|
|
 |
POLITICA >> Foreign Policy | ||||
Menu
|
Politica is a forum for independent analysis of political events around the World |
|||||
|
Essays and debate forum |
||||||
Franco-American subversion in Haïti - 15/03/04Poverty and armed rebellion, what a terrible way for Haïti to celebrate its 200 years of independence. The official story runs something like this: the former Priest Aristide has betrayed the hopes of his people and turned into an incompetent despot. However, further analysis reveals this to be a dangerously misleading view, aimed at justifying yet another attempt by the US (and France) to suppress the emergence of a socialist democracy, in a small, impoverished and defenceless country. Aristide's crime, as will be explained below, was attempting to address issues such as poverty, education and health care instead of selling the country to foreign interests. President Aristide, originally a priest, was Haiti's first democratically elected president, and came to power in 1990, after years of standing up for social justice and defying the brutal dictatorship of Jean-Claude "Baby Doc" Duvalier. One year later, a CIA-sponsored army coup removed him from office. After three years of tacit approval for the dictatorship, the US decided to stem the politically awkward flow of Haïtian refugees to Florida by restoring Aristide. It took 20,000 U.S. troops to restore him to power in 1994, a friendly gesture that came with many conditions attached, such as adhering to a neoliberal "restructuration programme", which was devastating for Haïti's shattered economy, but agreeable to US business interests. The programme involved containing the social aspirations of his people, so that "foreign investment" (otherwise known as exploitation) may thrive. These "austerity" measures drafted by the International Financial Institutions (IMF, World Bank) rapidly worsened the economic situation of the poorest sections of Haïtian society. For example, the Haïtian market was flooded with subsidised US rice, forcing local farmers out of business. When Haïti fined US rice importers for evading duty, $30 million in US aid were cut off. Ironically, the IMF and World Bank-imposed "structural adjustments", which were beyond his control, are what lost him grassroots support, whilst his commitment to redistribution of wealth (i.e. caring for the poor) lost him the support of the international community. When his grip on power began to decline, he did give his tacit support to armed gangs of supporters known as the Chimères, who were responsible for violent actions, but nothing on the scale of the ex-death-squad rebels. At the same time, even if he had had the utmost good will, he would have been restrained by a lack of support and resources. He inherited one of the world's poorest countries, and the Bush administration perpetuated a ban on direct aid, and froze $500 million of much-needed international foreign aid, as will be explained below. Despite the economic straightjacket imposed by his "saviours", Aristide was able to implement some of his policies of civic engagement. For example, he refused to abandon all his principles, refused the indiscriminate privatisation of state resources, and decided to maintain state assistance to the poor for minimum wages, health care and education. This crime of caring about his people would be his downfall. Not surprisingly, Aristide also decided to disband the army, a source of political instability in the country, and a danger to democracy. The rebel movement in 2004 was composed of ex-members of this army, which had been the instrument of successive dictatorships. The rebel leader Guy Philippe, a former army officer, has pledged to reinstate the army. These rebels, who present themselves as the liberators of Haiti, have a violent past. For example, two of Guy Philippe's top aides, Jean Tatoune (Jean-Pierre Baptiste) and Louis Jodel, were leaders of the CIA-backed FRAPH death squads that killed and terrorised hundreds of democracy supporters in the early 1990s during the military dictatorship. They are both convicted murderers. Philippe was trained by US Special Forces in Ecuador in the 1990s, and then returned to Haiti where he became a particularly brutal police chief. He came to fame, and was exiled, for trying to organise a failed coup against Aristide in 2000. The uncompromising nature of the armed rebellion was revealed when, after a week of half-hearted negotiations involving Colin Powell, Aristide accepted a power-sharing peace accord, which the rebels categorically rejected. As the rebels advanced, hundreds of Haitian refugees began fleeing the island and making their way to the United States. The prospect of these unwelcome visitors pouring into Florida, may have encouraged the Bush administration to abandon any pretence of support for the socialist Aristide, whom they profoundly disliked in the first place. The U.S. coastguard intercepted and repatriated more than 800 boat people, even though they were fleeing for their lives from a violent armed conflict. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam, as well as other Human Rights groups, condemned this forced return of refugees into a zone of deadly conflict. Worse, even after Aristide's departure, and several attempts at mediation by the international community, including the Caribbean Community (Caricom), the rebels still invaded the capital, revealing their movement to be nothing more than a classic Haitian power-grab. As for the 'political opposition', they are mainly drawn from the privileged, French-speaking mulatto elites of Haiti, which control over 50% of the country's wealth but represent less than 8% of the population. They oppose Aristide because he has associated himself with improving the lives of the poor (albeit not very successfully). Here, parallels can be drawn with the "political opposition" to President Chavez of Venezuela, which is driven by a wealthy elite and large businesses, whilst Chavez retains enormous popularity with the poor, whose lives he seeks to improve (more successfully than Aristide). The main opposition group, the "Group of 184", is led by Andy Apaid, an American Citizen, and a supporter of the ousted Duvalier dictatorship. As in Venezuela, the USA has chosen to support a privileged elite, which has no chance of winning any fair elections, but is keen to support US business interests. In reality, US interference with Haïti began a long time before the present crisis. Washington first sent the Marines in 1915, and the military occupation lasted almost 20 years (and although the military occupation ended in 1934, the USA retained fiscal control over Haiti until 1947). During this recolonisation period, the Americans used Haitians for forced labour, leading to a rebellion in which several thousand Haitians were killed. Over the years, the US continued to interfere, by imposing a Constitution (as they did more recently in Iraq) giving free rein to American corporations (think of pre-Castro Cuba), and maintained friendly regimes in place (friendly to them, not to the population). More recently, they backed the murderous and repressive Duvalier dictatorship, which plundered what was left of Haiti's wealth. Under the Duvalier Dynasty, customs taxes were abolished, the minimum wage kept at minimal levels, labour unions suppressed, and American companies allowed to repatriate their profits. Altogether a nice place to invest…Even under Aristide, the major produce and natural resources of Haïti (sugar, bauxite and sisal) were exploited by American corporations whilst large American businesses such as Disney exploited the cheap labour in local sweatshops to produce goods for the American market. So from any standpoint, the USA is far from a neutral party. Indeed, the Bush administration is guilty of a common, but cryptic form of aggression: economic strangulation. After the contested elections in 2000 (contested by the Organisation of American States, that is), when Aristide was re-elected following a boycott by opposition parties, the US, EU and International Financial Institutions froze further financial aid to Haïti (even though he was recognized as the democratically elected leader of Haïti by the international community). But a more careful look at these "contested elections" reveals, in the words of the International Coalition of Independent Observers, that although the election process may have been flawed, "fair and peaceful elections were held" in 2000. Fairer, in fact, than the contested US elections that same year. What was contested was not Aristide's overwhelming victory in the Presidential contest, but Senatorial elections earlier in the year, where the vote-counting system was challenged after the results (which had caused no stir BEFORE the elections). Aristide persuaded seven of the eight Senators who had acquired their seats in controversial votes to resign, but the International Financial Institutions maintained their embargo. It seems, the US and friends were taken aback in 2000 by the amount of popular support retained by a "socialist", and feared that his wealth redistribution programme might actually work. Action had to be taken to prevent the catastrophe of a successful socialist government, a government preferring to engage in its civic duties rather than sell Haïti's remaining assets to the highest bidder. Indeed, this might set a bad example in the region. The consequent freeze on funds by the International Financial Institutions is in sharp contrast to the free flow of foreign aid to Haïti during the brutal and kleptocratic Duvalier dictatorship (between 1956 and 1986), even though only an infinitely small proportion was ever reaching those in need. The post-2000 embargo was criminal because it had devastating effects on one of the poorest and most fragile societies in the world: in the year 2002, the life expectancy of Haïtians fell to less than 50 years, and 40% of the population now has no access to medical care. According to a report by the Interamerican Development Bank (itself implementing the embargo), this embargo is the principal reason for the stagnation of the Haïtian economy. The sole reason the Interamerican Development Bank froze funds to Haïti was the use of the US veto within the institution, stating the requirement for Aristide to befriend the opposition (representing the business interests of a wealthy elite). The true reason may be that Aristide refused US demands to privatise Haïtian state monopolies after his re-election, and extended diplomatic recognition to Cuba. The decision to freeze funds for Haïti for political reasons was a breach of the Bank's charter, which forbids it to interfere with the political process of member states. The blocked grants had been intended for emergency support of the collapsing health system, or providing access to safe drinking water. As a result, diseases such a typhoid have made a massive comeback in Haïti, mostly killing children. The motivations of the French are different from those of Washington, but also contributed to the removal of Aristide. France, like the USA, wanted to stop a massive wave of emigration which would have seen thousands of refugees fleeing to its Caribbean possessions such as Martinique and Guadeloupe. Apparently, extending a helping hand to desperate citizens of an ex-colony is not on the French agenda. Secondly, the ex-colonial power has never truly recovered from being defeated by Toussaint Louverture in 1804. Although they eventually captured the Haïtian hero and imposed disastrous indemnity payments on the Caribbean state, the independence of Haïti was a severe blow to the French Empire. Aristide's insistence for France to repay the "independence fine" (which today would amount to $22 billion in repayments) may not have ingratiated him with the current French leadership, and may explain why France was the first to call for his resignation. After losing this precious colony, France was no longer able to resist US pressures for the cessation of Louisiana, which it was forced to sell to Jefferson for a pittance in 1805. In any case, France is always keen to get involved in the destiny of its former colonies: when the Haïtian dictator "Baby Doc" Duvalier was finally forced out of power in 1986, he fled to France, where he still lives. Secondly, Chirac may see this joint operation as a means to mend fences with the Bush administration after the confrontations over Iraq. This political opportunism is hardly surprising, but not particularly good news for the people of Haïti. However, despite the insistence of the French and Americans, it seems Aristide never actually resigned. Certainly, he was instructed to by them, but from his Central African exile, he maintains that France and the USA forced him out, in what amounts to a coup d'état. These two countries most certainly made public statements encouraging him to step down, and the US Steele Foundation, which had provided his bodyguards, suddenly pulled out of Haiti during the rebellion after being told that the Marines would not come to their assistance if the rebels overcame them. Given those two countries previous record of interference in the Caribbean nation, his claims must be taken seriously. Indeed, Caricom has decided his claims are worth investigating, as has the government of South Africa. The African Union has declared his ouster "anticonstitutional". Despite the precipitous swearing-in of the Haïtian Head of the Supreme Court (Boniface Alexandre) as interim president, Aristide should be restored to power as soon as possible. Moreover, Aristide may have been unpopular in some quarters, and Haïti under Aristide may have still been a poor, corrupt and sometimes violent place, but it was a definite improvement when compared to the dictatorships that preceded his arrival. Under Aristide, Haïti became a true democracy, and a vibrant civil society developed. Despite economic woes imposed by the embargo, Aristide always had massive support among the people whose lives he sought to improve, albeit ineffectively. Thousands of his supporters have recently demonstrated in the streets to ask for his return, and are resisting what they see as a foreign invasion. Whatever the causes, the consequences of the uprising are bad, although not the bloodbath that some might have predicted. UNICEF believes that many children have died of pneumonia or diarrhoea following the uprising, not to mention the civilians (somewhere near 100) killed during the armed insurrection, and the violence is not over. According to the UN, health care in Haiti is at a minimum, because the hospitals were looted. What Haiti needs now is for the UN to help restore Aristide to finish his mandate, this time armed with immediate international assistance, and the rapid replacement of French and US troops by a multinational force, after they have disarmed the rebels. Caricom has announced it will be boycotting the UN peacekeeping force, because of the way Aristide was ousted. Caricom had called for an emergency UN peacekeeping mission three days before the overthrow of Aristide. However, the UN Security Council only authorised peacekeepers until after Aristide had left, when the US announced it would be sending Marines. Once these marines arrived, however, they made no effort to disarm the rebels. As for international assistance, it will have to be more than mere promises. In 1994, when Aristide was reinstated, the international community pledged $500 million in aid, yet none of this ever materialised. In the words of Norman Solomon, "A truly humanitarian foreign policy, offering no-strings assistance like food and medicine on a massive scale, is an option that deserves to be part of the media discourse in the United States" (not to mention France). Unfortunately, the world is still very far from such a true humanitarian intervention. References · Anonymous.
11/03/04. New PM urges Haitians to Unite. BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/34999000.stm |
||||||
|
||||||