible for funding the FLRN "rebels", and this movement in Haiti was itself funded in turn by none other than the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy---a group created in 1983 to take pressure off the CIA in terms of certain types of intelligence operations related to politics. Support for the "Democratic Platform" (the collaborative formation of the main opposition parties in Haiti) comes directly from the International Republican Institute, which is simply a branch of the NED.

The NED receives Congressional funding, which it then puts into the IRI or the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), who then provide the funds to political groups in other nations. The NED for example also helped send funding to the "Democratic Coordination" in Venezuela, the group responsible for trying to overthrow Chavez, through the IRI. The tactics being used in Venezuela are virtually identical to those occuring in Haiti.

Turning again to Apaid, he and other wealthy Haitians had strong economic ties to U.S. corporations, and they continued to benefit even during the military coup years, and those ties continue to this day. U.S. companies like IBM, Remington, and Honeywell make use of items from Apaid's sweat-shops. In addition, there are wealthy families that receive huge contracts, paid for with World Bank and IMF funds of course, for establishing services in Haiti, renting huge hangers and warehouses, etc.

These elements were tied into the CIA-funded and trained Haitian military personnel responsible for the 1991 coup, and are intricately linked to the current FLRN forces (those very same military personnel) now taking over Haiti. And these elements are themselves supported directly by the U.S. intelligence community. These links go back to the days of the Duvalier regimes, and continue to this day.

All of these events, then, firmly establish a direct link between the U.S. and the opposition to Aristide within both the Haitian military and the Haitian business community, relationships predating the 1991 coup. After Aristide's election, the CIA did not cease its involvement with the Haitian military or SIN. Money and intelligence continued to flow, and anti-Aristide sentiments became increasingly apparent in those circles. In September, the coup began. At that time, U.S. intelligence officers were at the military headquarters while the coup was taking place. The CIA had remained in direct contact with and continued paying salaries to members of the Haitian military and death-squad, members of which lead the coup. While France initially came to Aristide's aid and spirited him from Haiti, U.S. ties to the new military regime were still firmly in place, and in fact increased.

During the military regime, over a dozen Haitian army officers, including Guy Philippe, were trained in Ecuador by U.S. Special Forces. Philippe is now the leader of the FLRN, along with fellow "rebel" leaders Emmanuel "Toto" Constant and Louis Jodel Chamblain. Both of the latter men were not only members of FRAPH, but also of the Tonton Macoute death-squad under the Duvalier family rule.

Between 1991 and 1994, these men and many others received CIA and U.S. military training, funding, and weapons. These they turned against the Haitian population in a reign of terror, with thousands slaughtered and others imprisoned, tortured, raped, and beaten. While their FRAPH friends brutalized Haiti, the CIA was still keeping busy. They engaged in a widespread campaign to cast Aristide as insane, drug-addicted, a gangster, and so on. The charges were of course completely unsubstantiated---their claim that Aristide was institutionalized, for example, asserts it took place during years in which it can be proven Aristide was in fact in Israel. The entire espisode was a shameful example of psychological warfare by the CIA. This campaign had substantial backers within the U.S. establishment.

Senator Jesse Helms was one of those backers. Helms was a staunch opponent of Aristide, and gave much voice to the CIA's accusations. One of Helms' advisors at that time, as well as a senior staff member for the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, was Roger Noriega. Noriega is now the Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs. During his time as advisor to Helms, Noriega was aggressively opposed to Aristide's return to power. Recently, he has spent the last three years making it rather clear that he opposes Aristide and openly sought his removal from power.

Now let's summarize again: after the 1990 election, the CIA maintained and increased support for the Haitian military and SIN; CIA personnel were present at military headquarters during the coup; the CIA encouraged, funded, trained, and armed the FRAPH death-squad; the CIA and the military dictatorship maintained and enhanced ties to the wealthy community in Haiti; and the CIA set upon a course to severely slander Aristide, and was assisted by Senator Jesse Helms and Roger Noriega.

Again, keep in mind that these are all essentially the same people now involved in the overthrow of Aristide's government yet again. The same business people, the same military personnel, the same sources of intelligence and funding and arming, and some of the exact same U.S. political support.

So what happened in 1994? The situation in Haiti was becoming difficult, with growing popular unrest as well as international demands for increased embargos and a return of Aristide's government. The pressure became too great, and the U.S. and the Haitian military and wealthy elite realized that to ensure stability, Aristide would have to be returned to power---but with his power severely limited this time. He was forced to agree to far-reaching economic changes, paying off massive debts, new loans, increased "liberalization" of the Haitian economy, etc. This ensured he would be unable to enact significant social changes and programs, and businesses would benefit. It was the best solution for U.S. interests at that point, as well as for the business community in Haiti. Besides, they never intended to allow Aristide to go unchallenged. He had to agree to step down at the end of his term, in 1995, and could only return to power after an absence from governing. In the meantime, his opponents grew in wealth and power, reorganized, and prepared for the final showdown.

We have now seen the culmination of these preparations.

The evidence of U.S. involvement in Haiti, from the Duvalier regimes through the following unrest, to the elections of 1990 and the subsequent coup of 1991, during the three years of military rule and the restoration of Aristide's government. Since that time, the level of U.S. involvement has been the same, although until recently it focused more on the economic rape of Haiti through international institutions, ultimately however returning to outright military and political pressure to achieve the ultimate goals.

Anyone doubting U.S. collaboration in the years before, during, and after the 1991 coup, or direct U.S. complicity, is simply ignoring the facts---facts well documented. It is outrageous to pretend that the links are not clear in this regard. However, there is an important point to be made here about politics in the U.S. Those wishing to see this issue in a narrow "liberal versus conservative" or "Democrat versus Republican" context are making a mistake. While indeed the recent Bush regime involvement in the latest coup is vile, just as was his father's regime's involvement in the 1991 coup, liberals and progressives should be mindful of the entire history of U.S. involvement in Haiti and particularly the involvement of some of their "favorite" Presidents.

The Duvaliers were treated to U.S. favor for 29 years, from 1957 until 1986. Most of their first decade in power was during Democratic regimes in the U.S. A total of twelve years of Duvalier rule, almost half the total, occurred while supposedly "progressive" Democrats sat in the Oval Office. Four years of their rule was during the Carter regime.

The FRAPH death-squad was created under CIA guidance in 1993---Bill Clinton's first year in office. The collaboration, training, arming, and funding of the FRAPH all occurred during Clinton's regime, piling up approximately 5,000 corpses in Haiti and arresting, beating, torturing, and raping thousands more. Targeting of Aristide's supporters took place fairly in the open, and all the while the U.S. was well aware of what was going on, and in fact encouraged it. When the agreement to return Aristide to power was signed, the ink was barely dry before a massive wave of last-minute attacks and killings of Aristide supporters began, again with total U.S. knowledge and complete U.S. inaction.

The inaction went even further, after U.S. troops were actually on the ground in Haiti. When pro-Aristide/pro-democracy supporters staged a large march through Haiti, they were guaranteed U.S. protection from assault by supporters of the military regime. That protection consisted of U.S. troops lining the parade-route, then standing by while FRAPH and other paramilitary units drove right up in trucks, unloaded in the street, and began to violently attack the marchers (who were trapped by the U.S. soldiers on either side of the street). The commander-in-chief of those troops was Bill Clinton.

Once Aristide was in power, it was again the Clinton regime that forced the IMF/World Bank concessions from Aristide, which thoroughly crippled and essentially destroyed the Haitian economy. None of Aristide's social initiatives could be enacted, of course, as most of Haiti's funds were almost immediately used to pay off massive debts. Further, Aristide could only serve out the "remainder" of his term, the term ending in 1995, the term which he spent largely in exile outside of Haiti. The military commanders who staged the coup moved into exile, but were largely protected by the U.S. (Emmanuel Constance, for example, lived most of that time in the U.S. and while he was detained briefly by INS, they released him and the U.S. refused to send him back to Haiti where he'd been convicted of murder for his actions in FRAPH).

The involvement of the Clinton regime did not end there, however. The funding of "opposition" groups in Haiti, the "Democratic Platform", began under Clinton's watch. These are the groups which, of course, are responsible for the most recent coup in Haiti---just as they were behind the previous coup in 1991, and the reign of terror that ensued. However much blood is on the hands of the Bush regime, it cannot be ignored that it is only a drop compared to the soaked hands of the Clinton Presidency, as well as the torrents of blood that flowed during the Duvalier dictatorships which drenched both Republicans and Democrats equally. This is not to excuse Bush; it is merely to demonstrate that this issue is very detailed and we must consider the entire context and history, lest we oversimplify and in turn make further errors of judgement as to how best to cast the blame.

Case in point: is Senator John Kerry, now the presumed Democratic nominee for President, unstained on this issue? Throughout the recent unrest and eventual coup in Haiti, Kerry and others in the Senate have tempered their criticisms of Bush and merely focused on how he could have intervened "sooner" in Haiti, etc. None of them has addressed the history of U.S. manipulation of that country, none of them has discussed the true level of CIA and NED direct funding and arming of opposition forces, none of them has suggested that the problem reached back any farther than the last four or so weeks. Kerry in particular might have had more to say, having served as Chairman on the Senate Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism, and International Operations in 1987. His subcommittee investigated links between the CIA and drug trafficking, and much of the information about CIA involvement in Haiti was revealed during testimony. Kerry has, in his career as a Senator, spoken about U.S. involvement in Latin America and the Carribean, and has the background to know precisely what role the U.S. has played in Haiti for half a century---but he chooses to remain silent.

When we hear reports this week that the Black Caucus is vowing to investigate the new coup, that they want to determine if the U.S. "engineered" the coup, it is perhaps important to note that these are officials who have access to the information and facts surrounding these events, as well as all the events preceeding it. Moreover, they have access to additional information beyond what the general public may access. Thus while it is easy not to look deeper, and to simply applaud the words and deeds emanating from some quarters in Congress, the reality is that these individuals already know the truth as well as anybody else and are no more willing to discuss the dark past than are Bush or Kerry.

For a good general history of modern covert operations, specifically during the 1980's, see Steven Emerson's "Secret Warriors: Inside the Covert Military Operations of the Reagan Era". For a journalist's eyewitness account of the 1994 U.S. invasion of Haiti, see Bob Shacochis' "The Immaculate Invasion". And for a view of Arisitide's exile told by the Haitian President himself, see "Dignity" by Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Other good sources of information and documentation on the events described here, as well as other facts about Haiti and the U.S. involvement there, see:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/002.html

http://counterpunch.org/williams03012004.html

http://counterpunch.org/landau02272004.html

http://www.netti.fi/~makako/mind/haiti2.txt

http://www.pinknoiz.com/covert/haiticoke.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RIE402A.html

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040227

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040301

http://www.democracynow.org/index.pl?issue=20040302

A simple Yahoo search for "Haiti" and "CIA" and the names of any of the key players listed in this article will also pull up many other excellent sources as well. Also, some of the links provided here also have links to other information that I encourage readers to check out.

Drew Poe

wow, thank you drew! this sounds like alot of the bits and pieces i've been hearing, and it always boils down to the "liberalization" of foreign economies. Clinton loved this shit, convince them to sell off their natural resources and critical infrastructure in exchange for a couple million from the world bank. Bush is trying to do it in the u.s., eliminate public housing, privatize the post office (clinton gave a huge hand with eliminating welfare), etc...

it's like the government-corporate complex will not be happy untill they own *every*last*fucking*thing* on earth.

so refreshing to see journalism on a news wire! :)

The possibilities are intriguing. If we can abolish public education, Medicare and Social Security, we may well establish the advent of a capitalist utopia: cradle to grave employment!

Fernand Braudel Center, Binghamton University

http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm

Commentary No. 133, Mar. 15, 2004

"Haiti: The Bicentennial Coup d'Etat"

In a world where many countries have sad tales to tell, Haiti is quite possibly at the top of the list. In the eighteenth century, Haiti (then known at St.-Domingue) was the jewel in the crown of the French empire. It was the leading sugar exporter in the world at the time and yielded immense profits to a small class of French plantation owners. The overwhelming majority of the population were Black slaves. There was a small intermediate group made up largely of mulattoes, poor Whites, and a few free Blacks.

Then came the French Revolution, and everyone on the island decided to profit from the turmoil. The White settlers elected representatives to the Estates-General, which then became the Assemblée Nationale, and sought autonomous authority on the island. The "free colored" in turn demanded their rights and found support among some members of the Assemblée Nationale, the Amis des Noirs. They succeeded in getting the Assemblée to award the vote to "propertied mulattoes," whose leader was promptly captured, tortured, and executed by the White settlers.

At this point, there began a slave revolt, and Haiti entered into a three-way civil war. The slave revolt frightened not only the White settlers and the propertied mulattoes but France, Great Britain, Spain, and not least the newly-constituted United States. Under the leadership of Toussaint L'Ouverture, the Black revolutionaries created a disciplined army and took over control of an independent state, which was then ostracized by everyone. By 1802, Napoleon had reinvaded the island and by a combination of force and deception captured Toussaint L'Ouverture and took him off to prison in France.

The story gets complicated after that. But basically the republic, officially launched in 1804 (hence this is the bicentennial year), would be under the control primarily of the mulattoes. The White planters left the island. The economy became a shambles. Nonetheless, the example of the Black slave revolt so frightened everyone that the leaders of the various independence movements in Latin America, including Simon Bolívar, would not recognize Haiti for many years. The last country to recognize Haiti was the United States, doing it only in 1854. The example of Haiti led both the Latin American revolutionaries and the United States to discourage an independence movement in Cuba, for fear of another Haiti. In the first half of the twentieth century, after multiple coups, the U.S. marines invaded and spent a lot of time in Haiti, running the show and collecting the debt.

If we fast forward to the period after the Second World War, we find ensconced in power one of the Western Hemisphere's worst rulers, François Duvalier. A doctor, a Black, he used a demagogy of noirisime to establish a dictatorial regime which he enforced through an armed group of thugs known as the tontons macoutes. Duvalier ruled from 1957 to 1971, and on his death he was succeeded by his son, Jean Claude, known as "Baby Doc." The regime remained the same but Baby Doc was less efficacious a ruler. He finally lost the support of the United States, and was overthrown in 1986, allowed to go into golden exile to his estate in France.

Power fell back into the hands of a largely mulatto elite group, who found themselves challenged by a populist priest, champion of the Black underclasses, named Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Aristide won the presidential election in 1990 and was ousted by a coup in 1991 led by a right-wing group who proceeded to kill and repress supporters of Aristide. By now, there was some attention being paid to Haiti by world public opinion and a sense that this situation was intolerable. In 1994, Clinton sent in U.S. troops to restore Aristide to power, on condition that he only "complete" his term of office, not run again in 1996, and carry out a neoliberal economic policy.

Aristide accepted the terms. What else could he do? Meanwhile, however, Senator Jesse Helms, then the Republican chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, fulminated against Aristide as a leftist anti-American. In 2000, Aristide ran again for President and won overwhelmingly. The opposition refused to stand, claiming that the elections were unfair. No doubt they were not pristine (but neither were those in the U.S. in 2000), but no outside observer thought that Aristide did not command the majority of the population.

When Bush came to power, the person in charge of Haitian affairs in the Department of State was Roger Noriega, previously the assistant of Jesse Helms and the one who had managed his anti-Aristide polemics. The U.S. cut off international funds promised to Aristide, forced him to empty his treasury to repay IMF loans, and (via the Republican party) poured money into those who had been ousted by Aristide in 1991 and again in 1994.

This brings us to 2004. A small group of right-wing rebels, indirectly armed by the U.S., invaded from the Dominican Republic. Aristide had been weakened by the financial squeeze, the corruption of his regime, and the fact that his supporters had been using oppressive tactics as well. The diplomatic charade now began. France called for Aristide to resign. Colin Powell said he was for a compromise - that Aristide stay but name a new Prime Minister after negotiating with the more palatable of the opposition. Aristide agreed, but the opposition refused. So the U.S. then said, quite illogically, well Aristide should resign. He refused. The U.S. then arranged that the hired security guards (from a U.S. firm) that had been protecting Aristide be withdrawn.

At this point, the U.S. emissary said to Aristide, we can guarantee your safe escape from the rebel troops only if you resign. Aristide wrote an ambiguous letter in Creole, and was then whisked off in a U.S. plane to the Central African Republic (no golden exile in France for him). He immediately told all and sundry that he had not resigned, that he had been kidnapped by the U.S. At which point, the Central African Republic authorities reminded him of their requirement that he be reserved, that is, shut up.

The U.S. Black poilitcal community are all demanding that Aristide be allowed to return and that the alleged kidnapping be investigated. This is supported by the association of Caribbean states (CARICOM) and by the African Union. But don't hold your breath. The coup (32nd in Haiti's history) has succeeded.

Why did this happen? The first question is why France played the role that it did. It is said in the press that this was a gesture of reconciliation after the fallout with the U.S. over Iraq. I don't think this is too plausible. France was not on good terms with Aristide, who had recently demanded that France pay reparations for what they did 200 years ago. But most of all, France was the ex-colonial power which had been eased out of a role in Haiti by the United States. By taking the lead, France got its foot back inside the Haitian scene, at the expense of Aristide whom they regarded as someone who had been installed by the U.S. (albeit now discarded).

As for the U.S., objectively, Aristide was not particularly bothersome. Unlike say Chavez, he was not sitting on oil, nor denouncing the U.S. But the neo-conservatives saw him as a Clinton product, a dubious type, and someone to be ousted in favor of people with whom they had close relations. So they stage-managed the whole transfer of power. In addition, it is meant as a warning to other countries in the Americas about the readiness of the U.S. to resume "gunboat diplomacy" in their backyard. And so it is being read.

Immanuel Wallerstein

[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically or e-mail to others and to post this text on non-commercial community Internet sites, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To translate this text, publish it in printed and/or other forms, including commercial Internet sites and excerpts, contact the author at iwaller@binghamton.edu; fax: 1-607-777-4315.

Cleveland Indy Media Center