So far the mainstream press has been critical of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Something about Haiti…
So far the mainstream press has been critical of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Although his recent administration has been criticised for the use of peoples militias, the pro-Aristide gangs described on the news, Mr Aristide has a democratic mandate. The ‘rebels’ are basically the reformed army that had been disbanded by Aristide in 1995 after numerous coup attempts to remove the peoples choice of democratic government.
It is interesting to note the effect of Aristide’s departure ‘under US protection’ in the members of the UN. South Africa has joined the call of Caricom, the 15-nation Caribbean Community, for an inquiry into what exactly this ‘US protection’ consisted of. Aristide himself has been quoted as saying he was kidnapped at gunpoint and was unaware that he was being flown to the Central African Republic.
In a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, South Africa’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, said that if Mr Aristide had been prised from power against his will, it would have “serious consequences and ramifications for the respect of the rule of law and democracy the world over”.
This was my personal problem with the war on Iraq. The precedent set by ‘regime change’ is one lacking moral, political and legal justification. However many saw that the rule of Saddam was a dictatorship which is repugnant to 21st century liberal values, to those of everyday people that is.
This being said, when the horrific mass slaughter of Kurds took place in Iraq, that Colin Powell was photographed visiting and was used to publicise the moral weight on the US to invade, at the moment that those deaths were taking place he was stood defending the US relationship with Saddam.
The difference with Haiti is that Aristide is not a dictator who has seized power and committed mass atrocities to his people. There were no problems with the elections that have given Aristide his mandate. No international outcry, no UN suspicions, no foreign demands for inquiry.
The rebels that have sought to regain the position of the army, to remove a democratic leader, have close ties with the CIA. Guy-Philippe, the self-styled leader of the rebellion who has expressed admiration for the leadership qualities of Bush was trained by the CIA and it is interesting to note that the weapons used by the rebels to terrorise the people of Haiti were all standard issue US guns, M16s and M60s.
Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, said that the paramilitaries fighting to overthrow Aristide ‘are being backed by Washington’. Kurzban says he has hired military analysts to review photos of the weapons being used by the paramilitary groups and that contrary to reports in the media that the armed groups are using weapons originally distributed by Aristide, the gangs are using highly sophisticated and powerful weapons; weapons that far out-gun Aristide’s 3,000 member National Police force.
The US argument for war on Iraq was that it was a morally defensible liberation that would seek to establish democracy. Yet here we have an established democratic system that is being threatened by the army, a standard coup. If America has forcibly removed Aristide from power, regrouped and armed the army then America does not stand for democracy, it stands for domination and global hegemony. It is a force that is against freedom, justice and the democratic system.
Many see the problem as being the current Bush administration and that hopefully the democrats John Kerry will effect change for the better. However, is this a rational way to think? Much has been made of how Blair will handle a democrat President who is criticising Bush and the War on Terrorism, something that he is obviously dedicated to. Well, the criticisms that Kerry has have been that not enough troops have been sent to Iraq, that the war in Afghanistan is being ignored and should be bolstered. Kerry voted for the war. He also voted for the nationalistically insane Patriot Act that threatens to remove what is left of civil liberty in America under the guise of Patriotic duty and security.
Kerry’s hero is Kennedy, the great Liberal wet dream. However if the rules of the Nuremberg trials were actually followed he would have been hanged for the atrocities he instigated in indo-china and Cuba. The state terrorism that he sponsored. Kerry is a man in this vein.
There are alternatives to the current limited political debate in this country, the two party, corporate sponsored parliamentary system that inhibits rather than promotes democracy. But for any alternative to happen it needs people to start thinking about change.
‘Be the change you want to see’ - Gandhi
So far the mainstream press has been critical of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Although his recent administration has been criticised for the use of peoples militias, the pro-Aristide gangs described on the news, Mr Aristide has a democratic mandate. The ‘rebels’ are basically the reformed army that had been disbanded by Aristide in 1995 after numerous coup attempts to remove the peoples choice of democratic government.
It is interesting to note the effect of Aristide’s departure ‘under US protection’ in the members of the UN. South Africa has joined the call of Caricom, the 15-nation Caribbean Community, for an inquiry into what exactly this ‘US protection’ consisted of. Aristide himself has been quoted as saying he was kidnapped at gunpoint and was unaware that he was being flown to the Central African Republic.
In a thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration, South Africa’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, said that if Mr Aristide had been prised from power against his will, it would have “serious consequences and ramifications for the respect of the rule of law and democracy the world over”.
This was my personal problem with the war on Iraq. The precedent set by ‘regime change’ is one lacking moral, political and legal justification. However many saw that the rule of Saddam was a dictatorship which is repugnant to 21st century liberal values, to those of everyday people that is.
This being said, when the horrific mass slaughter of Kurds took place in Iraq, that Colin Powell was photographed visiting and was used to publicise the moral weight on the US to invade, at the moment that those deaths were taking place he was stood defending the US relationship with Saddam.
The difference with Haiti is that Aristide is not a dictator who has seized power and committed mass atrocities to his people. There were no problems with the elections that have given Aristide his mandate. No international outcry, no UN suspicions, no foreign demands for inquiry.
The rebels that have sought to regain the position of the army, to remove a democratic leader, have close ties with the CIA. Guy-Philippe, the self-styled leader of the rebellion who has expressed admiration for the leadership qualities of Bush was trained by the CIA and it is interesting to note that the weapons used by the rebels to terrorise the people of Haiti were all standard issue US guns, M16s and M60s.
Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, said that the paramilitaries fighting to overthrow Aristide ‘are being backed by Washington’. Kurzban says he has hired military analysts to review photos of the weapons being used by the paramilitary groups and that contrary to reports in the media that the armed groups are using weapons originally distributed by Aristide, the gangs are using highly sophisticated and powerful weapons; weapons that far out-gun Aristide’s 3,000 member National Police force.
The US argument for war on Iraq was that it was a morally defensible liberation that would seek to establish democracy. Yet here we have an established democratic system that is being threatened by the army, a standard coup. If America has forcibly removed Aristide from power, regrouped and armed the army then America does not stand for democracy, it stands for domination and global hegemony. It is a force that is against freedom, justice and the democratic system.
Many see the problem as being the current Bush administration and that hopefully the democrats John Kerry will effect change for the better. However, is this a rational way to think? Much has been made of how Blair will handle a democrat President who is criticising Bush and the War on Terrorism, something that he is obviously dedicated to. Well, the criticisms that Kerry has have been that not enough troops have been sent to Iraq, that the war in Afghanistan is being ignored and should be bolstered. Kerry voted for the war. He also voted for the nationalistically insane Patriot Act that threatens to remove what is left of civil liberty in America under the guise of Patriotic duty and security.
Kerry’s hero is Kennedy, the great Liberal wet dream. However if the rules of the Nuremberg trials were actually followed he would have been hanged for the atrocities he instigated in indo-china and Cuba. The state terrorism that he sponsored. Kerry is a man in this vein.
There are alternatives to the current limited political debate in this country, the two party, corporate sponsored parliamentary system that inhibits rather than promotes democracy. But for any alternative to happen it needs people to start thinking about change.
‘Be the change you want to see’ - Gandhi
e-mail:
