As President Jean-Bertrand Aristide takes the
reins of power in Haiti for the third time in ten years, a
debate over his presidency is taking place in US foreign
policy circles and the press. The discussion centers
around whether Aristide is "fully committed to
democracy," and of course, "economic reforms." But an
honest look at the last decade of US relations with Haiti
raises very different, and much more troubling questions.
Aristide began his last term as President ten years
ago, after winning a landslide victory despite
Washington's disapproval and financing of opposing
candidates. A populist priest who was one of the
country's leading advocates for the poor, he served less
than 8 months before being overthrown in a bloody
military coup.
The coup leader, Lt. General Raul Cedras, was on
the payroll of the US Central Intelligence Agency. Time
magazine reported that the CIA had advance knowledge
of the coup, but took no steps to prevent it-- indicating at
least tacit US support for the coup, and given the
circumstances, probably much more than that.
Thousands of Aristide's supporters took to the
streets to defend their first democratically elected
government. They were unarmed, and hundreds were
slaughtered mercilessly by the military and police. In the
ensuing years the dictatorship killed thousands of
political opponents, setting up a special death-squad
organization-- known by its initials in French as
F.R.A.P.H. The founder and leader of this organization,
Emmanuel Constant, was also a CIA operative.
The Clinton administration inherited the problem
from George Bush Senior, and mostly ignored Haiti for
more than a year. It then began -- as a result of political
pressure and the flood of Haitian refugees headed to
Florida's shores-- to pressure the military dictatorship to
step down.
This led eventually to US troops invading Haiti in
the fall of 1994. Most Americans know only of this action
to restore the elected government, and not the prior
measures to destroy it. They therefore have an inverted--
even Orwellian-- image of our role in Haiti. Moreover,
the objectives of the Clinton administration were less
than democratic: the plan at the time was to leave the
army and repressive apparatus in place, removing only
the top three officers.
This plan began to fall apart after Haitian soldiers
beat an innocent man to death in front of international TV
cameras. US troops stood by under orders not to
intervene, and they expressed their disgust and frustration
openly to the press. President Clinton found himself in a
bind: to drum up support for the invasion he had
described the Haitian military as "murderers, rapists, and
thugs." Less than a week later he was calling these same
people "our allies."
Aristide took advantage of the situation to
dismantle the military, as well as the violent "section
chief" system of repression of in the countryside. In doing
so he created the foundation for the first democratic
government in the history of the nation, which had lived
for thirty years under the US-supported Duvalier family
dictatorship until 1986. For the first time people could
hold meetings and form political organizations without
fear of being killed.
But there was little that he could do about Haiti's
economy: that was in the hands of the IMF, the World
Bank, and their patrons in Washington. These people had
a simple economic development plan for Haiti: produce
coffee, mangos, some other agro-exports, and build up
the light assembly export sector. Privatize public utilities.
Cut tariffs on imports.
But the light assembly (read: sweatshop) sector
provided few jobs, and at very low pay-- less than $2.00 a
day. With 84% of the inputs imported, the contribution of
this sector to the domestic economy was tiny.
The lowering of tariffs on imported rice sunk
thousands of domestic farmers, who could not compete
with subsidized (and mechanized) US production.
Privatization of the telephone company was seen as
highly questionable, given its enormous revenues (3
percent of GDP), the government's difficulty in collecting
taxes from other sources, and the lack of adequate
regulatory structures.
For these and other valid reasons, Haiti's
government and especially its parliament rejected much
of the IMF/ World Bank plan. Standoffs with
Washington-- which controls both aid and credit--
damaged Haiti's economy and contributed to political
instability, while the aid that was actually disbursed had
little positive impact.
Now Washington is once again withholding aid to
Haiti, based on disputed senate election results and other
concerns. Aristide has offered to rerun the 10 challenged
senate elections of last November, and conceded to other
demands that were put forth by the Clinton
administration.
Haiti certainly has its own political and economic
problems, and Aristide has his faults. But the foremost
obstacle to democracy and economic recovery in Haiti
remains, as it has been for many years, "that cold country
to the North." Those who now sit in Washington in
judgment of Haiti's government, threatening the country
with economic strangulation and perhaps even another
coup, should consider these words: judge not lest ye be
judged.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for
Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC.
###