Haiti: Was this a U.S. backed coup d'etat?

To be fair, in a lot of the South American coups we took part in, it was never clear that any truly important national interests were at play either. Sometimes it was nothing more than doing favors for big time power brokers in the U.S. who had financial interests that were under threat, things which few people knew about until decades later. In those cases, as now, it didn’t take much more than the interest of one or two people in the administration/buerracracy to push for it getting done.

But I still have a hard time seeing that in operation here.

Well maybe: I’d just like to see whether or not anyone else is going to do much better, and certainly the rebels are no better, and possibly a lot worse. The corruption and armed thug atmosphere of the country is a lot bigger and more entrenched than any one man, and at this point I’d hold some sort of political stability and rule of law over chaos and rebelion regardless of how ineffectual the president was. If you need to oust him, at least have some sort of vote on the thing.

I find it amusing that the haitians THINK that their sorry excuse for a country is of any importance to the world. Haiti is a failed state, economically, it counts for nothing. It makes no difference whether a corrupt dictator or a saint rules the country-there is basically NOTHING to steal there. The fact that they have NO tourism to speak of speaks volumes about the place-and because there is the constant chaos, nobody will ever invest a dime in Haiti.
What I’m waiting for: Joe Kennedy Jr. owns a substantial part of the cell phone system in Haiti (the land l;ines are in disrepair). He has made a fortune out of this impoverished land, and yet nobody talks about this… a liberal who gouges the poorest place in the Western hemisphere. :smiley:

This morning, Colin Powell said:

Hey, just like here! So when does Bush fly off to the Central African Republic? :smiley:

Seems to me, though, that Aristide passed the fundamental litmus test of democratic governance: he handed over power to his elected successor back in 1996. (He was elected to the Haitian presidency again in 2000.) I don’t have reason to believe Aristide was any sort of saint, or even that he governed Haiti all that well. But I’ve seen nothing yet to suggest that he was any further from (small-d) democratic norms than, say, Tom DeLay. Yet the Bushies apparently had international aid withheld from Haiti for years on that basis (see the Sachs link in my previous post) - aid that might’ve made it possible for Aristide to improve conditions there. (Again, whether he would have done so is anybody’s guess, but without that aid, there was norfolk’n way.)

Here’s a year-old story about Roger Noriega from the Texas Observer. It doesn’t say anything specifically about Haiti, but it’s informative background about Roger Noriega (and to a lesser extent, Otto Reich as well).

Oops - forgot the link for my Powell quote.

Possibly he is a fruitcake.

FWIW, my local paper quoted Robert Fattton, an “expert on Haiti at the University of Virginia”, as saying that Aristide “has a long history of making statements that are self-serving or inaccurate, sometimes mystifying his followers.”

I suspect Aristide is trying to make himself feel better about being ousted (again) by blaming it on the US. Such a statement will nearly always find an audience among those eager to jump to anti-US conclusions.

The US decided that he was a liability to his unhappy country, and offered a plane ride and safe passage. Aristide realized that the US wasn’t going to get him reinstated this time, and accepted the out on the assumption that he could go to South Africa. En route, South Africa said they didn’t want him, and he was flown to the Central African Republic. Since this was not his first choice, he decided he had been kidnapped.

I am sure that twenty years from now, some will take it for granted that the US engineered the whole overthrow, but there is no evidence for this.

Regards,
Shodan

It makes a difference to the Hatians. And here’s what Aristide said to Lou Dobbs:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/01/cnna.aristide/index.html

Personally, I believe he’s telling the truth, but I also don’t think that there was a U.S. backed coup to get rid of him. What imagine happened is that embassy staff came to him, and said,

“Look, Mr. President, if you stay here, you’re going to die, and a lot of people are going to be killed trying to protect you. We can get you out, but you have to come now.”

So there was a lot of pressure on him, and it wasn’t entirely voluntary on his part…he was doing it to avoid being killed, but at the same time we didn’t overthrow him.

No, but I never said there was proof about Haiti. In fact I have explicitly said so more than once.

I was simply saying that US had explicitly stated their preferences, therefore we don’t have to guess what they were.

Now if you take at face value, one nation’s supposed interest in another’s, well more power to you. :rolleyes: If only politics were that simple.

Captain Amazing’s scenario sounds right.

I doubt it. The only US interest in Haiti is maintaining some form of stability there, limiting the number of refugees rafting over to Jeb’s Florida and providing a port for cruise ships. Destabilizing it and turning power over to a group that can’t quickly improve stability doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that a group who should have learned from their lack of planning in Iraq would do.

The thing is, if we kidnapped Aristede to Africa, and he’s now having press conferences on CNN, why can’t he just get on another plane and go back to Haiti? The reason he can’t is because the “rebels” would then invade the capital and there would be pitched battles with the pro-Aristede militias, and a lot of people would die, and the rebels would probably win, and Aristede would end up dead, unless the US military intervened and protected him.

Which we have refused to do. Now, it may be that we should have sent marines in to prop up Aristede. But would that really have been the wisest course? Of course the “rebels” (meaning the drug lord/gang leader/ex-military/ex-death squad guys) are certainly no prize. But it seems that we are trying to keep them out of power by pretending to believe that all they really wanted was for Aristede to leave.

I’m certainly surprised by how easily the rebels seized control of the country. Does anyone have a source for how many troops they actually have? It seems like there was really no armed opposition to the rebels. Were the pro-Aristede armed militias only in the capitol? Why didn’t they fight in other parts of the country?

Quite possible. And it’s even possible that he mostly a stable guy, but the recent events could have pushed him over the edge. Couldn’t have been the most relaxing week or so for the guy.

Okay, okay, I was wrong. The Bush Administration is that stupid. That is, Aristide now says he did not resign of his own free will, he signed the litter of resignation under duress, and he was kidnapped by U.S. troops. The Bush spokespersons contradict all of this. Well, I am ready to take the word of Jean-Bertrand Aristide (or, for that matter, the word of Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, or Baron Munchausen) over the word of George W. Bush any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And I know I’m not the only one.

Things are looking better and better for Kerry in November. There’s no way Bush can live this down.

Does the name “United Fruit Company” ring any bells?

The whole thing looks sickening to me: the US has undercut Aristide for years, and stood by while drug lords were taking over the country, encouraging him to step down (which would ensure the rise to power of drug lords); within hours of his resignation, the US sends in troops that he’d been asking for before that, but refuses to do anything to keep the drug lords from taking over.

Motives? The US has traditionally been very, very hostile toward left-leaning governments in the Western Hemisphere; Aristide leaned leftward, I believe. Maybe the hope is that under a right-wing dictator, US companies will have an easier time setting up factories with cheap labor in Haiti. Maybe Bush believes he can strike a deal with the drug lords to get them to stop shipping drugs up north. Maybe it’s just a remnant of domino effect theory.

Whatever it is, it’s disgusting. Aristide wasn’t the most democratic leader in Central America, but he was far from the worst; if the US wanted to help out, there are far more practical and efficient ways it could’ve done it.

The Haitian people are the ones that lose in all this.

Daniel

Or the most relaxing last thirteen years or so, for that matter.

As I mentioned, the AP this morning found that at least one person who has spent his career studying Haiti does not find Aristide to be a credible source. The more gullible of the anti-Bush crowd believes him without question. Major surprise, that. :rolleyes:

I suppose it could have been Aristide on the grassy knoll, but I will need to see some evidence beyond the usual nonsense from the Usual Suspects.

And, as Lemur866 points out, if he was really kidnapped, nothing is stopping him from returning to the bosom of his people immediately. Apparently he has no plans to do so. One wonders why.

Regards,
Shodan

Amazing…simply stunning. You guys are bound and determined to make this ridiculous story get legs aren’t you? Deals with drug lords? Fruit companies? Cheap labor? And you delude yourselves that THIS is worth it to Bush and Co. to risk the election for? And the thing that really stuns me…I think you actually believe this drivel. At least the Iraq conspiricy theories had some basis in rational thought…there WAS billions of dollars in profit to be had there after all. This??

It never seems to cross some of your minds that perhaps Aristide is simply playing some kind of game for his own reasons (or that he’s simply unhinged at this point). I mean, he comes out and makes a ridiculous statement about being coerced to leave…and you simply buy that as the gospel. Why? Because you hate Bush so much that anything…ANYTHING, even of the tin foil hat variety…thats against him MUST be true. His stupidity and evilness simply knows no bounds to some of you and you’ve tossed your rationality right out the window when the subject is Bush or anything to do with him or his Administration.

I find it incredible that anyone with a rational mind could think that GW, no matter how stupid and evil, would risk his now slim chances for re-election…over Haiti! Please though…carry on. This thread has been a water shed for me about some of you…

-XT

It does. Unfortunately, Chiquita (name of the United Fruit Company since 1989) has no holdings in Haiti.

I simply cannot pass up an opportunity to mildly agree with friend Shodan. At long last, we have an accusation of cupidity and arrogance on the part of Fearless Misleader that is not based on solid fact! This must be the happiest moment he has had in quite some time, or is likely to have again.

Naturally, I expect this observation to be taken as proof positive of my completely objective non-partisanship.

The lack of context from people like bump is outstanding.

Why to intervene if they don’t produce anything useful? Because otherwise tragedy and death in Haiti would have created a big humanitarian disaster, something that would have been embarrassing to Bush. Particularly if refugees had appeared on the shores of Florida, or worse, dead. Oh, and it was bad to let the Haiti situation take headlines away for the very important -for reelection- gay issue.

The intervention of the US was very transparent, AFAICR some members of the administration openly talked of removing Aristide right before it actually happened. After the Venezuela Fiasco, this was an easy picking, the difference here is that people were not willing to stand up for the president. That is the reason for him not returning right away Shodan.

Even though most Haitians looked not supportive of Aristide, I’ll always condemn succession by rioting, it remains in the end, a subversion of democracy. One wonders why this never seems to be a problem for many in the extreme right.

Having said that, the only thing that saved some of Bush’s face in this case is the fact that the UN and the French were onboard to help prevent anarchy.

(SO much for the UN being irrelevant, BTW: did someone notice it was more effective than Bush in finding WMD? Problem for Bush was that it was in Iran, not Iraq.)

Xtisme:
I do suspect Aristide is exaggerating his case, but the current US administration is not a group that generates trust in matters like this one anymore.

As I see from many replies, here another reason why to dump Bush: the fact is that many in America and the World do not trust the words of this administration, this is only creating fertile ground for more misunderstandings and second guessing, not only for the good guys in the open, but also for the secret organizations that the government is supposed to control.

As much the problem as anything else: Haiti has nothing to steal. There are no resources to exploit, unless ignorance, disease and poverty can somehow be defined as “resource”.

Did Aristide misgovern? I honestly don’t know, how does one govern an ongoing nightmare? What political principles can transform desperate poverty into small entreprenuers and Starbucks franchises?

Our policy towards Haiti seems founded, ultimately, on one abiding principle: we don’t want them here, we want them there. Or France. Or Cuba. But not here.

There’s one way to solve the “Haiti problem”, and one way only: boatloads of money, forever. There is not the slightest hope of “development”, a leper colonly will not be “developed”. We can undertake to feed and educate the next generation of Haitians to make them more desireable emigrees, so that they might move somewhere else.

The Admins goal in Haiti is short sighted by necessity: get it quieted down and off the news so we can resume our benign neglect. And the heartbreak is this: that is probably as positive a policy towards Haiti as is possible, given the political reality involved.

Some problems have no solution, short of Divine Intervention. Alas.

Undercut him? You mean like in 1994, when he was ousted last time - and the US re-established him?

Really? What practical and efficient ways do you know of to prevent yet another coup in Haiti?
[QUOE=GIGObuster]As I see from many replies, here another reason why to dump Bush: the fact is that many in America and the World do not trust the words of this administration, this is only creating fertile ground for more misunderstandings and second guessing, not only for the good guys in the open, but also for the secret organizations that the government is supposed to control.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t understand this.

We should dump Bush because the paranoid Left doubts him? I would rather not base my Presidental selections on the opinions of those who would take the word of Kim Jung-il or Castro over Bush based on nothing at all.

Or is your last statement that we should oust Bush because the Illuminati are getting too strong?

This is tin-foil hat territory.

Regards,
Shodan