27843: Kondrat (comment) Q & A Aristide and intervention (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

   from Peter Kondrat (kondr8@gmail.com)

  Aristide-phobic regulars of this list, and their ideological cronies, are
going  through all kinds of contortions in an effort to dismiss or minimize
the impact of revelations in the New York Times in the week before the
elections, revelations that clearly demonstrate that Aristide's  government did
not in fact simply collapse under the weight of its own  contradictions and
malfeasance. The dark hand of U.S. intervention  again has manipulated events
in another sovereign nation, in yet  another cynical attempt to create power
dynamics that favor the  U.S.

  Of  course, Aristide is not the only head of a democratically elected
government to fall victim to North American geopolitical power  exigencies. We
can count at least one hundred interventions by the  United States in the
internal affairs of sovereign nations of Latin  America and the Caribbean (and
from time to time in other spots like  Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle
East). People who care about  Haiti have got to ask themselves:
  Were  the events in Haiti that culminated in Aristide's fall in February
2004
a part of this clear historical pattern of U.S. intervention, or were  they
not?
  Can  Haiti ? or any nation ? cultivate democratic institutions and a
functional civil society if democratically elected leaders are subject  to mob
rule and banishment when they fall out of favor?
  Is the United States justified in destabilizing or deposing governments it
judges to be corrupt or ineffective?

  And a question for Americans:
  Would the United States  government itself measure up to standards of
integrity and  effectiveness, sufficient to argue against another power
intervening in  the

Today,\nLatin American nations from Chile to Mexico are saying "basta"
to\nAmerican intervention in those nations\' internal affairs.
Voters\nthroughout Latin America and the Caribbean are electing leaders
who\nspeak up for the disenfranchised, and who refuse to allow
U.S.\npolicymakers to bully their leaders, set their priorities and
dictate\ntheir national agenda. They know that the kind of U.S.
intervention\nthat has been documented in Haiti and elsewhere is
inherently\nantidemocratic, and is a violation of their sovereignty.
Unfortunately,\ninsiders like Morse as well as outsiders like Chamberlain are
only too\nwilling to defend U.S. meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations
...\nor just to shrug it off, as long as it brings about a desired
political\nresult ? in this case, the removal of the elected president whom
they\ndetest.

In\nHaiti, an elected head of state was removed from office
by\nextraconstitutional means, and a people was then plunged into a state\nof
violence, chaos and destitution. No one can doubt that the Haitian\npeople --
and particularly those living in mise --  have been the losers in the aftermath
of the events of February\n2004. For Haiti or any nation that calls itself
sovereign and\ndemocratic, the preservation of state institutions has got to
take\nprecedence over power struggles by individuals, by political parties
or\nby various factions of society. Hindsight clearly shows us that the\nevents
of February 2004 were not just a coup against Aristide, but an\nassault on the
beginnings of the civil society that were struggling to\ntake root in Haiti.
There is mounting evidence that links the forced\ndeparture of Aristide to
maneuverings by forces associated with U.S.\ninterests ? a scenario familiar to
anyone familiar with the modus\noperandi of the ",1]  );    //-->U.S.'s own
internal
 affairs on the grounds of corruption or   ineffectiveness?

  Today,  Latin American nations from Chile to Mexico are saying "basta" to
American intervention in those nations' internal affairs. Voters  throughout
Latin America and the Caribbean are electing leaders who  speak up for the
disenfranchised, and who refuse to allow U.S.  policymakers to bully their
leaders, set their priorities and dictate  their national agenda. They know
that the kind of U.S. intervention  that has been documented in Haiti and
elsewhere is inherently  antidemocratic, and is a violation of their
sovereignty. Unfortunately,  insiders as well as outsiders are only too
willing to defend U.S. meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations ...  or
just to shrug it off, as long as it brings about a desired political  result ?
in this case, the removal of the elected president whom they  detest.

  In  Haiti, an elected head of state was removed from office by
extraconstitutional means, and a people was then plunged into a state  of
violence, chaos and destitution. No one can doubt that the Haitian  people --
and particularly those living in mise --  have been the losers in the aftermath
of the events of February  2004. For Haiti or any nation that calls itself
sovereign and  democratic, the preservation of state institutions has got to
take  precedence over power struggles by individuals, by political parties or
by various factions of society. Hindsight clearly shows us that the  events of
February 2004 were not just a coup against Aristide, but an  assault on the
beginnings of the civil society that were struggling to  take root in Haiti.
There is mounting evidence that links the forced  departure of Aristide to
maneuverings by forces associated with U.S.  interests ? a scenario familiar to
anyone familiar with the modus  operandi of the

How\ndo those who applaud the destruction of Haiti\'s elected government,
and\nthe decimation of its budding civil society, justify their
position,\nespecially in light of what we all know about the
horrific\nconsequences?

Morse\nand Chamberlain and others who make the argument that
Aristide\'s\ngovernment "self-destructed" ? in the face of the damning
revelations\nabout the role of U.S. interests in destabilizing Haitian
society,\nstarving its treasury and paralyzing government operations ? are
not\nunlike an abuser who beats his pregnant wife, kills her unborn child,\nand
then proclaims his innocence! He crows his defense that the damn\nwoman was
careless, didn\'t eat well, didn\'t take care of her other\nchildren: the damn
kid would have died anyway, and even if it lived, it\nwould have had two
irresponsible parents ? one violent and the other\nnegligent. So good riddance
to that life cut short.

For\nanyone who puts stock in Haitian sovereignty and the rule of law,
there\nreally is no justification for the U.S.-supported maneuvers
that\nresulted in two years of violence, chaos and destitution for the\nHaitian
people.

  \n",0]  );    //-->U.S. from Iran to Cuba to Chile to  Nicaragua.

  How  do those who applaud the destruction of Haiti's elected government, and
the decimation of its budding civil society, justify their position,
especially in light of what we all know about the horrific  consequences?

  Those who make the argument that Aristide's  government "self-destructed" ?
in
the face of the damning revelations  about the role of U.S. interests in
destabilizing Haitian society,  starving its treasury and paralyzing government
operations ? are not  unlike an abuser who beats his pregnant wife, kills her
unborn child,  and then proclaims his innocence! He crows his defense that the
damn  woman was careless, didn't eat well, didn't take care of her other
children: the damn kid would have died anyway, and even if it lived, it  would
have had two irresponsible parents ? one violent and the other  negligent. So
good riddance to that life cut short.

  For  anyone who puts stock in Haitian sovereignty and the rule of law, there
really is no justification for the U.S.-supported maneuvers that  resulted in
two years of violence, chaos and destitution for the  Haitian people.


---------------------------------
 Yahoo! Mail
 Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
----- End forwarded message -----