[Peace-discuss] Haiti

[C. G. Estabrook]

[A brief and informal comment by Noam Chomsky on what's happened in
Haiti, from another list.  --CGE]

...the right question takes a broader time span into consideration. The
real story is pretty clear, but mostly obscured in the coverage, which has
much too narrow a time focus, by design I presume.

Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (also too narrow a time
focus), the US was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a
grass-roots constituency, and began at once with efforts to undermine him.  
After three years of vicious terror under the military junta, Clinton
allowed Aristide to return in 1994, but on condition that he accept the
harsh neoliberal program of the US candidate in 1990, who got 14% of the
vote.  That is what is described with much pride as a noble effort to
bring democracy to suffering people, which failed because we didn't stay
long enough, or perhaps because they have a bad culture (maybe bad genes).  
It was evident at once that the economic program forced on Haiti by
Clinton would destroy what was left of the economy, as it did.  One might
note that the proconsul of Iraq, Paul Bremer, has ordered a very similar
program to be instituted there, with the same beneficiaries in mind.  
That's also called "enhancing democracy".  In fact, the record,
interesting and important, goes back to the 18th century, and similar
programs had a large role in creating today's third world (since the
powerful don't follow those rules, they can become rich developed
societies).

Got worse under Bush II -- there are differences within the narrow
spectrum of savagery.  Those now conquering the country are the inheritors
of FRAPH (the main gang of paramilitary gangsters) and the army, which
Aristide had dismantled, infuriating the US, which had put it in place
after the Marines ended the long US occupation that caused immense damage
to the country.  The founder of FRAPH, Emmanuel Constant, is living
happily in Queens -- under the Bush doctrine that a country that harbors a
terrorist is a terrorist state and should be destroyed.  Since he only has
prime responsibility for the murder of several thousand poor blacks, he is
as clean as a whistle.  The US hasn't even bothered to respond to Haitian
requests for extradition of the mass murderer.  The reason, it is
generally assumed, is that if he is tried in Haiti he'll reveal Bush
I/Clinton connections with the murderous junta. That the junta was
supported by Washington in those years is hardly in doubt, in fact was
conceded (though scarcely reported, in accord with the usual norms of
journalism and intellectual commentary).

What's happening now is awful, maybe beyond repair.  And there is plenty
of short-term responsibility on all sides.  But the right way for the US
and France to proceed is very obvious.  They should begin with payment of
enormous reparations to Haiti (France is perhaps even more hypocritical
and disgraceful than the US), but that requires construction of really
functioning democratic societies in the US and France, societies in which
people have a prayer of knowing what's going on.  A long way off...

***