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:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 21, 2017
Sharmini Peries - Michael Hudson
Finance as Warfare: the IMF Lent to Greece Knowing It Could Never Pay Back Debt
CJ Hopkins
Goose-stepping Our Way Toward Pink Revolution
John Wight
Firestarter: the Unwelcome Return of Tony Blair
Roger Harris
Lenin Wins: Pink Tide Surges in Ecuador…For Now
Shepherd Bliss
Japanese American Internment Remembered, as Trump Rounds Up Immigrants
Boris Kagarlitsky
Trump and the Contradictions of Capitalism
Robert Fisk
The Perils of Trump Addiction
Deepak Tripathi
Theresa May: Walking the Kingdom Down a Dark Alley
Sarah Anderson
To Save Main Street, Tax Wall Street
Howard Lisnoff
Those Who Plan and Enjoy Murder
Franklin Lamb
The Life and Death Struggle of the Children of Syria
Binoy Kampmark
A Tale of Two Realities: Trump and Israel
Kim C. Domenico
Body and Soul: Becoming Men & Women in a Post-Gender Age
Mel Gurtov
Trump, Europe, and Chaos
Stephen Cooper
Steinbeck’s Road Map For Resisting Donald Trump
February 20, 2017
Bruce E. Levine
Humiliation Porn: Trump’s Gift to His Faithful…and Now the Blowback
Melvin Goodman
“Wag the Dog,” Revisited
Robert Hunziker
Fukushima: a Lurking Global Catastrophe?
David Smith-Ferri
Resistance and Resolve in Russia: Memorial HRC
Kenneth Surin
Global India?
Norman Pollack
Fascistization Crashing Down: Driving the Cleaver into Social Welfare
Patrick Cockburn
Trump v. the Media: a Fight to the Death
Susan Babbitt
Shooting Arrows at Heaven: Why is There Debate About Battle Imagery in Health?
Matt Peppe
New York Times Openly Promotes Formal Apartheid Regime By Israel
David Swanson
Understanding Robert E. Lee Supporters
Michael Brenner
The Narcissism of Donald Trump
Martin Billheimer
Capital of Pain
Thomas Knapp
Florida’s Shenanigans Make a Great Case for (Re-)Separation of Ballot and State
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail