PDA

View Full Version : Why the US destroyed yet another Democracy




diamond geezer
Mar 8, 2004, 02:31 PM
http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/03/05/120.html

This week, the Bush administration added another violent "regime change" notch to its gunbelt, toppling the democratically elected president of Haiti and replacing him with an unelected gang of convicted killers, death squad leaders, militarists, narcoterrorists, CIA operatives, hereditary elitists and corporate predators -- a bit like Team Bush itself, in other words.

Although the Haiti coup was widely portrayed as an irresistible upsurge of popular discontent, it was of course the result of years of hard work by Bush's dedicated corrupters of democracy, as William Bowles reports in Information Clearinghouse. Bushist bagmen funded the political opposition to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, smuggled guns to exiled Haitian warlords and carried out a relentless strangulation of the county, cutting off long-promised financial and structural aid to one of the poorest nations on earth until food prices were soaring, unemployment spiked to 70 percent and the broken-backed government lost control of society to armed gangs of criminals, fanatics and the merely desperate. Meanwhile, Haiti was forced to pay $2 million per month on debts run up by the murderous U.S.-backed dictatorships that ruled the island for decades after the American military occupation of 1915-1934.

The ostensible reason for Bush's deadly squeeze-play was Haiti's disputed elections in 2000. That vote, only the nation's third free election in 200 years, was indeed marred by reports of irregularities -- although these were not nearly as egregious as the well-documented hijinks which saw a certain runner-up candidate appointed to the White House that same year. There was no question that Aristide and his party received an overwhelming majority of legitimate votes; however, out of the 7,500 offices up for grabs, election observers did find that seven senate results seemed of dodgy provenance.

So what happened? The seven disputed senators resigned. New elections for the seats were called, but the opposition -- two elitist factions financed by Washington's favorite engines of subversion, the Orwellian-monikered "National Endowment for Democracy" and "International Republican Institute" -- refused to take part. The government broke down because the legislature couldn't convene. When Bush came in, he tightened the screws of the international blockade of the island, insisting that $500 million in desperately needed aid could not be released unless the opposition participated in new elections -- while he was simultaneously paying the opposition not to participate.

The ultimate aim of this brutal pretzel logic was to grind Haiti's destitute people further into the ground and destroy Aristide's ability to govern. His real crime, of course, was not the Florida-style election follies or the reported "tyranny." Bush loves that stuff -- witness his eager embrace of the nuke-peddling dictatorship of Pakistan, the human-boiling hardman of Uzbekistan, the torture-happy tyrant of Kazakhstan, the drug-running warlords of Afghanistan and so forth.

No, Aristide did something far worse than stuffing ballots or killing people -- he tried to raise the minimum wage to the princely sum of two dollars a day. This move outraged the American corporations -- and their local lackeys -- who have for generations used Haiti as a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits. It was the last straw for the elitist factions, one of which is actually led by an American citizen and former Reagan-Bush appointee, manufacturing tycoon Andy Apaid.

Apaid was the point man for the Reagan-Bush "market reform" drive in Haiti. Of course, "reform," in the degraded jargon of the privateers, means exposing even the very means of survival and sustenance to the ravages of powerful corporate interests. For example, the Reagan-Bush plan forced Haiti to lift import tariffs on rice, which had long been a locally grown staple. Then they flooded Haiti with heavily subsidized American rice, destroying the local market and throwing thousands of self-sufficient farmers out of work. With a now-captive market, the American companies jacked up their prices, spreading ruin and hunger throughout Haitian society.

The jobless farmers provided new fodder for the factories of Apaid and his cronies. Reagan and Bush chipped in by abolishing taxes for American corporations who set up Haitian sweatshops. The result was a precipitous drop in wages -- and life expectancy. Aristide's first election in 1990 threatened these cozy arrangements, so he was duly ejected by a military coup, with Bush I's not-so-tacit connivance.

Bill Clinton restored Aristide to office in 1994 -- but only after forcing him to agree to, yes, "market reforms." In fact, it was Clinton, the privateers' pal, who instigated the post-election aid embargo that Bush II used to such devastating effect. Aristide's chief failing as a leader was his attempt to live up to this bipartisan blackmail. As in every other nation that's come under the IMF whip, Haiti's already-fragile economy collapsed. Bush family retainers like Apaid then shoved the country into total chaos, making it easy prey for the warlords whom Bush operatives -- many of them old Iran-Contra hands -- supplied with arms through the Dominican Republic, the Boston Globe reports.

When the terrorist warlords attacked last month, Bush flatly refused Aristide's plea for an international force to preserve Haiti's democracy. Instead, he sent armed men to "persuade" Aristide to resign. Within hours, the Bush-backed terrorists were marching through Port-au-Prince, executing Aristide's supporters, the NY Times reports.

Guess they won't be asking for two dollars a day now, eh? Mission accomplished!

Thus, just like his father, Bush has overthrown Aristide, and for the same reason: He represented a threat to their "natural order" -- unchecked rule by pampered, protected elites. Terrorism, despotism, torture, WMD trafficking: All of this can countenanced, even embraced. But Aristide's alternative -- democratic, capitalist, but with "a prejudice for the poor," as enjoined by the Gospels -- this evil can never be tolerated.



skunk
Mar 8, 2004, 02:46 PM
http://www.tmtmetropolis.ru/stories/2004/03/05/120.html

Good link. Says it all, really. What a crock of ******.

windowsblowsass
Mar 8, 2004, 02:51 PM
all right the us didnt take over the conty rebels did the president fleed aand if you honestly think we would purposely topple the goverment of haiti you must live in one crazy fantasy world

skunk
Mar 8, 2004, 02:57 PM
if you honestly think we would purposely topple the goverment of haiti you must live in one crazy fantasy world

Yup. Unfortunately it's a world being redefined by the fantastically crazy Bush administration.

"If you honestly think we would purposely topple the government of Haiti/Iraq/Chile/Cuba/Venezuela....."

Just you wait.

Sun Baked
Mar 8, 2004, 02:58 PM
all right the us didnt take over the conty rebels did the president fleed aand if you honestly think we would purposely topple the goverment of haiti you must live in one crazy fantasy worldI still like the kidnapping charge.

Whereby we kidnapped him and let his country be overrun by rebels. :rolleyes:

---

I still think we should have sent him back on the next plane and asked the rebels to pick him up and drop him off at his house.

zimv20
Mar 8, 2004, 03:05 PM
all right the us didnt take over the conty rebels did the president fleed aand if you honestly think we would purposely topple the goverment of haiti you must live in one crazy fantasy world

your long reign of fact-based terror is over. and when i say "long," i mean "non-existent"

poopyhead
Mar 8, 2004, 03:38 PM
The article strangely reads like Lenin's "Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism" (using the export of capitol in order to create puppet governments which in turn supply an external proletariat for a country of bourgeoisie, with near starving conditions being a necessary component for the external proletariat in order to hold down wages and thus increase profits). When I followed the link I realized why, The Moscow Times. I'm liberal and I personally hate bush but I feel the article, especially with its sociopolitical slant, is not complete, but almost complete, crap.

skunk
Mar 8, 2004, 03:42 PM
When I followed the link I realized why, The Moscow Times. I'm liberal and I personally hate bush but I feel the article, especially with its sociopolitical slant, is not complete, but almost complete, crap.
Why?

poopyhead
Mar 8, 2004, 03:51 PM
Why I hate bush or why I think the article is mostly crap?

skunk
Mar 8, 2004, 03:53 PM
Why I hate bush or why I think the article is mostly crap?
The latter. I have no argument with the former. :)

Stelliform
Mar 8, 2004, 04:18 PM
Edited....

poopyhead
Mar 8, 2004, 04:23 PM
#1 it appears in the Arts and Ideas section
#2 I believe the poverty in Haiti is due more to there being little arable land and lack of foreign investment and not the result of abuse by foreign investors.

"No, Aristide did something far worse than stuffing ballots or killing people -- he tried to raise the minimum wage to the princely sum of two dollars a day. This move outraged the American corporations -- and their local lackeys -- who have for generations used Haiti as a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits. It was the last straw for the elitist factions, one of which is actually led by an American citizen and former Reagan-Bush appointee, manufacturing tycoon Andy Apaid."

This statement, in light of what I have read in both the CIA fact book and at tiscali.reference, seems to be untrue. Haiti's primary import is food so the importation of American rice is not dumping of American agricultural products it is normal and needed to avoid starvation. Also, with only 9% of the country being involved in manufacturing, all of which cannot be for U.S. companies, I find it unlikely that Haiti has for decades been "a pool of dirt-cheap labor and sky-high profits", if it were there would be much more american investment and Haiti wouldn't be nearly as poor as it is, it would be much more like Mexico where 27% of the population is involved in manufacturing and U.S. companies have been able to keep the wages amazingly low. I don't doubt that we helped to oust Aristide but I don't think we did it to further our economic imperialism over Haiti.
According to Lenin we need to keep the people near starvation but not actually starving, a decrease in the #'s of the proletariat equals a decrease in production and efficiency plus actual starvation breaks people out of the apathy of near starvation and moves them towards revolution which is never good for production, think Cuba.

skunk
Mar 8, 2004, 04:44 PM
#2 I believe the poverty in Haiti is due more to there being little arable land and lack of foreign investment and not the result of abuse by foreign investors.
According to the CIA factbook, arable land in Haiti is over 20%. In the USA it's less than 20%.
Haiti's primary import is food so the importation of American rice is not dumping of American agricultural products it is normal and needed to avoid starvation.
This does not follow from your argument any more than from that in the article. If local rice production has been wiped out, of course they'll need to import US rice....

zimv20
Mar 8, 2004, 05:20 PM
this article is badly written, doesn't even pretend to be objective, and appears in a publication about which i know nothing. so take it for what it's worth.

still, some of the points may turn out to be true. i think we have a couple weeks until more reputable papers are able to make a better assessment of what actually happened.

poopyhead
Mar 8, 2004, 05:30 PM
"According to the CIA factbook, arable land in Haiti is over 20%. In the USA it's less than 20%."

correct, but when you compare this amount as total area of arable land as compared to the U.S. population and add in the fact that the U.S. uses intensive farming practices, the agricultural production per capita in the U.S. greatly exceeds that of Haiti. Percent of arable land in a 3rd world country does not compare hectare to hectare with the percent of arable land in a rich first-world nation especially if the third world country primarily relies on subsistence farming which does not by its nature focus on the production of a surplus in an attempt to build capitol.
from the CIA factbook
Nearly 70% of all Haitians depend on the agriculture sector, which consists mainly of small-scale subsistence farming and employs about two-thirds of the economically active work force.
if the majority of the economy relies on subsistence agriculture then the importation of rice cannot drop the value of native subsistence rice production, i.e. if I produce agricultural staples for subsistence (basic survival, not to sell) then I pay only in my labor not in currency. If the majority of Haitians truly are subsistence farmers then the importation of rice even at reduced prices would be unlikely to "wipe out" rice production.

Opteron
Mar 8, 2004, 05:35 PM
We should really get a poll set up

Who supports US forigen policy.
Who Doesn't support US Forigen policy.

or even
Who like Bush
Who doen't like Bush.

pseudobrit
Mar 8, 2004, 05:43 PM
According to the CIA factbook, arable land in Haiti is over 20%. In the USA it's less than 20%.

But 20% of the US is a whole helluva lot of land.

It'd be interesting to see the arable land/pop density comparison between the US and Haiti.

As for the article, it was certainly very slanted, which is okay for an opinion piece despite the fact that such a stance devalues any facts you may be using.

I was hoping the French would come to the aid of Haiti in its hour of need. I still hope they can muster something for their old colony (if the Haitians will have them, that is).