18736: Dredwerks: Another Version of the Haitian TRUTH (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dredwerks <waraba@dredwerks.com>

Media vs. Reality in Haiti


 posted by Tipa Tipa on Tuesday February 17 2004 @ 11:06AM PST


  Media vs. Reality in Haiti by Anthony Fenton; February 13, 2004
Judging by the corporate media’s recent coverage of the crisis in Haiti, one
might be led to believe that they are “aiding and abetting” an attempted
coup d’etat aimed at the democratically elected Jean Bertand Aristide. On a
daily basis, mainstream international media is churning out stories provided
mainly by the Associated Press and Reuters that have little basis in fact.

On Feb. 10th, the Globe and Mail, Canada’s main national daily, reprinted an
AP article that relied on Haiti’s elite-owned Radio Vision 2000. [1] This
article contrasted the recent “violent uprising” in Gonaives, Haiti’s
fourth-largest city, with the 1986 uprising that saw the overthrow of the
oppressive Duvalier dictatorship. The inevitable conclusion that the
Canadian readership is steered toward is that Aristide is, or could be, a
dictator, who may or may not deserve what he is about to get. This is hardly
the kind of context that will compel citizens to lend support to the
embattled Haitians.

The Globe’s paul Knox has been reporting from Haiti since Feb. 11th, and has
submitted two stories thus far, neither of which have strayed from the
“disinformation loop” which sees the recycling of dubious elite-spawned
information by the corporate press corps. [see Pina] The same context as
above is given credence - that Aristide faces a legitimate opposition that
has every right to support his violent overthrow. Knox quotes Charles Baker,
a wealthy factory owner who says: “We are all fighting for the same thing.
Aristide has to resign.” [2]

Canada’s other national daily, the National Post [also considered the more
‘right wing’ of the two dailies] has no problem running headlines like the
one featured on February 13th website: “Rock-throwing Aristide militants
force opponents to cancel protest march.” [3] Nowhere in the article is
President Aristide’s press release mentioned, which condemned the
obstruction of the protest, and called for the constitutional right of
peaceful demonstration to be adhered to.

Interestingly, the corporate media has neglected to mention that the
“opposition” to which they refer and repeatedly give legitimacy to, only
represents a meagre 8 per cent of registered voters in Haiti, according to a
US poll conducted in 2000. According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
[COHA], “their only policy goal seems to be reconstituting the army and the
implementation of rigorous structural adjustment programs.” [4] As corporate
journalists rely on the opposition for little more than inflammatory
soundbites, information that would otherwise be sought to lend their efforts
credibility is repeatedly overlooked.

US Congresswoman Maxine Waters issued a press release Feb. 11th, on the
heels of her recent visit to Haiti, that called on the Bush administration
to join her in condemning the “so-called opposition” and, specifically,
Andre Apaid Jr., who is a “Duvalier supporter” that, along with his Group of
184, is “attempting to instigate a bloodbath in Haiti and then blame the
government for the resulting disaster in the belief that the U.S. will aid
the so-called protestors against President Aristide.” [5]

She also took aim at the World Bank and IMF and their “continuing embargo” ,
which amounts to hundreds of millions of desperately needed funds. Rep.
Waters outlined the following positive measures that Aristide has initiated:

“Under his leadership, the Haitian government has made major investments in
agriculture, public transportation and infrastructure…The government
[recently] doubled the minimum wage from 36 to 70 gourdes per day, despite
strong opposition from the business community…President Aristide has also
made health care and education national priorities. More schools were built
in Haiti between 1994 and 2000 than between 1804 and 1994. The government
expanded school lunch and school bus programs and provides a 70% subsidy for
schoolbooks and uniforms”

Rep. Waters made clear assertions on Aristide’s behalf that are otherwise
absent from Bush administration commentary and corporate media deceptions
regarding Haiti. Waters completed her statement with an important appeal,
which called on the corporate media to “discontinue the practice of
repeating rumours and innuendos,” whereby they function as “international
megaphones for the opposition. They lie shamelessly on a daily basis.”

Another Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, directly challenged Colin Powell in a
formal letter to him February 12th, after Powell had announced that the US
administration is “not interested in regime change” in Haiti. Said Lee: “It
appears that the US is aiding and abetting the attempt to violently topple
the Aristide government. With all due respect, this looks like “regime
change”…Our actions – or inaction – may be making things worse.” [6]

In a press conference Wednesday, Aristide called for peace and a democratic
resolution to the unrest ongoing in Haiti. He once again called on the
opposition to rationally discuss things with his government so that they can
work toward an equitable resolution.

Now would seem to be a good opportunity for broad-based social justice
groups to galvanize around the critical issue of Haiti. Haitians are
desperately in need of popular international support if they are to overcome
the latest onslaught. With history as our guide, we should be extremely wary
when one side of the US administration’s mouth promotes “democracy and
freedom” and a “peaceful resolution” to the situation in Haiti, while out of
the other they support the interests of such players as André Apaid Jr. The
statements of some US representatives are encouraging. Others are somewhat
flaky.

In a conversation today with Congressman Gregory Meeks, his slippery
position was made quite clear. Meeks’s “primary concern is democracy” and
the promotion of democracy does not entail “taking sides”. This is a
familiar position that is being trumpeted, whereby the US supports democracy
but is not willing to actively support the democratically elected leader.
The Miami Herald made note today that the Congressional Black Caucus, whose
position is supported by Meeks, “is calling for an end to the violence in
Haiti but not repeating its traditional support of Aristide.” [emphasis
mine]

These are some dangerous indications, considering that Haitian towns remain
under illegal siege by former paramilitary members, who – according to
Pina – “Gathered in the Dominican and are now brandishing brand new M16s.”
Pina also made note that the Dominican Republic is known to have recently
received a shipment of 20,000 American made M16s.

Since a great deal of the current problems plaguing Haiti stem from dire
economic issues, we should now turn to these. In his 1997 book, “Haiti in
the New World Order”, Alex Dupuy sums up the US disposition toward Haiti:

“For the foreign policy intelligentsia, the defense and promotion of
democracy and the free market serve as the “grander vision” underlying U.S.
policy objectives in the new world order…Democracy is not likely to take
hold unless its corollaries – a free market economy and a free trade
system – are also fostered.” [7]

The logic of the State Department, according to COHA, sees Aristide as
“little more than a ‘beardless Castro’”, who was despised by Jesse Helms, a
tradition that is being carried on by his “ideological heirs” in the State
Department, Roger Noriega and Otto Reich. We should recall that this sort of
attitude was prominent over a decade ago, when Aristide was first elected
President.

In 1991, Aristide was overthrown by the brutal paramilitary, led by former
CIA employees Emmanuel Constant and Raoul Cedras. The massive influx of
refugees fleeing Haiti from the brutal FRAPH paramilitary regime, in
addition to a groundswell of domestic support for Haiti, forced Clinton to
“restore democracy” to Haiti in 1994. Aristide, having his way cleared by US
troops, returned to Haiti recognized internationally as its legitimate
leader.

Aristide’s return was only made possible when he “embraced the Haitian
bourgeoisie and accepted a U.S. occupation and Washington’s neoliberal
agenda.” As Noam Chomsky has detailed, “The Aristide government [was] to
keep to a standard "structural adjustment" package, with foreign funds
devoted primarily to debt repayment and the needs of the business sectors,
and with an "open foreign investment policy." [8]

By then, the neoliberal agenda has become entrenched as part of the New
World Order, which was designed to respond to “the South’s plea for justice,
equity, and democracy in the global society.” This agenda has led others
such as Susan George to sum it up as such:

“Neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with its dogmatic
doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving institutions and perhaps most
important of all, its hell for heathen and sinners who dare to contest the
revealed truth.” [9]

The World Bank predicted in 1996 that up to 70 per cent of Haitians would be
unlikely to survive bank-advocated free market measures in Haiti. According
to a 2002 Guardian article, by the end of the 1990’s “Haiti’s rice
production had halved and subsidized imports from the U.S. accounted for
over half of local rice sales.” [10] As Haiti became the “star pupil” of IMF
and World Bank, such policies “devastated” local farmers.

Structural Adjustment Programmes [SAPs], which have been forced upon Haiti,
have in traditional style promoted the privatisation of state industries.
According to Aristide in his 2000 book “Eyes of the Heart”, privatisation
will “further concentrate wealth” where 1 per cent of the population already
controls 45 per cent of the overall wealth. As for why Haiti would agree to
World Bank and IMF measures, Aristide provides context along a “dead if we
do, dead if we don’t” line: “Either we enter a global economic system, in
which we know we cannot survive, or, we refuse, and face death by slow
starvation.” [11]

While keeping in mind that the US effectively controls the World Bank and
IMF [12], we should consider Susan George and the Transnational Institutes
findings based on extensive research of these institutions: “The economic
policies imposed on debtors…caused untold human suffering and widespread
environmental suffering while simultaneously emptying debtor countries of
their resources.” [13]

George notes how the consequences of this “debt boomerang” which sees rich
nations actually profiting from the enormous debt service rendered on the
poor, as affecting all of us. While the people in the South “are far more
grievously affected by debt than those in the North, in both cases, a tiny
minority benefits while the overwhelming majority pays.” [14]

The US administration, the World Bank-IMF couplet, and Haitian elites who
stand to benefit from a neoliberal agenda, are all aware that Aristide
favours genuine democracy over neoliberal reform. Aristide still stands
behind the beliefs that swept him to power as the first democratically
elected Haitian leader in 1991. As Kevin Pina told me yesterday, the popular
[impoverished] masses who revered Aristide in 1991 “are still willing to
fight for him. They are willing to die if it means Aristide can complete his
term.”

In Monterrey last month at the Special Summit of the Americas, a Third
Border Initiative was committed to by the Caribbean Community and the United
States. One of the primary aims of the initiative is to “make sure the
benefits of globalization are felt in even the smallest economies,” while
coordinating ties that discourage terrorist activities and increase security
for the area. [15]

We will only know for certain how this applies to the case of Haiti as
things progress – or deteriorate. In closing our conversation yesterday,
Kevin Pina asserted the following:

“Haiti desperately needs to establish democratic traditions. How is the
pattern of instability supposed to be broken? What’s to stop the next
democratically elected President from being asked to step down? If people
are falling for these distortions and lies they are doing a disservice to
Haiti.”

Citizens of Canada, the United States, and Europe all have a stake in this,
to the extent that the fomenting of Haitian instability and continued
Haitian misery is being carried out and financed in our names. By falling
for the delusional picture of Haiti that is drawn by our corporate media, we
are actively violating fundamental human rights along with Haiti’s right to
self-determination. Anything that can be done to expose this circulation of
lies should be done so with an immediacy that above all appreciates the
right of all Haitians to determine their own future.


[1] Globe and Mail, February 10, 2004, “Haitian Insurrection Spreads to
several more towns.” A16.

[2] Globe and Mail, February 11, 2004 “Haiti’s ‘peaceful people’ erupt in
Violence”, A16.

[3] National Post, February 13, 2004.

[4] “Unfair and Indecent Diplomacy: Washington’s Vendetta against Haiti’s
President Aristide,” January 15, 2004.

[5] Transcript obtained from Haiti’s Foreign Press Liason, Michelle Karshan,
February 11, 2004.

[6] From the office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Contact: 202-225-2398

[7] Alex Dupuy, “Haiti in the New World Order: The Limits of Democratic
Revolution,” p. 7.

[8] See Chomsky’s “The Tragedy of Haiti” in his “Year 501: The Conquest
Continues” pp. 197-219.

[9] Susan George’s “A Short History of Neoliberalism” speech, March 1999:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm

[10] See The Guardian’s “Haiti: proof of hypocrisy”, April 11, 2002:

[11] Excerpts from Aristide’s book at:

[12] Quoting the Brookings Institution’s “U.S. Relations with the World
Bank: 1945-1992”: “More than any other country, the United States has shaped
and directed the institutional evolution, policies, and activities of the
World Bank,” p. 88. The Brookings Institution, incidentally, is a known
affiliate of the Haiti Democracy Project, which is friendly with Andre Apaid
Jr., and G-184.

[13] See George’s “The Debt Boomerang,” 1992.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Bush II quote, U.S. Department of State website:


Link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4977§ionID=21
Source: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4977§ionID=21