FRFI 178 April / May 2004
On 19 February 2004 the democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, was forcibly removed from office in a coup instigated by the US and French governments. Aristide was forced to the Central African Republic were he spent several days without recourse to friends, family or lawyers before finally being able to move to Jamaica. His presence back in the Caribbean has angered the US and the Haitian interim government of Prime Minister Gerard Latortue who claim his presence in the region could raise tension in Haiti. So far Aristide has turned down an offer of asylum from Nigeria though Jamaican officials unofficially claim he will go to South Africa which has indicated it would accept the former leader. Unrest, political killings, looting and violence are now widespread across Haiti. ANDREW ALEXANDER reports.
These latest events can come as little surprise. Haiti has suffered a history of for-eign-backed coups, imperialist plunder and meddling, despite being the first Caribbean country to have had a successful slave rebellion which overthrew the yoke of colonial oppression 200 years ago. Throughout the 19th century the fledgling republic struggled under a series of tyrannical and ineffectual leaders as the elite jockeyed for power. There were 22 heads of state between 1843 and 1915 when the US deployed soldiers and marines to protect US economic interests after it had created the professional military force, the Gard d’Haiti, to rule.
Repression and corruption
An election rigged by the military brought to power Francois ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier in 1957. Papa Doc, distrustful of his military chiefs, disbanded the army and created his own rural militia – known as the Ton Ton Macoutes – to intimidate and murder on his behalf. During his 14-year dictatorial rule it is estimated that 30,000 Haitians were killed for political reasons by his regime. Papa Doc’s son replaced his father in power in 1971 with a similarly repressive manner, and like his father enjoyed the support of the US ruling classes. He fled to France in 1986 after the Haitian masses revolted against their harsh conditions. Haitians approved a new constitution by popular vote and prepared for national elections.
These elections, however, came to a halt when armed paramilitary groups linked to Duvalier’s Ton Ton Macoutes massacred several dozen voters shortly after the polls opened. General Prosper Avril, a former Duvalier aide, came to power and the Haitian people suffered yet more oppressive rule. The US, looking for stability to broaden business interests in Haiti, forced Avril to resign and began to lay a path for a ‘moderate’ to take control in Haiti. The country’s first democratic elections finally took place on 16 December 1990 and saw the US’s candidate, a former World Bank official named Marc Bazin, get 14% of the vote. Jean Bertrand Aristide, a progressive ex-Roman Catholic priest with wide support amongst the poor, got about 70%.
Imperialism sabotages reform
The US didn’t allow his presidency to last long. Aristide was ousted from office in 1991 by General Raoul Cedras and the death squads of Louis-Jodel Chamblain, one of the main leaders of the revolt that has just removed him from power. Strong support from the Haitian people forced the US to reinstate Aristide in 1994 amid promises of lifting the country out of the dire poverty that has left it the fourth poorest country in the world. Yet constraints by financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) have impeded his programmes. In Haiti today:
• Life expectancy for the average male is 50 and female, 56.
• Formal employment is only 110,000 out of 8 million people.
• 23% of children under five suffer from severe malnutrition.
• Infant mortality is 91 per 1,000 live births
It was against this background of poverty that Aristide began to take progressive measures to remove some of the people’s hardships. He refused to privatise state enterprises and invested in agriculture, public transportation, healthcare and education. Between 1994 and 2000 the government built more schools than had been built in Haiti in the previous 180 years. The government also provided 70% subsidies for school books and uniforms and passed legislation on child labour. Most recently, on 7 February 2004, against IMF wishes, the minimum wage was doubled.
Despite these achievements Aristide was unable to create a clear split from neo-liberal interference and ultimately faced an unresolvable contradiction. His return from the US to Haiti and subsequent re-election to office was a result of compliance with multi-national interests. Aristide began to walk a tight-rope between concessions to the IMF and World Bank on the one hand and increased social expenditure on the other. As a result both the US and EU became increasingly concerned about Aristide’s stance towards big business. He may have been going along with several IMF demands but not enough and not fast enough for the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration and the new right in Europe. Any sign of opposition to the neo-liberal agenda rings alarm bells in Washington, especially from Latin America where the Bolivarian revolution is becoming stronger, and even more so in the Caribbean where Cuban socialism provides an example of an alternative to the ruin of capitalism.
Ruling class organises opposition
The opposition, gathered under the loose banner of Group 184, has been systematically planned, organised and built up by Washington and Paris. The underlying strategy has been to keep the people mired in poverty. For example, $500 million in loans promised in 1994 were indefinitely frozen. This money, on which Haiti is still forced to pay interest, was designed to stimulate the economy. A US imposed aid embargo in 2001, froze humanitarian projects undermining basic humanitarian services related to water, housing and medical care.
If Aristide could be restrained from creating real social change then fermenting opposition to him would be made so much easier. The opposition comes from the minority of the Haitian people – the ruling class – particularly privileged students and businessmen such as the sweatshop magnate Andrew Apaid, who is one of the main opposition leaders and a fervent supporter of the Bush administration.
Stunting social welfare programmes and blocking support for Aristide was the first phase laying conditions for a coup. The second was to create civil unrest in the country. This unrest was stirred up using arch-reactionaries from Haiti’s past. One of these was Butteur Metayer, a former supporter of Aristide’s party, who staged an insurrection on 5 February in the northwestern city of Gonaives. Metayer leads what is called the Cannibal Army. The Cannibal Army uprising was used as a pretext for former soldiers living in the Dominican Republic to cross over into Haiti. These men served in the military dictatorship of Raoul Cedras who overthrew Aristide in 1990.
Now working alongside Louis-Jodel Chamberlain, one of the main leaders of the revolt, whose Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH) massacred thousands of Aristide’s supporters in the 1990s, is Guy Phillippe, a former Haitian military man who served as senior security official in the government of the last president Rene Preval. Phillippe was trained in the US and Ecuador. On 16 February Chamberlain’s forces attacked the central plateau city of Hinche. Poorly armed Haitian police were no match for Chamberlain and his so-called New Army. Police abandoned their posts in a number of cities following this assault.
The final phase of the coup began on 24 February when the Group of 184 delayed replying to a US- brokered settlement that would have reduced Aristide’s powers but allowed him to remain in office through his term. This move was calculated to allow the military wing of the uprising to seize more territory in the countryside while providing the illusion that the US was trying to calm and control the situation. The US tacitly approved this delay tactic by telling the Group of 184 to take more time to consider their proposal if needed. It was enough time to allow organised and armed gangs of thugs to take control over the countryside, move into the cities and capital Port-au-Prince where Aristide and his family were told by US diplomats backed by marines that they would not be able to protect them – unless of course they were to leave.
Inter-imperialist rivalry
Aristide’s refusal to submit to international finance brought the first animosity not from the US but from France (who along with the US refused to attend the official 200th anniversary celebrations). Aristide demanded that France refund 90 million Franc-gold (currency of the times) that had been confiscated from Haiti by the French government between 1825 and 1885. The sum, adjusted for interest, equals approximately 20 billion euros. Needless to say the French had no intention of paying back such a large sum and began to push for Aristide’s removal. France, with an eye to using unrest in Haiti to consolidate its influence in the region, was the first country to demand that Aristide ‘respect the rule of law’ and began to pressurise him to stand down. More importantly, the French also talked about sending troops to support a government of national unity and to oversee new elections. It is most likely this, more than anything else, that spurred the deployment of US troops into Haiti. It is not just Iraq which has brought these two imperialist powers into some form of conflict, but also an economic necessity to dominate in Latin America and the Caribbean. For the time being both countries have agreed to contribute troops to a UN multinational ‘peace-keeping’ force authorised by the Security Council. The French have pushed the Haitian issue and the US has responded. The power sharing initiative that has taken place is a tentative form of cooperation between the two imperialist powers to heal some of the wounds caused by the Iraq invasion. It is also an attempt to inject some life and validity back into the dead and obsolete UN. It is the first time since 1804 that French troops have marched into Haiti.
Cuba
A country’s government need not be revolutionary to feel the wrath of imperialism. Neither Aristide’s Lavalas Party or Michael Manley’s government in Jamaica in the 1970s and 1980s were revolutionary but any sign of independence is anathema to imperialism and is crushed. Any progress can turn revolutionary and must be kept in check by the oppressor nations. Like Venezuela, Haiti has been the recipient of much aid from Cuban workers (for details see Cuba and Haiti – socialism or poverty, p10).
It is not charity that Cuba is giving to the Haitians. It is international solidarity with the oppressed and provides an example of what a socialist direction can achieve. In the present historical context it is the Cuban revolution that the imperialists are most intent on destroying. The forced removal of a progressive government in Haiti and the deployment of imperialist troops there has sent yet one more clear signal to Havana.
