19504: Esser: The fire this time in Haiti was US-fueled (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

Taipei Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com

The fire this time in Haiti was US-fueled
The Bush administration appears to have succeeded in its long-time
goal of toppling Aristide through years of blocking international aid
to his impoverished nation
By Jeffrey Sachs

Monday, Mar 01, 2004,Page 9


Haiti, once again, is ablaze. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is
widely blamed, and he may be toppled soon. Almost nobody, however,
understands that today's chaos was made in Washington --
deliberately, cynically and steadfastly. History will bear this out.
In the meantime, political, social, and economic chaos will deepen,
and Haiti's impoverished people will suffer.

The Bush administration has been pursuing policies likely to topple
Aristide since 2001. The hatred began when Aristide, then a parish
priest and democracy campaigner against Haiti's ruthless Duvalier
dictatorship, preached liberation theology in the 1980s. Aristide's
attacks led US conservatives to brand him as the next Fidel Castro.?

They floated stories that Aristide was mentally deranged.
Conservative disdain multiplied several-fold when then-president Bill
Clinton took up Aristide's cause after he was blocked from electoral
victory in 1991 by a military coup. Clinton put Aristide into power
in 1994, and conservatives mocked Clinton for wasting America's
efforts on "nation building" in Haiti. This is the same right wing
that has squandered US$160 billion on a far more violent and dubious
effort at "nation building" in Iraq.?

Attacks on Aristide began as soon as the Bush administration assumed
office. I visited Aristide in Port-au-Prince in early 2001. He
impressed me as intelligent and intent on good relations with Haiti's
private sector and the US. No firebrand, he sought advice on how to
reform his economy and explained his realistic and prescient concerns
that the American right would try to wreck his presidency.

Haiti was clearly in a desperate condition: the most impoverished
country in the Western Hemisphere, with a standard of living
comparable to sub-Saharan Africa despite being only a few hours by
air from Miami. Life expectancy was 52 years. Children were
chronically hungry.

Of every 1,000 children born, more than 100 died before their fifth
birthday. An AIDS epidemic, the worst in the Caribbean, was running
unchecked. The health system had collapsed. Fearing unrest, tourists
and foreign investors were staying away, so there were no jobs to be
had.

But Aristide was enormously popular in early 2001. Hopes were high
that he would deliver progress against the extraordinary poverty.
Together with Dr. Paul Farmer, the legendary AIDS doctor in Haiti, I
visited villages in Haiti's Central Plateau, asking people about
their views of politics and Aristide.? Everybody referred to the
president affectionately as "Titid." Here, clearly, was an elected
leader with the backing of Haiti's poor, who constituted the bulk of
the population.

When I returned to Washington, I spoke to senior officials in the
IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Organization of
American States. I expected to hear that these international
organizations would be rushing to help Haiti.

Instead, I was shocked to learn that they would all be suspending
aid, under vague "instructions" from the US. Washington, it seemed,
was unwilling to release aid to Haiti because of irregularities in
the 2000 legislative elections, and was insisting that Aristide make
peace with the political opposition before releasing any aid.

The US position was a travesty. Aristide had been elected president
in an indisputable landslide. He was, without doubt, the popularly
elected leader of the country -- a claim that President George W.
Bush cannot make about himself.

Nor were the results of the legislative elections in 2000 in doubt:
Aristide's party had also won in a landslide.? It was claimed that
Aristide's party had stolen a few seats. If true -- and the
allegation remains unproved -- it would be nothing different from
what has occurred in dozens of countries around the world receiving
support from the IMF, World Bank, and the US itself. By any standard,
Haiti's elections had marked a step forward in democracy, compared to
the decades of military dictatorships that America had backed, not to
mention long periods of direct US military occupation.

The more one sniffed around Washington the less America's position
made sense. People in positions of responsibility in international
agencies simply shrugged and mumbled that they couldn't do more to
help Haiti in view of the Bush veto on aid. Moreover, by saying that
aid would be frozen until Aristide and the political opposition
reached an agreement, the Bush administration provided Haiti's
un-elected opposition with an open-ended veto. Aristide's foes merely
had to refuse to bargain in order to plunge Haiti into chaos.?

That chaos has now come. It is sad to hear rampaging students on BBC
and CNN saying that Aristide "lied" because he didn't improve the
country's social conditions. Yes, Haiti's economic collapse is
fueling rioting and deaths, but the lies were not Aristide's. The
lies came from Washington.

Even now, Aristide says that he will share power with the opposition,
but the opposition says no. Aristide's opponents know that US
right-wingers will stand with them to bring them violently to power.
As long as that remains true, Haiti's agony will continue.

Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth
Institute at Columbia University. Copyright: Project Syndicate
.