23697: (pub) Esser: CARICOM-Haiti-U.S. Relations (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser <torx@joimail.com>

Trinicenter.com
http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2004/2110.htm

CARICOM-Haiti-U.S. Relations

Afrocentric View
By Dr. Kwame Nantambu
October 21, 2004

Haiti emerged on the world's geo-political center-stage in the 19th
century. And the three major events that have fashioned and/or molded
the island's national identity are the liberation of Haitians from
under the yoke of French bondage in 1791, the attainment of
independence through revolution on 1 January 1804 led by former
slaves Toussaint L'Ouverture, Henri Christophe and Jean Jacques
Dessalines and the pro-longed American occupation from 1915-1934. In
the 19th century, Haiti "had twenty-six presidents, twenty-five of
whom were generals." Governance was implemented to the extent that
"power was won with the aid of troops, mobilized for the most part in
the (peasant) country areas, which mounted largely bloodless
campaigns before defeating their rivals." (Hector and Casimir
2004,20). The unique significance of the Haitian revolution is that
it was the first Black Republic in the Western Hemisphere.

A second but most unique significance is that in 2003, Haitian
government officials "claim(ed) their country was held-up at
gun-point in broad daylight in 1825 and now they want (their former
slavery-era master) France, to replace the stolen wealth to the tune
of US$21.7billion", as a form of reparations payment.

Under then President Jean Bertrand Aristide, the Haitian government
disclosed "the 1825 'agreement' that initially forced Haiti to pay to
France 150 million francs in exchange for liberty" (Damu 2004). This
so-called "exchange" was in fact compensation "payable mainly to
French planters who had lost their property in the revolution." (Damu
2004). The stark reality, however, is that having successfully
defeated French colonialism in the 19th century, Haiti has now been
saddled with American re-colonization in the 20th century.

History of Relations with the United States

Haiti has been "the sick man of the Caribbean for most of its two
hundred years." As such, its history of relations with the United
States can best be summed up by disdain, occupation and paternalism.
After the successful slave revolution in 1804, the United States did
not officially recognize Haiti until 1862 at the height of the
American Civil War. However, because of its strategic geographic
location, Haiti has always been vital in terms of United States
national security concerns. And it is this necessity that
precipitated the U.S. military occupation of Haiti. By this invasion,
President Woodrow Wilson established and cemented the United States
as the sole arbiter of public policy and governance in Haiti. Haiti
was thus transformed into a re-colonized, totally dependent American
State -- a status it has maintained as of this writing (September
2004).

When François Duvalier or "Papa Doc" Duvalier came to power in 1957
as "President for Life", the United States had already laid and
solidified the ground rules and modus operandi for its position as
the dominant partner in this skewed alliance with Haiti, ad
infinitum. "Papa Doc's" rule was marked by rampant and wanton
corruption and brutality, denial of human rights, elimination of all
opposition parties, repression of all student political activities,
dissolving of all trade union activities, forcing all political
rivals into exile and burning and/or attacking opposition newspapers.
In addition, more than 50,000 Haitians were killed and/or executed
through state-sponsored terrorism carried out by Duvalier's
U.S.-trained 'Ton Ton Macoutes' gang. The United States government
knew of these blatant undemocratic and fascist atrocities but did
nothing to destabilize, overthrow or remove the government of 'Papa
Doc' in order to restore democracy to Haiti. When 'Papa Doc' died in
1971, he was succeeded by his nineteen-year-old son, Jean Claude or
'Baby Doc'. This succession took place because in 1964, 'Papa
Doc'decreed that he had the sole authority or divine right to appoint
his successor.

'Baby Doc's rule was no different from 'Papa Doc's'. The 'Ton Ton
Macoutes' continued their reign of terror, killing and carnage. The
United States again did nothing to terminate such a dictatorial
regime. However, in 1986, the masses (proletariat) finally rose up
against 'Baby Doc'. He was rescued and flown into exile to France
with the assistance of U.S. Embassy officials in Port-au-Prince.
'Baby Doc' is reported to have relieved the Haitian treasury of
US $ 128million before he left the country.

As former U.S. ambassador to the united Nations, Dr. Jeanne J.
Kilpatrick, once aptly surmised the role of a Third World dictator
vis-a-vis U.S. national security interests :"He may be a
son-of-a-bitch, but at least he is our son-of-a-bitch."

In the 1980s, the United States government was overtly concerned
about illegal Haitian immigration (the influx of "boat people" off
the shores of Florida) and Haiti as a major transfer point in the
massive drug trafficking business and trade.

And in this regard, increased economic assistance was given to the
new, short-lived Avril government. However, on 16 December 1990,
democracy and peace came to Haiti for the first time in its history
with the election of social-reformist Father Jean Bertrand Aristide
as President. Aristide received sixty-seven per cent of the Haitian
vote. This result both astonished and completely flabbergasted the
United States because the U.S. government preferred choice was Marc
Bazin- a right-wing economist with pro-American corporate leanings.

On 29 September 1991, General Raoul Cedras organized, mounted and
engineered a brutal military coup d'etat in collusion with the United
States against the democratically-elected government of President
Arisitide.

The fall-out of the coup was as follows: 3,000 killed, 300,000
displaced, 40,000 encamped at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and 50,000 fled to
the Dominican Republic. (Nantambu 1993,9).

By November 1991, repression reached its zenith in Haiti and this
precipitated the fleeing of Haitians in boats to the United States.
They became Haitian refugees. However, the George Bush, Sr.,
administration immediately shipped most of them back to Haiti
claiming that they were 'economic migrants' and not 'political
refugees'. This foreign policy-decision by the Bush administration
compelled U.S. District Judge in New York, Sterling Johnson,Jr., to
rule as follows: "This court is astonished that the United States
would return Haitian refugees to the jaws of political persecution,
terror, death and uncertainty when it has contracted not to do
so." (Nantambu 1993,9).

The illegal military regime remained in power until 15 October 1994.
It was on this date that with the direct intervention of former
president Jimmy Carter and then President Bill Clinton that Aristide
was once again sworn in as President of Haiti after being exiled in
the United States. Prior to assuming office, Aristide requested that
the Clinton administration should give him back the three years of
the presidency he had lost while in exile. His request fell on deaf
ears in the White House. The Clinton administration was solely bent
on ending the Haitian refugee crisis and instead of acceding to
Aristide's initial request, the administration decided to return
Aristide to power, on condition that he implemented certain private
sector investment-oriented economic policies. In Aristide's own
words: "In order to restore democracy, we were asked to agree to an
economic plan which could once again mortgage the future of the
country." (Akkee 2004,27). Aristide left office in 1996. Rene Preval
then assumed the presidency. He, however, was only regarded as a
caretaker, interim ruler until Aristide's return---- an event and/or
reality that anathema to the United States. Preval was impotent to
garner the funds in foreign economic assistance necessary to
implement social-economic programs. His impotency was further
compounded by the decline in private sector investment, drug
trafficking, political instability, violence, endless poverty and
misery and hopelessness. Eventually, on 7 February 2001, Jean
Bertrand Aristide was sworn in for his second term as President of
Haiti. The United States and France refused to send official
delegations to Aristide's inaugural. The United States was only
represented by its ambassador. In his inaugural address, Aristide
said in Creole: "I am the president of all Haitians without
distinction. All we need to do is get along. There's only one road
you can take, that can take us to deliverance, that is peace." (Dodds
2001).

In the post 2001 era, former Aristide supporters accused his
political party, La Fanmi Lavalas, of adopting some of the same
methods of the infamous 'Ton Ton Macoutes' gang to stay in power.
Aristide was facing an awesome, scary and uphill battle to restore
sanity, civility and transparency to public policy and governance to
Haiti. His formidable tasks ranged from intractable problems of
unemployment and a decadent housing sector to massive, sweeping
malnutrition, illiteracy, non-existent infrastructural development
and environmental decline. Aristide thus needed tremendous
assistance/aid from the international community, in general and from
the United States, in particular, to successfully overcome these
hurdles. Haiti's eight million people were eagerly expecting a second
miracle from Aristide. It never happened. Instead, Haiti became a
country under the vicious cyclical siege of daily internationally
televised internecine gang warfare, violence and fighting, "Black on
Black crime", ministerial corruption and nepotism, economic
destitution, social depression and malaise. The population was
beginning to turn against once loved President Father Jean Bertrand
Aristide.

It was just a matter of time before his political dam came loose. It
must be hastily pointed out here that most of the publicly televised
incidents of violence on the streets of Port-au-Prince was
organically orchestrated, organized and financed by the U.S.-CIA
overseas field office in the country. Emmanuel 'Toto' Constant, head
of the U.S.-founded FRAPH movement/organization, confessed on the
American television CBS "60 Minutes" program in December 1995, that
he was paid US $700 per month by the US-CIA head of covert operations
in Haiti to stage, manufacture and manipulate daily violent acts of
fighting, killings, burning and looting, carnage and total mayhem
(geocities.com 2004). This confession is prima facie evidence of the
United States government's complicity, collusion and conspiracy in
the overthrow and eventual ouster of President Aristide.

During Aristide's second term in office, the United States government
imposed a trade/economic embargo on Haiti and also prevented
multilateral development lending agencies from assisting Haiti. This
foreign economic aid void completely crippled the economy and
severely hindered any chance for social mobility and relief. In the
midst of all these ever deepening hardships plaguing and confronting
the Haitian people on a daily basis, the time had come to get rid of
President Aristide. The poor just couldn't take any more. To compound
the chaotic situation, the disgruntled insurgents who were forced to
flee to the Dominican Republic during the coup, began to mount
surgical attacks against the regime. At this crucial juncture,
survival juncture, President Aristide was vulnerable and too weak to
launch any potent counter-attack because he had previously dismantled
the army in 1995. Ergo, this decision had backfired on him and
assured his downfall. The George Bush Jr., administration went along
with this master-plan to terminate Aristide's presidency. The
denouncement came on 29 February 2004 when President Aristide was
forced to leave Haiti, having been 'kidnapped' by "heavily armed
white men (who) surrounded the National Palace" and "forced (him) to
sign his letter of resignation." (Reuters 2004).

In an interview on CNN (1st March 2004), former President Aristide
stated that "he was forced to leave Haiti (at gunpoint) in a 'coup
d'etat' (engineered) by the United States." (CNN 2004,3). For its
part, the Bush administration has vigorously and categorically
rejected President Aristide's assertions that he was 'kidnapped' by
U.S. military troops. Secretary of State Colin Powell has termed them
'baseless'. General Latortue was then installed by a U.S.-backed
advisory council as interim President of the Haitian government. The
United States position is that this interim government is
"constitutional and needed support from the region"; however, to
date, CARICOM leaders are 'split' on any decision to recognize the
interim Haitian government." (Trinidad Guardian 2004, p.13).

Historical Perspectives

The clouded ouster/departure of the democratically-elected President
of Haiti, Father Jean Bertrand Aristide, has only served to re-ignite
the dormant flames of 'Big Brotherism','Big stick diplomacy',
'gun-boat diplomacy' and 'dollar diplomacy' that have informed the
recent historical relations between governments of the
English-speaking Caribbean and the United States. In this specific
regard, these Caribbean political leaders are mindful of United
States illegal military invasion of Grenada, a CARICOM member, on 25
October 1983 and the Reagan administration's policy toward that small
nation-state with a population of only one hundred thousand – a
policy that reflected all the above-mentioned dormant flames.

The historical litany is as follows: first, CARICOM political cannot
forget that in June 1981, the Reagan administration colluded with
countries of the eastern Caribbean to establish the OECS Treaty of
Association and to ratify Article 20 which states that "decisions and
directives shall be unanimous and shall be binding on all (States in)
the preservation of peace and security against external aggression."
(Nantambu 1983,54). The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States
(OECS) consists of Antigua-Barbuda, Dominica,St. Lucia, St.Vincent
and the Grenadines, St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla, Grenada and Montserrat.

Regrettably, it was this Article transmitted through an "urgent,
formal request" from five members of the OECS along with Barbados
(under then Prime Minister Tom Adams) and Jamaica (under then Prime
Minister Edward Seaga) that President Ronald Reagan invoked to
militarily invade the sovereign Caribbean nation-state of Grenada.
The fact of the matter is that the decision to seek U.S. assistance
in the wake of 'perceived' threat to the national security of these
countries from the putative Communist-Cuban military build-up in
Grenada was not 'unanimous' because three of the OECS members
abstained. Therefore, the OECS request was illegal and so was the
U.S. invasion, by extension. This was 'gun-boat diplomacy' at its
zenith. The decision was also not 'unanimous' among CARICOM member
states because seven out of the thirteen members opposed the
invasion. Second, CARICOM leaders cannot forget that at their
November 1982 summit meeting at Ocho Rios, Jamaica, 'Big stick
diplomacy' and 'Big Brotherism' were both employed by the Reagan
administration to collude with Barbados, Jamaica and Dominica (under
Prime Minister Eugenia Charles) to introduce a motion to amend the
pre-amble of the 1973 Treaty of Chaguaramas by getting "a written-in
commitment of member countries to uphold principles of human rights
in the region as they apply to the system of parliamentary
democracy." (Nantambu 1983,63). The reality is that this motion was
implying that the holding of free and fair elections under the
British Westminster model, should be a pre-condition for membership
in CARICOM; as such, it was not only a covert attempt by the Reagan
administration to get Grenada expelled from CARICOM membership but
also an attempt to cajole Caribbean governments to isolate Grenada as
a ‘communist outpost'. Maurice Bishop became Prime Minister of
Grenada through armed revolution by militarily overthrowing the Eric
Gairy government on 13 March 1979. The Reagan administration had
repeatedly demanded the holding of free and fair elections in Grenada
ever since Bishop came to power. These CARICOM members were thus used
as pawns to carry out the Reagan administration's acerbic, hostile
policy toward Grenada.

Published reports also reveal that the U.S. Charge d'Affaires in
Jamaica, W. Robert Warne, remained in very close personal contact
with Prime Ministers Seaga, Adams and Charles and with the press
throughout the meeting. In fact, the American press was urged to ask
questions designed to get negative responses about Grenada from
CARICOM leaders. Third, ‘dollar diplomacy' came to the fore in
President Reagan's Caribbean Basin Initiative (CBI) economic
assistance proposals in February 1982. When President Reagan unveiled
this plan, Grenada was not allowed to participate in or benefit from,
it. The CBI allocated US$50million to Jamaica and US$20million to the
OECS as a quid pro quo for their collusive role in the invasion of
Grenada.

Fourth, CARICOM leaders cannot forget that the 15th century European
ploy of Divide and Rule was most evident in 1983 with the truism that
then Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago and chairman of CARICOM,
George Chambers and Prime Minister Forbes Burnham of Guyana were
purposefully and deliberately excluded from this geo-political loop
by the United States ---- only pro-U.S. Caribbean leaders were
included in pre-invasion discussion and planning.

As Prime Minister George Chambers recounted to the Trinidad and
Tobago Parliament on 26 October 1983 (the day after the illegal
invasion): " to date, I have received no notification from any
CARICOM member country of any intention to request assistance from
the government of the United States to intervene militarily in
Grenada nor have I been informed by any CARICOM member country that
such a request had in fact been made." (Nantambu 1983,67). The
mind-set/world view of CARICOM leaders today is: "never, never again."

CARICOM-Haiti Perspectives on the United States

The double-edge sword of contention between CARICOM and the United
States over Haiti is entangled in these two issues: "the legitimacy
of Haiti's interim government and whether Haiti should be allowed to
return to the Caribbean Community." (AP 2004). The backdrop in
putting these twin issues in their proper historical perspective is
that it was the Haitian interim government itself that initially
suspended membership in the regional bloc immediately after Jamaica
granted temporary refuge status to ousted President Aristide. As a
result, CARICOM was forced to withhold recognition to and support
for, this interim government in March 2004, and more specifically,
since Aristide leveled accusations of a U.S. - orchestrated coup.
(Ibid). The interim Haitian government, therefore, brought the issue
of CARICOM's non-recognition upon itself. In fact, CARICOM Heads of
State have always strongly rejected any 'unprecedented haste' by the
United States to recognize the interim government.

On 27 March 2004, CARICOM leaders concluded after twelve hours of
intense deliberations "they will not recognize the U.S.-backed
interim government in Haiti" and "asserted that the restoration of
democratic rule in the troubled nation is essential to its
involvement in the regional community." However, on a matter of
geo-political principle, they decided "to continue recognizing Haiti
as a member state and pledged support for and participation in any
activities that will lead to the alleviation of the plight of the
Haitian people." (Browne 2004,4). CARICOM leaders should be
complimented for taking such a principled geo-political position they
recognized the broader picture of Caribbean unity in time of crisis
and uncertainty.

CARICOM leaders also decided not to support insidious efforts by the
U.S.-backed interim government to extradite former President Aristide
to face scurrilous charges of corruption and human right abuses. Yet,
despite and against "intense pressures from the United States of
America to influence recognition of the interim regime in
Port-au-Prince", CARICOM leaders have decided to put such recognition
on a "frozen" footing. CARICOM's position is to insist on a "United
Nations -sponsored independent probe into the controversial
circumstances surrounding how President Jean Bertrand Aristide was
removed from office on 29 February 2004" (Singh 2004). This is the
most vexing bone of contention in CARICOM-Haiti- United States
relations. In February 2004, CARICOM called on the United Nations "to
launch an independent investigation into Aristide's departure but
nothing (came) of this". According to Knowlson Gift, Foreign Affairs
Minister of Trinidad and Tobago:" we'd made an overture to the UN
seeking that the matter be ventilated and investigated there.
Unfortunately, due to the strength of the UN as a body, it needed the
approval of the Security Council. If a single one of these objected,
the matter would have died right there, so what we did in CARICOM was
to revert to the OAS to call for the inquiry" (Alexander 2004). This
was a quintessential brilliant tactical move by CARICOM because as
permanent members of the UN Security Council and with veto power, it
was an automatic conclusion that France and the United States would
have vetoed any such independent investigation. Let us recall that
France and the United States were the co-conspirators who provided
the international forces to remove Aristide from office in Haiti:
"Aristide was flown into exile on an American military aircraft"
(Singh 2004). So now, France and the United States are powerless to
prevent CARICOM from taking this international issue to a Special
Session of the Permanent Council of the Organization of American
States (OAS). And that's exactly what CARICOM has done.

On 13 May 2004, CARICOM forwarded an official request to the OAS "to
assess the state of constitutional governance and the democratic
order in Haiti that would include the circumstances of President
Aristide's departure from office in the face of an armed rebellion."
(Singh 2004). This action was taken within the specific context of
Article 20 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Article 20 reads
as follows: "In the event of an unconstitutional alteration of the
constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in
a member state, any member state or the Secretary General may request
the immediate convocation of the Permanent Council to undertake a
collective assessment of the situation and to take such decisions as
it deems appropriate." (Singh 21 May 2004). In its reaction, the
United States Ambassador to the OAS, John Maisto, publicly appealed
for CARICOM "to withdraw its request." The request stands without
fear of intimidation or retaliation.

In the final analysis, if the United States denies it had any
involvement in the ouster of President Aristide from office then an
independent international investigation as requested by CARICOM from
the OAS is the best operational mechanism to get to the truth.
Conversely, if the United States has the slightest trepidation as to
the core findings of this investigation then it may wield its 'Big
stick diplomacy' bat and read the 'riot act' to members of the
Permanent Council of the OAS in an attempt to thwart any movement on
CARICOM's request.

The Future

CARICOM stands to face a very leery and hostile future in terms of
its relations with the United States if and when the findings of this
OAS investigation are made public. Some skeptics may have already
classified these findings as: "I told you so." Haiti has always been
an embarrassing, nagging and contentious thorn in the side of France
and the United States since 1791; thus, it need occasion no great
surprise that these very same countries were joined at the
geo-political hip to remove Aristide from office. The old defeatist
wounds have not gone away. How to heal them is the unknown and maybe
unsolvable variable in any future CARICOM-Haiti-United states
relations.

One can only hope history will absolve CARICOM leaders for taking
such a precedent-setting position on behalf and protection of the
first Black sovereign independent nation-state in the Western
Hemisphere. Future relations suggest that the United States should
realize that the loudest message coming out of the Caribbean as
enunciated by its CARICOM leaders is that these governments are not
only determined to be independent but also and most importantly, are
determined to act independently.

Further Reading

Akkee,K.(31 March 2004). The ousting of Aristide. Guardian,p.27.
Alexander, G.(7 May 2004). Caricom wants OAS to conduct Aristide
probe. Trinidad Guardian.
AP. ( 6 July 2004). Leaders retreat to debate Haiti's future in
Caricom. Trinidad Express.
Browne, J. ( 28 March 2004). Caricom : No support for US-backed Haiti
Govt. Sunday Guardian, p.4.
CNN. (2 March 2004). Aristide: US kidnapped me. Trinidad Express, p.3.
Damu, J. (10 February 2004). Haiti Makes Its Case For Reparations:
The Meter Is Running At $34 Per Second. Mahagony Revue.
Dupuy. A. (1997). Haiti in the New World Order. Colorado: Westview
Press.
Dodds, P. ( 8 February 2004). Aristide sworn in as Haiti president as
people dance for Joy in streets. The Plain Dealer.
Farmer, P. (1994). The Uses of Haiti. Maine: Common Courage Press.
Haiti needs region's support-US OAS rep. (12 May 2004). Trinidad
Guardian, p.13.
Hector, M. and Casimir, J.( 5 January 2004). Haiti's long X1X
century. Trinidad and Tobago, p.20. Trinidad and Tobago Review
geocities.com ( 24 September 2004). Virtual Truth Commission.
Reports by Name: Francois Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, Haiti.
Nantambu, K. (1983). U.S. -Caribbean Relations : Before and After
Bishop. Washington, D.C.: School of Human Ecology, Howard University.
Nantambu,K. (1993). Haiti : Democracy or Hypocrisy?. Uhuru, p.9.
Reuters.(March 2004). Aristide: Armed white men kidnapped me. Trinidad
Express.
Singh, R. (March 2004). No Caricom handshake for Haiti. Trinidad
Express.
Singh, R. (March 2004). Caricom facing US pressure on Haiti. Trinidad
Express.
Singh, R. (21 May 2004). OAS special session on Haiti postponed.
Trinidad Express.
Singh, R. ( 5 March 2004). Caricom's task force for Haiti. Trinidad
Express, p.24.
Singh, R. (March 2004). Caricom's challenge to OAS on Haiti. Trinidad
Express.