- Jean Bertrand Aristide has finally fled Haiti -- again.
Meanwhile, the mainstream press the world over focuses on the anarchy that
has engulfed the tiny Caribbean nation. Yet most reports merely skim the
surface. There was talk of rebel advances, people with guns, looting, revenge
attacks, etc. What was missing was one simple question: what was the uprising
all about? Perhaps the reason why journalists, especially those from the
US and other "allied" countries, failed to dig deep into what
was going on is because they know what they would find: that the US was
behind the ugly overthrow of a democratically elected government, a move
akin to the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
-
- Some might argue that this comparison is going a bit
too far. But is it? With the exception that there isn't oil in Haiti and
that Kuwait is not a democracy, the American power grab in Haiti is no
different than what Saddam attempted to do in the Middle East. In both
cases, a bullying state regards itself as the region's de-facto superpower,
and feels that it has a right to assume control, either directly (as Iraq
did in 1990) or indirectly (as the US has just done).
-
- American tampering in Haiti is quite obvious. Before
the violence erupted, the Bush administration was in full support of the
opposition, and have been trying to force Aristide to share power. As frustration
over the political stalemate escalated and the rebels took to the streets,
the US simply stood by and watched, refusing to help calm the situation
in any way. The goal of the White House was simple: to have Aristide removed
from power at whatever cost, even if meant allowing the country to descend
into civil war. So much for the doctrine of humanitarian intervention as
was used in such far away places as Kuwait and Bosnia.
-
- An Ignominious Tradition
-
- When one looks back at the history of Haiti, one can
fully understand the motives driving US foreign policy toward the tiny
Caribbean nation. It was the leading target of US intervention in the 20th
century. In 1919, Woodrow Wilson had Haiti occupied, restored slavery,
overthrew the parliamentary system, and basically turned it into a US plantation.
Ever since then, the US has supported brutal dictators -- all of whom never
had an embargo on them no matter how many atrocities they carried out.
-
- Ironically, this year is the bicentennial anniversary
of the nation's declaration of independence. Yet Haitians have little reason
to celebrate. Haiti was once the richest colony in the Western Hemisphere;
now it's the most impoverished. US foreign policy is the main reason for
Haiti's perpetual state of poverty, especially the recent refusal to lend
funds to the fledgling democracy, which was held back because of "election
problems". In other words, Haiti hasn't met the US standard for democracy.
In reality, Haiti's idea of democracy runs up against the US idea of a
top-down democracy, run by an elite.
-
- The problems Haiti is now going through all started with
an election in 1990 which turned out the wrong way. The US was certain
that their candidate would win, but out of the woodwork came a populist
priest who won because he focused on things in the country that no one
else was paying attention to.
-
- Aristide's landslide victory in December 1990 took the
US and most western countries completely by surprise. He was swept into
power by a network of popular grassroots organizations which outside observers
weren't even aware of. This did not fit the top-down democracy model the
US wanted, so financial support was subsequently withdrawn. Yet with a
solid two-thirds of the vote which demolished America's favourite, a former
World Bank official named Marc Bazin (who received just 14%), the US was
in a predicament: how were they going to get rid of Aristide who has popular
support?
-
- This problem became more acute when in the first seven
months of Aristide's term he introduced progressive reforms. He was able
to reduce corruption extensively, and to trim a highly bloated state bureaucracy.
He won a lot of international praise for this, even from the World Bank
and IMF, which were offering him loans and preferential terms because they
liked what he was doing. Furthermore, he cut back on drug trafficking.
The flow of refugees to the US virtually stopped as atrocities were reduced
to way below what they had been.
-
- It goes without saying that all this made Aristide even
more unacceptable in the eyes of the US. Finally, on September 30, 1991
a coup was staged to oust Aristide from power. In its aftermath, the first
Bush administration focused attention on Aristide's alleged atrocities
and undemocratic activities, downplaying the major atrocities which followed
the coup. Naturally, the media went along with this; while people were
getting slaughtered in the streets of Port-au-Prince, the media concentrated
on alleged human rights abuses under the Aristide government.
-
- Refugees soon started fleeing again, because the situation
was deteriorating rapidly. The first Bush administration instituted a blockade
to send them back. Within a couple of months, the first Bush administration
also had undermined an embargo put in place by the Organization of American
States (which the US supposedly supported) by allowing US-owned companies
to simply ignore it. The New York Times called this "fine-tuning"
the embargo to improve the restoration of democracy. Eventually, Marc Bazin,
the US candidate, was in power as prime minister, with the ruling generals
behind him.
-
- During the Clinton years, not much changed in Haiti.
Although Clinton attacked the first Bush administration for its inhumane
policy of returning refugees, which was a clear violation of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, he did little to change it. Indeed, some charge
that he promoted it even further.
-
- Ultimately, there was substantial international pressure
to have Aristide returned to power. Not only this, but Clinton came up
with a shrewd plan to undermine his political opponents at home, who wanted
Aristide to stay out, while at the same time elevate his reputation on
the international stage. Aristide would be returned to power but on very
strict conditions; namely, that he accept the policies of the candidate
the US had supported in the 1990 Haitian election.
-
- The pig fiasco
-
- In effect, Aristide was to accept a neo-liberalist program
which would open Haiti up to what is known as "market forces".
For example, Haitian rice producers would have to compete with US agribusiness,
which happens to be very highly subsidized. As a result, Haiti, a starving
island, ended up exporting 35 times more food to the US under Clinton than
it did under the first Bush.
-
- Many Haitians are well aware of the effects of globalisation
on their country. Haiti's first traumatic experience of globalization was
with the extermination of their Creole pigs. The experience left such an
impression that whenever peasants are told that "economic reform"
and privatisation will benefit them, they shake their heads and remember
the pig fiasco.
-
- Haiti's small, black, Creole pigs were at the heart of
the peasant economy. An extremely hearty breed, well adapted to Haiti's
climate and conditions, they ate readily available waste products, and
could survive for three days without food. Eighty to 85 percent of rural
households raised pigs; they played a key role in maintaining the fertility
of the soil. Traditionally, a pig was sold to pay for emergencies and special
occasions (funerals, marriages, illnesses), and, critically, to pay school
fees and buy books for when school opened each year in October.
-
- In 1982 international agencies assured Haiti's peasants
that their pigs were sick and had to be killed so that the illness would
not spread elsewhere. Promises were made that better pigs would replace
the sick pigs. Within 13 months, all of Haiti's Creole pigs were killed.
-
- Two years later, the new, "better" pigs came
from Iowa. Yet they required clean drinking water (unavailable to 80 percent
of the population), imported feed ($90 a year when per capita income was
about $130), and special roofed pigpens. Haitian peasants quickly dubbed
them four-footed princes. Adding insult to injury, most found that the
meat didn't taste so good.
-
- Needless to say, the program was a complete failure.
One observer of the process estimated that in monetary terms, Haitian peasants
lost $600 million. There was a 30 percent drop in enrollment in rural schools,
a dramatic decline in protein consumption in rural Haiti, a devastating
decapitalisation of the peasant economy, and an incalculable negative impact
on Haiti's soil and agricultural productivity. Aristide contends that Haiti's
peasantry hasn't recovered from the pig fiasco to this day.
-
- Endgame
-
- Although Aristide was back in power by the mid-1990s,
the Americans appeared less worried about him this time round. For one,
the White House received international praise for "restoring democracy",
which helped to further Clinton's image as a global peacemaker (which ultimately
failed in the Mid-East). Meanwhile, the long-term effect of the reign of
terror in Haiti destroyed domesticate aspirations and made people believe
there was no alternative. Hence, the lively, vibrant civil society based
on grassroots organizations that had brought Aristide to power was so decimated
upon his return that he didn't have the kind of popular support he once
had to do anything.
-
- Still, Aristide tried to make the best of a bad situation.
Given his predicament, the US doubted that he would be able to do well
in the 2000 elections, that his base of support had been either terrified
into silence or disillusioned. Nevertheless, despite these handicaps, Aristide
was able to pull off a victory, although some senatorial seats were in
dispute.
-
- Meanwhile, the US was also undergoing its own election
with results just as questionable, if not more so, than in Haiti. With
the second Bush administration came a harder line against the tiny Caribbean
nation (not to mention the rest of the world). The first Bush administration
never supported the return of Aristide, and now since many of the players
from the first Bush administration were also in the second Bush administration,
Aristide's days were numbered.
-
- Shortly before 9/11 at a Free Trade Area of the Americas
(FTAA) meeting held at Quebec City, the US forced through a resolution
whereby future FTAA member countries would have to observe "democratic
norms." This, in effect, allowed the US to intensify pressure on Haiti,
whose was out of favor in Washington.
-
- Still not satisfied, in 2003 the US government vetoed
the delivery of $500 million in approved aid loans to Haiti from the Inter
American Development Bank. These loans were earmarked specifically for
improving education, health, and clean water. The loans were withheld because
the US government claimed that the votes for 8 senate seats were not counted
properly in the May 2000 Haitian elections. This, despite the fact that
all senators involved resigned their seats.
-
- With another election year looming in the US, more pressure
on Haiti was exerted. Not satisfied with constantly fulfilling the petty
demands that Washington imposed, the US decided to apply its full might
on Haiti by telling Aristide to "broaden his government in the interests
of democracy." In other words, the Bush administration was telling
the Aristide government that it had the wrong base of support, and must
change it to one that Washington sees fit. After finally running out of
patience at Aristide's determination and ability to hold on to power, rebel
elements supported by the US decided to launch an uprising. The US, as
well as the western world, simply turned the other way.
-
- The coup in Haiti wasn't the first such American-sponsored
coup of this century, nor will it be the last. The American Empire profits
from war and human misery, and coup-plotters are forever active attempting
to terminate democracy and replace it with a neo-liberalist, corporate
state. What was important about this latest coup in Haiti is that it helped
Washington to regain a sense of confidence in its use of subversive political
methods. Ever since the coup fiasco in Venezuela a few years back, some
have wondered whether the Bush administration has what it takes to carry
on a long and bloody American tradition. With Aristide now gone, it looks
as though it has.
-
- Copyright © 1996-2004. All Rights Reserved.
-
- http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/co/16872/1.html
|