a1072: Re: Assuming the U.S. truly wants to help Haiti (Saint-Vil reponds to Durban) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Jean Saint-Vil <jafrikayiti@hotmail.com>

Lance Durban wrote:

«...the underlying assumption ... is that the U.S. truly wants to help
Haiti.  Regrettably, there are many in Corbettland and beyond who would
question that very assumption».

Perhaps, the following matter-of-fact statements made in recent Washington
Post articles can help elucidate why many Haitians and other folks question
that assumption:

«...the United States has turned to, among others, Emmanuel "Toto" Constant,
a CIA operative who headed a brutal paramilitary squad in the early 1990s,
and U.S.-trained former military men Jean-Jacques Nau and Guy Philippe, who
have been implicated in recent coup attempts».

See Washington Post, Monday, March 4, 2002; Page A14.

Is this a bold admission that Guy Philippe was indeed working with the U.S.
government on December 17th, 2001 - when his men attacked the National
Palace and killed a number of people in Port-au-Prince?

What in the reaction of the U.S. Ambassador and other U.S. officials to the
Dec 17th events can lead one to believe otherwise? Contrary to the
overwhelming evidence available, aren't U.S. Officials still trying to flip
reality up-side down, portraying the Dec 17th events as an attack which
mainly victimised opposition parties?

An opposition that, it must be remembered, the Washington Post said to be a
creature of the infamous U.S. International Republican Institute (IRI) and
whose agenda is described in the following details:

«..The most determined of these men, with a promise of anonymity, freely
express their desire to see the U.S. military intervene once again, this
time to get rid of Aristide and rebuild the disbanded Haitian army. "That
would be the cleanest solution," said one opposition party leader. Failing
that, they say, the CIA should train and equip Haitian officers exiled in
the neighboring Dominican Republic so they could stage a comeback
themselves.»  Washington Post, Feb 2, 2001.

Isn't this exactly what happened 11 months after the publication of this
prophetic article (on Dec 17th, 2001)?  Please note that Feb 2, 2001
(publication date of the Post' article) is 5 days BEFORE President Aristide
even took office on Feb 7th 2001.

The «most determined men» of whom the article speaks are the very ones the
current U.S. Administration have been helping so very openly and
shamelessly. Why is it then considered odd, when one takes the U.S.'s
actions at face value?

Are these Washington Post quotes wrong, misleading? Can anyone who believes
in the well-meaning U.S.A thesis please try to rationalize their way through
this dilemma for us?

Note also that these matter-of-fact statements are burried in articles that
are very unfavourable to Lavalas. As is often the case these days, such
articles have very catchy anti-Lavalas titles, introductory paragraphs and
key messages - perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Lavalas government
and its defense attorneys seldom refer to them.  If so, they are making a
grave mistake in my humble opinion ! We all know how sophisticated the
overall readership is. People read the whole article, including the fine
prints - not just the titles, right?

Folks, it is time we stop lying to ourselves. What we are talking about here
is not simply, the U.S., France, and others defending their economic
interests - promoting free enterprise, securing markets for U.S. and
European products etc...we are certainly NOT dealing with an international
effort to defend democracy, human rights or any of those «front
preoccupations».

Not agreeing with a government is one thing. Not liking a foreign
Head-of-State is everyone's perrogative. Criticizing him, exposing his «bad»
actions is fair game in our selective democracy. Using political, diplomatic
and journalistic terrorism to pressure him in defence of your own financial
and political interests - while pretending you are defending «democracy» is
disloyal but understandable - we are all aldults here, this game is 500
years old already. But, shouldn't the buck stop somewhere after that?

What's the point of denying what the U.S. government itself seems to openly
project.

It really baffles me that normal people, let alone «friends of Haiti», can
find it acceptable that evidence is pointing to the CIA (a legal agency of
the U.S. government) being actively involved in assassination plots against
Haiti's president and people?

Yours - in the name of truth and justice,

Jafrikayiti

BTW: since some people have referred to agents paid by President Aristide to
defend «his» cause against the attacks of other agents on this list, I would
like to openly state the fact that only I have full responsibility for
everything I write here and my conscience is my only guide and remunerator.
As, the Haitian people said in 1990 «se pa pou lajan non!». Si gen pou
mouri, m ap mouri pou lajistis ak laverite epi pou de tou je m - and without
regrets!

"It is unfortunate that Britain and, to some extent, the EU, has taken the
position that in Africa, free
and fair elections MUST be won by the opposition" -  someone named «Moyo»
commenting on the eurocentric gang-up against Zimbabwe  - applicable à
Haiti, non ? I am sure M. Killick wouldn't agree.



Jafrikayiti
«Depi nan Ginen bon nèg ap ede nèg!»
http://www.i-port.net/sd-in-j/


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx