Media vs. Reality in Haiti by Anthony Fenton;
February 13, 2004
Judging by the corporate media’s recent coverage of the
crisis in Haiti, one might be led to believe that they are
“aiding and abetting” an attempted coup d’etat aimed at
the democratically elected Jean Bertand Aristide. On a daily
basis, mainstream international media is churning out stories
provided mainly by the Associated Press and Reuters that have
little basis in fact.
On Feb. 10th, the Globe and Mail, Canada’s main national
daily, reprinted an AP article that relied on Haiti’s
elite-owned Radio Vision 2000. [1] This article contrasted the
recent “violent uprising” in Gonaives, Haiti’s
fourth-largest city, with the 1986 uprising that saw the
overthrow of the oppressive Duvalier dictatorship. The
inevitable conclusion that the Canadian readership is steered
toward is that Aristide is, or could be, a dictator, who may or
may not deserve what he is about to get. This is hardly the kind
of context that will compel citizens to lend support to the
embattled Haitians.
The Globe’s paul Knox has been reporting from Haiti since
Feb. 11th, and has submitted two stories thus far, neither of
which have strayed from the “disinformation loop” which sees
the recycling of dubious elite-spawned information by the
corporate press corps. [see Pina] The same context as above is
given credence - that Aristide faces a legitimate opposition
that has every right to support his violent overthrow. Knox
quotes Charles Baker, a wealthy factory owner who says: “We
are all fighting for the same thing. Aristide has to resign.”
[2]
Canada’s other national daily, the National Post [also
considered the more ‘right wing’ of the two dailies] has no
problem running headlines like the one featured on February 13th
website: “Rock-throwing Aristide militants force opponents to
cancel protest march.” [3] Nowhere in the article is President
Aristide’s press release mentioned, which condemned the
obstruction of the protest, and called for the constitutional
right of peaceful demonstration to be adhered to.
Interestingly, the corporate media has neglected to mention
that the “opposition” to which they refer and repeatedly
give legitimacy to, only represents a meagre 8 per cent of
registered voters in Haiti, according to a US poll conducted in
2000. According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs [COHA],
“their only policy goal seems to be reconstituting the army
and the implementation of rigorous structural adjustment
programs.” [4] As corporate journalists rely on the opposition
for little more than inflammatory soundbites, information that
would otherwise be sought to lend their efforts credibility is
repeatedly overlooked.
US Congresswoman Maxine Waters issued a press release Feb.
11th, on the heels of her recent visit to Haiti, that called on
the Bush administration to join her in condemning the
“so-called opposition” and, specifically, Andre Apaid Jr.,
who is a “Duvalier supporter” that, along with his Group of
184, is “attempting to instigate a bloodbath in Haiti and then
blame the government for the resulting disaster in the belief
that the U.S. will aid the so-called protestors against
President Aristide.” [5]
She also took aim at the World Bank and IMF and their
“continuing embargo” , which amounts to hundreds of millions
of desperately needed funds. Rep. Waters outlined the following
positive measures that Aristide has initiated:
“Under his leadership, the Haitian government has made
major investments in agriculture, public transportation and
infrastructure…The government [recently] doubled the minimum
wage from 36 to 70 gourdes per day, despite strong opposition
from the business community…President Aristide has also made
health care and education national priorities. More schools were
built in Haiti between 1994 and 2000 than between 1804 and 1994.
The government expanded school lunch and school bus programs and
provides a 70% subsidy for schoolbooks and uniforms”
Rep. Waters made clear assertions on Aristide’s behalf that
are otherwise absent from Bush administration commentary and
corporate media deceptions regarding Haiti. Waters completed her
statement with an important appeal, which called on the
corporate media to “discontinue the practice of repeating
rumours and innuendos,” whereby they function as
“international megaphones for the opposition. They lie
shamelessly on a daily basis.”
Another Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, directly challenged Colin
Powell in a formal letter to him February 12th, after Powell had
announced that the US administration is “not interested in
regime change” in Haiti. Said Lee: “It appears that the US
is aiding and abetting the attempt to violently topple the
Aristide government. With all due respect, this looks like
“regime change”…Our actions – or inaction – may be
making things worse.” [6]
In a press conference Wednesday, Aristide called for peace
and a democratic resolution to the unrest ongoing in Haiti. He
once again called on the opposition to rationally discuss things
with his government so that they can work toward an equitable
resolution.
Now would seem to be a good opportunity for broad-based
social justice groups to galvanize around the critical issue of
Haiti. Haitians are desperately in need of popular international
support if they are to overcome the latest onslaught. With
history as our guide, we should be extremely wary when one side
of the US administration’s mouth promotes “democracy and
freedom” and a “peaceful resolution” to the situation in
Haiti, while out of the other they support the interests of such
players as André Apaid Jr. The statements of some US
representatives are encouraging. Others are somewhat flaky.
In a conversation today with Congressman Gregory Meeks, his
slippery position was made quite clear. Meeks’s “primary
concern is democracy” and the promotion of democracy does not
entail “taking sides”. This is a familiar position that is
being trumpeted, whereby the US supports democracy but is not
willing to actively support the democratically elected leader.
The Miami Herald made note today that the Congressional Black
Caucus, whose position is supported by Meeks, “is calling for
an end to the violence in Haiti but not repeating its
traditional support of Aristide.” [emphasis mine]
These are some dangerous indications, considering that
Haitian towns remain under illegal siege by former paramilitary
members, who – according to Pina – “Gathered in the
Dominican and are now brandishing brand new M16s.” Pina also
made note that the Dominican Republic is known to have recently
received a shipment of 20,000 American made M16s.
Since a great deal of the current problems plaguing Haiti
stem from dire economic issues, we should now turn to these. In
his 1997 book, “Haiti in the New World Order”, Alex Dupuy
sums up the US disposition toward Haiti:
“For the foreign policy intelligentsia, the defense and
promotion of democracy and the free market serve as the
“grander vision” underlying U.S. policy objectives in the
new world order…Democracy is not likely to take hold unless
its corollaries – a free market economy and a free trade
system – are also fostered.” [7]
The logic of the State Department, according to COHA, sees
Aristide as “little more than a ‘beardless Castro’”, who
was despised by Jesse Helms, a tradition that is being carried
on by his “ideological heirs” in the State Department, Roger
Noriega and Otto Reich. We should recall that this sort of
attitude was prominent over a decade ago, when Aristide was
first elected President.
In 1991, Aristide was overthrown by the brutal paramilitary,
led by former CIA employees Emmanuel Constant and Raoul Cedras.
The massive influx of refugees fleeing Haiti from the brutal
FRAPH paramilitary regime, in addition to a groundswell of
domestic support for Haiti, forced Clinton to “restore
democracy” to Haiti in 1994. Aristide, having his way cleared
by US troops, returned to Haiti recognized internationally as
its legitimate leader.
Aristide’s return was only made possible when he
“embraced the Haitian bourgeoisie and accepted a U.S.
occupation and Washington’s neoliberal agenda.” As Noam
Chomsky has detailed, “The Aristide government [was] to keep
to a standard "structural adjustment" package, with
foreign funds devoted primarily to debt repayment and the needs
of the business sectors, and with an "open foreign
investment policy." [8]
By then, the neoliberal agenda has become entrenched as part
of the New World Order, which was designed to respond to “the
South’s plea for justice, equity, and democracy in the global
society.” This agenda has led others such as Susan George to
sum it up as such:
“Neo-liberalism has become the major world religion with
its dogmatic doctrine, its priesthood, its law-giving
institutions and perhaps most important of all, its hell for
heathen and sinners who dare to contest the revealed truth.”
[9]
The World Bank predicted in 1996 that up to 70 per cent of
Haitians would be unlikely to survive bank-advocated free market
measures in Haiti. According to a 2002 Guardian article, by the
end of the 1990’s “Haiti’s rice production had halved and
subsidized imports from the U.S. accounted for over half of
local rice sales.” [10] As Haiti became the “star pupil”
of IMF and World Bank, such policies “devastated” local
farmers.
Structural Adjustment Programmes [SAPs], which have been
forced upon Haiti, have in traditional style promoted the
privatisation of state industries. According to Aristide in his
2000 book “Eyes of the Heart”, privatisation will “further
concentrate wealth” where 1 per cent of the population already
controls 45 per cent of the overall wealth. As for why Haiti
would agree to World Bank and IMF measures, Aristide provides
context along a “dead if we do, dead if we don’t” line:
“Either we enter a global economic system, in which we know we
cannot survive, or, we refuse, and face death by slow starvation.”
[11]
While keeping in mind that the US effectively controls the
World Bank and IMF [12], we should consider Susan George and the
Transnational Institutes findings based on extensive research of
these institutions: “The economic policies imposed on debtors…caused
untold human suffering and widespread environmental suffering
while simultaneously emptying debtor countries of their
resources.” [13]
George notes how the consequences of this “debt
boomerang” which sees rich nations actually profiting from the
enormous debt service rendered on the poor, as affecting all of
us. While the people in the South “are far more grievously
affected by debt than those in the North, in both cases, a tiny
minority benefits while the overwhelming majority pays.” [14]
The US administration, the World Bank-IMF couplet, and
Haitian elites who stand to benefit from a neoliberal agenda,
are all aware that Aristide favours genuine democracy over
neoliberal reform. Aristide still stands behind the beliefs that
swept him to power as the first democratically elected Haitian
leader in 1991. As Kevin Pina told me yesterday, the popular [impoverished]
masses who revered Aristide in 1991 “are still willing to
fight for him. They are willing to die if it means Aristide can
complete his term.”
In Monterrey last month at the Special Summit of the Americas,
a Third Border Initiative was committed to by the Caribbean
Community and the United States. One of the primary aims of the
initiative is to “make sure the benefits of globalization are
felt in even the smallest economies,” while coordinating ties
that discourage terrorist activities and increase security for
the area. [15]
We will only know for certain how this applies to the case of
Haiti as things progress – or deteriorate. In closing our
conversation yesterday, Kevin Pina asserted the following:
“Haiti desperately needs to establish democratic
traditions. How is the pattern of instability supposed to be
broken? What’s to stop the next democratically elected
President from being asked to step down? If people are falling
for these distortions and lies they are doing a disservice to
Haiti.”
Citizens of Canada, the United States, and Europe all have a
stake in this, to the extent that the fomenting of Haitian
instability and continued Haitian misery is being carried out
and financed in our names. By falling for the delusional picture
of Haiti that is drawn by our corporate media, we are actively
violating fundamental human rights along with Haiti’s right to
self-determination. Anything that can be done to expose this
circulation of lies should be done so with an immediacy that
above all appreciates the right of all Haitians to determine
their own future.
[1] Globe and Mail, February 10, 2004, “Haitian
Insurrection Spreads to several more towns.” A16.
[2] Globe and Mail, February 11, 2004 “Haiti’s
‘peaceful people’ erupt in Violence”, A16.
[3] National Post, February 13, 2004.
[4] “Unfair and Indecent Diplomacy: Washington’s Vendetta
against Haiti’s President Aristide,” January 15, 2004.
[5] Transcript obtained from Haiti’s Foreign Press Liason,
Michelle Karshan, February 11, 2004.
[6] From the office of Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Contact:
202-225-2398
[7] Alex Dupuy, “Haiti in the New World Order: The Limits
of Democratic Revolution,” p. 7.
[8] See Chomsky’s “The Tragedy of Haiti” in his “Year
501: The Conquest Continues” pp. 197-219.
[9] Susan George’s “A Short History of Neoliberalism”
speech, March 1999: http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/histneol.htm
[10] See The Guardian’s “Haiti: proof of hypocrisy”,
April 11, 2002:
[11] Excerpts from Aristide’s book at:
[12] Quoting the Brookings Institution’s “U.S. Relations
with the World Bank: 1945-1992”: “More than any other
country, the United States has shaped and directed the
institutional evolution, policies, and activities of the World
Bank,” p. 88. The Brookings Institution, incidentally, is a
known affiliate of the Haiti Democracy Project, which is
friendly with Andre Apaid Jr., and G-184.
[13] See George’s “The Debt Boomerang,” 1992.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Bush II quote, U.S. Department of State website:
Link: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4977§ionID=21
Source: http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=4977§ionID=21