FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Impediment to Democracy in Haiti

by MARK WEISBROT

When the “international community” blames Haiti for its political troubles, the underlying concept is usually that Haitians are not ready for democracy.  But it is Washington that is not ready for democracy in Haiti.

Haitians have been ready for democracy for many decades. They were ready when they got massacred at polling stations, trying to vote in 1987 after the fall of the murderous Duvalier dictatorship. They were ready again in 1990, when they voted by a two-thirds majority for the leftist Catholic priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide, only to see him overthrown seven months later in a military coup.  The coup was later found to be organized by people paid by the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

Haitians were ready again in 2000 when they elected Aristide a second time with 90 percent of the vote. But Washington would not accept the results of that election either, so it organized a cut-off of international aid to the government and poured millions into the opposition.  As Paul Farmer (Bill Clinton’s Deputy Special Envoy of the UN to Haiti) testified to the U.S. Congress in 2010:

“Choking off assistance for development and for the provision of basic services also choked off oxygen to the government, which was the intention all along: to dislodge the Aristide administration.”

In 2004 Aristide was whisked away in one of those planes that the U.S. government has used for “extraordinary rendition,” and taken involuntarily to the Central African Republic.

Eight years later, the U.S. government is still not ready for democracy in Haiti.  On March 3rd the Miami Herald reported that “Former Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is once again in the cross hairs of the U.S. government, this time for allegedly pocketing millions of dollars in bribes from Miami businesses . . .”

Everything about these latest allegations smells foul, like the outhouses that haven’t been cleaned for months in some of the camps where hundreds of thousands of Haitians displaced by the earthquake still languish.

First, the source:  Patrick Joseph was the head of Haiti’s national telecommunications company (Teleco) until he was fired by then President Aristide for corruption in 2003. Fast forward nine years:  last month Joseph negotiates a guilty plea with U.S. federal prosecutors for accepting $2.3 million in bribes from U.S. companies.  Facing a long prison sentence, he tells them that about half the money was for President Aristide.  How convenient. That should knock a few years off his prison time.

Then there is the timing of the new charges.  The first indictment in this case, in 2009, doesn’t mention Aristide or anyone who could be him.  The same is true for the second indictment, in July 2011, which added Patrick Joseph.  But the January 2012 indictment mentions an unidentified “Official B” of the Haitian government;  and now we are told that  “Official B,” according to one of the defense attorneys in the case, is Aristide.  How does he know?  Obviously the U.S. Justice Department, which has no comment on the matter, told him that, so he could tell the press.

Why now?  Aristide has been very quiet and has stayed out of politics since his return to Haiti a year ago. He has focused on the University of the Aristide Foundation; closed since the 2004 coup, the medical school was able to reopen this past fall. But he still has the biggest base of any political figure in the country, the only really popular, democratically elected leader that Haiti has ever had.  His party, Fanmi Lavalas, is still the most popular political party, and although it was wracked by political divisions while Aristide was in exile, it has reportedly become more unified since he has returned.  Demonstrations on the eight-year anniversary of the 2004 coup – two weeks ago – drew thousands into the streets.

“The display of popular support for Aristide is very worrisome to the U.S., so indicting Titid [Aristide] before a potential comeback makes perfect sense,” Robert Fatton, a Haiti expert at the University of Virginia, told the Miami Herald.

It makes even more sense if you look at what the U.S. government – in collaboration with UN officials and other allies — has been doing to Aristide since they organized the 2004 coup against him.  A classified U.S. document, unearthed by Wikileaks, reports on a meeting between the then top-ranking State Department official for the hemisphere (Thomas Shannon), and the head of the UN military mission in Haiti (Edumnd Mulet), in 2006. It describes their efforts to keep Aristide in exile in South Africa. Mulet also “urged U.S. legal action against Aristide to prevent the former president from gaining more traction with the Haitian population and returning to Haiti.”

This latest episode is part of the “legal action” referred to in the document.  So, too, were Washington’s attempts to go after Aristide with trumped-up charges of involvement in drug trafficking in 2004. These were also reliant on a convicted felon, a drug dealer facing a long prison sentence.  That case went nowhere, for the same reasons that this one will go nowhere: no evidence.

In a last-ditch, illegal effort to prevent Aristide from returning to his home country last year, President Obama called South African President Jacob Zuma to persuade him to keep Aristide there.  He also lobbied UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, but to no avail.

The U.S. government has spent millions and possibly tens of millions of dollars trying to railroad Haiti’s former president.  On behalf of U.S. taxpayers, we could use a Congressional inquiry into this abuse of our tax dollars. It also erodes what we have left of an independent judiciary to have federal courts in Florida used as an instrument of foreign policy skullduggery.

In Haiti, these attempts to deny people democratic rights tend to lead to instability.  Imagine trying to tell Brazilians that former president Lula da Silva could not participate in politics in Brazil, and threatening to prosecute him in U.S. courts.  Or doing the same to Evo Morales in Bolivia, or Rafael Correa, in Ecuador.  It would never be tolerated.

Yet because Haitians are poor and black, Washington thinks it can get away trampling on their democratic rights.  But too many Haitians have fought and died for these rights, and they will not give them up so easily.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This article originally appeared in The Guardian

Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, D.C. and president of Just Foreign Policy. He is also the author of  Failed: What the “Experts” Got Wrong About the Global Economy (Oxford University Press, 2015).

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
Pete Dolack
Killing Ourselves With Technology
David Krieger
The 10 Worst Acts of the Nuclear Age
Lamont Lilly
Movement for Black Lives Yields New Targets of the State
Martha Rosenberg
A Hated Industry Fights Back
Robert Fantina
Hillary, Gloria and Jill: a Brief Look at Alternatives
Chris Doyle
No Fireworks: Bicentennial Summer and the Decline of American Ideals
Michael Doliner
Beyond Dangerous: the Politics of Climate
Colin Todhunter
Modi, Monsanto, Bayer and Cargill: Doing Business or Corporate Imperialism?
Steve Church
Brexit: a Rush for the Exits!
Matthew Koehler
Mega Corporation Gobbles Up Slightly Less-Mega Corporation; Chops Jobs to Increase Profits; Blames Enviros. Film at 11.
David Green
Rape Culture, The Hunting Ground, and Amy Goodman: a Critical Perspective
Ed Kemmick
Truckin’: Pro Driver Dispenses Wisdom, Rules of the Road
Alessandro Bianchi
“China Will React if Provoked Again: You Risk the War”: Interview with Andre Vltchek
Christy Rodgers
Biophilia as Extreme Sport
Missy Comley Beattie
At Liberty
Ron Jacobs
Is Everything Permitted?
Cesar Chelala
The Sad Truth About Messi
Charles R. Larson
A Review of Mary Roach’s “Grunt”
David Yearsley
Stuck in Houston on the Cusp of the Apocalypse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail