Amerikans: What democracy?
Bush flip-flops, overthrows elected Haitian government

*See also, "Why do you oppose democracy?"

Haiti is another perfect case of the lie in all Amerikan "foreign policy" which is really a system, not a policy. In April 2001, President Bush spoke of all of the Western Hemisphere except for Cuba as "free" and "democratic." Proving that "freedom" and "democracy" are just covers that he uses, Bush overthrew the democratically-elected Haitian government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide on February 29th.

The key facts are not in dispute by the U.S. Government. As late as January 6th, 2004, the U.S. Government was not disputing that Haiti had a democratically-elected government. A press release harking back to a pivotal FTAA (Free Trade Agreement of the Americas) meeting read as follows: "In April of 2001, the democratically elected leaders of the Hemisphere gathered in Quebec City for the Third Summit of the Americas. At that meeting, the leaders committed themselves and their countries to pursuing an agenda for all the people of the Americas."(1) Bush said the only exception in the Western Hemisphere was Cuba. Hence, Bush himself counted Haiti as having a democratically elected government and his February smokescreen for overthrowing Aristide was that Aristide resigned. The State Department put it this way: "At President Aristide's request, the United States facilitated his safe departure from Haiti."(2) Yet, Aristide called it kidnapping: "Maxine Waters, a Democratic congresswoman from Los Angeles, said Mr. Aristide 'told me he had been kidnapped in a coup d'état.'"(3) The clue is the State Department's opinion that Aristide's departure: "resolves the political impasse that is the root of the violent unrest in Haiti in recent weeks."(2) That's just the u.$. agenda speaking loud and clear.

While Bush claims not to have had a part in the 2004 violence that overthrew Aristide and that is a deception, the remaining facts are proof enough that "democracy" is not the guiding light of u.$. "foreign policy." It's quite in the open that the united $tates had a role in picking the next prime minister and the new president. The fact that the united $tates chose also to back replacing the prime minister of Haiti Yvon Neptune proves Aristide's contention that he did not resign but the united $tates forced him out.(4) The CIA said Neptune was still in power as March 4th but sought to cast doubt on all his departments while supporting the new interim president.(5)

A few days later, Gerard Latortue from Boca Raton, Florida arrived to take power as prime minister.(6) He had left Haiti in 1988, thanks to pressure from another u.$.-backed regime. U.S. Government documents and interviews with the BBC show that Latortue was the choice of the united $tates, not elections in Haiti. In case the Haitian people do not get the message, the united $tates landed 1600 troops. Official government documents read as follows: "A U-S backed advisory panel has chosen a new prime minister for Haiti. V-O-A's [Voice of America's-- mim ed.] Jim Teeple reports the move comes as multi-national troops in Haiti say they will soon begin disarmament operations in Haiti.

"Gerard Latortue, a former political refugee and foreign minister in Haiti is his country's new prime minister. Mr. Latortue, was chosen after five days of deliberations by the so called council of wise individuals, a panel selected to choose a new prime minister after the departure of President Jean Bertrand Aristide."(7)

The only indications from the u.$. officials of their true motivations mention some sense of entitlement because of u.$. aid to Haiti including the aid of u.$. troops. These criticisms of Haiti only show what a low priority Uncle $am places on elections. Pretty much anything justifies overturning them in their minds despite rhetoric to the contrary.

In another manifestation of deeper fissures in the ruling class breaking up their usual bipartisan unity, Senator Kerry, the presumed Democratic Party nominee for president in November 2004 elections said that the united $tates should have sent troops to back Aristide. Of course, at meetings of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean in particular, the imperialists and Caribbean leaders agreed to support each other's "democracies" in the event of instability. In response Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "'We found that his performance was so bad and so wanting that it was going to be impossible to find a political solution between the two parties under the circumstances that existed,' Powell added.

"'And so we were not prepared, nor was Canada, France or anyone else prepared to send in a military force, as (Democratic presidential hopeful and) Senator (John) Kerry suggests, to prop up a leader who was seriously failing.'"(8)

So let's see: Powell is saying elections are valid, unless of course the elected leader faces problems. By the way, it was France that arranged the country for Aristide to go to in his kidnapping. France also sent troops. Haitians are familiar with French language.

MIM is not a fan of Aristide's. Nonetheless, we fully appreciate the thousands of demonstrators who want their president back. These protestors are protesting in the face of u.$. troops and getting killed for it. "Aristide has to come back; we don't want Bush as president" read some protest signs.(9) That's learning the hard way that imperialist-style democracy is phony. Already two people are dead directly thanks to "peacekeepers" from France and the united $tates.(10)

We also laugh at Kanada for arresting Aristide's security chief, Oriel Jean. The Kanadians are investigating him for "war crimes,"(11) while letting Amerikkkans off the hook in Iraq etc. It's a bad joke. Kanada is also sending 450 troops to Haiti.(12) We support Aristide's lawyer who says the U.S. Government officials involved should be arrested. That would be Bush and Powell. The Kanadians and French should also be arrested.

Of other notable hypocrisy--the Bush administration position opposes gun control; yet the first thing they are doing in Haiti is carrying out a policy to disarm everyone. The National Rifle Association (NRA) should be screaming about this. If the united $tates is backing "democracy" in Haiti, then there is no need to be carrying out radical "gun control" in Haiti.

MIM is not in favor of "democracy" in the sense of majority rule at this time. There are much better ways to channel popular input than pulling a lever in a voting booth every couple years and we do not believe majorities of the united $tates should have the "right" to tell gays if they can marry or if Iraqis can import medical devices from abroad. However, even though we do not support "democracy" in the sense used by the united $tates, we point out the facts about Haiti to uncover the hypocrisy of u.$. leaders claiming to uphold elections. There are some advantages to the political system of voting that Bush is constantly touting and claiming, especially relative to our communist ideas. Yet those advantages are on paper only, because in practice the imperialists do not respect their own bourgeois-style elections, as in Haiti's case.

There is an important lesson in political realism to learn in all this and once we learn it, we move a major step closer to the communist road: democracy is not possible under capitalism. Capitalism develops to a stage of monopoly capitalism where business interests direct political leaders to take a global view of control.

When there was a Soviet Union, the U.S. Government used to justify its actions overthrowing democratically elected governments by pointing to competition with the Soviet Union. That did not address why the united $tates did the same thing before there was a Soviet Union in 1917. Now that there is no Soviet Union, we can see that the motivations for the united $tates to overthrow elected governments are not what the imperialists say.

Even being a democratically elected lackey of the united $tates does not create stability and protect the people. Our disagreement with Aristide is that he thought it would be possible to co-exist with u.$. imperialism. Now even the Kanadians admit that in Haiti there are "morgues full and government offices closed, bodies were piling up, littering streets."(12) U.$. imperialism does not respect anything but its own selfish and militarist interests. If Haitians want control of their own destiny, they have no choice but to join with the international proletariat in conquering u.$. imperialism.

Notes:
1. http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/rm/27975.htm
2. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/29990.htm
3. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20 040302.wxhaitibush0302/BNStory/Front/
4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3545229.stm
5. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3545229.stm
6. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/haiti/8156653.htm
7. http://ibb7.ibb.gov/newswire/27e8094d.html
8. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1495741,00.html
9. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/03/12/379177.html
10. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/8148729.htm
11. http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/CalgarySun/News/2004/03/12/379266.html
12. "US in Haiti gun hunt," http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2004/03/12/379179.html