19542: radtimes: Bringing Hell To Haiti - Part 1 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: radtimes <resist@best.com>

From: Medialens Media Alerts <noreply@medialens.org>
Subject: Bringing Hell To Haiti - Part 1

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

March 1, 2004

MEDIA ALERT: BRINGING HELL TO HAITI ­ PART 1

Introduction - Anyone Here Feeling Stupid?

Have you noticed how stupid you feel when you watch the news? Hands up
anybody who understands what's going on in Haiti?

The media is good at repeatedly broadcasting footage of armed gangs roaming
in trucks, and of quoting senior officials. But the absence of meaningful
context and informed analysis ­ and above all the unwillingness to question
the official version of events - means that it is often literally
impossible for viewers to make sense of what is happening. For all their
satellite communications and computer-generated studios, the news media
often do not give us news at all ­ they give us noise.

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and the fourth
poorest country in the world - 50% per cent of the country's wealth is
owned by 1% of the population. Life expectancy is 52 years for women and 48
for men. Unemployment is about 70%. Some 85% of Haitians live on less than
$1 US per day. (Source: Yifat Susskind, 'Haiti - Insurrection in the
Making', www.zmag.org, February 25, 2004))

The United States is Haiti's main commercial 'partner' accounting for about
60% of the flows of exports and imports. Along with the manufacture of
baseballs, textiles, cheap electronics, and toys, Haiti's sugar, bauxite
and sisal are all controlled by American corporations. Disney, for example,
has used Haitian sweatshops to produce Pocahontas pyjamas, among other
items, at the rate of 11 cents per hour. Most Haitians are willing to work
for almost nothing.

The US Network For Economic Justice reports:

"Whereas corporations receive vast incentives to set up plants in Haiti...
returns to the Haitian economy are minimal, and working and living
standards of Haitian people, whose wages are generally below the minimum of
thirty cents an hour, steadily decline... Decades of public investments and
policy manipulation by the World Bank, the IMF, and the US government have
deliberately created an environment where the exploitation of workers is
hailed as an incentive to invest in Haiti." ('50 years is enough: Corporate
Welfare in Haiti', http://www.50years.org)

The US, in other words, is +not+ a disinterested spectator of events in Haiti.


Cruelty Never Seen Before ­ Conquering Paradise

When Cristobal Colon (Columbus) first arrived on Hispaniola ­ today's Haiti
and Dominican Republic - in October 1492, he found something close to an
earthly paradise. Of the Taino people he encountered, he said:

"They are the best people in the world and above all the gentlest... All
the people show the most singular loving behaviour and they speak
pleasantly... They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the
sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing." (Quoted,
Kirkpatrick Sale, The Conquest of Paradise, Papermac, 1992, pp.99-100)

Colon did not allow sentiment to stand in his way for long. Formal
instructions for the second voyage to Hispaniola in May 1493 were
significant, historian Kirkpatrick Sale writes, in that they constituted
"the first statement of the colonial strategies and policies of empire that
were eventually to carry Europe to every cranny of the earth". Colon's
plans were almost entirely concerned with "establishing the means of
exploitation and trade, providing no suggestion of any other purpose for
settlement or any other function of government". (Ibid, p.127)

The rights of the Taino people were not an issue - the concern was simply
to steal their gold.

Las Casas, a Spanish eyewitness, described how the invaders were motivated
by "insatiable greed and ambition," attacking the Tainos "like ravening
wild beasts... killing, terrorizing, afflicting, torturing, and destroying
the native peoples" with "the strangest and most varied new methods of
cruelty, never seen or heard of before". (Quoted Noam Chomsky, Year 501,
Verso, 1993, p.198)

The idea seems to have been to utterly crush the spirit of the Tainos. Las
Casas comments:

"As they saw themselves each day perishing by the cruel and inhuman
treatment of the Spaniards, crushed to the earth by the horses, cut in
pieces by swords, eaten and torn by dogs, many buried alive and suffering
all kinds of exquisite tortures...[they] decided to abandon themselves to
their unhappy fate with no further struggles, placing themselves in the
hands of their enemies that they might do with them as they liked." (Ibid,
pp.198-9)

Near-identical horrors are documented under the subsequent French rulers of
Haiti, who shipped in hundreds of thousands of African slaves to work their
plantations. From that time to this, the logic of Western exploitation of
the Third World has remained fundamentally the same: dreams of a better
life must be crushed by violence and grinding poverty so extreme that local
people will accept any work at any rate, and abandon all notions of
improving their lot.

This is why death squads, tyrants and torturers are such a standard feature
of the Third World ­ hope is always being born and is always being killed
by local thugs serving Western elites. This is also why weapons
consistently flow from the rich West to the world's worst human rights
abusers. In the 1980s, the leading academic scholar on human rights in
Latin America, Lars Schoultz, found that US aid, including military aid,
"has tended to flow disproportionately to Latin American governments which
torture their citizens... to the hemisphere's relatively egregious
violators of fundamental human rights". (Schoultz, Comparative Politics,
January 1981)

Terror was required, Schoultz added, "to destroy permanently a perceived
threat to the existing structure of socioeconomic privilege by eliminating
the political participation of the numerical majority". (Schoultz, Human
Rights and United States Policy toward Latin America, Princeton, 1981)


Haiti And The Racketeers For Capitalism

Between 1849 and 1913, the US Navy entered Haitian waters 24 times to
"protect American lives and property". The US invasion of 1915 brought back
slavery to Haiti in all but name and imposed a US-designed constitution
giving US corporations free rein. After ruling for 19 years the US withdrew
leaving its wealth in the safe hands of the murderous National Guard it had
created. In November 1935, Major General Smedley D. Butler explained the
logic of intervention:

"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active service as a member
of our country's most agile military force ­ the Marine Corps... And during
that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big
Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer
for capitalism.

"Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City boys to collect revenues in. I helped purify Nicaragua for
the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought
light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. I
helped make Honduras 'right' for American fruit companies in 1903. In China
in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
(Sidney Lens, The Forging of the American Empire, Pluto Press, 2003, pp.
270-271)

In the 1950s, with firm US support, the Duvalier dictatorship took over.
Anthropologist Robert Lawless comments:

"The United States would support the continuation of the Duvalier dynasty,
and Jean-Claude, when he came to power, would support a new economic
programme guided by the United States, a programme featuring private
investments from the United States that would be drawn to Haiti by such
incentives as no customs taxes, a minimum wage kept very low, the
suppression of labour unions, and the right of American companies to
repatriate their profits... Largely because of its cheap labour force,
extensive government repression, and denial of even minimal labour rights,
Haiti is one of the most attractive countries for both the subcontractors
and the maquilas." (Quoted, Paul Farmer, The Uses Of Haiti, Common Courage
Press, 1994, p.114)

This is the Guardian editors' version of Haiti's history:

"The US ignored [Haiti's] existence until 1862. Later, beginning in 1915,
it occupied Haiti for 19 years and then abruptly left. Years of
dictatorship and coups ensued." ('From bad to worse', Leader, The Guardian,
February 14, 2004)

Years of dictatorship merely "ensued" ­ no mention is made of the
dictatorship +under+ occupation. There is also no hint that the following
years of dictatorship were imposed by the US in order to maximise returns
on investments.

On the rare occasions when US support for terror is admitted, the
motivation ­ maximised profits ­ is out of sight. Thus Lyonel Trouillot
writes in the New York Times of how "the United States's automatic backing
of the Duvalier dictatorship because it was anti-Communist" resulted in
terror. (Trouillot, 'In Haiti, All the Bridges Are Burned', The New York
Times, February 26, 2004)


Haiti's Big Surprise - Aristide

Terror-backed exploitation continued in an unbroken line until December
1990 when Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic priest, won national elections
with 67.5% of the vote, beating the US candidate, former World Bank
official Marc Bazin, into second place with 14.2%. The grassroots movement
that swept Aristide to power took the West completely by surprise. Aristide
took office in February 1991 and was briefly the first democratically
elected President in Haiti's history before being overthrown by a US-backed
military coup on September 30, 1991. The Washington-based Council on
Hemispheric Affairs observed after the coup:

"Under Aristide, for the first time in the republic's tortured history,
Haiti seemed to be on the verge of tearing free from the fabric of
despotism and tyranny which had smothered all previous attempts at
democratic expression and self-determination." His victory "represented
more than a decade of civic engagement and education on his part," in "a
textbook example of participatory, 'bottom-up' and democratic political
development". (Quoted, Chomsky, op.cit., p.209)

Aristide's balancing of the budget and "trimming of a bloated bureaucracy"
led to a "stunning success" that made White House planners "extremely
uncomfortable". The view of a US official "with extensive experience of
Haiti" summed up the reality beneath US rhetoric:

"Aristide - slum priest, grass-roots activist, exponent of Liberation
Theology ­ 'represents everything that CIA, DOD and FBI think they have
been trying to protect this country against for the past 50 years'," he
said. (Quoted, Paul Quinn-Judge, Boston Globe, September 8, 1994)

Before deciding to run for office, Aristide had observed: "Of course, the
US has its own agenda here", namely: maximising its returns on investments.
"This is normal, capitalist behaviour, and I don't care if the US wants to
do it at home... But it is monstrous to come down here and impose your will
on another people... I cannot accept that Haiti should be whatever the
United States wants it to be." (Chomsky, op.cit., p.211)

A Haitian businessman told a reporter shortly before the September 1991
coup: "Everyone who is anyone is against Aristide. Except the people."
(Quoted, Farmer, op., cit, p.178)

Following the fall of Aristide, the Haitian army "embarked on a systematic
and continuing campaign to stamp out the vibrant civil society that has
taken root in Haiti since the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship," Americas
Watch noted. At least 1,000 people were killed in the first two weeks of
the coup and hundreds more by December. The paramilitary forces were led by
former CIA employees Emmanuel Constant and Raoul Cedras ­ Aristide was
forced into exile from 1991-94.

In response to the coup, the Organisation of American States announced an
embargo and sanctions. The US immediately declared 800 of its firms
"exempt". As a result levels of US trade increased by around 50% under the
embargo. Noam Chomsky summarises the situation:

"Well, as this was going on, the Haitian generals in effect were being told
[by Washington]: 'Look, murder the leaders of the popular organisations,
intimidate the whole population, destroy anyone who looks like they might
get in the way after you're gone.'... And that's exactly what Cedras and
those guys did, that's precisely what happened ­ and of course they were
given total amnesty when they finally did agree to step down." (Chomsky,
Understanding Power, The New Press, 2002, p.157)

Writing in The Nation in October 1994, US journalist Allan Nairn quoted
paramilitary leader Emmanuel Constant as saying that he had been contacted
by a US Military officer, Colonel Patrick Collins, who served as defence
attaché at the United States Embassy in the Haitian capital,
Port-au-Prince. Constant said Collins pressed him to set up a group to
"balance the Aristide movement" and to do "intelligence" work against it.
Constant admitted that, at the time, he was working with CIA operatives in
Haiti. Constant and other paramilitary leaders were trained in Ecuador by
US Special Forces between 1991-1994.

One phone call from Washington would have been enough to stop the generals,
Howard French noted in the New York Times. But "Washington's deep-seated
ambivalence about a leftward-tilting nationalist" prevented action.
"Despite much blood on the army's hands, United States diplomats consider
it a vital counterweight to Father Aristide, whose class-struggle
rhetoric... threatened or antagonized traditional power centres at home and
abroad." (French, New York Times, September 27, 1992)

In 1994, the US returned Aristide in the company of 20,000 troops after the
coup leaders had slaughtered much of the popular movement that had brought
him to power. The title of a 1994 article by Douglas Farah in the
International Herald Tribune summed up the horror: "Grass roots of
democracy in Haiti: all but dead." (May 10, 1994)

The day before US troops landed, the Associated Press reported that
American oil companies had been supplying oil directly to the Haitian coup
leaders in violation of the embargo with the authorisation of the Clinton
and Bush administrations at the highest level. Although the world's media
were intensely focused on Haiti at the time, the revelations were met with
near-total silence in the US press.

Human Rights Watch describes "disappointing" aspects of the US military
intervention:

"The United States, notably, showed little enthusiasm for the prosecution
of past abuses. Indeed, it even impeded accountability by removing to the
US thousands of documents from military and paramilitary headquarters,
allowing notorious abusers to flee Haiti, and giving safe haven to
paramilitary leader Emmanuel 'Toto' Constant." ('Recycled soldiers and
paramilitaries on the march', Human Rights Watch, February 27, 2004)

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, wrote about the
documents seized by the US in a letter to the New York Times:

"The Clinton Administration refuses to return these documents without first
removing the names of Americans. The Administration's apparent motive is to
avoid embarrassing revelations about the involvement of American
intelligence agents with the military regime that ruled Haiti." ('US Must
Release Evidence on Haitian Abuses,' New York Times, April 12, 1997)

Crucially, Aristide's return was permitted only when he accepted both the
US military occupation and Washington's harsh neoliberal agenda. His
government was to implement 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".

The plans for the economy were set out in a document submitted to the Paris
Club of international donors at the World Bank in August 1994. The Haiti
desk officer of the World Bank, Axel Peuker, described the plan as
beneficial to the "more open, enlightened, business class" and foreign
investors. The Haitian Minister in charge of rural development and agrarian
reform was not even told about the plan. (Quoted Noam Chomsky, 'Democracy
Restored', Z Magazine, November 1994)

Aristide also agreed to dismiss his Prime Minister and to replace him with
a businessman from the traditional elite who was "known to be opposed to
the populist policies during Aristide's seven months in power" and was
"generally well regarded by the business community." (Boston Globe, July
27, 1993)

Now consider the 'free press' version of these events:

First, the Times:

"Mr Aristide, a former Roman Catholic priest, won Haiti's first free
elections in 1990, promising to end the country's relentless cycle of
corruption, poverty and demagoguery. Ousted in a coup the following year,
he was restored to power with the help of 20,000 US troops in 1994."
('Barricades go up as city braces for attack', Tim Reid, The Times,
February 26, 2004)

Not a word about the long, documented history of US support for mass
murderers attacking a democratic government and killing its supporters. No
mention of the limits imposed on Aristide's range of options by the
superpower protecting its business interests.

The Guardian writes:

"To a degree, history repeated itself when the US intervened again in 1994
to restore Mr Aristide. Bill Clinton halted the influx of Haitian boat
people that had become politically awkward in Florida. Then he moved on.
Although the US has pumped in about $900m in the past decade, consistency
and vision have been lacking." ('From bad to worse', Leader, The Guardian,
February 14, 2004)

In reality there has been great consistency and vision in exploiting the
people of Haiti for Western gain. Ignoring mountains of evidence, the
Guardian reports: "The US [was] at one time a staunch ally" of Aristide.
('Haitian rebels continue advance on capital', Agencies, Guardian
Unlimited, February 27, 2004)

Ross Benson writes of the Haitian boat people in the Daily Mail:

"It was to stem that flow and keep what the former American presidential
candidate, Pat Buchanan, colourfully if disgracefully called 'the Zulus off
Miami Beach' that, three years later, 20,000 US Marines invaded and
restored Aristide to his white-domed palace that looks as if it might have
been built for Saddam Hussein..." (Benson, 'The Land of voodoo', The Daily
Mail, February 28, 2004)

No mention of Aristide's achievements or of the US determination to destroy
them. We note that Buchanan's "colourful" language was disgraceful enough
to merit repetition.

The BBC reports:

"Months later [Aristide] was overthrown in a bloody military coup, but
returned to power in 1994 after the new rulers were forced to step down
under international pressure and with the help of US troops." ('Country
profile: Haiti', 14 February, 2004;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/country_profiles/1202772.stm)

Again, not a word about the double game being played by the US at the
expense of the Haitian people and their democracy. Indeed in the mainstream
reports we have seen we have found almost no mention of US commercial
interests in Haiti.


Part 2 will follow shortly...

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger:
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk

Write to the New York Times editors and letter's page:
Email: executive-editor@nytimes.com
Email: managing-editor@nytimes.com
Email: letters@nytimes.com

Write to the BBC's director of news, Richard Sambrook:
Email: richard.sambrook@bbc.co.uk

Write to the Times:
Email: letters@thetimes.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens:
Email: editor@medialens.org

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

.