[Media-watch] FW: Bringing Hell To Haiti - Part 2

[David Miller {FMS}]

> ----------
> From: 	Medialens Media Alerts
> Sent: 	Tuesday, March 2, 2004 14:11 PM
> To: 	Friend
> Subject: 	Bringing Hell To Haiti - Part 2
> 
> MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media
> 
> 
> March 2, 2004
> 
> MEDIA ALERT: BRINGING HELL TO HAITI - PART 2
> 
> 
> Killing Hope
> 
> Jean-Bertrand Aristide told the Associated Press yesterday that he was
> forced to leave Haiti by US military forces. Asked if he left on his own,
> Aristide answered: 
> 
> "No. I was forced to leave. Agents were telling me that if I don't leave
> they would start shooting and killing in a matter of time." (Eliott C.
> McLaughlin, Associated Press, March 1, 2004)
> 
> "Haiti, again, is ablaze", Jeffrey Sachs, professor of economics at
> Columbia University, writes: "Almost nobody, however, understands that
> today's chaos was made in Washington - deliberately, cynically, and
> steadfastly. History will bear this out." (Sachs, 'Fanning the flames of
> political chaos in Haiti', The Nation, February 28, 2004)
> 
> As Sachs argues, the Bush Administration has been pursuing policies likely
> to topple Aristide since 2001:
> 
> "I visited President Aristide in Port-au-Prince in early 2001. He
> impressed me as intelligent and intent on good relations with Haiti's
> private sector and the US.
> 
> "Haiti was clearly desperate: the most impoverished country in the Western
> Hemisphere, with a standard of living comparable to sub-Saharan Africa
> despite being only a few hours by air from Miami. Life expectancy was 52
> years. Children were chronically hungry."
> 
> When he returned to Washington, Sachs spoke to senior officials in the
> IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, and Organisation of
> American States. He describes how he expected to hear that these
> organisations would be rushing to help Haiti. Not so:
> 
> "Instead, I was shocked to learn that they would all be suspending aid,
> under vague 'instructions' from the US. America, it seemed, was unwilling
> to release aid to Haiti because of irregularities in the 2000 legislative
> elections, and was insisting that Aristide make peace with the political
> opposition before releasing any aid. 
> 
> "The US position was a travesty. Aristide had been elected President in an
> indisputable landslide [in 1990]... Nor were the results of the
> legislative elections in 2000 in doubt: Aristide's party had also won in a
> landslide."
> 
> Two elections took place in 2000. A range of political parties, including
> Aristide's Lavalas party, contested elections in May. As a result,
> Aristide dominated the new parliament, holding 19 of the 27 Senate seats
> and 72 of the 82 lower house seats - 200 international observers assessed
> the elections as satisfactory. Peter Hallward of King's College London
> comments in the Guardian:
> 
> "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 positively exemplary."
> 
> Why then were the elections criticised 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." (Hallward, 'Why
> they had to crush Aristide', The Guardian, March 2, 2004)
> 
> Methodology was contested in the election of eight senators out of a total
> of 7,500 posts filled. President Aristide persuaded seven of the eight
> senators to resign. He also agreed to OAS proposals for new elections. The
> opposition Democratic Convergence, however, did not, demanding instead
> that Aristide immediately vacate the presidency. Analyst Yifat Susskind
> explains:
> 
> "Members of Haiti's elite, long hostile to Aristide's progressive economic
> agenda, saw the controversy as an opportunity to derail his government."
> (Susskind, 'Haiti - Insurrection in the Making, A MADRE Backgrounder',
> www.zmag.org, February 25, 2004)
> 
> On November 26, 2000, Aristide was nevertheless re-elected president with
> his Lavalas Party winning 90% of the vote. 
> 
> Haiti's elections may have been imperfect but, given Haiti's history of
> appalling dictatorships and violence, they marked a major step forwards in
> democracy. It made no sense for the US to react so aggressively by cutting
> off vital aid, just as it has made no sense for the West to insist that
> Haiti should, yet again, submit to military violence now. 
> 
> US Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, challenged Colin Powell in a February 12
> letter: 
> 
> "It appears that the US is aiding and abetting the attempt to violently
> topple the Aristide government. With all due respect, this looks like
> 'regime change'... Our actions - or inaction - may be making things
> worse." (Quoted Anthony Fenton, 'Media vs. reality in Haiti',
> http://zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=4977 February
> 13, 2004)
> 
> Consider the Times' version of these events:
> 
> "Mr Aristide will doubtless protest that a democratically elected figure
> such as himself should never be asked to submit to the will of
> self-appointed rebels. He has a point, but, in his case, it is a limited
> one. Mr Aristide won a second term in office four years ago in a manner
> that suggested fraud on a substantial scale. The resentment left by his
> flawed victory, his increasingly despotic and erratic rule and the
> wholesale collapse of the local economy inspired the rebellion against
> him." (The Times, Editorial, March 1, 2004)
> 
> This is the same Times which, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in
> 1990, called for "a worldwide expression of anger at a small nation's
> sovereignty rudely shattered by brute force". ('Iraq's naked villainy',
> Editorial, The Times, August 3, 1990)
> 
> The cause in Kuwait was "simple on a world scale", the Times wrote
> grandly, "the defence of the weak against aggression by the strong". ('No
> mock heroics', Editorial, The Times, January 18, 1991)
> 
> 
> Structurally Adjusted Rebels
> 
> Since 2001, human rights activists and humanitarian workers in Haiti have
> documented numerous opposition killings of government officials and
> bystanders in attacks on health clinics, police stations and government
> vehicles. None of these killings were condemned by the US government.
> 
> Susskind notes that, according to a 2000 poll, Haiti's opposition
> represents only 8 percent of the population. The rebel gangs are linked to
> two groups financed by the Bush Administration: the right-wing Convergence
> for Democracy and the pro-business Group of 184. The Convergence is
> supported by the US Republican Party through the National Endowment for
> Democracy and the International Republican Institute. The Group of 184 is
> represented by Andy Apaid, a supporter of the former Duvalier dictatorship
> and a US citizen.  
> 
> The Council on Hemispheric Affairs reports that the opposition's "only
> policy goal seems to be reconstituting the army and the implementation of
> rigorous Structural Adjustment Programs". (Quoted, Susskind, op.,cit)
> Hence its lack of popularity.
> 
> In an article titled, 'The little priest who became a bloody dictator like
> the one he once despised', the Independent's Andrew Gumbel writes of
> Aristide:
> 
> "Then in 1994, undaunted, he returned, messianic again, backed by 20,000
> US troops and disbanded the Haitian military. He had the goodwill of the
> world, the overwhelming support of his electorate and plentiful funds from
> international aid agencies to breathe life into Haiti's moribund economy."
> (Gumbel, 'The little priest who became a bloody dictator like the one he
> once despised', The Independent, February 21, 2004)
> 
> As we described in Part 1 of this Media Alert, the "goodwill of the world"
> was expressed by supporting the massacre of the grassroots movement that
> had brought Aristide to power. 
> 
> Aristide has presided over human rights abuses, including corruption and
> attempts to suppress dissent and intimidate opponents. However, journalist
> Tom Reeves puts the title of Gumbel's article into perspective:
> 
> "Whatever Aristide's mistakes and weaknesses have been (and they are
> many), they pale when compared to the extreme brutality of those who are
> today implicated in the violence in Gonaives and elsewhere in Haiti." (Tom
> Reeves, 'The US double game in Haiti', Znet, www.zmag.org, February 16,
> 2004)
> 
> In 2003, Reeves asked a group of Haitians in Cap-Haïtien about Aristide's
> performance. One responded:
> 
> "We don't think Aristide is doing a good job, but at least now we can
> talk, we are free to come and go. The Macoute must not come back... Yes,
> there is corruption and police brutality. But to compare our government
> with dictators is a hypocritical lie!" (Reeves, 'Haiti and the US game',
> Znet, March 27, 2003,
> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=3337&sectionID=2)
> 
> The US lawyer representing the government of Haiti has accused the US
> government of direct involvement in the planned military coup against
> Aristide. Ira Kurzban, the Miami-based attorney who has served as General
> Counsel to the Haitian government since 1991, said that the paramilitaries
> who overthrew Aristide are backed by Washington:
> 
> "I believe that this is a group that is armed by, trained by, and employed
> by the intelligence services of the United States. This is clearly a
> military operation, and it's a military coup." ('Haiti's Lawyer: US Is
> Arming Anti-Aristide Paramilitaries, Calls For UN Peacekeepers', Amy
> Goodman and Jeremy Scahil, Democracynow.org, February 26, 2004)
> 
> Kurzban added:
> 
> "There's enough indications from our point of view, at least from my point
> of view, that the United States certainly knew what was coming about two
> weeks before this military operation started. The United States made
> contingency plans for Guantanamo." 
> 
> Writing of the rebels in the Daily Mail, Ross Benson buries the known
> facts past and present:
> 
> "One of their commanders is Louis Jodel Chamberlain, leader of the army
> death squads before and after the 1991 coup, who is held to be responsible
> for the death of 5,000 men, women and children. He is not, to put it
> mildly, the kind of man that any American administration would wish to
> deal with." (Benson, 'The land of voodoo, The Daily Mail, February 28,
> 2004)
> 
> For the Independent's Adrian Hamilton, the US's worst crime is inaction: 
> 
> "It is quite wrong to wash our hands of Haiti's future as we are now
> doing. It doesn't mean instant invasion, but it does mean making clear
> that we will not accept a military regime without democratic legitimacy."
> ('Why it is wrong to wash our hands of Haiti', Adrian Hamilton, The
> Independent, February 26, 2004)
> 
> Once again we find ourselves asking the question posed by dissident
> playwright Harold Pinter: 
> 
> "When they said 'We had to do something', I said: 'Who is this 'we'
> exactly that you're talking about? First of all: Who is the 'we'? Under
> what heading do 'we' act, under what law? And also, the notion that this
> 'we' has the right to act,' I said, 'presupposes a moral authority of
> which this 'we' possesses not a jot! It doesn't exist!'" (Interview with
> David Edwards, 1999. See Interviews: www.medialens.org)
> 
> It is a standard response of the liberal press to concoct a false, lesser
> Western misdemeanour - here, 'washing our hands of Haiti' - and then to
> rage at that invention. This promotes the liberal media's 'dissident'
> credentials, without harming, or calling down the wrath of, power.
> 
> The BBC writes:
> 
> "Haiti's political opposition has rejected a US-backed power-sharing plan
> aimed at ending the country's crisis." ('Haiti power-sharing plan
> rejected', 25 February,
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3517837.stm)
> 
> Once again, the US is depicted as an 'honest broker', as though Haiti had
> no history. The BBC is happy to report without comment the proposal that a
> democratically elected government might share power with a gang of killers
> with a history of gross human rights abuses.
> 
> In similar vein, prior to Aristide's departure, ITN's Bill Neely talked of
> George Bush "losing patience" with the Haitian president - Bush as the
> benevolent father-figure in the wings. (ITN, 10:15 News, February 28,
> 2004).
> 
> Reversing the truth on BBC1 News, Kathy Kay reports:
> 
> "Long-term stability in Haiti isn't likely without a long-term American
> commitment." (Kay, BBC 10:00 News, February 29, 2004)
> 
> Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News writes:
> 
> "The democratically elected leader finally gave in to the rebels saying he
> wanted to avoid bloodshed while the international community stood by and
> did nothing. Sometimes it seems, it isn't worth waiting for elections. The
> US had helped Aristide before, restoring him to power years ago, but they
> were not going to do it again and said his resignation was in the
> interests of the Haitian people." (Snowmail bulletin, February 29, 2004)
> 
> The level of analysis is hardly worthy of a high-school student, or
> comment.
> 
> The Guardian writes:
> 
> "Despite what Mr Aristide says, Haiti has no terrorists, no al-Qaida
> cells, as in Afghanistan." ('Failure of will', Leader, The Guardian,
> February 28, 2004)
> 
> This is technically correct - for the media, terrorists are by definition
> people who use terror and violence to threaten Western interests. People
> who use terror and violence to +promote+ Western interests are therefore
> not terrorists.
> 
> The Guardian continues:
> 
> "Yet what, at this moment of dire need, have the powers done about it?
> Nothing much is the answer. For all their doctrines and declarations, they
> have dithered and debated, ducked and dodged, and danced that old, slow
> diplomatic shuffle." (Ibid)
> 
> No question, then, that "the powers" might have been doing something other
> than wringing their hands behind the scenes.
> 
> On February 11, US Congresswoman Maxine Waters issued a press release
> calling on the Bush administration to condemn the "so-called opposition"
> that was "attempting to instigate a bloodbath in Haiti and then blame the
> government for the resulting disaster in the belief that the US will aid
> the so-called protestors against President Aristide." (Quoted, Fenton,
> op., cit)
> 
> Waters pointed out:
> 
> "Under his leadership, the Haitian government has made major investments
> in agriculture, public transportation and infrastructure... The government
> [recently] doubled the minimum wage from 36 to 70 gourdes per day, despite
> strong opposition from the business community... President Aristide has
> also made health care and education national priorities. More schools were
> built in Haiti between 1994 and 2000 than between 1804 and 1994.  The
> government expanded school lunch and school bus programs and provides a
> 70% subsidy for schoolbooks and uniforms."
> 
> But for Ross Benson of the Daily Mail, Aristide is the problem with no
> redeeming achievements worth mentioning:
> 
> "Instead of enacting a programme of social and economic reform 'to give
> the people what is rightfully theirs', Aristide allowed his cronies to
> plunder the national till, as so many have done before in this lush island
> paradise with its turbulent past of bloodshed, greed and endless
> tyrannies." (Benson, 'The Land of voodoo', The Daily Mail, February 28,
> 2004)
> 
> Some time in the future when Western interests are under attack, the media
> will once again obediently rise up in outrage as the forces of violence
> and terror threaten some distant democracy (real or imagined). But, for
> now, our journalists and editors are happy to accept that Aristide "had to
> go", that he had "lost the support of his people and of the international
> community". 
> 
> Forget the democratic process. Forget the landslide victories that make a
> mockery of the popularity of Bush and Blair. Forget the tidal waves of
> blood that preceded the first, imperfect sign that Haiti might at last be
> waking from the nightmare of history - of endless dictatorships, endless
> poverty, endless military coups bringing torture and death to the
> suffering people. None of that matters. What matters to the media is
> power. What power says goes. 
> 
> 
> SUGGESTED ACTION
> 
> The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect
> for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge readers to
> maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
> 
> Write to Andrew Gumbel:
> Email: a.gumbel at independent.co.uk
> 
> Write to Adrian Hamilton
> Email: a.hamilton at independent.co.uk
> 
> Write to the editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger
> Email: alan.rusbridger at guardian.co.uk
> 
> Write to Kathy Kay
> Email: kathy.kay at bbc.co.uk
> 
> Write to the BBC's director of news, Richard Sambrook:
> Email: richard.sambrook at bbc.co.uk
> 
> Write to Bill Neely
> Email: bill.neely at itn.co.uk
> 
> Write to Snowmail at Channel 4 News
> Email: jon.snow at itn.co.uk
> 
> 
> Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens: 
> Email: editor at medialens.org
>  
> Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org
> 
> Please consider donating to Media Lens - it's how we keep going:
> http://www.medialens.org/donate.html
> 
> This media alert will shortly be archived at:
> http://www.MediaLens.org/alerts/index.html
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe click on the link below:
> http://www.medialens.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/medialens/mailproc/register.cgi?e
> m=david.miller at stir.ac.uk&act=un&at=2
> 
>