21749: Donoviel: Re: 21565: Clotildec6: Herb Gold article (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Brett Donoviel <sldon2@yahoo.com>


    I'm very suprised that no one else has responded
to the Gold article. I hope someone will supplement my
comments on the article. I'm sure there are many more
qualified to critique it. It is troubling for several
reasons, not the least of which is the fact that it
fails, like many, to take a stance on the removal of
the president that Haitians elected. It is difficult
to argue, though he tries, that there was really no
international involvement in the unseating of
Aristide. It seems ridiculous to even have to remind
someone who has been paying attention that the US was
involved. Doesn't it seem silly to suggest otherwise
when Otto Reich and Roger Noriega are involved in US
Haiti policy? Does Mr. Gold actually expect us to
believe that the US just wasn't paying attention?
Didn't care? Did Mr. Gold not notice the fact that US
funding was being channeled to opposition groups whose
sole purpose was to get rid of Aristide? Did he not
notice the media campaign prior to February 29 that
was decidedly anti-Aristide, relying on opposition
radio stations for their information? Did he not
notice how well-equipped the neo-FRAPH "rebels" were?

      The CIA noticed. According to the Economist, the
CIA has admitted to knowing about military training
camps in the Dominican Republic and their neo-FRAPH
personell. They didn't have a problem with it.
        Is it not clear simply by looking at which
side of February 29th US support falls on? Mr. Gold
would like us to believe that the United States just
showed up like a friendly neighbor to make sure the
inevitable went smoothly. Just to give the unfortunate
Aristide a ride. But they had nothing to do with the
removal itself. He tells us there was no motive. No
incentive. No stakes. But couldn't that same argument
be made under Duvalier? If the US is so interested in
preventing bloodbaths, why support Duvalier? Why
support FRAPH? One need only look to historical
examples in Guatemala, Chile, Congo, and elsewhere to
find that argument ridiculous.
        Mr. Gold says that "Cheap labor is
economically useless in a society sunk into violent
anarchy;businesses won't take the chance of
investment." He takes us for fools. Levi Strauss seems
to be taking the chance. So is Tommy Hilfiger. Grupo M
is taking the chance. Of course these and other
companies will benefit far greater from cheap labor
once a more business-friendly government is installed,
along with the return of a military apparatus so they
can 'suppress "violent anarchy"' (what a concept),
just like they did in the 1980's when the
manufacturing sector was relatively thriving. If Mr.
Gold is so sure that the US was not involved in the
removal, what is to fear from an inquiry?
     He makes many claims of payments, bribery, and
corruption, though without evidence. My aim is not to
deflect criticism from Aristide. This is not about
him. I am convinced that there was corruption in
Lavalas. I am also sure that Aristide was not the only
member of his party as is made to look concerning this
issue. Many who accuse Aristide supporters of
demagoguery are equally guilty in this respect.
Nonetheless, there is also corruption in the United
States government. Ask Mr. Cheney? Look into the
Pentagon's Office of Special Plans.
     He make claims of repression by Aristide, again
with hearsay as evidence, but says nothing of the
repression of Aristide supporters and Lavalas members
that is reported by many and corroborated by Amnesty
International. What of the overpopulated morgues? What
of the killings in BelAir? Is it De-Lavalasification?
     He comments on the film, "The Agronomist," which
is excellent. He takes the liberty of saying that
Aristide was "clearly implicated" in Dominiqe's
murder. Explain that one for me. In the film,
Dominique makes some insightful criticisms of Aristide
in an interview. For that, Aristide is "clearly
implicated" in the interviewer's death?? If anyone was
clearly implicated it was Dany Toussaint. And look
what side he ended up on.
      Finally, I resent the way Gold speaks of the
young Haitian-American woman in San Francisco with a
paternalistic condescension. He spoke Creole and she
didn't. So somehow he had more of a connection to
Haiti, more "authenticity." She wasn't a "real"
Haitian.
     I wasn't there to hear what she said, but is it
really so far-fetched to say that the CIA was involved
in the removal? Isn't that their job? Wouldn't it be
consistent with their historical activities? Haven't
they been frequently involved in covert action against
popular leaders? Since Mr. Gold takes no stance on the
removal of the elected president, we have to assume by
default where his support lies, based on his
denunciations and his omissions. By this, we see his
support lies not with majority of Haitian people who
would like to see the president they elected, however
flawed, finish his term, but it lies with the 300
neo-FRAPH "freedom fighters" and the criminals they
broke out of prisons. His support lies with yet
another coup on the backs of the poor majority.
    Maybe Mr. Gold has become addicted to the drama of
the "nightmare," since he does not have to live in it.
A case of "Knee-Jerkism" in and of itself.






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover