18992: Bernard: FW: Haiti: Why the dissin' and the destroyin'? (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dick Bernard <dick@chez-nous.net>

	A comment in a February 4 New York Times editorial, "over the
past few months some 50 people have been killed in Haiti political
violence", set me to thinking about violence and some of the other
national blind-spots of we United States citizens.
	In subsequent weeks, violence has escalated in Haiti, and Haiti
has (finally) become 'news' in the United States.
       The NYTimes comment, by implication, suggested that the killings
in Haiti were outrageous (of course, they are), and that somehow
President Aristide bore much of the responsibility for them, even though
it seems, it is thugs on both sides who have been the perpetrators.
       I live in a 'safe' area of the United States:  Minnesota, the
last statistics I saw, had a homicide rate half the U.S. average.
       Still, about 1996, Minneapolis (then about 350,000 population),
gained the unwanted nickname 'Murderapollis', due to over 100 homicides
in a single year.  The killings were mostly, I recall, gang 'turf'
battles around the local and lucrative drug trade.  I don't recall
feeling unsafe then, nor hearing the then-mayor or state governor being
accused of responsibility for those murders or for the drug traffic.
Life went on in Minneapolis; people including myself traveled freely in
Murderapolis, to the Theatre, the Minnesota Twins games, etc.  No State
Department warnings were issued that it was unsafe to come to
Minneapolis.  (In an average year, Minnesota, with about 60% of Haiti's
population, has well over 100 homicides, and as I say, we are a very
safe state within the U.S.  Statistically, it is probably more likely
that one will be killed violently in the U.S. than in Haiti.)
       There are other dimensions to this issue: My friend Paul reminded
me that New York City, which has about the same population as Haiti, has
a police force of over 60,000, compared with fewer than 5,000 police
(and no Army) in Haiti.and the Haitian police force is ill-equipped
compared with New York's.
       A few days ago, one of my Haiti travel mates (I was in
Port-au-Prince December 6-13) wrote that "my coworker returned from
Haiti [about February 14].  She was there with her church.  She said the
news we are receiving is way overblown.  They were able to travel around
Port-au-Prince without trouble, and some in her group went on to Jacmel.
She was really concerned because three other church groups cancelled
during the week because of the news.  She actually saw an AP reporter on
the street, pulled him aside and asked him to provide some fair press
(and she is not an Aristide lover.)"
       Of course, the safety situation in Haiti has deteriorated since
February 14, with criminals comfortably taking up arms and appearing in
public.
       The news I see here continues to have an anti-Aristide slant,
though there is a bit more evidence that some 'fair and balanced'
perspective is starting to appear in print and on the media.  But even
I, a rookie on Haiti, can see the bias.  It does not require a PhD, or
years of experience in the country to see what is going on.
       The real outrage I see about Haiti is the very obvious efforts of
the U.S. to starve the Aristide government out of existence, while at
the same time likely bankrolling and training the opposition through
Non-Government Organization (NGO) funding and support and advice.  Haiti
is simply another 'regime change' initiative at its most ugly: make it
impossible for a government to succeed and then blame it for its
failure.  Pious denials aside, this U.S. campaign against Aristide (and,
by extension, the poor he represents) seems to have been going on since
before 1990, and the legitimate question is 'why?'
       In operation are the classic American political weapons of
character assassination, rumors and innuendo against Aristide; joined in
Haiti by an unfortunate tradition of political killings.  It is a lethal
combination.  Still, it seems, the U.S. is effectively aiding and
abetting the violence and taking the position that we will fund the
'right' government in Haiti, once we can get it elected - the desires
and votes of the Haitian people, and democracy be damned.
       I cannot resist another very elementary comparison at this point
in history:
       In IRAQ, there are approximately 150,000 American troops still on
the ground, costing about $3,000,000,000 per month;
       In HAITI, there are zero U.S. troops (other than a tiny
contingent to protect the embassy, etc), or police supplements, with
thus no cost to the U.S.  In addition, there is essentially zero
'foreign aid' to Haiti, and of that, almost none is going to the
standing government of Haiti.  As best as I can gather from State
Department website, our aid to Haiti, however generously defined,
amounts to about $7 per Haitian per year, costing about twenty cents per
American.)
       It's not a matter of huge differences in population or geography,
either: Iraq is considerably larger in size that Haiti, but far easier
to get around in due to much better road systems and basic
infrastructure; Iraq does have three times the population of Haiti, but,
like Haiti, the population is concentrated in urban centers.
       In one instance, Iraq, we have completely taken over the country;
in the other, Haiti, we have done our best to be completely
disengaged.though the objectives for both countries seem identical.
       No doubt, President Aristide and his government and Lavalas do
not reflect perfection.  The more I see of what obstacles the Aristide
government has to contend with, however, the more respect and even
admiration I have for them.
       There is a saying that the 'treatment can be worse than the
disease'.  In Haiti, the possible replacement of a legitimately elected
government with a cobbled together bunch of obstructive dissidents might
well be a great example of that saying.
       The Aristide government and the Haitian people deserve active
American support.