March 02, 2004

A Coup in Haiti (Again). Haiti's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, claims he did not resign, but rather was forced out by the United States. If true, this would obviously violate international law (and US law, insofar as Aristide's wife is a US citizen). For an in-depth discussion, watch today's broadcast of Democracy Now.
posted by scartol 20 years ago
  • Since when has violating international or US law been an issue for the NeoCons? (Don't worry about asking that question of Bush, one look at his past tells you he only thinks the law applies to everyone else). Like I say, we need Mr Oswald and his Magic Bullets.
  • But then we'd have Dick Chaney in office. Kinda like snuffing Hitler and replacing him with Goebbels. But at least Dick's got a weak ticker. Who's next in line?
  • The Speaker of the House. Dennis-something. Normally I'd remember, but I'm really drunk.
  • As much as I dislike Bush & Co, Aristide has even less credibility in my mind. I'm not saying it did or didn't happen, but I really hope this gets more attention than just a ticker crawl at the bottom of the screen for another 6 hours, only to disappear off everyone but GNN's radar.
  • I agree that Aristide is a shady character, but what I'd like to argue is that it interesting to note that everytime we decide to stage a coup (see Guatamala, Chile, Iran, Cuba, you name it) we fuck it up. Is it possible to start a democratic government after you use undemocratic means to topple the former leader (quite often one we put in power in the first place)? For example, even as we didn't help Saddam take power, we still helped him stay in power by giving him the weapons we can't seem to find now, all the while knowing he was using them against "his own people". Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
  • I think that given our actions for the past couple of years, this will get more attention than it normally would have. I'm keeping a close watch.
  • squidranch, haven't we always done that? The only difference is that we weren't quite as discreet about it this time around. Besides, at some point we will have a democratic president and will go the total opposite way for awhile, then people will get bored with that and vote republican for awhile, you get the drift.
  • Gentle reminder
  • just wait a few years Wolof...
  • Welcome to the Internet, Wolof. USA! USA! USA!
  • Mexico! Mexoco! Mexaco!
  • I'm afraid that the "we", unfortunately, often applies to many in the rest of the developed world as well.* I don't know the specifics of the Haiti situation, but I would not be surprised if many other countries have also had their fingers in the pot of first supporting, then ousting Aristide. * For pertinent examples, see the Canadian oil companies that have funded civil war in Sudan, and numerous other things I'm afraid I'm too tired to think of. Though many of us may have sat out the latest U.S.-led coalition (Sorry Brits, but on American news it was definately not a partnership), that seems to have been a big change for world policy (I know it was for Canadian).
  • I think I do truly speak for all of us when I say, "Oh shit".
  • Yeah, well for all of you who might question the current administrations efforts to overthrow Aristide...um...terrorist...terrorism...um...evil..madman...terror...9/11. Yada yada yada. They did it and it's not gonna matter a bit if you care, or you don't care. The government wants you to know that you can fuck off if you don't like it. Good Morning America! How are ya?
  • My personal view is that the US has nothing to do with the coup. The rebels had no kind of support and the rebellion was more disorganized than a burly brawl. Most of the rebels fight with stones and molotov coctels from what I have seen on the news. Haiti was on the bring of rebellion almost since the deposing of 'Baby Doc'.
  • The Speaker of the House. Dennis-something. Normally I'd remember, but I'm really drunk. Dennis Hastert is the answer.
  • The comparison between this, just one previous example of American-led/Western-aquiesced "nation building", and the current ambitions in Iraq and Afghanistan is indeed instructive. I can't help but feel that replace "Aristide" with "Chalabi" (or whoever), and we're looking at the history of the next ten years or so, right now. For example, even as we didn't help Saddam take power... Or perhaps did help, a little bit, at least. Very small nitpick. Sorry. Sorry Brits, but on American news it was definately not a partnership Don't apologise, our national conscience just got a little bit less troubled. :-)
  • White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls reports of Aristide being kidnapped "complete nonsense."
  • What the hell is the question?
  • Update from the BBC. The state of the world confuses and disheartens me.
  • In Haiti, Washington confirmed a foreign policy that is driven by self-interest and delivered through force The principal message to the Haitian people from Aristide's ouster is that force works. If you do not like the elected leader of the country, start a rebellion and refuse to negotiate. If it is strong enough, and its politics amenable enough, the Americans will come and finish the job for you. With 33 coups in 200 years, this was a message the Haitian people did not need.