On Haiti, Aristide and US Imperial Intervention

Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide is stranded in the Central African Republic (itself under a rogue regime under AU constitutive act of Union) reportedly on his way to exile in South Africa courtesy of President Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki was the only African leader with the sense of history to judge it important to be in Haiti as guest of Aristide early this year during the Bicentenary celebrations of Haiti's revolution that established the first Independent Black republic led by Slaves. I am not sure how many Africans or Black people in general are aware of the significance of Haiti in the history of Pan Africanist resistance. That says a lot about our miseduucation.

The Haitians, chronicled for eternity in CLR James' classic book, The Black Jacobins, defeated the French colonialists and Slave masters only to become victims of American colonialism. And for most of the past two hundred years their history has been one of intermittent intervention by both the USA and France.

Even when Haiti was not under direct foreign rule Haitians were prisoners to kleptocratic cabal of rulers who ruled through organised crime and sadistic violence against the people typified by the combined long-term rule of 'Papa and Baby Doc'. The populist Father Aristide was elected in 1991 amidst great expectations and mass enthusiasm that this saintly man of God will deliver impoverished Haitians from the claws of corruption, nepotism and serial misrule that has made the country the most destitute nation in the whole of the northern hemisphere.

It was not going to be an easy task even with all the best of intentions. There was always a big dose of naivety in the Priest's understanding of the mammoth challenges facing him. He did the talk, was willing to do the walk but the destination was hazy and somehow he lost the plot and got caught up in messianic delusions.

The ancient forces that he defeated democratically and their foreign mentors were still very much in control of the institutions and instruments of violence. And Aristide had the multitudes and his supreme faith to go by. He was subsequently removed from power in a military coup at a time when the clamour for 'democratic rule' had become a new conditionality for powerful countries led by the US who did not have qualms supporting and inventing dictators before.

They did not like Aristide's populism, mass base, anti imperialist, pro poor and nationalist position but Clinton's administration was forced to send in the marines to restore Aristide to power. The Americans thought that Aristide would have learnt his lessons and 'behave' himself by doing as they wished but the priest was unpredictable. He accepted some IMF/World Bank strictures while not abandoning his populism. Of course he could neither deliver to his poor constituency nor do enough to pass as good guy in Washington or Paris.

He attempted a revolutionary vision in 1995 by disbanding the Haitian army, which had stood in the way of the people and their mandate for centuries. But he had no clear people-based alternative consequently he became prisoner to violent militias that operated with no higher morality than the killers, in Duvaliers 'ton ton Macoute' and other outlaw gangs.

The US kept pressure on Aristide by denying him any significant aid and preventing others from doing so. He was hung out to dry even if that meant more suffering for the country.

Despite all denials to the contrary it is clear that Washington orchestrated Aristide's exit either by default or design or both. There are many questions that this development raises. One, the Bush government has shown yet again through its actions and inactions in Haiti that it is not interested in making the world safe for democracy but a place for US stooges. The US and its local agents have been trying to unseat the democratically elected government of Chavez in Venezuela since it's coming to power. Would their success in Haiti whet their appetite to try again in Caracas?

Two, Aristide's experience also raises the question of the uses and abuses of popular protest. Because thousands of people are on the street should not mean that they are defending democracy and doing so democratically. Three, is there no democratic way of holding to account, an elected leader who has not delivered to the people, without giving in to violence and militarism?

by Tajudeen Raheem
Tajudeen@padeap.net or Tajudeen28@yahoo.com