- Jean-Bertrand Aristide was re-elected president of Haiti
in November 2000 with more than 90% of the vote. He was elected by people
who approved his courageous dissolution, in 1995, of the armed forces that
had long terrorised Haiti and had overthrown his first administration.
He was elected by people who supported his tentative efforts, made with
virtually no resources or revenue, to invest in education and health. He
was elected by people who shared his determination, in the face of crippling
US opposition, to improve the conditions of the most poorly paid workers
in the western hemisphere.
-
- Aristide was forced from office on Sunday by people who
have little in common except their opposition to his progressive policies
and their refusal of the democratic process. With the enthusiastic backing
of Haiti's former colonial master, a leader elected with overwhelming popular
support has been driven from office by a loose association of convicted
human rights abusers, seditious former army officers and pro-American business
leaders.
-
- It's obvious that Aristide's expulsion offered Jacques
Chirac a long-awaited chance to restore relations with an American administration
he dared to oppose over the attack on Iraq. It's even more obvious that
the characterisation of Aristide as yet another crazed idealist corrupted
by absolute power sits perfectly with the political vision championed by
George Bush, and that the Haitian leader's downfall should open the door
to a yet more ruthless exploitation of Latin American labour.
-
- If you've been reading the mainstream press over the
past few weeks, you'll know that this peculiar version of events has been
carefully prepared by repeated accusations that Aristide rigged fraudulent
elections in 2000; unleashed violent militias against his political opponents;
and brought Haiti's economy to the point of collapse and its people to
the brink of humanitarian catastrophe.
-
- But look a little harder at those elections. An exhaustive
and convincing report by the International Coalition of Independent Observers
concluded that "fair and peaceful elections were held" in 2000,
and by the standard of the presidential elections held in the US that same
year they were positively exemplary.
-
- Why then were they characterised as "flawed"
by the Organisation of American States (OAS)? It was because, after Aristide's
Lavalas party had won 16 out of 17 senate seats, the OAS contested the
methodology used to calculate the voting percentages. Curiously, neither
the US nor the OAS judged this methodology problematic in the run-up to
the elections.
-
- However, in the wake of the Lavalas victories, it was
suddenly important enough to justify driving the country towards economic
collapse. Bill Clinton invoked the OAS accusation to justify the crippling
economic embargo against Haiti that persists to this day, and which effectively
blocks the payment of about $500m in international aid.
-
- But what about the gangs of Aristide supporters running
riot in Port-au-Prince? No doubt Aristide bears some responsibility for
the dozen reported deaths over the last 48 hours. But given that his supporters
have no army to protect them, and given that the police force serving the
entire country is just a tenth of the force that patrols New York city,
it's worth remembering that this figure is a small fraction of the number
killed by the rebels in recent weeks.
-
- One of the reasons why Aristide has been consistently
vilified in the press is that the Reuters and AP wire services, on which
most coverage depends, rely on local media, which are all owned by Aristide's
opponents. Another, more important, reason for the vilification is that
Aristide never learned to pander unreservedly to foreign commercial interests.
He reluctantly accepted a series of severe IMF structural adjustment plans,
to the dismay of the working poor, but he refused to acquiesce in the indiscriminate
privatisation of state resources, and stuck to his guns over wages, education
and health.
-
- What happened in Haiti is not that a leader who was once
reasonable went mad with power; the truth is that a broadly consistent
Aristide was never quite prepared to abandon all his principles.
-
- Worst of all, he remained indelibly associated with what's
left of a genuine popular movement for political and economic empowerment.
For this reason alone, it was essential that he not only be forced from
office but utterly discredited in the eyes of his people and the world.
As Noam Chomsky has said, the "threat of a good example" solicits
measures of retaliation that bear no relation to the strategic or economic
importance of the country in question. This is why the leaders of the world
have joined together to crush a democracy in the name of democracy.
-
- - Peter Hallward teaches French at King's College London
and is the author of Absolutely Postcolonial. peter.hallward@kcl.ac.uk
-
- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2004
|
