Why they had to crush Aristide
Haiti's elected leader was regarded
as a threat by France and the US
by Peter Hallward
The Guardian online, March 2,
Jean-Bertrand Aristide was re-elected
president of Haiti in November 2000 with more than 90% of the
vote. He was elected by people who approved his courageous dissolution,
in 1995, of the armed forces that had long terrorised Haiti and
had overthrown his first administration. He was elected by people
who supported his tentative efforts, made with virtually no resources
or revenue, to invest in education and health. He was elected
by people who shared his determination, in the face of crippling
US opposition, to improve the conditions of the most poorly paid
workers in the western hemisphere.
Aristide was forced from office on Sunday
by people who have little in common except their opposition to
his progressive policies and their refusal of the democratic process.
With the enthusiastic backing of Haiti's former colonial master,
a leader elected with overwhelming popular support has been driven
from office by a loose association of convicted human rights abusers,
seditious former army officers and pro-American business leaders.
It's obvious that Aristide's expulsion
offered Jacques Chirac a long-awaited chance to restore relations
with an American administration he dared to oppose over the attack
on Iraq. It's even more obvious that the characterisation of Aristide
as yet another crazed idealist corrupted by absolute power sits
perfectly with the political vision championed by George Bush,
and that the Haitian leader's downfall should open the door to
a yet more ruthless exploitation of Latin American labour.
If you've been reading the mainstream
press over the past few weeks, you'll know that this peculiar
version of events has been carefully prepared by repeated accusations
that Aristide rigged fraudulent elections in 2000; unleashed violent
militias against his political opponents; and brought Haiti's
economy to the point of collapse and its people to the brink of
But look a little harder at those elections.
An exhaustive and convincing report by the International Coalition
of Independent Observers concluded that "fair and peaceful
elections were held" in 2000, and by the standard of the
presidential elections held in the US that same year they were
Why then were they characterised as "flawed"
by the Organisation of American States (OAS)? It was because,
after Aristide's Lavalas party had won 16 out of 17 senate seats,
the OAS contested the methodology used to calculate the voting
percentages. Curiously, neither the US nor the OAS judged this
methodology problematic in the run-up to the elections.
However, in the wake of the Lavalas victories,
it was suddenly important enough to justify driving the country
towards economic collapse. Bill Clinton invoked the OAS accusation
to justify the crippling economic embargo against Haiti that persists
to this day, and which effectively blocks the payment of about
$500m in international aid.
But what about the gangs of Aristide
supporters running riot in Port-au-Prince? No doubt Aristide bears
some responsibility for the dozen reported deaths over the last
48 hours. But given that his supporters have no army to protect
them, and given that the police force serving the entire country
is just a tenth of the force that patrols New York city, it's
worth remembering that this figure is a small fraction of the
number killed by the rebels in recent weeks.
One of the reasons why Aristide has been
consistently vilified in the press is that the Reuters and AP
wire services, on which most coverage depends, rely on local media,
which are all owned by Aristide's opponents. Another, more important,
reason for the vilification is that Aristide never learned to
pander unreservedly to foreign commercial interests. He reluctantly
accepted a series of severe IMF structural adjustment plans, to
the dismay of the working poor, but he refused to acquiesce in
the indiscriminate privatisation of state resources, and stuck
to his guns over wages, education and health.
What happened in Haiti is not that a
leader who was once reasonable went mad with power; the truth
is that a broadly consistent Aristide was never quite prepared
to abandon all his principles.
Worst of all, he remained indelibly associated
with what's left of a genuine popular movement for political and
economic empowerment. For this reason alone, it was essential
that he not only be forced from office but utterly discredited
in the eyes of his people and the world. As Noam Chomsky has said,
the "threat of a good example" solicits measures of
retaliation that bear no relation to the strategic or economic
importance of the country in question. This is why the leaders
of the world have joined together to crush a democracy in the
name of democracy.
Peter Hallward teaches French at King's
College London and is the author of Absolutely Postcolonial