Posts Tagged ‘Haiti’

Bill Clinton Named New UN Envoy to ‘Stabilize’ Haiti, a Country He Helped Destabilize

May 28, 2009

As president, Clinton forced neoliberal policies on Haiti, delayed President Aristide’s return after a US-backed coup and held Haitian refugees at Gitmo without rights.

By Jeremy Scahill |RebelReports, May 28, 2009

Former US President Bill Clinton has been named by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as his special UN envoy to Haiti. Clinton will reportedly travel to the country at least four times a year.

“[It’s] an opportunity to bring in resources to address the economic insecurity that plagues Haiti,” says Brian Concannon, a human rights lawyer who works extensively in Haiti. “But if the nomination is to be more than a publicity stunt, the UN needs to honestly shed a spotlight on the international community’s role in creating that instability, including unfair trade and debt policies, and the undermining and overthrowing of Haiti’s constitutional government.”

Shining such a spotlight on those who created the instability, as Concannon suggests, would mean examining Clinton’s own role as president of the US during one of Haiti’s most horrifyingly dark periods.

Reuters news agency quotes a diplomat as saying Clinton is “an ‘excellent choice’ to help unlock Haiti’s potential as an investment target,” adding that his appointment “could attract investment in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation and help stabilize the country.”

That last statement about “stabiliz[ing]” Haiti would be humorous for its irony if the reality—and Clinton’s history in Haiti—wasn’t so deadly serious. The fact is that, as US president, Clinton’s policies helped systematically destabilize Haiti.

Dan Coughlin, who spent years as a journalist in Haiti in the 1990s for Inter Press Service, said he was “incredulous” when he heard the news. “Given the Clinton Administration’s aggressive pursuit of policies that profitted Haiti’s tiny elite, the IMF and big corporations at the expense of Haiti’s farmers and urban workers, the appointment does not bode well for the kind of fundamental change so needed in a country that has given so much to humankind,” Coughlin says.

In September 1991, the US backed the violent overthrow of the government of Haiti’s democratically-elected leftist priest President Jean Bertrand Aristide after he was in power less than a year. Aristide had defeated a US-backed candidate in the 1990 Haitian presidential election. The military coup leaders and their paramilitary gangs of CIA-backed murderous thugs, including the notorious FRAPH paramilitary units, were known for hacking the limbs off of Aristide supporters (and others) along with an unending slew of other horrifying crimes.

When Clinton came to power, he played a vicious game with Haiti that allowed the coup regime to continue rampaging Haiti and further destabilized the country. What’s more, in the 1992 election campaign, Bill Clinton campaigned on a pledge to reverse what he called then-President George HW Bush’s “cruel policy” of holding Haitian refugees at Guantanamo with no legal rights in US courts. Upon his election, however, Clinton reversed his position and sided with the Bush administration in denying the Haitians legal rights. the Haitians were held in atrocious conditions and the new Democratic president was sued by the Center for Constitutional Rights (sound familiar?).

While Clinton and his advisers publicly expressed their dismay with the coup, they simultaneously refused to support the swift reinstatement of the country’s democratically elected leader and would, in fact, not allow Aristide’s return until Washington received guarantees that: 1. Aristide would not lay claim to the years of his presidency lost in forced exile and; 2. US neoliberal economic plans were solidified as the law of the land in Haiti.

“The Clinton administration was credited for working for the return to power of Jean Bertrand Aristide after he was overthrown in a military coup,” says author William Blum. “But, in fact, Clinton had stalled the return for as long as he could, and had instead tried his best to return anti-Aristide conservatives to a leading power role in a mixed government, because Aristide was too leftist for Washington’s tastes.” Blum’s book “Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II” includes a chapter on the history of the US role in Haiti.

The fact that the coup against the democratically-elected president of Haiti was allowed to continue unabated for three full years seemed to be less offensive to Clinton than Aristide’s progressive vision for Haiti. As Blum observed in his book, “[Clinton] was not actually repulsed by [coup leader Raoul] Cédras and company, for they posed no ideological barrier to the United States continuing the economic and strategic control of Haiti it’s maintained for most of the century.  Unlike Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a man who only a year earlier had declared: ‘I still think capitalism is a mortal sin.’”

Blum added: “Faced ultimately with Aristide returning to power, Clinton demanded and received — and then made sure to publicly announce — the Haitian president’s guarantee that he would not try to remain in office to make up for the time lost in exile. Clinton of course called this ‘democracy,’ although it represented a partial legitimization of the coup.” Indeed, Haiti experts say that Clinton could have restored Aristide to power under an almost identical arrangement years earlier than he did.

When Aristide finally returned to Haiti, as Blum notes, “Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s reception was a joyous celebration filled with optimism.  However, unbeknownst to his adoring followers, while they were regaining Aristide, they may have lost Aristidism.”

As The Los Angeles Times reported at the time:

In a series of private meetings, Administration officials admonished Aristide to put aside the rhetoric of class warfare … and seek instead to reconcile Haiti’s rich and poor. The Administration also urged Aristide to stick closely to free-market economics and to abide by the Caribbean nation’s constitution — which gives substantial political power to the Parliament while imposing tight limits on the presidency. … Administration officials have urged Aristide to reach out to some of his political opponents in setting up his new government … to set up a broad-based coalition regime. … the Administration has made it clear to Aristide that if he fails to reach a consensus with Parliament, the United States will not try to prop up his regime. Almost every aspect of Aristide’s plans for resuming power — from taxing the rich to disarming the military — has been examined by the U.S. officials with whom the Haitian president meets daily and by officials from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other aid organizations. The finished package clearly reflects their priorities. … Aristide obviously has toned down the liberation theology and class-struggle rhetoric that was his signature before he was exiled to Washington.

“While Bill Clinton oversaw the return of President Aristide in 1994, he also put significant constraints on what Aristide was able to do once back in power,” says Bill Fletcher, Jr, the Executive Editor of BlackCommentator.com and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum. “Clinton advanced a neo-liberal agenda for Haiti thereby undermining the efforts of an otherwise progressive populist administration (Aristide’s). There is no reason to believe that [as a UN envoy] ex-President Clinton will introduce or support efforts to radically break Haiti from under the thumb of the USA and the dire poverty which has been a significant consequence of said domination.”

A Billion Hungry People Need Rescue Plan Too

October 15, 2008

By Wolfgang Kerler | Inter-Press Service


UNITED NATIONS, Oct 14  – Relief for the world’s hungry remains a distant prospect, with this year’s “Global Hunger Index” (GHI) attesting that even before the ongoing food crisis, 33 countries had “alarming” or “extremely alarming” levels of hunger.

India, home to the world’s largest food insecure population, launched its own India State Hunger Index Tuesday.

“Although we found several success stories, there was no across-the-board success,” Marion Aberle, a spokesperson for Welthungerhilfe (formerly known as German Agro-Action), told IPS about the recent GHI.

She added that “it is simply a scandal that almost one billion people worldwide are still suffering from hunger.”

Together with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and Concern Worldwide, on Tuesday Welthungerhilfe launched GHI 2008, an index ranking 88 developing and transitional countries using the most recent available data from 2001 to 2006.

“The rankings do not reflect the current crisis of rising food prices, but they do highlight which countries could be most vulnerable to the crisis,” IFPRI said in a statement released simultaneously with the GHI.

The dramatic rise of food prices since 2006 has marked a major setback in the fight against malnutrition, as the countries most severely affected by hunger overwhelmingly are net-importers of cereals and other food.

“Although their agricultural sectors have the potential to feed their population,” Aberle added.

She stressed that “the only way to effectively eradicate hunger is to boost agricultural production in developing countries”. Additionally, an increase in food aid was needed for those who are currently hungry.

Three leading indicators — the proportion of undernourished, the prevalence of underweight children under five, and the under-five mortality rate — are combined into the GHI with a 100-point scale, 0 and 100 being best and worse, respectively.

Overall, the GHI fell by almost a fifth from 18.7 in 1990 to 15.2 in 2008, mostly due to progress in children’s nutrition. Improvement was scant in under-five mortality and the proportion of undernourished.

“The world has made only slow progress in reducing hunger in past decades, with dramatic differences among countries and regions,” said Joachim von Braun, IFPRI director general.

While the GHI decreased by almost 40 percent in Latin America, by about 30 percent in Southeast Asia and about 25 percent in South Asia, it shrunk by only 11 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“Deterioration has been most dramatic in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),” Aberle said. With a GHI of 42.7 — up from 25.5 in 1990 — the country is now scoring worst.

In DRC, all common characteristics for states heavily affected by hunger can be found: war, violent conflict and political instability, high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, inequality and a lack of general freedom.

Other countries with “extremely alarming” levels of hunger (a GHI over 30 points) are Eritrea, Burundi, Niger, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ethiopia.

With the exception of Haiti, the 26 countries with an “alarming” level of hunger — described as a GHI between 20 and 29.9 — are all located in Sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia.

As regions, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are scoring worst on the 2008 GHI, with 23.3 and 23.0 respectively.

The most success could be seen in Kuwait and Peru: Both countries have managed to decrease their GHI by about 70 percent — “examples showing that progress is possible”, said Aberle.

Since 1990, only a handful of countries made significant progress. About a third of the countries made modest progress — defined as a reduction of GHI between 25 and 50 percent.

Among those countries is India, whose GHI declined from 32.5 in 1990 to 23.7 in 2008 — ranking 66 on the GHI. With more than 200 million people, India is home to over one-fifth of the world’s hungry — hence, IFPRI decided to produce an India State Hunger Index (ISHI).

“We felt it was time to develop an India-specific index, but also one that would be comparable with the GHI,” Purnima Menon, a research fellow at IFPRI, told IPS.

The ISHI 2008 scores for the 17 major states in India whose hunger levels were calculated range from 13.6 for Punjab to 30.9 for Madhya Pradesh — showing that not a single state falls in the “low hunger” or “moderate hunger” categories, and representing the substantial differences between the regions.

In almost all the states, underweight children contribute most to the ISHI — but there are some where calorie deficiency has the largest contribution.

“The other interesting comparisons are the links between economic indicators and the hunger index,” Menon said. “Not all states that have high economic growth are doing well on hunger.”

To eradicate hunger in India, similar actions are needed: strengthening of agriculture, social protection, poverty reduction and the distribution of essential nutrition and health interventions to women and children in the period of pregnancy and the first two years of life.

Referring to the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent to solve the current financial crisis, Aberle from Welthungerhilfe said: “We would love to see similarly strong-willed action to fight the world food crisis.”

Haiti: In Solidarity with its Five Freedoms

October 5, 2008

By James Petras | Information Clearing House, Oct 5, 2008

Today the acid test for all democrats in North and South America is the issue of the military occupation of Haiti, the economic pillage and denial of elementary political and human rights of the Haitian people.

In 2004 a US-led invasion force overthrew the democratically elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide and subsequently promoted and organized an occupation army. This colonial military force has repeatedly violently repressed popular demonstrations, violently raided the neighborhoods of the poor and killed, wounded and arrested Haitians who were affirming their rights of self-determination and an end to foreign occupation.

Since the United States bears major responsibility for the invasion, occupation and subsequent pillage and privatization of essential public services, we have a special responsibility to speak out clearly and forcefully to the United Nations (UN) in support of Haiti’s Five Freedoms:

1. The UN must end its military presence of Haiti through its occupation army (MINUSTAH), action contrary to the very founding principles of the organization. Haiti must recover the right of self-determination and the freedom to govern itself.

2. The Haitian people demand the end of the pillage of its national treasury by official and private banks extracting payments of $1 million USD a week for illegitimate debts contracted by past corrupt dictatorial regimes. Haitians demand freedom from illegitimate elite debts in order to finance basic life-sustaining programs for the 80% of the population living in extreme poverty.

3. Every country, which has suffered massive natural disasters, as the hurricanes that recently devastated Haiti, is entitled to large-scale, long-term humanitarian aid with no strings attached. Haitians demand the immediate fulfilling of aid pledged and its allocation according to needs without MINUSTAH manipulation to perpetuate its occupation.

4. The collapse of the free market model today highlights the disastrous consequences of the IMF-World Bank policies of privatization of public services in Haiti, where ‘private health and education’ effectively excludes the vast majority of Haitians. Haitians must regain the right to re-nationalize public services and all other strategic economic sectors necessary for their well-being.

5. Free elections means the return of deposed, exiled and persecuted political leaders and the end of foreign military occupation and repression of anti-colonial movements. Elections with occupation guns pointed at the heads of the electors and candidates have no legitimacy. We, the American people in North, South and Central America, have a responsibility to demand the end of MINUSTAH and the return national sovereignty to the Haitian people. No government no matter what its political claims and rhetoric can justify its democratic credentials when it acts as a colonial gendarme.

James Petras latest book , Zionism,Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power – Clarity Press :Atlanta Ga.

Chomsky: Britain Failed To Stop US Shameful Acts

September 1, 2008

RINF.COM, August 31, 2008

Britain has failed in its duty to stop the US from committing “shameful acts” in the treatment of suspects detained during the war on terror, one of America’s most respected intellectuals Noam Chomsky warns.

In an interview with The Independent, Professor Chomsky calls on the government to use its special relationship with Washington to secure the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

The emeritus professor of linguistics said that he has heard only “twitters of protest” in the UK asking British “thinkers” to be more conspicuous in their opposition to the erosion of civil rights since the 9.11 attacks on the US.

In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, Prof Chomsky, a leading opponent of the Vietnam conflict, has been the most prominent among US intellectuals critical of the war with the Iraq and the treatment of terror suspects sent to Guantanamo Bay and other prison camps around the world.

Chomsky’s comments call into question Britain’s political and intellectual will to stand up for the rule of law in the face of actions that have been repeatedly condemned by courts on both sides of the Atlantic.

“A country,” says Chomsky, “with any shred of self-respect will be vigilant to ensure that it does not take part in this criminal savagery. Because of the “special relationship,” Britain has a particularly strong responsibility to bar these shameful crimes in any way it can. In whatever respect the relationship is “special”, the UK can use it to bar these shameful crimes.”

Asked whether Britain should be doing more to seek the closure of the Guantanamo Bay, Chomsky answered: “Definitely. I’ve seen only twitters of protest.”

Professor Chomsky believes that the case against Guantanamo needs to be made more forcefully.

“We hardly needed evidence that Gitmo was going to be a torture chamber,” clarifies Chomsky. “Otherwise, why not place “enemy combatants” in a prison in New York? The security argument is not serious. Taking a step back, does the US have the right to hold these prisoners at all? Hardly obvious. In brief, there are plenty of grounds for protest (and action), at varying levels of depth.”

His comments have met with broad support from those who have been campaigning for the British government to take a more critical position in its relationship with the Bush administration.

Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer representing British Guantanamo detainee, Binyam Mohamed, said: “Professor Chomsky is right. To borrow from President Clinton, the world is much more impressed by the power of America’s example than the example of American power…A true friend to American would not stand by while President Bush squanders America’s birthright.”

Andrew Tyrie MP, chairman of the all party parliamentary group on rendition, said: “The UK Government’s reaction to the US program of rendition: a policy of kidnapping people and taking them to places where they may be tortured, has been inadequate, to say the least. It is scarcely credible that now, despite all we know about rendition and the UK’s involvement in it, the British Government still refuses to condemn this illegal, immoral, and counterproductive policy.”

Professor Chomsky, professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technolog, says that the US must now hand Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba.

“The region was taken by a ‘treaty’ that Cuba was forced to sign under military occupation. The US has been violating the terms of this outrageous treaty for decades – e.g., using it for holding Haitians who were illegally captured when they were feeling terror in Haiti. Current use also radically violates the terms of the outrageous treaty. ”

Rise of the libertarian socialist
Noam Chomsky, 79, rose to prominence in the field of linguistics during the 1950s by positing new theories on the structures of language. His naturalistic approach to the study of linguistics deeply influenced thinking in both psychology and philosophy. But it was his strident opposition to the Vietnam War which brought him to the attention of a wider American public.

Through his adherence to libertarian socialism he became a cheerleader for the dissident left in opposition to many aspects of US foreign policy. Later he described his belief as “the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society”.

Professor Chomsky, who lives in Lexington, Massachusetts, has been an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq and the “war on terror”. In 2005 he was voted the leading living public intellectual in the Global Intellectuals Poll run by the magazine Prospect. His characteristic reaction to the news of his achievement was: “I don’t pay a lot of attention to polls.”