[Peace-discuss] Aristide

Wed Mar 3 20:39:15 CST 2004

This article provides some insight into the US role in the unrest in Haiti
-Paul P.

Published on Monday, March 1, 2004 by the Taipei Times / Taiwan

The Fire This Time in Haiti was US-Fueled
by Jeffrey Sachs

Haiti, once again, is ablaze. President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is widely
blamed, and he may be toppled soon. Almost nobody, however, understands
that today's chaos was made in Washington -- deliberately, cynically and
steadfastly. History will bear this out. In the meantime, political,
social, and economic chaos will deepen, and Haiti's impoverished people
will suffer.

The Bush administration has been pursuing policies likely to topple
Aristide since 2001. The hatred began when Aristide, then a parish priest
and democracy campaigner against Haiti's ruthless Duvalier dictatorship,
preached liberation theology in the 1980s. Aristide's attacks led US
conservatives to brand him as the next Fidel Castro.?

They floated stories that Aristide was mentally deranged. Conservative
disdain multiplied several-fold when then-president Bill Clinton took up
Aristide's cause after he was blocked from electoral victory in 1991 by a
military coup. Clinton put Aristide into power in 1994, and conservatives
mocked Clinton for wasting America's efforts on "nation building" in
Haiti. This is the same right wing that has squandered US$160 billion on a
far more violent and dubious effort at "nation building" in Iraq.?

Attacks on Aristide began as soon as the Bush administration assumed
office. I visited Aristide in Port-au-Prince in early 2001. He impressed
me as intelligent and intent on good relations with Haiti's private sector
and the US. No firebrand, he sought advice on how to reform his economy
and explained his realistic and prescient concerns that the American right
would try to wreck his presidency.

Haiti was clearly in a desperate condition: the most impoverished country
in the Western Hemisphere, with a standard of living comparable to
sub-Saharan Africa despite being only a few hours by air from Miami. Life
expectancy was 52 years. Children were chronically hungry.

Of every 1,000 children born, more than 100 died before their fifth
birthday. An AIDS epidemic, the worst in the Caribbean, was running
unchecked. The health system had collapsed. Fearing unrest, tourists and
foreign investors were staying away, so there were no jobs to be had.

But Aristide was enormously popular in early 2001. Hopes were high that he
would deliver progress against the extraordinary poverty. Together with
Dr. Paul Farmer, the legendary AIDS doctor in Haiti, I visited villages in
Haiti's Central Plateau, asking people about their views of politics and
Aristide.? Everybody referred to the president affectionately as "Titid."
Here, clearly, was an elected leader with the backing of Haiti's poor, who
constituted the bulk of the population.

When I returned to Washington, I spoke to senior officials in the IMF,
World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Organization of American
States. I expected to hear that these international organizations would be
rushing to help Haiti.

Instead, I was shocked to learn that they would all be suspending aid,
under vague "instructions" from the US. Washington, it seemed, was
unwilling to release aid to Haiti because of irregularities in the 2000
legislative elections, and was insisting that Aristide make peace with the
political opposition before releasing any aid.

The US position was a travesty. Aristide had been elected president in an
indisputable landslide. He was, without doubt, the popularly elected
leader of the country -- a claim that President George W. Bush cannot make
about himself.

Nor were the results of the legislative elections in 2000 in doubt:
Aristide's party had also won in a landslide.? It was claimed that
Aristide's party had stolen a few seats. If true -- and the allegation
remains unproved -- it would be nothing different from what has occurred
in dozens of countries around the world receiving support from the IMF,
World Bank, and the US itself. By any standard, Haiti's elections had
marked a step forward in democracy, compared to the decades of military
dictatorships that America had backed, not to mention long periods of
direct US military occupation.

The more one sniffed around Washington the less America's position made
sense. People in positions of responsibility in international agencies
simply shrugged and mumbled that they couldn't do more to help Haiti in
view of the Bush veto on aid. Moreover, by saying that aid would be frozen
until Aristide and the political opposition reached an agreement, the Bush
administration provided Haiti's un-elected opposition with an open-ended
veto. Aristide's foes merely had to refuse to bargain in order to plunge
Haiti into chaos.?

That chaos has now come. It is sad to hear rampaging students on BBC and
CNN saying that Aristide "lied" because he didn't improve the country's
social conditions. Yes, Haiti's economic collapse is fueling rioting and
deaths, but the lies were not Aristide's. The lies came from Washington.

Even now, Aristide says that he will share power with the opposition, but
the opposition says no. Aristide's opponents know that US right-wingers
will stand with them to bring them violently to power. As long as that
remains true, Haiti's agony will continue.

Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth
Institute at Columbia University.