~snip~
At a September 1994 rally, Ross Perot echoed this popular prejudice in his own "know-nothing" style. "Haitians like a dictator," he announced, "I don't know why." The implication, underscoring his opposition to US intervention, was that he also didn't care what happened there, and neither should most people.
The Bush administration may have counted on a similar reaction when it embraced a violent uprising against Aristide in late 2003, or even after it reportedly had him kidnapped on February 29 and flown to Africa. Afterward, the deposed president said his resignation was dictated by officials at the US Embassy. Of courtse, he was never a US favorite, and his inability to maintain order in an atmosphere of US-backed destabilization provided an excellent pretext for "regime change" - Haitian style.
In early February, a "rebel" paramilitary army crossed the border from the Dominican Republic. This trained and well-equipped unit included former members of The Front for the Advancement of Progress in Haiti (FRAPH), a disarming name for death squads involved in mass killing and political assassinations during the 1991 military coup that overthrew Aristide's first administration. The self-proclaimed National Liberation and Reconstruction Front (FLRN) was also active, and was led by Guy Philippe, a former police chief and member of the Haitian Armed Forces. Philippe had been trained during the coup years by US Special Forces in Ecuador, together with a dozen other Haitian Army officers. Two other rebel commanders, who led attacks on Gonaives and Cap Haitien, were Emmanuel "Toto" Constant and Jodel Chamblain, both former members of the Duvalier era enforcer squad, the Tonton Macoute, and leaders of FRAPH.
Both armed rebels and civilian backers were apparently involved in the latest plot. G-184 leader Andre Apaid was in touch with US Secretary of State Colin Powell in the weeks leading up to Aristide's overthrow. Both Philippe and Constant have links to the CIA, and were in touch with US officials.
On February 20, US Ambassador James Foley called in a team of four military experts from the US Southern Command, based in Miami, according to the Seattle Times. Officially, their mandate was "to assess threats to the embassy and its personnel." Meanwhile, as a "precautionary measure," three US naval vessels were placed on standby to go to Haiti. One was equipped with Vertical takeoff Harrier fighters and attack helicopters. At least 2000 Marines were also ready for deployment.
Since Aristide's kidnapping, however, Washington has made no effort to disarm its proxy paramilitary army, now slated to play a role in the "transition." In other words, the Bush administration has no plans to prevent the slaughter Aristide supporters in the wake of the president's removal. In covering the crisis, corporate media has ignored both history and the role played by the CIA. Instead, so-called "rebel leaders," commanders of death squads in the 1990s, are recognized as legitimate opposition spokesmen.
The Bush administration effectively scapegoated Aristide, holding him solely responsible for "a worsening economic and social situation." It sounds very much like the run up to the 2003 California recall movement that replaced Grey Davis with the GOP's new star, Arnold Schwarzenegger. In truth, the economic and social crisis was largely caused by the devastating economic reforms imposed by the IMF since the 1980s. Aristide's 1994 return to Haiti was conditioned on his acceptance of IMF economic "therapy." He complied, but was "blacklisted" and demonized anyway.
As Canadian Economist Michel Chossudovsky explains, Bush's likely goal is to "reinstate Haiti as a full-fledged US colony, with all the appearances of a functioning democracy. The objective is to impose a puppet regime in Port-au-Prince and establish a permanent US military presence in Haiti. The US Administration ultimately seeks to militarize the Caribbean basin."More:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/8993Unspeakably odd quote:
"Imagine, niggers speaking French."
William Jennings Bryant
U.S. Secretary of State, 1913-1915
More:
http://www.madre.org/articles/lac/haiticoup.htmlWritten immediately after Aristide's overthrow:
Debunking the Media's Lies about President Aristide
by Justin Felux
www.dissidentvoice.org
March 14, 2004
Speaking from his de facto prison in the Central African Republic where he is being kept under lock and key by the French, Jean-Bertrand Aristide recently made a statement to the world in which he said, "I declare in overthrowing me they have uprooted the trunk of the tree of peace, but it will grow back because the roots are L'Ouverturian," referring to Toussaint L'Ouverture, the military genius who led his fellow slaves in the only successful slave rebellion in world history. L'Ouverture was captured by the French and taken to a jail cell in the Jura Mountains of France. Aristide, the first democratically elected leader in Haitian history, has maintained that he was forced out of his country by the United States and a group of terrorists working on behalf of Haiti's wealthy elite.
If you believe the stories of the corporate media and the Bush administration, you would think Aristide is getting what he deserves. He is a "corrupt dictator" who abuses human rights. He is a "psychopath" who advocated "necklacing" his opponents. He didn't do anything to bring Haiti out of poverty; in fact, he made Haiti more poor than ever. All of these statements are distortions or outright lies. Aristide's true crime was the same crime committed by L'Ouverture 200 years ago: he stood up to the powers that be. He empowered the Haitian people and belied the racist caricature of Haiti as a land of savage, voodoo-practicing black people who aren't fit to govern themselves; the view expressed by William Jennings Bryan when he said "Think of it, niggers speaking French," or by Pat Buchanan when he disgracefully referred to Haitian refugees as "the Zulus off Miami Beach." Aristide showed those who painted the Haitian people as ungovernable savages needed to take a look in the mirror before they presumed to control the affairs of Haiti, and for that, he had to be deposed.
The New York Times Glorifies Killers
Meanwhile, the U.S. media has waged a vicious propaganda campaign against the embattled former priest in an attempt to justify his forced removal. The coverage of the events in Haiti has been nothing short of disgraceful. For example, the New York Times printed a story last Thursday titled "Thousands March in Haiti for New Leaders and Army." The story devotes 760 words to describing the rally held by supporters of the death squads that recently overran the Haitian countryside: "Some of the signs read 'Arrest Aristide!' Others said 'Down with Bill Clinton!' and 'Down with Jesse Jackson!' ... Others chanted 'Bring back the army!'" For those who don't know, the Haitian Army was created by the U.S. during the first half of the 20th century. It was used as an instrument of terror against Haiti's poor by the wealthy ruling class until Aristide bravely disbanded it in 1995.
In the story, Guy Philippe is portrayed as a character whose goodness ranks somewhere between that of Mother Teresa and Jesus. This is the same Guy Philippe who led incursions into Haiti from across the border which killed dozens of Lavalas supporters and police officers. He is also suspected of cocaine trafficking. Contrast the Times' coverage of the anti-Aristide demonstration with their coverage of a recent pro-Aristide demonstration. According to Reuters, the pro-Aristide rally had anywhere from 8,000 to over 10,000 participants: "Thousands of outraged supporters of exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide poured out of Haiti's slums and into the streets on Friday, marching on the U.S. Embassy to denounce the "occupation" of their homeland and demand Aristide's return."
The New York Times mentioned the rally, but it was buried in a piece titled "U.S. Special Forces in Haiti Seeking Out Rebel Leaders." Only 115 words are devoted to describing the demonstration. They said the demonstrators numbered in the "thousands," rather than the figure of over 10,000 reported by Reuters. The Aristide supporters are presented in a negative light. It says they "jeered and cursed" and "shouted angrily." It also describes them as "hooting protesters." The anti-Aristide demonstrators, on the other hand, "sang songs" and "chanted." In addition, "The march was peaceful ... There was some drinking and celebration but no violence." The message is clear: Aristide's supporters are mean and unruly whereas opponents of Aristide are amicable and peaceful.
Another story titled "Gunfire Kills 5 as They March in Haiti Capital" further demonizes Aristide supporters and humanizes his opposition. The article describes how anti-Aristide demonstrators "marched peacefully through the capital" when suddenly they were ambushed by "the toughs Mr. Aristide had used to enforce his authority." They describe the demonstration as the "largest" since Aristide's exile, which is almost certainly untrue if the Reuters estimate above is correct. The article describes in graphic detail the wounded and the dead: "The most seriously wounded lay on gurneys; half a dozen men writhed in pools of blood on the floor." They again make a hero out of Guy Philippe, saying, "Guy Philippe, the rebel leader whose actions helped push Mr. Aristide into exile, visited victims at the hospital, his face contorted as he saw their wounds." The story has over 1,000 words and relies almost totally on anti-Aristide sources. I have yet to see the Times devote anything near this much space to covering the hundreds of people Philippe's thugs have slaughtered in the past few weeks.
This sort of thing has been a consistent feature of the major media's coverage of the Haiti crisis. Demonstrations by Aristide's opponents always get covered whereas larger demonstrations by his supporters, if they are mentioned at all, get less, and with a more negative tone. Part of the reason is that major media outlets are obsessed with relying on the "official" sources rather than doing actual journalism. Another part of the reason is that the media in Haiti is owned by the ruling elite, most of whom harbor a pathological hatred for President Aristide. The situation is similar to what happened during the failed coup against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, where the Venezuelan media was virulently anti-Chavez. The reporting also is skewed by the fact that most of Aristide's support comes from the slums and the rural areas where reporters for the elite media are afraid or too lazy to visit.
More:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:mD_wtA5VR_AJ:www.dissidentvoice.org/Mar04/Felux0314.htm+Bush+overthrew+Aristide+death+squads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16&gl=us