The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040402084819/http://www.node707.com:80/archives/000553.shtml

March 07, 2004

Oil and Empire

Coup in Haiti
by Amy Wilentz

You will notice in the next few weeks that the Haitian people, who have been featured so prominently in recent weeks--those crowds demonstrating, or those bands of opportunists looting and pillaging, those people cowering as shots ring out or sprawled across a pavement--will fade from the scene, because they have been used to their full extent by the masters of the coup. Now the reconstituted Haitian army in all its machismo will maraud through the slums eradicating pockets of support for the deposed leader. The Marines are there simply to do the sweep-up if they can, and if they dare, given the the rebels' boldness. Now, according to a formulation adopted when Aristide was still in power, the international community will choose a committee, and the committee will select a "council of wise men," and those wise men will select a prime minister. Perhaps such steps will lead toward stability; without a leader, the Haitian people may be more easily convinced to accept the decisions of these committees and panels and unelected officials. But it's hard to imagine the foreign forces setting up a panel of elders while across the street, the new army's troops are burning artwork and shooting passers-by.

The groundwork for this coup was laid during the months when Aristide was first re-establishing his government. When the Clinton Administration reinstated Aristide, it too brought in the Marines, ostensibly for nation-building but also to make sure the reinstalled president didn't get up to any populist shenanigans: Clinton knew he was bringing Aristide back against the will of the Haitian elite, and the US President feared both another coup by the elite against Aristide, and then revenge by Aristide's supporters. So the Marines secured the transition back to Aristide and then remained for about a year and a half, during which time they did not disarm the Haitian army or the remainder of the Duvaliers' feared Tontons Macoutes. It was clear at the time that the Americans wanted to make sure there would be arms floating around that could be used against the Haitian government if need be.

One should be clear about the opposition in Haiti right now: although it includes some very good people, it is largely a group of malcontent career politicians, wealthy businessmen and ambitious power-seekers. It is exactly the kind of "civil society" opposition the United States encouraged and financed when it was attempting to remove Manuel Noriega in Panama. The Haitian opposition, too, was financed and organized during the Aristide years by US-funded groups like USAID's Democracy Enhancement Project and the International Republican Institute, an organization established in 1983 "to advance democracy worldwide." These have played a central and critical role in keeping an unpopular Haitian opposition alive and obstructionist. At every turn, the US-backed opposition tried to bring political life under Aristide to a halt.

It would be nice if Aristide were a saint. It's comfortable to take the side of a saint. But he isn't one. Many people died under his government who shouldn't have, and very few indeed are those who have been brought to justice for those crimes. But he didn't start out to be a brutal dictator: History and events and the international community and his own flawed character conspired against him. He does not deserve to suffer the same fate as Jean-Claude ("Baby Doc") Duvalier, who was also nudged out by the United States and replaced by a military-civilian junta.

When push came to shove this time around, the Bush Administration, which paid lip service to the continuation in office of the democratically elected president, refused to send in the Marines until the president was bundled off and safely stowed away in the heart of Africa, under virtual house arrest. It's not surprising, after this long, sad history, that there are people who believe Aristide when he says he was "kidnapped." He was kidnapped, in effect. So was his presidency, and so was Haiti's attempt at democracy.

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned Chalmers Johnson's new book, The Sorrows of Empire. I'm listening to him on C-Span's Book TV right now. He just said, "No empire ever gave up voluntarily," and this seems to be a good time to be reminded of it. When asked what we should do now, he said, "Look into acquiring a condo in Vancouver."

Given that Haiti is looking more and more like a trial run for Venezuela, one of our premiere sources of oil, if I were Hugo Chavez, I'd be looking for a soft landing.

UPDATE:

From the Buzzflash interview with Johnson:

Our Senate and House are beginning to look about as bleak as the Roman Senate did when it simply gave up power and established a military dictatorship. To remind you, after the military dictatorship of Augustus Caesar, he was followed by Tiberius, who retreated to an island with a covey of small boys to enjoy himself. He was followed then by Caligula, followed then by Claudius, and finally, of course, by Nero. This is not exactly what you'd call good government. These Roman military dictators were among the most repressive figures on earth -- something that is well known to Christians who remember the history of the martyrdoms of the time.

I'm not saying that the parallels are exact at all, but they are quite suggestive. The further point is to say the empire -- the military dictatorship that was created by Augustus -- lasted some 300 years before it was overwhelmed by a world of enemies against it. But collapses of empire are coming now much, much faster. The thousand-year Reich of the Nazis lasted 12 years, from 1933 to the sack of Berlin by the Red Army in 1945. The Soviet empire collapsed in two years, between 1989 and 1991. And it does seem to me that Americans should be forewarned that our empire right now -- our empire of military bases -- is certainly generating the militarism that the two most famous generals who were ever presidents warned us of in the strongest possible terms.

In George Washington's farewell address, he pointed out that the rise of a standing army would ultimately unbalance our government in favor of the imperial presidency. And then, of course, most famously, Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961, in which he used the phrase "military industrial complex."

Posted by Melanie at March 7, 2004 03:57 PM | TrackBack
Comments

he didn't start out to be a brutal dictator

Does the word "dictator" mean something else in America? President Bush is a dictator. Aristide is an elected president.

Bush holds the power of life and death - and very often it is death - over millions of people who have no democratic say whatsoever. 24 million Iraqis. 7.5 million Haitians. 28 million Afghans. 4 million in Bosnia. About 2 million in Kosovo. And so on around the world - just counting the areas of direct imperial control. I can't recall Aristide invading a bunch of countries or commiting genocide in the last 4 years. I guess for an American journalist "brutal" also means the opposite of what it does in the rest of the world.

Isn't the Nation a so-called liberal magazine? Part of the so-called liberal media?

Posted by: DavidByron on March 7, 2004 06:11 PM

David,

Yes, THe Nation pretends to be a liberal book. The line you point out is journalistic laziness, although the rest of the article is pretty sound. The CW in the media is that Aristide became a despot, so we should shake our heads and cluck sadly at his failure as a democrat. It's laziness to parrot the CW rather than report the truth.

Posted by: Melanie on March 7, 2004 06:24 PM

I signed up to read Sorrow of Empire and have my copy by the bedside. It has been a slow read, lots of information to absorb and ponder. I haven't forgotten my promise to read with you, Melanie. Where do we go from here?

Posted by: SME in Seattle on March 7, 2004 08:25 PM

DB,

One reason our press whores itself so much to the power elite is because they see themselves as belonging to that class especially the ones working for the big papers and mags. They are not there to bring real news to the masses only to mollify them with gov't and corp approved agitprop. We saw it with Iraq, Haiti, and previously with Panama and Grenada. BTW notice how Aristide's situation has ceased to be news and that no reporter has access to him. Should be news but its not.

What will stop our empire? My guess a economic collaspe(started by the housing bubble popping) will be the what halts it. Nothing else will. I'm discounting Kerry in the short term, because he can't do much except continue a attenuated version of Bush's foreign and domestic policies without control of the Senate and House. Change the balance of power in the legislative domain and we're real talking change. Otherwise its window dressing.

Posted by: Rodger on March 7, 2004 10:35 PM

I caught some CNN on Aristide and it was like a comedy act. First they mention that a press conference by his wife was taken over by armed gunmen who silenced her and read a note supposedly on his behalf -- since he couldn't meet the press.

And this shit is taken seriously apparently. Next it's a cut scene to the CIA rent-a-mob, lately of Baghdad and the famous close in shot of the statue being pulled down. I liked the touch about calls for Aristide to be "put on trial" to associate him with Saddam.

You couldn't write fiction this silly. People wouldn't beleive the press would be that spineless.

There's been a lot of attention on liberal blogs about how Bush lied America into war but almost none on how the media covered for his lies again and again and continues to do so. Blood is on their hands. The major networks should have their licences revoked. They are supposed to perform a public interest function in return for free use of the public airwaves. If these corporations were people they'd be accessories to murder.

Posted by: DavidByron on March 7, 2004 11:16 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?