The story around Aristide's departure from Haiti is getting weirder and weirder. As it currently goes, 20 American soldiers stormed his residence. They kept him from making phone calls and forced him, his wife and his sister's husband to board a plane to the Central African Republic. Once there, he was put into a small room with no telephone and proceeded to call Rep. Maxine Waters and Randall Robinson. He asked both of them to tell the world it was a coup.
This just doesn't pass the smell test. Once you make the logical leap that has us getting involved in this fashion, you have to wonder why our forces would go to the trouble of kidnapping Aristide and putting him in a room sans telephone but not restrain him from making international cell phone calls to prominent Black Americans.
My read, which is based on nothing but intuition, is quite different. The smartest political move for Aristide was to accept that the Rebels were going to win this battle. Remember, this is a man who has been deposed before and returned in 1994 to lead Haiti. So he leaves, but begins planting the story that the Americans forced him out. The clear implication then is that the Rebel uprising was simple American puppetry. He begins making himself a cause celebre on the Left and having his loyalists spread the tale that Americans took him away at gunpoint. If the Rebels fail to govern effectively, Aristide can come back under the rationale that the uprising was not about him, but American interests. That way, he doesn't have to deal with the critiques of his Administration, he simply has to vilify America.
We certainly have to wait for more facts but that's how it looks right now. If Americans did kidnap him, you can bet that they wouldn't be so clumsy as to let him trumpet that fact from the rooftops. But if he left of his own volition, the best way to set the stage for his return would be to delegitimize the Rebels as puppets of America and paint his own departure as one forced by George Bush and the NeoCons.
I guess we'll see.
Posted by Ezra Klein at March 1, 2004 07:34 PM | TrackBackThe problem with this theory, though, is that I can't think of three interests Americans might have in Haiti. Sorry to sound snobbish, but really... what's Haiti got for us?
Posted by: Bryce at March 1, 2004 08:27 PMUm, how is that a problem with the theory? Actual American interests are not required in order to convince people that the rebels are puppets of American interests.
Posted by: Kevin Brennan at March 1, 2004 08:51 PMI like Ezra's theory. A lot. In particular, it explains something I didn't understand: why, if we were involved, we let Aristide live. That's just not in our nature.
Posted by: Dr. Pedant at March 1, 2004 09:06 PMUm, considering the US' near-omnipotence regarding who stays in power and who doesn't in Latin America (except Cuba), wouldn't setting himself up as the enemy of America be the LAST thing Aristide would want to do?
Posted by: theogon at March 1, 2004 09:17 PMSee Hugo Chavez. Anti-American faux-populism seems to be the current trend in Latin American authoritarianism.
Posted by: Spyral Pegacyon at March 1, 2004 09:19 PMNice sounding theory, but it's based completely on wishful thinking. You could just as well argue that it was French soldiers disguised as American's who forced Aristide to leave.
Posted by: David at March 1, 2004 09:40 PMHow does this sound?
The Bush administration wanted Aristide out so that they could have an excuse to turn away Haitian refugees. Without a "dictator" in power there, we have no reason to give them asylum.
Note that the repatriation of Haitian refugees has already been announced.
Subtext: Bush is worried about winning Florida. Keeping black refugees from the pristine Florida shores will win votes for W.
Well?
Congratulations, Ezra, you're smarter than Atrios.
Good theory; it's enough to make me keep an open mind on the issue for a while.
If the Administration didn't insist on doing evil and stupid things almost constantly, in fact, I'd accept your theory without question. :)
If Ezra's theory is correct, then what about waters?
Is she a liar?
Maxine isn't a liar at all, nor is Randolph. Read their statements closely, they're completely prefaced by "Aristide asked me to say", "Aristide said". They consciously don't take the claims on as their own. They simply say what he asked them to.
Posted by: Ezra at March 1, 2004 10:29 PMah... you think there was a phone call, but that Aristide lied about the circumstances. Got it.
Anyway, it does look like the administration was working to get rid of him, right?
The administration is more'n likely trying to avoid any situation where more US troops have to go overseas for any reason at this point. If they thought that Aristide's departure would make for a quiet(er) Haiti, then I suspect they'd push for that.
If the UN peacekeeping forces go in (especially if the French follow through with their support) expect some growling and yapping coming from corners of the Bush camp, because in order to avoid committing more American troops to an overseas clusterfuck, Bush may very well have just cracked the Monroe Doctrine open wide. That has Repercussions.
Stay tuned, sports fans.
Posted by: the Fourth Man at March 1, 2004 11:13 PMI like Ezra's theory, partly because it answers two questions that have been bugging me.
First, what possible reason does the U.S. have to depose Aristide? Answer: none, really. Aristide is just claiming to have been deposed to build political capital for later.
Second, is everyone in the Bush administration an idiot? Answer: yes. They've let a perfectly manageable situation turn into an embarrasment by allowing a tin pot dictator make fools of them.
Posted by: zwichenzug at March 1, 2004 11:43 PMEver heard of FRAPH?
Sorry to sound like an old fart, but you kids should really do a little research before advancing completely idiotic theories like this...
Posted by: dave at March 2, 2004 12:07 AMThanks Dave. Another question for your contemplation. Why the Central Afriacan Republic, a nation in turmoil itself run by a dictator who took power in a coup last year? The State Department describe relations with CAR as friendly.
Posted by: Lewis at March 2, 2004 12:41 AMI think this explanation is probably the closest to the truth.
But as for why the United States might want to whisk Aristide out of Haiti, an alternative explanation is this: those opposing Aristide are primarily elements of Baby Doc's old Ton Ton Macoutes secret police. It is possible that they know some unsavory secrets about Dubya's daddy that they could use to blackmail the administration into opposing Aristide. I don't think that's what happend, but in a sense this is yet another case of blowback -- we supported Baby Doc because he was anti-Communist (we already had ONE Communist nation at our southern doorstep, we didn't want TWO there), now, as with the U.S. armed-and-equipped Taliban (armed with U.S. aid sent to Pakistan), our own creation has come back to haunt us.
As for why Dubya wouldn't like Aristide in any event, Aristide is one of those LIE-berals, and one of those statue-worshipping PAPISTS besides, yessirree! But truly, I think this is a case where Aristide fled to avoid getting killed, and is now painting the opposition as U.S. stooges. Which they are, in a way (we funded and armed them, back in "the day"), but not in any recent sense.
Why do we want Aristide deposed? Because the Latin American desk in the Bush Administration hates Aristide and wants him gone.
Google "Reich" and "Noriega." Same guys put our support behind the recent failed coup in Venezuela.
I think Ezra's theory is shaky. The original story was that a cell phone was smuggled into the room where Aristide was. Also once we landed in Africa it's unclear how much control the US troops would have. I believe the deal the US offered Aristide was for him to pick the country of choice for exile, so presumably he has some friends there. It could be Aristide had not agreed to the deal yet and the US troops gave him an ultimatum. If Aristide is free to go about his business, why no press conference? I tend to believe the part about the cell phone smuggled in. One thing you do when you do a 21st century coup (one that attempts not to murder the former leader) is keep the deposed leader incommunicado and assume authority. That's what they did in Venezuela. Also, if the US is lending support or approval, they condition may be-- don't do it like Allende. No murdering the last leader.
Ezra's point about Aristide "asked me to say this" is irrelevant. That was what you say when you're deposed "Tell the world. Tell them it was a coup." Because otherwise the opposition controls the story.
I do think it's possible that Aristide was able to make the call surreptiously, but was still lying to Robinson and Waters. I'll wait for more info on that. But someone is lying, you send in troops, Aristide signs his resignation and no video? You could predict with 100% certainty that questions would arise. No broadcast to the nation? The Venezuela coup happened on TV before it happened in the palace.
Posted by: KevinNYC at March 2, 2004 03:15 AMAlso good point on FRAPH.
The leader of the death squads of FRAPH was last seen living freely in NYC and applying for political asylum
Here's Harper's
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1111/1844_308/112905952/p2/article.jhtml?term=
Even as the Clinton Administration embargoed Haiti and fulminated about the defaktos, as the military junta was most often called, the CIA was sending payments to one of its collaborators: Emmanuel "Toto" Constant. During the defakto period, Constant was chief of the "Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti" (FRAPH), a paramilitary adjunct of the Haitian army responsible for the main menu of terroristic atrocities, including the massacre of Aristide supporters in the Raboteau area of the coastal town of Gonaives in 1994. Although Constant has been convicted in absentia of complicity in the Raboteau killings, and is entitled to a new trial if he should be returned to Haiti, he lives peacefully in Brooklyn nowadays, apparently immune to extradition.
He's moved to Queens and he's a real estate agent and apparently immune to deportation to stand trial for his crimes.
Here's The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/06/grann.htm
Oh, Ezra, really....
I mean, Aristide held all the cards here, I guess: go to jail or the Central African Republic. Or die. Did he make us fly him out? He certainly couldn't make us intervene (even diplomatically) when there was still time to preserve some vestige of democracy in Haiti. The "rebels" may not be our puppets, but they're certainly our clients. Once again, the admin is dirty, dirty, dirty.
In two weeks you'll regard your post as inoperative.
Posted by: Social Scientist at March 2, 2004 07:35 AMSocial Scientist,
I've got to disagree, I think this post will be seen as inoperative in two hours. It just doesn't add up--not even a little bit. It doesn't fit the bush family modus operandi, it doesn't make sense for aristede, and it doesn't make sense given any of the facts that we know.
aimai
Posted by: aimai at March 2, 2004 09:07 AMBody and Soul has a good roundup post on this, and Billmon too. The NYT has its usual blind spot toward our colonies. Welcome the the Nineteenth Century, folks, enjoy your stay.
Posted by: John Isbell at March 2, 2004 09:38 AMWhy the hell would the US kidnap Aristide hours before he was going to be overthrown anyway by rebels? If Bushco hates him that much (and they do), why not let the rebels drag him into the streets and hang him from the nearest lightpole, or let him fly away on his own? That way the administration still gets the results it wants, without seeming to be culpable. Marky, Bush was turning away Haitian refugees even before Aristide fled/was kidnapped. Since Aristide was merely a pinko, not a commie, I'm sure the administration felt they had no obligation to accept large numbers of asylum-seekers.
As for the Monroe Doctrine, that would only be a problem for conservatives if the UN was sending peacekeepers into the Americas without US support. And I'm sure it'll be given, so that American soldiers can continue getting bogged down in Iraq.
Posted by: Harrow at March 2, 2004 09:45 AMThis bit caught my eye: "If Americans did kidnap him, you can bet that they wouldn't be so clumsy as to let him trumpet that fact from the rooftops."
Based on everything this idiot administration has done, why would you ever assume that they wouldn't be so clumsy?
That very clumsiness gives it the shine of truth to me...thekeez
Posted by: Jeff Keezel at March 2, 2004 10:04 AMthis has the odor of that cocksucker elliot abrahms all over it.
Posted by: tim at March 2, 2004 11:42 AMOur interest in Haiti?
The interest of rich white businessmen from America who've made a fortune down there: incredibly cheap labor and no government regulation. Anything that interferes with that threatens the primal fabric of the universe.
And in case you had any doubts about the hand of the Bush administration on this, look at their attempted coup in Venezuela. The only difference here is that Aristide didn't have a battallion of loyal paratroopers hiding in the basement of the presidential palace like Hugo Chavez did.
OTOH, he's doing a lot of damage with a smuggled cell phone.
Suggest that theoretician Ezra check out www.flashpoints.net to get some first-hand reporting about the US pressures that led up to the actual coup.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they're different."
Posted by: FratMan at March 2, 2004 03:52 PM