• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

Haitian Politics

Genesius

TRIBE Member
A guy at my work, who moved from Haiti a number of years ago says that Aristide was ousted/kidnapped by the west because he was for the poor people of the country. Obviously this goes against the capitalist philosphy of the US.

During these elections it was reported that there were long line ups to reach the polls and a lot of late poll openings in some of the poorer regions of the country. It was implied by a reporter and some people he interviewed that this was due to the fact that the poor vote was being mitigated to allow for a pro-west president.

I know this was briefly touched on in one of other threads....anyway, I suggest we all write our MPs and demand an answer from our goverment. Are we involved? If so in what capacity. I know we will certainly get some kind of run around, but we should let them know we are paying attention.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
In Feb. 2004, Aristed was 'ousted' roughly as I described in the other thread.... under increasing intl. pressure (withholding of funds etc) and foreign-sponsored armed groups, American forces took it upon themselves to help him out of the country, as they explained it, for his own safety. Also signed a resignation, again for his safety (I believe this happened on the jet on the way to Africa, where he spent his forced exile. There is an Amy Goodman interview with him directly that I'll try to find and post)
A 'temporary' gov. was installed from outside, to implement and consolidate certain policies + other decisions, and a UN military mission was sent in to "stabalize" the new order imposed mainly by the U.S., France, and Canada

The US and France have had interests in Haiti for centuries (the site of the first successful slave rebellion of its kind, the self-liberated slaves established the second free republic in the Americas
Funny, the difference and relation between the first and second republics established in this half of the world. The first went on to rule the whole world, the second has been crushed under its and other powers' boots almost constantly ever since

Haiti was paying France for the freedom of its slaves until the 1950s!!! When the slaves freed themselves, France demanded compensation for its 'losses', and Haiti, one of the most impoverished countries in teh world, was paying them back until the 50's, the present "post-colonial" period
This just illustrates the continuity of the relationships w/ Haiti for the last two centuries

Check out this August 28, 1920 article in The Nation.... its eerie:
To know the reasons for the present political situation in Haiti, to understand why the United States landed and has for five years maintained military forces in that country, why some three thousand Haitian men, women, and children have been shot down by American rifles and machine guns, it is necessary, among other things, to know that the National City Bank of New York is very much interested in Haiti. It is necessary to know that the National City Bank controls the National Bank of Haiti and is the depository for all of the Haitian national funds that are being collected by American officials, and that Mr. R. L. Farnham, vice-president of the National City Bank, is virtually the representative of the State Department in matters relating to the island republic. Most Americans have the opinion--if they have any opinion at all on the subject--that the United States was forced, on purely humane grounds, to intervene in the black republic [...]
The fact is that for nearly a year before forcible intervention on the part of the United States this government was seeking to compel Haiti to submit to "peaceable" intervention. Toward the close of 1914 the United States notified the government of Haiti that it was disposed to recognize the newly-elected president[...] as soon as a Haitian commission would sign at Washington "satisfactory protocols'' relative to a convention with the United States on the model of the Dominican-American Convention. On December 15, 1914, the Haitian government, through its Secretary of Foreign Affairs, replied: "The Government of the Republic of Haiti would consider itself lax in its duty to the United States and to itself if it allowed the least doubt to exist of its irrevocable intention not to accept any control of the administration of Haitian affairs by a foreign Power." On December 19, the United States, through its legation at Port-au-Prince, replied, that in expressing its willingness to do in Haiti what had been done in Santo Domingo it "was actuated entirely by a disinterested desire to give assistance."
[...
Of course, before long,] an American man-of-war dropped anchor in the harbor of Port-au-Prince and landed American forces. It should be borne in mind that through all of this the life of not a single American citizen had been taken or jeopardized.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/19200828/johnson


For the present, a very handy post-2004-coup "Haiti Q & A (June 04, 2005)", including: "How is Canada involved?", "Who are the rebels?", "Wasn't Aristide a dictator?"


The resemblance to 1920, when the historical perspective makes the grossly unjust imperialistic domination of Haiti undeniable, is uncanny, down to the details (eg. forcing economic policies)

The last few decades were under two dictators, father then son, "Duvalier" I think was the name
Backed crucially by America

Aristide and the Lavalas party was elected by the poor, with the rich being violently opposed

Aristide gained power, was forced to compromise with foreign powers, came and left, Its a constant struggle throughout the 90s (Aristide in and out)

[...]During the 1990s, I organized delegations to investigate human rights violations by the Haitian military junta that ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991, after his overwhelming victory in the first democratic election in Haitian history. This year, I found a U.S. occupation not unlike that in Iraq, but one of which very few Canadians or Americans are aware.

[...]The question that remains unanswered - and mostly unasked - by Canadian politicians and media is: Why did Canada support a U.S. coup in Haiti? That question was implied by a senior diplomat with CARICOM (Caribbean Community), the alliance of 15 of Haiti's Caribbean neighbours[...]

It's the same question I asked the Canadian Ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Cook, during a two-hour interview in Port au Prince on March 29. Cook said, "As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence of a kidnapping. I don't have a position on the request to the United Nations by the CARICOM countries for an investigation into the circumstances of the removal of Aristide. If there were (one), it should be brief in order not to interfere with the task of rebuilding the country."
"Rebuilding the country," as organized by the U.S.[...]

CARICOM and the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus insist Aristide did not resign, and was forced to fly to an unknown destination. The U.S. took him to what the State Department calls the "most violent capital in the world," Bangui, Central African Republic. Many have indeed called this a kidnapping. [...

...]Canadian officials I spoke with seemed clueless about the details of the removal of Aristide and the current U.S.-supported repression. One Canadian diplomat told me, "Really, we have little of our own intelligence on Haiti. We rely on the U.S. for that."
"Canada In Haiti" (June 07, 2004)

The Canadian government is following through on its commitment to "take the lead" in Haiti on behalf of the Bush Administration.
Canada's growing role in Haitian affairs (March 22, 2005)

The Canadian government is trumpeting its role in the coup in Haiti. Its elite military unit played a key part in the overthrow of Aristide. Five hundred of its soldiers then joined the UN occupation force that "secured" Haiti in the weeks after. Today, 100 Royal Canadian Mounted Police and military officials remain with the occupation force.

"We were the ones who secured the airport in Haiti [on or about February 29]", Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin proudly told CBC Radio in a wide-ranging interview on foreign affairs on December 13. "Those were Canadian forces who did that. We've got to be able to play that kind of role."

He explained that Canada will henceforth play a more aggressive role in propping up the declining world order led by its principal ally, the United States. He began the interview with this thought: "Foreign policy isn't only something you study. Foreign policy is something you do."

Martin boasted that Canada has been part of every recent election in "failed states." He said Canada will combine electoral showcases with "institution building" in the countries that it or its allies occupy. "My view is, you begin with military security, but you can't leave it there. What you've got to do after that is to begin to put in place the institutions that will allow those democracies [sic] to grow."
Against All Odds, Haitians Protest
Illegal Regime, Foreign Occupation (Jan. 08, 2006)



www.canadahaitiaction.ca/ is a Canadian resource, also covers the considerable activism involved

Apparently ppl in Pettigrew's riding were really pushing the Haiti issue during the campaign, to get voters to 'punish' him for his and Canada's crimes


some more good articles:
Canada to Exterminate Lavalas (Satire) by Anthony Fenton (December 07, 2004): "[Editor's note: while this piece is satirical, the factual content in it is, unfortunately for Haitians and Canadians, entirely true]"
...that one has lots of embedded links to additional (re)sources

Media and Haiti, by Yves Engler (June 05, 2005):
[...]
So why does this violence and misery in Haiti go unreported in the Canadian media? Could it be that the gatekeepers of our media don't feel comfortable telling us about this particular "Made in Canada" product?

The uncomfortable truth is that the Liberal government was an important player in the campaign to destabilize and overthrow Haiti's elected government. Our government participated in the loan/aid embargo, diverted funds from the elected government to the pro-coup "civil society," held a crucial meeting with France and the U.S. to plan for Aristide's overthrow and sent troops to "secure" the airport from which Aristide was forced out of his country.

Canadian support for the brutal interim government has been even more extensive. It includes sending troops (now police), huge amounts of cash, employing two high level officials in the de facto government and vital political support, notably the first-ever trip by a Canadian Prime Minister to Haiti.

And Canada's hands in Haiti get dirtier with each passing day. Every time a high level Canadian official states their unequivocal support for the de facto government or UN Civilian Police spokesperson and B.C. native, Dan Moskaluk, justifies the Haitian police firing on protestors, the Canadian connection to Haiti's killing field becomes clearer.

The first step in stopping this is information. That's why it's so important to get the story out. It's up to the alternative media to do the job that the mainstream media won't.
[...]
 
Last edited:

man_slut

TRIBE Member
I was listening to CBC radio and they were saying the UN found 5 ballot boxes dumped in some junk yard with up to 30 000 votes inside.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer
In Feb. 2004, Aristed was 'ousted' roughly as I described in the other thread.... under increasing intl. pressure (withholding of funds etc) and foreign-sponsored armed groups, American forces took it upon themselves to help him out of the country, as they explained it, for his own safety.
Yes the people were up in arms there were riots in the streets and Aristed a corrupt fuck who took money from cahrities and flew to paris for shopping trips with his wife had to go. Aristed doesn't have a great record by any means and is one of the most corrupt leaders to ever rule in any country.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

~atp~

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Yes the people were up in arms there were riots in the streets and Aristed a corrupt fuck who took money from cahrities and flew to paris for shopping trips with his wife had to go. Aristed doesn't have a great record by any means and is one of the most corrupt leaders to ever rule in any country.
The United States didn't care about Aristide's corruption. And, despite his corruption -- which pales in comparison to American "corruption" -- he was in fact voted in democratically. If it is reasonable to overthrow (or be directly involved in the overthrow of) a foreign democratic government, then why don't we expect the same thing to occur in the United States?
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
edit: didnt see ~atp~'s post

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Yes the people were up in arms there were riots in the streets and Aristed a corrupt fuck who took money from cahrities and flew to paris for shopping trips with his wife had to go. Aristed doesn't have a great record by any means and is one of the most corrupt leaders to ever rule in any country.
see the rest of my above post

yes, some people certainly were 'up in arms'

others, far far more, also voted for the man and continue to support the party they legally chose to represent them in government, that we have no right to interfere in

Corruption obviously had nothing to do with our intervention: Canada and the U.S.'s record, including in Haiti itself, shows we have no problem with corrupt violent dictators (nor do we have a problem with jailing senior Lavalas personnel for a year without trial or even laying charges (a priest btw), not to mention less senior supporters...... sustaining this right up to the recent elections
how can you call them fair and free elections if the main party (and that of the poor) is being jailed and killed?
Well, us enlightened powers have problems with popular political empowerment



the corruption and violence attributed to the popularly supported Lavalas group again pale in comparison to their opponents, and again, more importantly, they have the popular support, while their opponents do not (having foreign powers' and business interests' support instead)

strongly popularly supported party's leader shopping in Paris (if this is ture) <- *gasp*
vs
widespread rule by terror of groups without the people's support (duh, terror) <- uh.... well shit, thats a real problem
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by ~atp~
The United States didn't care about Aristide's corruption. And, despite his corruption -- which pales in comparison to American "corruption" -- he was in fact voted in democratically. If it is reasonable to overthrow (or be directly involved in the overthrow of) a foreign democratic government, then why don't we expect the same thing to occur in the United States?
In fact, Haiti has far more right to overthrow the U.S. regime than the other way around, since the US has done severe and lasting harm to Haiti, while Haiti, the most impoverished country in the hemisphere (or #2?) has never even resembled a threat to the US

Thats the 'self-defence'(-ish) justification

The other, the 'right to help other nations' or whatever Martin's bullshit doctrine is called, under that justification the same result:
The U.S. regime has done severe and lasting harm to many many others abroad, it is a threat to peace and human security, it is a massive killer
The Haitian "regime" (Aristide probably has more democratic legitimacy than Bush (arguably), but thats a different discussion), at worst can be accused of corruption and (significantly decreased!) violence only against its own ppl

same comparison probably applies to canada
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Really cause I get the feeling that armed groups are trying to use antius sentiment to get the UN peacekeepers out so that they can take the country by force like they tried to do 2 years ago.

I get this eally strange feeling that the preasure for us to leave is to insure that there is no UN presence to confirm or deny a coup attempt that is in planning. There is no shortage of corruption in a poor banana republic where education is dubious and only the rich get it. Obviously the class strugle will always be against the poor.

With regards to the role of Canada, we're there to train police. We are not able to prevent these police from commiting acts that would be illegal in Canada by a UN charter that doesn't allow us to interfere only to train. If Canada, and France and the USA are forced to leave along with Brazil are we going to have any more democracy or are we going to have armed gangs taking control of the streets yet again.

I can't help but feel we're being played on this one.
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer


Thats the 'self-defence'(-ish) justification

No self defence is keeping Haitians in Haiti rather than having them in boats heading towards the very close american coast. By resolving the problem at home poor people can be kept there and away from us. Who the hell needs another couple million poor black people.

They aren't a military threat! they never have been and they never will be. However they have piled onto boats and ended up in our water several times in past. Do we sink boats with escaped refugees or do we let them land and deal with them when they are here.

Again are we defending democracy or did we have wars in the streets when an elected government was being forced at the barrel of there own police and military to leave.
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
This is the wiki on the 2004 rebellion. Which points do you guys disagree with specifically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haiti_Rebellion

I want some help trying to sort out the propaganda from both sides on this one and I'm very willing to change my position in this regard.





Timeline

The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a conflict fought for several weeks in Haiti during February 2004 that resulted in the premature end of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's second term, and the installment of an interim government led by Gerard Latortue.

Beginning in Gonaïves with the capture of that city's police station on February 5, the rebellion quickly spread to the nearby port city of Saint-Marc. 150 policemen unsuccessfully attempted to retake Gonaïves on February 8, losing between three and 14 officers in the battle. Saint-Marc was, however, recaptured by police and pro-Aristide militants by February 10, although sporadic fighting continued in the area. Apparently in cooperation with the rebels in these northern and central cities, the south-western city of Grand-Goave was taken by rebels at around the same time, but it too was recaptured by police shortly thereafter.

In the following days, the rebels pursued a strategy of advancing toward the country's second-largest city, Cap-Haïtien, and the town of Dondon, just south of Cap-Haïtien, changed hands several times in the fighting. Furthermore, some of the rebels reached the Dominican border, blocking the main road between the two countries and enabling the aforementioned exiled former soldiers to cross into Haiti. By February 17, the rebel forces had captured the central town of Hinche, near the Dominican border.

On February 19, rebel leader Buteur Metayer declared himself president of the areas under his control, with former Cap-Haïtien police chief Guy Philippe as commander of the rebel army. On February 22, the rebels captured Cap-Haïtien with surprisingly little bloodshed; the city's police had already made clear their reluctance to fight, and the well-armed and trained rebels had little difficulty sweeping aside the resistance of the city's pro-Aristide militants. On February 24, the rebels followed this success with the capture of the northwestern city of Port-de-Paix and with the capture of Tortue Island, off the northern coast, the next day. These gains effectively ended government control in northern Haiti.

On February 26, a new band of rebels captured the country's third-largest city, Les Cayes, in the southwest. More rebel successes followed, as they captured the strategic crossroads of Mirebalais, 30 miles from the country's capital, Port-au-Prince. Many foreigners were evacuated from Haiti in anticipation of an assault on Port-au-Prince, but an estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens remained in Haiti as of the end of February.

International mediators led by the United States proposed a peace plan on February 20 which would have allowed Aristide to serve out his term but with substantially reduced powers, a prime minister from the civilian opposition, and fresh legislative elections. It was virtually the same plan Aristide had agreed to weeks earlier with Caricom. In a news conference the next day, Aristide agreed to the plan.

The plan, however, was rejected by the opposition, which continued to demand the president's resignation. France blamed Aristide for the violence and suggested that he should leave office in favor of a transitional government; however, many governments in the region were more supportive of Aristide, alarmed at the precedent that would be set by the overthrow of a democratically elected leader by armed rebels.

The United States, which intervened in Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power, publicly adopted an ambiguous stance on the issue. While condemning the rebellion and claiming that it did not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, it also pointedly blamed Aristide for contributing to the violence and has suggested that an end to the crisis might require Aristide's absence from the political scene. For its part, the Haitian government accused the U.S. of supporting the rebels and planning Aristide's ouster.

Some American politicians strongly criticized the Bush's administration's stance on Haiti, on the grounds that it was failing to take a moral stand in defense of Haitian democracy. On February 25, for instance, U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown called the Bush Administration's non-intervention in Haiti racist.

President Bush refused to soften U.S. policy on Haitian refugees. During the week ending February 27, the U.S. Coast Guard repatriated 867 refugees.

Mainstream media reports suggested that under huge pressure from the rebels as well as from the governments of the United States and France, Aristide was removed from office on February 29 and taken out of the country to the Central African Republic. According to the same mainstream media sources Aristide first claimed he was kidnapped by U.S. Marines, then later claimed that a group of Haitians and civilian Americans forced him to resign and then flee into exile (a claim the United States vigorously denied). According to the Washington Times, an aircraft provided by the U.S. carried the displaced Aristide and his American wife, Mildred Trouillot Aristide, to the Central African Republic (CAR) [1]. News accounts at the scene in the CAR indicate Aristide was held against his will, and his subsequent release may have followed approval from the US.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre succeeded him as interim president and petitioned the United Nations Security Council for the intervention of an international peacekeeping force; the Security Council met within the day to authorize such a mission. As a vanguard of the official UN force, a force of about 1,000 United States Marines arrived in Haiti within the day, and Canadian and French troops arrived the next morning; the United Nations indicated it would send a team to assess the situation within days.
 

swilly

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
Yes the people were up in arms there were riots in the streets and Aristed a corrupt fuck who took money from cahrities and flew to paris for shopping trips with his wife had to go. Aristed doesn't have a great record by any means and is one of the most corrupt leaders to ever rule in any country.
OK i dont know where you get your information from but lately you have been taking the piss. Aristide was not great but in comparision to who he replaced and also to who replaced him he was ghandi.

Fuck aristide was ousted by a group of about 50 soilders with machine guns sponsered from the US. If canada or south africa or anyone of a number of nations had even just sent 1 battalion of troops they could of maintained peace there. Venezeual even offered to do it but was blocked by the US navy.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
No self defence is keeping Haitians in Haiti rather than having them in boats heading towards the very close american coast. By resolving the problem at home poor people can be kept there and away from us. Who the hell needs another couple million poor black people.

They aren't a military threat! they never have been and they never will be. However they have piled onto boats and ended up in our water several times in past. Do we sink boats with escaped refugees or do we let them land and deal with them when they are here.
:rolleyes:
I hate to play this card, but against you I cant resist: educate yourself man
It just so happens that during the US-backed military regimes the US was very intent on keeping Haitian refugees (people fleeing America's destruction of their homeland) out of America
The reason you describe is only one part: the other is obvious, because the flow of desperate people fleeing the country obviously reflects on that country, its gov.'s legitimacy, the morality of America's policy there, etc etc
So yeah, during US-backed brutal regimes they wanted to keep the poor black ppl from finding better lives in America, because that migration would say something about what America is doing to them in the first place

BUT

THEN, when Aristide was in power, all of a sudden America was more than happy to welcome these poor black ppl looking for a better life (who were probably far smaller in number, dont know about that for sure though)... opened up the floodgates, let them in!
The political convenience is obvious: at that time it became advantageous for the flow of desperate ppl out of the country into America to reflect on the Haitian gov.

get it?

evil, cynical isnt it?

effective, too, as you youself just demonstrated


Again are we defending democracy or did we have wars in the streets when an elected government was being forced at the barrel of there own police and military to leave.
what? I honestly dont really understand
but, nevertheless: whos military and police? First of all: not military (in the most recent coup). Aristide disbanded the military that was responsible for huge crimes against the Haitian people (it had backed up the previous dictators afterall)
Armed gangs, largely decsended from the infamous foreign-backed military, and supported by narrow sectors of the Haitian population that enjoy enormous resources and foreign-support (of 1st world circles w/ even greater power)
There were other ways we also put enormous pressure on the Lavalas gov., much like we now openly state we are trying to "undermine" hamas:
There are ways of doing this, and they can easily (be made to) result in armed violence in the target country

Especially when the whole society is very dependant on you, you have enormous influence
Easy to make a gov. even more unpopular with certain interests in its country (werent very successful in turning the poor against Lavalas though, though that occured to some extent), then to help those interests force that gov. out, then be standing by to 'help it leave',
"oh, here is a jet, Mr Aristide.
There are armed gangs approaching, I suggest you board it and sign this letter that begins: 'IF I were to resign', and dont fucking come back, who cares what your people want."


edit:
Originally posted by swilly
Fuck aristide was ousted by a group of about 50 soilders with machine guns sponsered from the US. If canada or south africa or anyone of a number of nations had even just sent 1 battalion of troops they could of maintained peace there. Venezeual even offered to do it but was blocked by the US navy.
K I cant vouche for the numbers (Im assuming your caricaturizing it to some extent) (thats also something Im curious about, if anyone has any numbers like that btw), but the point is a very good one:
we could just as easily have sent troops in to protect and preserve the elected adn still-popularly supported gov. against these illegitimate armed groups (who we were likely supporting, to be realistic), and disarm the gangs

That would have been far more plausibly 'intervening to help Haitians OR protect democracy' or whatever


edit again: I"ll read the WIKI thing now Ditto
 
Last edited:

swilly

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Ditto Much
This is the wiki on the 2004 rebellion. Which points do you guys disagree with specifically?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haiti_Rebellion

I want some help trying to sort out the propaganda from both sides on this one and I'm very willing to change my position in this regard.





Timeline

The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a conflict fought for several weeks in Haiti during February 2004 that resulted in the premature end of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's second term, and the installment of an interim government led by Gerard Latortue.

Beginning in Gonaïves with the capture of that city's police station on February 5, the rebellion quickly spread to the nearby port city of Saint-Marc. 150 policemen unsuccessfully attempted to retake Gonaïves on February 8, losing between three and 14 officers in the battle. Saint-Marc was, however, recaptured by police and pro-Aristide militants by February 10, although sporadic fighting continued in the area. Apparently in cooperation with the rebels in these northern and central cities, the south-western city of Grand-Goave was taken by rebels at around the same time, but it too was recaptured by police shortly thereafter.

In the following days, the rebels pursued a strategy of advancing toward the country's second-largest city, Cap-Haïtien, and the town of Dondon, just south of Cap-Haïtien, changed hands several times in the fighting. Furthermore, some of the rebels reached the Dominican border, blocking the main road between the two countries and enabling the aforementioned exiled former soldiers to cross into Haiti. By February 17, the rebel forces had captured the central town of Hinche, near the Dominican border.

On February 19, rebel leader Buteur Metayer declared himself president of the areas under his control, with former Cap-Haïtien police chief Guy Philippe as commander of the rebel army. On February 22, the rebels captured Cap-Haïtien with surprisingly little bloodshed; the city's police had already made clear their reluctance to fight, and the well-armed and trained rebels had little difficulty sweeping aside the resistance of the city's pro-Aristide militants. On February 24, the rebels followed this success with the capture of the northwestern city of Port-de-Paix and with the capture of Tortue Island, off the northern coast, the next day. These gains effectively ended government control in northern Haiti.

On February 26, a new band of rebels captured the country's third-largest city, Les Cayes, in the southwest. More rebel successes followed, as they captured the strategic crossroads of Mirebalais, 30 miles from the country's capital, Port-au-Prince. Many foreigners were evacuated from Haiti in anticipation of an assault on Port-au-Prince, but an estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens remained in Haiti as of the end of February.

International mediators led by the United States proposed a peace plan on February 20 which would have allowed Aristide to serve out his term but with substantially reduced powers, a prime minister from the civilian opposition, and fresh legislative elections. It was virtually the same plan Aristide had agreed to weeks earlier with Caricom. In a news conference the next day, Aristide agreed to the plan.

The plan, however, was rejected by the opposition, which continued to demand the president's resignation. France blamed Aristide for the violence and suggested that he should leave office in favor of a transitional government; however, many governments in the region were more supportive of Aristide, alarmed at the precedent that would be set by the overthrow of a democratically elected leader by armed rebels.

The United States, which intervened in Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power, publicly adopted an ambiguous stance on the issue. While condemning the rebellion and claiming that it did not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, it also pointedly blamed Aristide for contributing to the violence and has suggested that an end to the crisis might require Aristide's absence from the political scene. For its part, the Haitian government accused the U.S. of supporting the rebels and planning Aristide's ouster.

Some American politicians strongly criticized the Bush's administration's stance on Haiti, on the grounds that it was failing to take a moral stand in defense of Haitian democracy. On February 25, for instance, U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown called the Bush Administration's non-intervention in Haiti racist.

President Bush refused to soften U.S. policy on Haitian refugees. During the week ending February 27, the U.S. Coast Guard repatriated 867 refugees.

Mainstream media reports suggested that under huge pressure from the rebels as well as from the governments of the United States and France, Aristide was removed from office on February 29 and taken out of the country to the Central African Republic. According to the same mainstream media sources Aristide first claimed he was kidnapped by U.S. Marines, then later claimed that a group of Haitians and civilian Americans forced him to resign and then flee into exile (a claim the United States vigorously denied). According to the Washington Times, an aircraft provided by the U.S. carried the displaced Aristide and his American wife, Mildred Trouillot Aristide, to the Central African Republic (CAR) [1]. News accounts at the scene in the CAR indicate Aristide was held against his will, and his subsequent release may have followed approval from the US.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre succeeded him as interim president and petitioned the United Nations Security Council for the intervention of an international peacekeeping force; the Security Council met within the day to authorize such a mission. As a vanguard of the official UN force, a force of about 1,000 United States Marines arrived in Haiti within the day, and Canadian and French troops arrived the next morning; the United Nations indicated it would send a team to assess the situation within days.
Several of the rebel leaders including guy phillipe were wanted for Human rights violations including the killing of several judges who were investigating the killing of innocent people during the duvalier regime. Phillipe was being procescuted when the US managed to get him out of the Haiti. He along with several other wanted criminals were trained at the School of the latin americas ( i think that is its name) and were sent to dominican republic with a group of around 50-100 rebels with machine guns and other small arms. As aristide had banned the army and got rid of most of the heavy weapons in thier nation the police was stuck with trying to prevent a coup with immensly inferioir weapons.

Aristide routinly said that a small force of only 100-200 peace keepers would of been enough to prevent the coup.

There was several thousand such troops in the US navy ships patrolling the island.
But they did nothing.

There is a good book called getting it right in haiti that is worth reading. Alot of material on what happened in those final days.

swilly
 
tribe cannabis goldsmith - gold cannabis accessories

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by swilly
Several of the rebel leaders including guy phillipe were wanted for Human rights violations including the killing of several judges who were investigating the killing of innocent people during the duvalier regime. Phillipe was being procescuted when the US managed to get him out of the Haiti. He along with several other wanted criminals were trained at the School of the latin americas ( i think that is its name) and were sent to dominican republic with a group of around 50-100 rebels with machine guns and other small arms. As aristide had banned the army and got rid of most of the heavy weapons in thier nation the police was stuck with trying to prevent a coup with immensly inferioir weapons.
Aristide disbanned his military because they were going to kick him out and install another general as president. He was consolidating power, but as the 50-100 rebels crossed the country it gained a fair bit of momentum. He was elected in an election that was boycotted by most in the first place.

What democracy are we protecting, a guy who previously used a gun to gain power and was already kicked out of power and re-elected under dubious circumstances in the first place?

The 50-100 expanded into all out chaos in the streets, this concept that with 100 amred men he would be able to shoot and kill enough people to hold power is great but this isn't what is meant by protecting democracy either. If anything this would have been seen by the world as the US propping up another puppet regime.

This was a lose lose sitaution and we're being revisionists to paint this in a very specific light without much fact. I posted the wiki because if any of you disagree with the facts we can update it to what it should say.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much you should really read some of the links I and others have posted (your specific concens are addressed) you sound quite uninformed to be honest
 

Genesius

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer
Ditto Much you should really read some of the links I and others have posted (your specific concens are addressed) you sound quite uninformed to be honest
Please make it easy for all of us and address what exactly he is uninformed about
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by deafplayer
:rolleyes:
I hate to play this card, but against you I cant resist: educate yourself man
It just so happens that during the US-backed military regimes the US was very intent on keeping Haitian refugees (people fleeing America's destruction of their homeland) out of America
exactly what I was saying, they really do want to keep Haitians out of the USA.


The reason you describe is only one part: the other is obvious, because the flow of desperate people fleeing the country obviously reflects on that country, its gov.'s legitimacy, the morality of America's policy there, etc etc
So yeah, during US-backed brutal regimes they wanted to keep the poor black ppl from finding better lives in America, because that migration would say something about what America is doing to them in the first place
I don't entirely agree with your OPINION on this one. Although I agree the USA doesn't want more poor black people I don't think its due to fear of there involvement coming to light. Really it was going to be explosive reagrdless and the USA was happy to keep the hell out of Haiti after the fiasco of 94.
BUT


THEN, when Aristide was in power, all of a sudden America was more than happy to welcome these poor black ppl looking for a better life (who were probably far smaller in number, dont know about that for sure though)... opened up the floodgates, let them in!
The political convenience is obvious: at that time it became advantageous for the flow of desperate ppl out of the country into America to reflect on the Haitian gov.
Again your being somewaht of a revisionist on this!! What the US did was allow boatloads to land and got stuck with them. In 98 they passed HRIFA which basically said that if you were in the USA before Dec 31st of 95 you could apply for citizenship and not be sent back. They couldn't track most of these refugees down anyway and the hope was that at least this way they would be legal and not illegal. Forcing an asylum seeker back to Haiti in 97/98 would have been a political disaster.

There was also a very different policy under Clinton in regards to this.


get it?

evil, cynical isnt it?

effective, too, as you youself just demonstrated
Yeah I get what your saying but its just not accurate or able to be backed up.



what? I honestly dont really understand
but, nevertheless: whos military and police? First of all: not military (in the most recent coup). Aristide disbanded the military that was responsible for huge crimes against the Haitian people (it had backed up the previous dictators afterall)
INCLUDING HIM!!!!! He got rid of them because he was going to be over thrown by them and he knew it!


Armed gangs, largely decsended from the infamous foreign-backed military, and supported by narrow sectors of the Haitian population that enjoy enormous resources and foreign-support (of 1st world circles w/ even greater power) There were other ways we also put enormous pressure on the Lavalas gov., much like we now openly state we are trying to "undermine" hamas:
There are ways of doing this, and they can easily (be made to) result in armed violence in the target country

Especially when the whole society is very dependant on you, you have enormous influence
Easy to make a gov. even more unpopular with certain interests in its country (werent very successful in turning the poor against Lavalas though, though that occured to some extent), then to help those interests force that gov. out, then be standing by to 'help it leave',
"oh, here is a jet, Mr Aristide.
There are armed gangs approaching, I suggest you board it and sign this letter that begins: 'IF I were to resign', and dont fucking come back, who cares what your people want."


edit:
K I cant vouche for the numbers (Im assuming your caricaturizing it to some extent) (thats also something Im curious about, if anyone has any numbers like that btw), but the point is a very good one:
we could just as easily have sent troops in to protect and preserve the elected adn still-popularly supported gov. against these illegitimate armed groups (who we were likely supporting, to be realistic), and disarm the gangs

That would have been far more plausibly 'intervening to help Haitians OR protect democracy' or whatever


edit again: I"ll read the WIKI thing now Ditto

Okay prove this..

we could just as easily have sent troops in to protect and preserve the elected adn still-popularly supported gov.
prove that it was a popular government and that these troupes weren't just going to be used to gun down more people because Aristide couldn't keep his own military due to the fear that they would have removed him.

Maybe this was an unpopular puppet that the US nolonger wanted to bother to help or deal with and pulled him out before they went Romanian on his ass.
 

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Originally posted by Genesius
Please make it easy for all of us and address what exactly he is uninformed about
the popular support of Aristide is one very major item behind the main fact that he/Lavalas represent(ed) democracy that we were/are overthrowing/repressing
Originally posted by Ditto Much
He was elected in an election that was boycotted by most in the first place.
[…]
What democracy are we protecting, a guy who previously used a gun to gain power and was already kicked out of power and re-elected under dubious circumstances in the first place?
This for example is addressed repeatedly… he was Haiti’s first democratically elected president – riding a wave of a clearly predominant popular political movement with majority support
So:
a) did not use a gun to gain power
b) “kicked-out of power†by who? Not by his wide democratic movement’s support, which was still there, but by powerful minorities’ violence (foreign-backed, no less). This essentially means that massively popular democratic movement Aristide/Lavalas represented was kicked-out of power
c) re-elected under dubious circumstances? Again this is addressed repeatedly
You are uninformed, sir, but your statements are sufficiently vague (eg. which elections?) that they’re hard to counter without giving you an opportunity to retroactively pick whatever interpretation you find most convenient against whatever I say, claim to have meant that, or maybe just skip right to arguing it, but whatever you get the point

As you yourself have stated in the past, you’re good at ‘arguing’ and challenge people to ‘take you on’, and that proclamation fits the fact that your transparent approach reeks of disingenuousness.

You’re asking me to read an encyclopaedia article and state any dispute of simple facts themselves, while apparently not taking the time to read what I have written and referred to, material that dispels your assumptions. And not in some obscure way: these are the up-front, basic matters of the whole conflict

Wasn't Aristide a dictator?
Didn't he rig the 2000 elections?

=> All observers, including the OAS (Organization of American States), hailed the May 2000 legislative elections as "free and fair" with an impressive 60% turnout.
=> When it became clear that Fanmi Lavalas had won the vote by a large majority, the OAS began disputing the results for 8 of the 18 Senate seats up for election, claiming that the counting method used to tally the votes was incorrect.
=> After Aristide won the November 2000 presidential elections, he persuaded the 7 Senators from FL to resign and offered to hold new elections, but the opposition refused to participate. Subsequent offers for new elections and concessions by Aristide were similarly rejected.
=> USAID-commissioned Gallup polls taken in 2000 and 2002 consistently found Aristide and his FL party to enjoy the support of a majority of Haitians. Since the coup, representatives of the American and Canadian embassies in Haiti have admitted if free elections were held, FL would win again.
=> As animosity between government supporters and opponents increased, the opposition claimed that Aristide was using gangs, called "chimères", to maintain his power and suppress dissent.
=> While there was violence by pro-Lavalas gangs, there is no evidence linking it to Aristide, who consistently condemned acts of violence by all parties, and was vocal in his calls for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. On several occasions the government arrested prominent government supporters accused of crimes, even in the face of popular protest.
=> This violence was in the context of multiple coup attempts against Aristide and finally a full-scale invasion by the former military from the Dominican Republic (DR). In this volatile climate, from 2000 to 2003, there were at most 30 political murders attributable to pro-Lavalas forces, roughly the same as for opposition supporters and the DR-based paramilitaries. This is in no way comparable to the current repression, nor to that of the past, either during the Duvalier dictatorships or the 1991-94 coup.
Who are the rebels?
Wasn't Aristide overthrown by a popular rebellion?

=> The leaders of the rebels, Guy Philippe, Louis Jodel Chamblain, Jean "Tatoune" Baptiste and others, are high-ranking former soldiers or members of the CIA-created paramilitary FRAPH.
=> The FRAPH, along with the military, slaughtered 4,000-5,000 civilians from 1991-1994 after the 1991 coup that overthrew Aristide for the first time. Aristide thus disbanded the hated military when he returned to power in 1995.
=> Many ex-soldiers trained with the Dominican Army on military bases and received M-16s from the US. From 2000 to 2004, Guy Philippe led frequent cross-border attacks into Haiti, killing police officers and government officials.
=> The rebels overthrew Aristide after a 3-week insurgency, killing police officers, emptying jails and burning down government buildings.
=> 500 members of the former military have been integrated into the Haitian National Police (HNP), with another 500-1000 in training. Former soldiers also occupy top posts in the HNP.
=> Vast swaths of the countryside are under the control of Guy Philippe's men, who play judge, jury and executioner in the absence of any functioning justice system.
Who were the opposition?
=> The main opposition comprised the Group of 184 and the Convergence Democratique, who were financed by the U.S. and supported by the Haitian elite.
=> The Group of 184, led by sweatshop owner Andy Apaid, is a right wing coalition of 184 "civil society" (i.e. the wealthiest 15% of Haiti's population) organizations. Funded by IFES (International Foundation for Electoral Systems), which was financed by USAID, the Group of 184 led a number of anti-government demonstrations and attacked Aristide in the international media prior to the coup.
=> The Convergence Democratique (CD), financed and organized by the International Republican Institute, is a grouping of anti-Lavalas political parties composed mostly of former Aristide allies willing to implement the IMF's (International Monetary Fund) demands, popularly referred to as the "plan lanmo" (death plan) by Haitians.
=> Despite the large sums of money flowing to them, the CD was never able to poll higher than 12%.
How is Canada involved in Haiti?
[…leaving out interesting stuff for sake of brevity…]
=> Hypocritically, Canada claimed it cancelled a police training program during Aristide's presidency because of the "politicization" of the police, yet now seems totally unconcerned by the politicization of the police and the egregious abuses this is spawning.
=> Prior to the coup, Canada had cut off all aid to the elected government of Haiti and was channelling the remaining trickle of money to anti-Aristide NGOs. After the coup, however, Canada announced more than $180 million in aid to support the installed government.
=> Canada claims the aid is intended to help hold "free and credible election"; In reality, Latortue's government has done everything it can to assure that free and fair elections cannot be held, by embracing the former military as "freedom fighters" and actively repressing FL [Lavalas], the majority political party in Haiti.
=> The Caribbean Community, the African Union, and Venezuela have all refused to recognize the installed government, and the ANC, Nelson Mandela's party, has started a campaign for the return of democracy to Haiti.

=> The Canadian government, on the other hand, has gone to great lengths to legitimate Gerard Latortue's installed regime. […leaving out interesting stuff for sake of brevity…]
=> The Latortue government claimed their brutal incursions into the slums were "weapons sweeps" to disarm the "chimères", yet a recent study by the Small Arms Survey found that the vast majority of the weapons were located in the wealthier neighbourhoods, not the slums.
These are all excerpted from that Q & A

Originally posted by Ditto Much
shit I said about refugees
Yeah I get what your saying but its just not accurate or able to be backed up.
…
Again your being somewaht of a revisionist on this!!
…
There was also a very different policy under Clinton in regards to this.
I was talking about the first sequence of election/deposition
I don’t know anything about Clinton but I'm sceptical that the use of refugees’ for propaganda value changed dramatically dramatically during the 90s
Published in ’92 (after Aristide’s first “short tenureâ€):
Through the 1970s, thousands of boat people fled the ravaged island, virtually all forced to return by US officials with little notice here, the usual treatment of refugees whose suffering lacks propaganda value. In 1981, the Reagan Administration initiated a new interdiction policy. Of the more than 24,000 Haitians intercepted by the US Coast Guard in the next ten years, 11 were granted asylum as victims of political persecution, in comparison with 75,000 out of 75,000 Cubans. During Aristide's brief tenure, the flow of refugees dropped dramatically as terror abated and there were hopes for a better future. The US response was to approve far more asylum claims. Twenty-eight had been allowed during the ten years of Duvalier and post-Duvalier terror; 20 during Aristide's seven and a half months in office. After Aristide's overthrow, a new surge of boat people reached several thousand a month, most of them forcibly returned in callous disregard of the grim circumstances that awaited them. For the few permitted to apply for asylum under a new policy, treatment was hardly better. One of the first was an Aristide supporter whose application was rejected on the grounds that he suffered only "petty harassment" when soldiers raked his home with gunfire and destroyed his shop.
Year 501, w/ sources, online version (specifically, Chapter 8: “The Tragedy of Haitiâ€, segment 4 of 9)
INCLUDING HIM!!!!! He got rid of them because he was going to be over thrown by them and he knew it!
OH REALLY???????
And when exactly did the military back up Mr Aristide the dictator?
The people hated the army that had perpetrated numerous massacres and brutal oppression over the years, propping up rulers who needed that, cus they weren’t elected w/ massive popular support like a certain priest was
Also, who was behind 'the military'?
whole bunch of shit by me
Okay prove this..
“Okay prove†all of that???
Man are you asking me to be your personal researcher or something? I’m not pulling this out of my ass, not even being creative, its all well-established fact, understanding or opinion that’s not hard to find and verify
Do you really want me to give you a list of books and articles to read? I don’t mean to sound stuck up, but I’ll do it, if you want
I don’t understand how you can (apparently) pretend to be completely ignorant of international politics all of a sudden (like the simple facts of dependency), when it suits you, so that someone has to start from square one.
“Have a seat, Ditto. Okay, now these days, there are things called “Nation Statesâ€â€¦â€¦â€¦.â€
prove that it was a popular government and that these troupes weren't just going to be used to gun down more people because Aristide couldn't keep his own military due to the fear that they would have removed him.

Maybe this was an unpopular puppet that the US nolonger wanted to bother to help or deal with and pulled him out before they went Romanian on his ass.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :
Maybe you should do any reading at all on the subject.
This very simple clear factual matter (central to the whole issue) of which you are apparently completely ignorant is not even a matter of ‘which bias’ you choose.
It seems you don’t know shit, just talk it
…While taking cheap shots at others and challenging them to prove things to you without even reading what they’ve already supplied for you while you don’t know the first thing about the subject
Unless you’re just playing coy
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

deafplayer

TRIBE Member
Probably the most calm, professional, ‘establishment’-feeling article I have on it (without the ‘crazy militantism’ of ZNet-types), provides an comprehensive overview and is well-documented (where you can find lots of other good authoritative sources): “OPTION ZERO IN HAITI†New Left Review, 27, May-June 2004 - by Peter Hallward
“A very multilateral coup. Franco-American harmony and unanimous blessings from the Security Council for the overthrow of a constitutional government and crushing of popular hope, in the Western hemisphere’s poorest nation-state.â€
RE: how the style is most ‘authoritative’… I just found out the author has degrees from Oxford and Yale, teaches at the very prestigious King’s College in London
I guess that’s how you learn how to sound like you’re authoritative…

This article was written in the last days of February 2004 in response to the barrage of disinformation in the mainstream media. It was completed on February 29th, the day of President Jean Bertrand Aristide's kidnapping and deportation by US Forces.

The armed insurrection which contributed to unseating President Aristide on February 29th 2004 was the result of a carefully staged military-intelligence operation. […]
– interesting and informative article by Michel Chussudovsky (Prof. of economics at Ottawa) on what that first ‘preview’ sentence says(!), plus (heading titles sum it up well):
“The Civilian "Opposition",
“The Role of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)â€,
“The IMF's Bitter "Economic Medicine"â€,
“The 1994 US Military Interventionâ€,
“The Fate of Haitian Agricultureâ€,
“The Second Wave of IMF Reformsâ€,
“Applying the Kosovo Modelâ€,
“The Narcotics Transshipment Tradeâ€,
“Media Manipulationâ€,
and “The Militarization of the Caribbean Basinâ€
US Sponsored Coup d'Etat: The Destabilization of Haiti by Michel Chossudovsky (Feb. 29, 2004)


Haiti's de facto government will soon announce the appointment of Robert Tippenhauer as its new ambassador to Canada. Previously, Tippenhauer was the President of the first-ever Haitian-Canadian Chamber of Commerce. He says he will be arriving in Canada shortly after the early June visit to Haiti of Quebec Premier Jean Charest. Should the Canadian government accept Tippenhauer's credentials, it will mark Canada's clearest official alignment with Haiti's right-wing elites.
[…]
With Haiti as "the latest procurement hot spot" and post-war rebuilding contracts representing a US$200 billion a year business, the Toronto Star (Mar. 23, 2004) cited SNC-Lavalin as a darling on the UN's approved list of vendors. The UN doled out some $813 million in contracts in 2002. The Star cited estimates of some $100 million in potential military contracts annually for operations in Haiti.
[…]
There is scant mention of Haiti in their latest annual report, and yet this recent information reveals that SNC-Lavalin is playing a major role in the pro-coup policies of Canada and the "international community," a community which implicitly excludes the African Union, CARICOM, Venezuela and Cuba for their persistent refusal to recognize Haiti's de facto regime. Fittingly, it was SNC-Lavalin who procured the $20 million contract to build the new Canadian embassy in Port-au-Prince, perhaps the most auspicious harbinger of Canada's "long term presence" in Haiti.[…]
The Canadian Corporate Nexus in Haiti, by Anthony Fenton, Haiti Progres, 12 May 2005




As it happens, the stuff in these relatively ‘marginal’, in terms of authority, sources was just confirmed in a New York Times article a couple weeks ago (Requires subscription: (note the apologetics begin immediately, with the headline) DEMOCRACY UNDONE: Back Channels vs. Policy; Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos)

Discussed in this Haiti Progress article:
New York Times Reveals U.S. Support of 2004 Haiti Coup
[...] Indeed, Stanley Lucas, the infamous operative of the National Endowment for Democracy's International Republican Institute (IRI) in Haiti since 1998, is singled out as the principal U.S. agent responsible for ringleading Haiti's armed and "unarmed" opposition into intransigence against Aristide.

As early as July 2002, Curran was warning Washington that Lucas' role in Haiti "will, at best, lead to confusion as to U.S. policy objectives, which continue to eschew unconstitutional acts and favor negotiations and, at worst, contribute to political destabilization in Haiti."

Many will be skeptical that constitutionality and "negotiations" were ever really "U.S. policy objectives," as the terribly naive or disingenuous Curran contends. But the Times makes it clear that Lucas, by Curran's account, was central to encouraging "the opposition to stand firm, and not work with Mr. Aristide, as a way to cripple his government and drive him from power."

The story offers a penetrating account of how, "with Washington's approval, Mr. Lucas used taxpayer money to fly hundreds of opposition members - but no one from Mr. Aristide's Lavalas party - to a hotel in the Dominican Republic for political training that began in late 2002. Two leaders of the armed rebellion told The Times that they were in the same hotel during some of those meetings, but did not attend."

Those two leaders - Guy Philippe and Paul Arcelin - may have had secret back-room meetings at the luxurious Santo Domingo Hotel with Lucas and other "civil" opposition leaders, the Times reports. Politician Marc Bazin's representatives, who attended the 2002 meetings in Santo Domingo, told their boss that "more was going on than routine political training."


"The report I got from my people was that there were two meetings - open meetings where democracy would be discussed and closed meetings where other things would be discussed, and we are not invited to the other meetings," Bazin told the Times.

"Mr. Bazin said people who had attended the closed meetings told him that 'there are things you don't know' - that Mr. Aristide would ultimately be removed and that he should stop calling for compromise," Bogdanich and Nordberg write.
[…]
The story also implies that Clinton and the Democrats were somehow less meddling and more well-meaning than Bush's administration. In fact, there are only differences of approach and style. Since the U.S. intervention in 1994, Clinton demanded neoliberal reform, denied Aristide the three years he'd spent in exile, and exerted heavy political pressure on the government of President René Préval. Clinton began the U.S. aid cut-off to Haiti in 2000 when Préval was still in office.
 
Last edited:
Top