6420: CIA and 1991 coup: Chamberlain answers Saint-Vil (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

Jean Saint-Vil writes:


> Something strange caught my attention

>Greg Chamberlain stated:
>> « The "opposition" had little to do with the 1991 coup, which was 
>> carried out by police chief Michel Francois largely as a personal 
>> vengeance, encouraged by some of the bourgeoisie. »

> Considering that one of the questions asked by Kathy was whether 
> Mr. Chamberlain believes that the CIA is a fictitious organization, 
> that it has nothing to do with all the coup d'état it has been said to 
> conduct in the Americas, the above statement by Mr. Chamberlain 
> is quite striking and noteworthy.
_____________

I didn't say the CIA had nothing to do with the 1991 coup.  I have no idea 
if it was involved.  Maybe it was to an extent, maybe it wasn't.  However, 
many people are keen to see a conspiracy or a cover-up so they can 
enjoy their quasi-religious belief that the CIA ran the whole thing from 
start to finish.  I don't know the answer, but I'll be darned if I'm going
to 
invent one out of wishful thinking or personal inability to bear the 
uncertainty of there being no clear answer.


> Are we now to believe that Michel François acted "largely" on his own. 

Maybe.  Is there any interesting and sustainable evidence to the
contrary, rather than presentation of a blind belief ?  I have absolutely 
no problem with accepting evidence that the CIA ran the whole thing.  
But where is the evidence?  And it's not good enough to say, as one 
Haitian politician -- who I like and respect, and is respected by many
here,
especially on the left -- once said to me about something else:  "The fact 
there is no evidence _is_ the evidence that it happened that way."  
Evidence can eventually be found if there is any.  Just don't say it's been
found before it has.  


> How "large" should we understand this statement. 

I don't know.  I didn't write that in tablets of stone.  We can all draw
our 
own conclusions from what freely available information there is on 
Francois and his activities before the coup, along with the interesting 
relations between the army and Aristide at the time.


> Does it mean Lynn Garrison (the anglo-Canadian from Calgary), Raoul 
> Cedras (condemned criminal whose house rental is said to be to this day 
> collected and managed on his behalf by U.S. "officials" in Haiti), 
> Toto Constant (condemned criminal who lives free and at large in 
> New-York)....and the countless others whose name were stricken by 
> U.S officials from the 60,000 pages of FRAPH-FAdH documents stolen 
> by the invading U.S. army in 1994...all had nothing to do with the CIA ?

Some of the above is demonstrably true.  Toto C's current situation and his
work in Haiti for the CIA (though to some, absurdly, that means he must've
run the whole country...) and the plight of the stolen documents is indeed 
mixed up with the CIA.  As for Garrison and Cedras's house, there's no 
demonstrable link that I know of.  But how does all that prove the CIA ran 
the coup?  Guilt by association is an old favourite and can be amusing 
(but more often tragic).  You are asking readers to make a leap of faith, 
while hoping they don't notice they're doing so and still think they're
using 
their reason 100%.


> Please can the investigative journalists enlighten us here?

Why not?  But let's beware of those with a disguised agenda (of left or
right)
who pretend to be open-minded about reaching a conclusion.  But why 
leave it to journalists?  The method's simple.  We can all examine
evidence.  
Trouble is, many aren't too interested in doing the work.


        Greg Chamberlain