19841: Erzilidanto: Counterspin -The truth/U.S. Coup D'etat disenfranchising 8.5 million Blacks (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Erzilidanto@aol.com

Counterspin. This episode can be viewed online at:
http://counterspin.tv/article.pl?sid=04/02/27/2235249&mode=thread

Here is a script summary of the counterspin show:

March 04, 2004
Haiti in perspective - CBC's Counterspin
Canada’s Counterspin: Haiti Special

'Recap' and 'Review' by Anthony Fenton

On Wednesday evening CBC’s Counterspin provided a mainstream Canadian
audience with their first taste of what is really going on in Haiti. What took place
was the sort of dialogue that has been largely absent from mainstream coverage
of Haiti during its recent crisis.

The excerpts to follow are extensive, but it should be asserted that this was
the first time such context has been offered to Canadians, due to the
monopoly that international wires, such as the Associated Press and Reuters, have had
on the flow of information about Haiti throughout the continuing crisis.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All told, last night’s broadcast provided a clear example of what a free and
public exchange of current issues and ideas is supposed to engender. The topic
was Haiti. The three main questions as posed by host Carol Off were:

1. Did Canada help the US engineer a coup?

2. Was Aristide the author of his own fate or the victim of outside forces?

3. Where will Haiti go from here?

The panellists: Via Washington, Haitian Clotilde Charlot of the right-wing
Brookings Institution Affiliate, Haiti democracy Project; Via New York,
Marguerite Laurent, Haitian-American lawyer and advocate for Haitian democracy and
self-determination; Via Montreal, Jean Fils-Aime, a Haitian-Canadian radio
broadcaster and; and in the Toronto studio, Jean St-Vil, Haitian-Canadian
journalist, broadcaster, and political activist.

Many viewers are likely to have been shocked to hear some of the things being
said during the show. St-Vil and Laurent were well prepared for the arguments
of Charlot and Fils-Aime, which were exposed as largely spurious and
deceptive. Interesting to note is that the anti-Aristide panellists did not offer any
analysis that one could not otherwise find in the mainstream press or in State
Department press releases. As such, this can be read as the debtate that
should be taking place bewteen the pages of our news dailies.

Off begins with the issue of whether Aristide was or was not kidnapped:

Marguerite Laurent: We stand behind Aristide’s comments. He did not resign,
and is still the legitimate President of Haiti. The US fomented economic, and
social destabilization in Haiti. The opposition could not win an election, so
the US Marines did their job for them.

Jean St-Vil: If he were not kidnapped he would have addressed the nation on
television announcing his decision. Also, on Saturday night on
[http://www.moun.com] they were announcing that helicopters had landed in the National Palace
grass, that a ‘diplomatic core’ was in the Palace, and that Aristide was
going to give his resignation speech in a few minutes. This was not on any
mainstream station…We awoke the next day learning Aristide had “resigned”.

The day before Aristide “resigned” he was quoted on CNN as having no
intentions of leaving prior to the end of his Presidency.

On his “resignation”:

Clotilde Charlot: I’ve seen [a copy] of the resignation letter. It looks
authentic. The recent events are the culmination of a deepening crisis of the last
three years…[This was able to come about] with the empowerment of civil
society over the last few months, joining forces with the traditional opposition.

An exchange on Aristide’s departure ensues between Fils-Aime and Off:

Jean Files-Aime: [Aristide] needed to leave. And because he did not want to,
he was forced to.

Off: But what kind of a message does this send about democracy – when Canada,
the US, France and others are supporting this?

Fils-Aime: A democracy is a contract…There are other articles of the
Constitution to consider, such as those regarding “security”…this is not just about
fulfilling a mandate.

Off: But you have to honour this contract.

Fils-Aime: We need to take back the democratic process: if you don’t agree,
you can be forced to.

Off asks St-Vil if he believes Colin Powell when he denies that the US forced
Aristide out. Footage of Powell [March 1] is shown: “He was not kidnapped, we
did not force him on the plane. That’s the truth.” St-Vil replies: “Colin
Powell has lied to the world over the last few years so many times…its crazy to
even be asking the question.”

St-Vil then provides context toward “democratic process” and the coup:

St-Vil: The coup, first of all, was not conducted against Jean Bertrand
Aristide, but against the people of Haiti. You have adult people who have fully
functioning brains, who…voted for someone. These people don’t have big
checkbooks; some don’t even have proper clothing to wear. They voted and they are full
human beings [who have every right to do so].

St-Vil and Laurent respond to the “reductionist” arguments of Charlot and
Fils-Aime, who continually attempt to frame the entire Haiti crisis around the
character of Aristide:

St-Vil: It is ridiculous to simply focus on Jean Bertrand Aristide. What has
happened here is that twice in a row the U.S…denied the people of Haiti their
right to self-govern. That is the point.

Laurent: Your public [Canadians] must understand: we’re not talking about
abstracts here. We’re talking about flesh and blood*…The Haitian people have the
right to self-determination.

Jean St-Vil brings up the issue of Ottawa’s involvement. [see Haiti-Progres,
V.20, #51, link below], dating back to early 2003.

St-Vil: In fact, while people are focusing on Aristide the real situation is
not even about that. It is about foreign occupation; there were meetings in
Ottawa planning what’s happening today. Here, they discussed [the establishment
of] a new police and a democratic Army. The Haitian people, as far as I know,
never asked for a return of the Haitian army. [It was decided that] Aristide
must go, and foreign ministers are deciding this [with no Haitian
representatives invited or present].

Off asks Fils-Aime if he admits that such meetings took place as “the Ottawa
Initiative in Haiti” as reported March 15, 2003 in L’Actualite.

Fils-Aime: It is true. There was a meeting of Foreign Ministers of France,
Canada, the U.S…[The meeting was brought on by] Aristide’s behaviour.”

This brings up issues of the opposition, whose interests were represented at
this high-level meeting in Ottawa. On the background of the opposition:

Laurent: The Haitian Opposition started out as a USAID creation, in an
attempt to undermine democracy. This did not work…later [the opposition] met in the
Dominican Republic with the Touton Macoutes [former FRAPH leaders]…Andre
Apaid, one of the leaders of the opposition, owns 15 sweatshops in Haiti…supported
the previous 1991 coup d’etat…is known for his maltreatment of workers.

On the “empowerment” of the opposition, US-nurtured:

Laurent: The opposition has been financed by the U.S., E.U., the IRI and
others. They represent the interests of big business. They’re only platform has
been to bring back the Haitian Army, and to keep wages down for potential
investors [in more sweatshops].

Both Charlot and Fils-Aime deflect criticism of the opposition. Charlot says
such generalizations “are misleading” and Fils-Aime asserts that the
opposition is not an “homogenous” mass. Both refer to the fact that several
opposition leaders are former Aristide supporters. Charlot emphasizes that there is “no
professional, no NGO - like myself – who is not part of that opposition.”
Neither offer justification for the funding of their opposition by the US, EU,
and Canada, as mentioned by Laurent. On the “mixed bag” opposition, St-Vil
provides context:

St-Vil: Precisely because alone as political parties they are not going to
win anything does the US put all 15 parties together to try to target the
opposition to win some votes. When that did not work…[We later] see key figures
walking side by side with international figures, such as Philippe, Tatoune,
Chamblain, who are known criminals, convicted, but [friends] of the US.

In the context of Haiti today, Laurent asserts, “Haitian people are being
slaughtered right now.” Largely, she argues, this has come about due to the
illegal intervention on Haitian affairs by the likes of Roger Noriega, Otto Reich,
and Colin Powell. “We should have a say, not them.”

In the context of whether Aristide “delivered” on his electoral mandate,
Charlot and Fils-Aime assert that he did not, but fail to offer concrete examples
of this, preferring instead to focus on petty personal issues. Fils-Aime says
he sees Aristide foremost “as a Preacher”, and not as a politician. He also
claims that Aristide was a “reproduction” of the Duvaliers, another
unsubstantiated claim.

Even though Aristide, according to Off, won the 2000 elections “in another
landslide”, Fils-Aime states, “if there were a referendum, Aristide would get
something like 25 per cent of the vote. The other 75 per cent would say no to
him.” Since the opposition has since 2000 refused to participate in any part of
the electoral process, let alone a “referendum”, we will never know if this
is the case.

In closing, St-Vil reasserts that the US, Canada, and France have now brought
the reviled Haitian Army back. As Laurent had earlier pointed out, many
“obstructions” on the part of the US, such as “withheld aid by the US and Canada
[according to OFF],” part of an ongoing effort “to dominate and control”
Haiti. St-Vil laments that this type of discussion is only legitimate if it is
being undertaken by the Haitian people.

“There is no evidence that the people of Haiti want that Army to come back.
The Army is needed in Haiti by the elites that control all of the money of
Haiti but can never win democratic elections.”

To return to the initial 3 questions as posed by Carol Off, we can better
assess concrete answers as based on this panel discussion:

1. Did Canada help the US engineer a coup?

Every indication yields a resounding yes. All of the points raised by St-Vil,
Laurent, and Off to this end are fully substantiated and thoroughly
documented. The important point to remember is that the coup was not so much against
Aristide as it was against the people of Haiti, already impoverished and always
bearing the most destructive brunt of US policy toward Haiti. Charlot and
Fils-Aime offered no credible evidence that would suggest otherwise.

2. Was Aristide the author of his own fate or the victim of outside forces?

Given the nature of the opposition and the hostile US policy toward Haiti,
the notion of “outside forces” has to be considered foremost in this calculus.
The criticisms of Aristide come mostly in the form of veiled character
assassinations and demonization. Neither Charlot nor Fils-Aime were able to provide
concrete examples toward how Aristide might have been the “author of his own
fate”. Neither did they offer counter-examples to those posed by Laurent and
St-Vil, who noted numerous “obstructions” and impediments that have been imposed
by the US, Canada, and others. The point herein – again – is that Aristide
should be no more [or less] subject to scrutiny than any other democratically
elected leader. Accordingly, it is up to the Haitian people to decide whether
or not Aristide has fulfilled a mandate.

3. Where will Haiti go from here?

This question was not addressed head on due to time constraints, though it is
not difficult to formulate a response, as based on the discussions. Laurent
pointed to the fact that Haitians are being slaughtered in the wake of the
US-Canada-France engineered coup d’etat. If US policy [as parroted by others,
including Canada] continues unchallenged, the future for Haiti is even more dire
than already was the case before the coup. The neoliberal imperatives that were
forced upon Haiti with Aristide’s return in 1994 – and those Structural
Adjustment Programs imposed since – have devastated Haiti economically and
socially. The World Bank and IMF, both controlled by the US, have a long history of
making impoverished countries worse off after neoliberalism. With Haiti’s
crumbling agricultural base, infrastructure, its external debt, combined with
several years of withheld aid that has suffocated Haiti, the Haitian people are
about to have evermore-severe hardships thrust upon them. A reinstalled military
can only exacerbate this and lead to countless human rights abuses and deaths.
As Laurent pointed out, several international laws and international
covenants have been broken in overthrowing Aristide. This spells disaster for Haiti in
the coming years unless the responsible parties are held accountable and the
Haitian people are allowed to exercise their human right to
self-determination.

On the Ottawa Initiative Background:

“Canadian Officials Initiate Planning for Military Ouster of Aristide”:
http://www.haiti-progres.com/2003/sm030305/eng03-05.html

Counterspin. This episode can be viewed online at:
http://counterspin.tv/article.pl?sid=04/02/27/2235249&mode=thread

For general background information regarding the crisis, see:
http://www.dominionpaper.ca/haiti
http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm
http://www.coha.org