Five Questions About Haiti and the Coup Attempt

Okay, Copublishers, answer one or more of these five questions about the Haiti coup attempt...

1. What is at stake?

2. Is this a battle for control of narco-trafficking?

3. Do Aristide defenders want foreign intervention or not?

4. How can Washington justify its economic embargo policy any longer?

5. Who is financing the paramilitary coup operations?

We may have some long nights coming up trying to get the truth out in the middle of a crisis. Help us prepare for it today.

Could Washington ever justify the 2000 sanctions against Haiti?  Cutting off international aid to the poorest country in the hemisphere strikes me as exceptionally cruel.  

He seemed to offer such promise back in the day (early 90s). I hate to be the cynic, but Haiti's cursed. Clearly, little will ever get done politically in Haiti.

Why do you feel that "Haiti's cursed" and that little will ever get done there politically?

There are other countries that have suffered the same process of colonization, imposed poverty and frequent coups d'etat where, today, much is occuring, and positively, in the political-democratic realm... Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, to name three. Bolivia is likewise interesting, among others.

I don't think any land is cursed. These matters are not "cosmic" or "karmic." It's a matter of what people do that makes history. So I'd be interested in hearing more about why you feel that way, so we can have a clearer basis to discuss it.

I recently had lunch with a friend and the subject of Haiti came up. This individual is originally from Mexico City but now lives in the states. He is well-traveled and says he has been to Haiti twice.

In his estimation, it is among the poorest nations in the world, to the extent that the people there are so desparate that they will jump on anything that might offer a hint of better way.

His analysis of the current situation, and the reason that Haiti in general is so prone to coups, may seem a bit simplistic, but it's worth sharing for discussion purposes.

This person offers the following analogy in terms of the uprising in Haiti. One day, a hungry dog in the neighborhood starts howling for apparently no reason. Suddenly, all the other hungry dogs in the neighborhood, likewise, join in and begin to howl, for no other reason than the fact that the first dog started howling.

In essence, he says the uprising in Haiti is yet another rage-inspired coup against the desparation of that nation's poverty. Someone just lit the spark to set it off.

I asked him, if that were true, then couldn't these dynamics be easily manipulated, and in that case, who would have the power to do so and to what end? I honestly don't know enough about Haiti to even venture an educated guess.

From what my friend told me, there is a very small upper class, literally no middle class and a sea of utter poverty. It seems to me those are dynamics for revolution, unless someone can effectively keep the lower class fighting amongst themselves, or against a common enemy such as a scapegoat government leader -- providing the illusion of power and change for the populace and a vent for the desparation of their plight from time to time.

But behind the scenes, someone would always be pulling the levers to protect and keep for themselves what little wealth, power and position Haiti affords them. That could make for some pretty strange bedfellows.

Maybe these assumptions are wrong.

In any event, Al's questions need answering. I'm staying tuned to learn something.

Al, comparing Haiti with Brazil or Argentina? Come on. I don't even see much analogous in Bolivia or Venezuela. It is ironic that Haiti first achieved independence in Latin America and will be the last to achieve liberty from poverty or fraternity in unity. Thus began it's unique and tragic (no, not "cursed" I was being cliche) history.

I have consciously ignored Haiti, although I have read Paul Farmer, partly because of language, culture and relevance. This is my own fault, although I imagine the rest of Latin America probably has done the same. Is it right? No. Can it change? Only if Haitians choose to make themselves relevant. Where does that start? Education. The fruits of those French Creole pioneers has been forgotten.

My concern, Trevor, is to counter the grand colonial myth that Haitians supposedly can't govern their own land.

Here's an example of that kind of thinking, from a blogger who goes by the sole name of "Helen" over at Caribpundit:

"Haiti needs to be a military governorate for about twenty years. Within that context, then, Haitians can dialogue with each other, acquire the skills of self-governance, and with a rebuilt infrastructure, go on to rule themselves. Right now, Haitian solutions only result in blood and death.

I know that you're not saying that, but I fear that your words can be used by those from the oligarchy nostalgia crowd to reinforce their message that Haiti can't, and therefore should not be allowed to, govern itself.

It's fair enough for you to say that big, resource rich, countries like Brazil and Venezuela have very different circumstances.

Taking your lead, perhaps a better comparison would come from looking at some of Haiti's Caribbean sister islands, such as Jamaica and Cuba.

These are two countries with historic and economic conditions more similar to those of Haiti that - favor or not their distinct styles of governing - have forged highly educated cultures in a context of great poverty and limited natural resources.

The problem is largely the paternalism of the so-called "developed world." On the one hand it rails against, with racial overtones, that Haitians cannot govern themselves. On the other hand, the entire thrust of U.S. policy, including in recent days, has been to treat Haiti paternally, to infantilize the nation, to infer that a plan must be airdropped from outside and from above, and to push Haiti to deviate from its own constitutional laws.

In today's Jamaica Observer, John Maxwell writes convincingly about Washington's schizophrenic policy toward the Aristide government in Haiti. On the one hand, it blames Aristide for not making progress on many expensive fronts, while on the other hand it has imposed an economic embargo, and even before that 2000 embargo, didn't contribute sufficiently to the reforms it now blames Aristide for not implementing. Maxwell writes:

In the OAS in Washington on Friday, US Ambassador John Maisto declared that Haiti's crisis "is due in large part to the failure of the Government of Haiti to act in a timely manner to address problems that it knew were growing". He said it hadn't fought police corruption, strengthened its judiciary or restored security. He did not choose to explain how Aristide could have done those things, given his circumstances.

Maxwell is one of those who has called on Caribbean nations to aid Haiti since 1994, but only one country responded with any significant resources:

Cuba has sent 700 medical personnel, including more than 300 doctors, to deal with the diseases that afflict Haitian peasants and to teach them and their children to read and write. About 1,000 Haitian children are at school in Cuba.

I don't know of anything useful done by the Caribbean hypocrites who are now so ready to praise democracy and pass resolutions. There are, of course, brigades of American missionaries - 5,000 of them, including a battalion of Mormons. It wasn't so long ago that the Mormons taught that black people were cursed by God.

Haiti needed then and needs now, teachers, doctors, nurses, public health workers, agricultural instructors, and the technical assistance and materials for building water supplies, roads, houses, electrical power distribution systems, telephones and the other infrastructure which permit nations to live a quasi-civilised life. The US, the World Bank, the IMF, the European Union and all the other responsible adults refused to help unless Haiti conformed to their image of capitalist democracy, particularly by privatising the meagre assets still retained by the destitute Haitian state.

So the problem is not Haiti or Haitians. It's the big countries in the neighborhood that won't allow Haiti to solve its own problems, who are even intervening with an economic blockade.

The only country that has done squat for Haiti has been Cuba, and Aristide can list among his accomplishments that, finally, he's gotten concrete assistance to build the education and health of Haiti from at least one country. That Cuba is also a poor country that suffers a U.S. embargo raises interesting questions.

At minimum, while the extremists in charge of U.S.-Latin American policy are obsessed with Cuba, their policies are giving Haiti little choice but to move farther away from the neoliberal economic model and closer to the Cuban model. And then these same extremists, with their Miami oligarch base of support, then use Cuban "influence" as yet another pretext to condemn Haiti and Aristide. It's a vicious, self-perpetuating, circle.

Al -

Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters know the US is at least encouraging the coup. I haven't found any direct evidence of financial support for the current Gonaives group, but some of old cast of characters from the last coup are involved.

From Rep. Maxine Waters Charges U.S. Is Encouraging A Coup in Haiti (transcript)
on democracy now:

AMY GOODMAN: What evidence do you have that the U.S. Government is supporting the anti-Aristide forces?

MAXINE WATERS: Well, I guess a few days ago there was an article that appeared in "The New York Times" with a so-called anonymous -- someone in the State Department having, you know, sent a trial balloon up saying that something was going to have to be done in Haiti, and it was possible that the State Department could support the ouster. Well, not only did you see that kind of a statement coming out of the State Department, I noticed that each of the releases that they had done over the past several weeks kept suggesting that everything that was going on, all of the problems were the fault of the president, and they were literally giving out misinformation. Well, Mr. Noriega, of course, was the chief of staff to Senator Jesse Helms, who was basically a Haiti -- well, hated Haiti, and they have always worked against Haiti, and Mr. Noriega, is now in charge of that policy. And I think it's because of him -- I really believe it's because of him that these statements keep coming out of the State Department, and I think that Colin Powell was focused on Afghanistan and Iraq, and I have been communicating with him recently, and I have asked him to pay more attention.

and also:

AMY GOODMAN: We know the history of the United States in the previous coup in Haiti. Aristide forced out for three years, 1991 to 1994. It turned out that the leader of the paramilitary death squad, the F.R.A.P.P, Emmanuel Constance was on the payroll of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and as President Clinton was saying we have to go off the murderers and the rapists and thugs in Haiti, justifying why the U.S. was moving in. It turned out on his own government's payroll was the leader that he was talking about. And now he walks free in the United States, most likely here in New York in Queens.

MAXINE WATERS: Yes, that is true. He is on the streets of New York. And that sad history is a history that we in America have within ashamed of. Not only have we supported dictators in Haiti, Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier. The C.I.A. has always had a hand. And we've had people like Constance on the payroll.

From Media vs. Reality in Haiti on zMag:

Another Congresswoman, Barbara Lee, directly challenged Colin Powell in a formal letter to him February 12th, after Powell had announced that the US administration is “not interested in regime change” in Haiti. Said Lee: “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.” [6]

Finally from US Double Game in Haiti on zMag (this article unfortunately lacks any sigfnicant foot notes, which is a shame for it's content):

Most recently, as the "rebels" blocked the road from the Dominican Republic and re-took two villages in the north, reinforcements arrived from across the border. According to Ian James of the AP, Feb. 14, twenty armed Haitian commandos, shot their way through the Dominican border, killing two Dominican soldiers. With them were former Cap Haitien police chief and army officer, Guy Philippe, and the head of the Duvalier death squad in the 1980s, Louis Jodel Chamblain. Chamblain was also a leader of the FRAPH, a group of para-military "attaches" during the coup years. A close associate of Chamblain, Emmanueal "Toto" Constant, has admitted its CIA funding and direction. Chamblain was revealed in documents reviewed by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York as one of those present during the planning, with a U.S. agent, of the assassination of the pro-Aristide minister of justice, Guy Malary, in 1993. The U.S. refuses to release documents it seized from FRAPH during the 1994 U.S. invasion - presumably to cover up the CIA ties to FRAPH. Philippe and Chamblain were among those from the Haitian opposition, recognized by the U.S. - the Convergence - who organized conferences in the D.R. funded and attended by U.S. operatives from the International Republican Institute (IRI).

and also:

I saw both sides of this double game when I went to Haiti at the time of Aristide's return in 1994. I saw the U.S. helicopter that landed Aristide at the palace and the U.S. soldiers who guarded the bullet-proof box from which he was allowed to speak. I interviewed U.S. officers in the Central Plateau who said they were specifically told to treat FRAPH as a loyal opposition, and not to confiscate large weapons' caches they stumbled upon. Most of the M-1s and M-14s seen in the hands of the Gonaives thugs today have been identified as coming from those Haitian army stockpiles left untouched during the U.S. occupation. A few M-16s, though, have begun to appear in Goniaves as well - identical to those given the Dominican army en masse just a few months ago by the U.S. government, in return for Dominican acquiescence in placing 900 U.S. troops alongside Dominican guards at the Dominican frontier - and for the Dominican agreement never to use the International Court to accuse and try U.S. citizens for war crimes. (Miami Herald, Dec. 6, 2002)

and with more on Noriega:

Meanwhile, the same U.S. government players who supported the Contras in Nicaragua - Otto Reich and Robert Noriega (See Kevin Pina's excellent series in the Black Commentator) - gave aid and comfort to those who back the Haiti contras, insisting that the right-wing dominated Convergence and it's elite, pro-business partner, the Group of 184, have a veto over any progress toward holding elections in Haiti. Over a year ago, Noriega and Reich were linked to the planning of a secret conference near Ottawa, at which the Francophone nations were urged by U.S. agents present to be prepared to call for direct intervention and a possible U.N. trusteeship in the wake of Aristide's departure after violence escalated in Haiti. The Canadian diplomat, Denis Paradis, who chaired the meeting was sacked when Canada's role came to light.

Saw this in one of my local rags.

Turmoil gives view of a dim future

"Gonaives ... is the center of the rebellion threatening to topple the Haitian government, but if it offers a glimpse of what the rebels would bring to their nation, the prospects are not encouraging.

Hungry people wander the streets, begging for food or money, while thousands of their neighbors have fled to the countryside or other cities, fearful of a looming bloodbath. The hospital is shut down because the doctors are too afraid to come to work after rebels and police engaged in a pitched battle on the premises that killed several bystanders."

I found the slant confusing.  Are we supposed to be surprised that democracy and prosperity aren't flourishing in the wake of a rampaging mob?

William Bowles is constantly updating the latest headlines regarding the situation in Haiti, where 50 U.S. Marines have now headed to "defend the U.S. Embassy."

Here's the link.

Analyzing a coup is no easy task, particularly in a country as complicated as Haiti. But Eugenia Charles-Mathurin, co-director of the http://www.haitireborn.org ">Haiti Reborn/Quixote Center, offers some disturbing clues in the following statement — which was released through the Institute for Public Accuracy.

"The United States has helped create this opposition to destabilize and
undermine Haiti's nascent democracy.... The U.S. is the only party which
can bring to the negotiation table these groups which include members of
the CIA-linked FRAPH death squads and the former brutal army of Haiti,
FAD'H, which killed over 5,000 people from 1991-1994.... President
Aristide, the constitutional president, has pledged that he would step down
from power when his term comes to a close. In accordance with the Haitian
Constitution, he cannot run again. His commitments have been met with
escalating violence by opposition members."

In related coup fodder, check out the article about the Marines being sent to Haiti to protect the U.S. embassy, which was published on CNN.com. today.

From the story:

With a population of about 500,000, Cap Haitien is the Aristide government's last stronghold in northern Haiti.

Walter Eussenius, owner of the Mont Joli Hotel in Cap Haitien, said rebels moved into the city about 10 a.m. Sunday.

"The population is terrorized and the city is completely surrounded," Eussenius told CNN in a telephone interview. Machine gun fire could be heard in the background as he spoke.

Eussenius said he drove three miles to the airport and was told that rebels had taken over the facility and tried to hijack an airplane.

In an earlier version of the same CNN story, there was a picture included of one of the “rebels” who helped seize the airport in Cap Hatien --  at least that’s what the unsourced photo caption indicated.

The "rebel" in the photo was decked out in color-coordinated duds, what appeared to be a Kevlar vest and a SWAT-like helmet, and he was toting some heavy-duty munitions -- a machine gun and ammo; a holstered pistol; and a large knife. Given the poverty in Haiti, if this "rebel" didn’t loot his outfit and gear from a local police station, then there’s a whole other set of questions that need to be raised. And where did that photo go anyway?

What happens next? Do we move more troops into Haiti, maybe as a prelude for another chess move in the Caribbean? Hmm, who doesn’t the current U.S. administration like in that neck of the woods that it could intimidate from the island of Haiti. Is Aristide paying a price for refusing to cooperate with the United States’ Cuban agenda?

Is Charles-Mathurin on the right path here?

You seem to be absolutely right about the 'Pubs not wanting Haitian refugees causing trouble in November, Al.

This from White House Press Secretary Scottie McClellan this morning during the press gaggle:

Q A follow-up on Haiti -- in particular, the boat people. The President said on November 7, 2002, that the immigration laws ought to be the same for Haitians and everybody else, except the Cubans, and the difference, of course, is that we don't send people back to Cuba because they're going to be persecuted.

Well, what more proof do you need --

MR. McCLELLAN: April, I think you're referring to a different situation. At that time it was involving a specific --

Q Cubans versus Haitians and the boat people --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- it was involving a specific incident. And, yes, the President's remarks there stand. But the migration policy of the United States is very clear, and we have made it very clear that we have a plan in place to stop any boats and we will return people to their country of origin.

Q But, Scott, these people are risking shark-infested waters versus staying in a country where they cannot be protected by their own President. And even President Bush talks about compassionate conservatism in his religion. Why not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And, April, we are providing a significant amount of humanitarian assistance to the people of Haiti. And we are working to bring -- we are working an ongoing diplomatic efforts, we are actively engaged in ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring about a political solution to the situation in Haiti. That's where our efforts are focused. We continue to deplore the violence going on in Haiti. We regret the loss of life. And the United States is actively engaged in ongoing diplomatic efforts to bring about a solution.

Other than begging the question of how Scott McClellan defines the word 'significant', that pretty clearly says "We don't care what happens to the Haitian people, just so long as it happens over there, and not on the 6 o'clock news."

Al, well put, I cannot argue with that. Cuba and Jamaica are good, albeit divergent, examples. Few people can see the big picture as well as you do. I'll focus on the Andes for now, but when I get caught up, I'll make the Caribbean a priority.

I continue to follow international vs. domestic (NPR/CNN) coverage on Haiti (it's actually quite alarming how different the coverage is on Iraq) and doing my best to understand the situation. In Haiti, we definitely have a society in transition as we chat and organs of civil society, like ours, are playing a greater part in their evolution.

Happy Mardi Gras all...

The New York Times has just reported that in a meeting today with the Times editorial board, U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration's handling of diplomacy with Haiti, and harshly critized the U.S. embargo toward the Caribbean nation:

"I think the administration has missed a lot of opportunities, in fact, has exacerbated the situation over the last two years with its cutoff of humanitarian assistance and its attitude towards the Aristide administration," Mr. Kerry said. "So they sort of created the environment within which the insurgency could grow and take root, and now they're trying to manage it, I think."

The article continues:

He said that if he were president, he would be pressing Haitian rebels to back off their goal of toppling Mr. Aristide, perhaps by threatening the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

"I think you've got to be real and threatening," he said. His message to the rebels, he said, would be: "You're not going to take over, you're not kicking him out, this democracy is going to be sustained, we're willing to put in a new government, new prime minister, we're willing to work with you, but you're not going to succeed in your goal of exiling" Mr. Aristide. "And unless that's clear, you can't necessarily stop it in its tracks."

...Though Mr. Kerry acknowledged that he did not fully know the diplomatic strategy of the Bush administration to deal with Haiti's crisis, he speculated that a purposefully timid approach on the part of the Bush administration — "because they hate Aristide" — could be allowing the rebels to move forward with their uprising.

"They could be encouraging, not really putting the hammer down on these people to stop what they're doing," he said.

A reminder: This is a comment on policy and its news value regarding a story on our beat that happens to mention the U.S. presidential campaign, and does not constitute any partisan statement regarding electoral politics - I reserve those for my personal weblog.

What is significant is that Washington's treatment of Haiti is now on the table, in a big way, in the United States, with two distinct visions about how to handle the actual crisis. That is new. In fact, it's news.

Philip Cryan, who just got back to Iowa from 18 months in Colombia, has a
splendid, point by point, dissection (via Counterpunch) of the inauthentic journalism by the Wall Street Journal's resident commie-hunter, Mary Anastasia O'Grady...

In one of her Wall Street Journal columns last year, Mary Anastasia O'Grady wrote that U.S. lawmakers and State Department officials who criticize the Colombian military's human rights record are "still fighting the Cold War, on the wrong side." She struck again February 6, accusing nongovernmental organizations of publishing fraudulent statistics about Colombia's record. She said they're "cooking the human-rights books," aiding a guerrilla effort to dupe U.S. officials into reducing military aid.

O'Grady, a senior Journal editorial writer since 1999, is far from the only journalist guilty of bias and omission in coverage of Colombia. Most U.S. reporters provide no historical context and base their claims on government sources and on opinion polls that exclude the country's poor majority.

But O'Grady's distortions differ from such biases. They are purposeful and consistent, systematic....

Read it all.

Does anybody know this guy? I wanna read more!

A couple articles posted on the World Socialist Web Site in the last few days provide some enlightening analysis:

Washington utilizes rightist terror to effect “regime change” in Haiti (Feb 25)
Haiti: Washington gives green light to right-wing coup (Feb 23)

As the unfortunately unnamed writer of the more recent WSWS article observes, one of the right-wing militants leading the armed insurrection is Louis Jodel Chamblain,

who, together with Emmanuel “Toto” Constant, led the so-called Revolutionary Front for Haitian Advance and Progress during the 1991-94 period of military dictatorship that followed the overthrow of Aristide… Constant, it was revealed, was an operative on the CIA payroll, and he was subsequently granted US protection and asylum. When the Clinton administration ordered a US military intervention in 1994 to restore Aristide to power, US forces seized documents from the FRAPH headquarters to conceal Washington’s relations with the right-wing death squad.

The other leading figure in the armed actions in the north is Guy Philippe, a former member of the Haitian army, which was disbanded by Aristide in 1995. He was one of a group of hand-picked Haitian officers who was trained by US Special Forces in Ecuador during the period of the 1991-94 military regime. After the US intervention, he was made a police chief, first in a Port-au-Prince suburb and then in Cap-Haitien.

No one, it seems, has found a money trail leading from Chamblain and Philippe back to Washington, but the two are obviously no strangers to the most brutal elements of the US government. WSWS also say of the opposition “movement” in the capital, supposedly unconnected to the northern rebellion, that

At the head of this coalition, which has received ample financial support from both the US and France, is Andy Apaid, a sweatshop owner and a US citizen. These layers are among the most servile in relation to Washington. Their new-found courage to reject the US State Department’s power-sharing scheme stems from their confidence that the armed actions in the north are being carried out at least with the tacit acceptance of Washington and will only increase pressure for Aristide to resign.

Some have raised the argument that Haiti is such a wasteland that the US has no financial stake in asserting its power there. I think this vastly underestimates the level of importance many State, Defense and intelligence officials place on geopolitical power over direct economic benefit. Right next door, the Dominican Republic, historically even more interconnected with and servile to the US than Haiti (and according to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez the source of an assassination plot against him) is going into a May election with very uncertain results as the ruling party falls apart.

WSWS also raises the issue of France’s involvement and the pressure that places on Washington to keep Haiti in the US sphere of power. Definitely a recommended read.

While Chamblain and Phillipe have been getting the press attention, this Toronto Star article names Emmanuel Constant as one of the rebel leaders who crossed the border from the Dominican Republic.

More on Constant, elaborating on Dan's summary above, can be found here and here and here. Perhaps he's staying in the background because he's a little too high profile?

CBS' website offers video only as far back as 1997, so Constant's December 1995 interview with them isn't (readily) available.

Just saw this on the Miami Herald... Ketant certainly has an ax to grind with Aristide, so take this for what it's worth. At the very least it gives a clearer idea of what's being fought over.

At sentencing Haitian druglord says Aristide controls Haiti drugs

CATHERINE WILSON

Associated Press

MIAMI - Embattled Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide controls 85 percent of the cocaine flow through the impoverished nation, an expelled druglord said in a tirade Wednesday as he was sentenced to 27 years in federal prison.

"He turned the country into a narco-country," said Beaudoin "Jacques" Ketant, who blames Aristide for his brother's killing last year. "The man is a druglord. He controlled the drug world in Haiti."

With payoffs to government officials from Aristide on down, defense attorney Ruben Oliva said: "Certainly the government was the godfather. Everyone in Haiti that was engaged in this activity had to pay the government."

Ira Kurzban, a Miami attorney for the Haitian government, flatly dismissed the allegations from "a lying, convicted drug dealer" who faced a life sentence unless he got a plea bargain.

"I defy anyone to provide proof about the nonsense he's telling the U.S. government to save his own skin," said Kurzban, reached at his law office and told of Ketant's tirade.

Ketant, 40, was fined $15 million and ordered to forfeit another $15 million, mostly property that is out of reach in Haiti. Prosecutors said he smuggled his way to a "Midas-like" fortune, including an $8 million villa, four other houses, paintings by Monet and Picasso, $5 million cash and bank accounts in Haiti and the Bahamas. A daughter at Emory University drives a Mercedes-Benz.

Ketant received three months short of the maximum under a plea deal for money laundering and allegedly shepherding 41 tons of drugs for Colombia's Cali, Medellin and Baranquilla cartels through Haiti to the United States from 1987 to 1996.

He was indicted in 1997 but lived a life of luxury until last June. Aristide threw him out of the country after Ketant and his bodyguards were accused of beating an official at an elite school attended by his son and the children of Haitian officials and U.S. diplomats.

Ketant admitted staying in the drug business until his ouster, and prosecutor John Kastrenakes blamed Ketant for smuggling $10 million in drugs in his last year alone. Ketant claims Haiti handles 20 percent of U.S.-bound cocaine shipments.

Prosecutors did not offer to cut Ketant's sentence based on his cooperation, and Kastrenakes asked for the maximum based on "a continued deception" and "shell game" that prevents any of his assets from being turned over.

Oliva blamed the unrest in Haiti for tying up Ketant's property and money, and Ketant accused his ex-wife Sibylle Joseph of looting his mansion with help from Haitian police within two weeks of what he called his kidnapping.

"In my view, he gets an 'A' for effort and an 'F' for success," said U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno. "The words are meaningless without actions. It's like promises."

The judge questioned how someone who led a cocaine smuggling empire and who considered himself a "compadre" of Aristide could instantly lose all power and money.

"I've been paying him throughout the years," Ketant said. "He betrayed me just like Judas betrayed Jesus."

If Ketant's claims are true, the judge said something will happen. But he was disturbed by the corruption produced in both Haiti and the United States.

"As bad as the cocaine is, what is horrible is also the corruption," said Moreno, who noted he sentenced a U.S. immigration inspector in Miami for life for his role in the smuggling.

Ketant was charged with paying off one-time Haitian strongman Joseph Michel Francois as well as airport employees in Miami, New York and Port-au-Prince to ignore drug couriers.

Co-defendants convicted in 1998 received prison sentences ranging from six years to life.

Francois, Port-au-Prince's police chief after a 1991 coup, fled to Honduras in 1996 and has not been tried on the drug charges.

We're all new at this but, as the copublisher agreement states, please don't republish articles from other publications here.

It's obviously a relevant story and you make vital points, but two or three paragraphs from the article plus a link would have sufficed.

Otherwise, we risk problems over copyright violations, and lose our moral high ground when shaming commercial media that steal from us!

So, thanks for the post - it's a good one - but please keep this small detail in mind for future comments. Sorry to be a pain about it, but we're trying to get everyone disciplined to follow the "fair use" doctrine.

best,

Al

A snippet from an article from our friends at International Action Center

http://www.iacenter.org/haiti/john-brown.htm

Cuba, Haiti and John Brown – To Rebel Is Justified

Why is the main boulevard in Port-au-Prince named for John Brown?

Sara Flounders

Revolutionary ideas carry across vast miles and through centuries. Those resisting brutal oppression draw inspiration both from living struggles and from historic examples.

Just as Cuba is today considered liberated territory by so many of the world's peoples, who live in societies of enormous racism and repression, Haiti in the 19th century shone as an example and a beacon of hope. It was the only liberated territory -- in a region where chattel slavery was still the dominant social relation.
...
http://www.iacenter.org/haiti/john-brown.htm

Wow. A really great op ed column in the New York Times. It's by author Tracy Kidder, and titled Why Aristide Should Stay.

Kidder, author of many books (including - full disclosure - one about the work of a couple who built their own house, one of whom is law partner of Narco News' historic legal defender), has spent a lot of time in Haiti, and he knows the score. He writes:

The Haiti that I experienced was very different from the Haiti that I had read about back in the United States, and this disconnection is even stronger for me today.

Recent news reports, for example, perhaps in laudable pursuit of evenhandedness, have taken pains to assert that President Aristide and his Lavalas Party have been using armed thugs of their own to enforce their will on the country. The articles imply that the current crisis in Haiti is an incipient war between two factions roughly equal in illegitimacy. But I have interviewed leaders of the opposition, and can say with certainty that theirs is an extremely disparate group, which includes members of the disbanded army and former officials of the repressive regime of Jean-Claude Duvalier — and also people who were persecuted by both these groups.

This is an opposition that has so far shown itself unable to agree on much of anything except its determination to get rid of Mr. Aristide. Most important, the various leaders of this opposition have enjoyed little in the way of electoral success, the true measure of legitimacy in any country that calls itself a democracy. Mr. Aristide, by contrast, has been elected president twice, by overwhelming margins, and his party won the vast majority of seats in Parliament in the last legislative elections, held in May 2000.

Read all of it.

This is a very interesting editorial by the Christian Science Monitor, titled, "Where Is Brazil on Haiti?"

It's a little bit snarky, but intriguing nonetheless. Listen to this:

Now is the time for Brazil, the "sleeping giant," to display its would-be power by taking a more aggressive lead in Haiti. If it truly wants to challenge US dominance in the hemisphere and create a new regional order with itself as leader, it can't passively hide behind failing OAS diplomacy...

He shouldn't wait for France, the US, or even the United Nations to send in "a buffer force" to protect the embattled Haitian president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. With a phone call to the other regional power, Mexico, he could gather enough troops together within days and, with a US airlift, put boots on the ground in Haiti.

The Monroe Doctrine, which has let the US treat Latin America as its own backyard, is now ripe for a challenge.

Will Brazil take that challenge?

The Monitor, no friend of Brazil or of democracy in Latin America (it generally takes its lead on covering these stories from shifty Michael Shifter of the Council on Foreign Relations, one of the least trustworthy and hostile-to-democracy media manipulators out there), may be setting a trap here. Still, I must admit we've been discussing the same scenario around the Narco Newsroom in recent days.

For example, it would be natural, if Brazil did take this kind of lead, to recruit well-trained police from Venezuela, and troops from Argentina, to help with such a mission... and it would make the best strategic sense to utilize nearby Cuba as a Forward Operating Location. But if Brazil got too far out ahead of the OAS in answering Haiti's plea for help, would the Bush Administration then try to manipulate a backlash?

The Monitor editorial seems to presume that the U.S. would offer an "airlift" to such an operation. Do the editorial writers know something that nobody in Washington has openly suggested? In any case, Brazil - one of the world leaders in aerospace manufacturing - counts with a significant Air Force of its own, too.

Developing...

Well, at least I get to be an object lesson...

Won't happen again, Al.

I've been listening to KPFA.org which has been providing live news broadcasts from Port-au-prince all day via democracy now! and flashpoints. According to reporter Kevin Peña, (although Dennis Bernstein pronounces it "Pena") Venezuela has offered, under the Rio treaty of the OAS, to send troops to Haiti to protect the Aristide presidency. Apparently, under the Rio treaty, one country can ask another country to unilaterally provide troops if a country's stability is threatened. Ramsey Clark suggested that Venezuela coming to support Haiti would be a reciprocal action since Haiti supported Bolivar in his movement to overthrow Spanish colonial rule. The reports on Pacifica and KPFA today have painted a picture of Lavalas and Aristide as a true populist movement. I wanted to say that, given my shamefully limited knowledge of Haiti until this week, that this is a major success for independent media that people could get such good information in such a short period of time about the US's latest narcocoup. This is pretty fascinating stuff, I think it would be a major feat if Venezuela was not only able to defeat a US-sponsored coup on its own soil, but to puch back the coup plotters in Haiti as well. (Now I hear that Al is on KPFA as well)

http://www.kpfa.org

Hi Ron,

I listened to that same program (via Internet radio) and, as you mentioned, Dennis Bernstein got me on the phone to analyze the report.

Kevin Peña indeed reported from Port Au Prince that according to "unnamed high level sources" of the Venezuelan Embassies in Haiti and in Washington DC, that the Aristide government had asked Venezuela for police and/or military support and that the Venezuelan government had agreed.

I have been unable to confirm that report with any of my sources in Caracas, who are quite busy today as the G-15 meeting is happening there and the "opposition" is protesting. I have left messages and sent emails and expect I'll hear something back before the night is done.

In any case, I think this could be a long, sleepless, weekend, and so we're remaining alert and here ready to report any hard news.

First of all, I'm not aware of any "Rio Treaty" that provides for one country asking another for military support. I've been combing the OAS website and treaty agreements, but have so far come up empty. It's an open question for me as to whether there is such a thing. The OAS does have something called the Democratic Charter (read Articles 20 and 21, in particular) that would lead OAS to refuse to recognize any imposed regime in Haiti, but nothing I've seen provides for unilateral, or even joint, military or police action.

At the same time, scroll up a few posts on this thread, and there's the Christian Science Monitor editorial of yesterday calling on Lula of Brazil to send troops to defend the democratically elected government of Haiti. Lula was in Caracas earlier today with Chávez. The third nation that has trained troops, airpower, relatively recent history with island warfare in the Falklands, and possible will, is that of Argentina, whose president is still in Caracas, with Chávez, today.

If there is going to be the kind of action that Peña reported, it is my belief that it would come not from just one country like Venezuela but from those three nations acting together. (Whether Lula hurried back to Brazil ahead of schedule to deal with that, or to deal with the fact that his vice president is reportedly sick and in the hospital, I can't offer anything but speculation.)

But if there is any truth to this report, that might also explain the sudden appearance of US Warships off the coast of Haiti: not to defend democracy but as a possible message to Chávez et al to stay away and let democracy fall. So as of right now (9:24 p.m. ET) we have little information, a lot of speculation, and a very urgent situation in Haiti... I'll post any information I get here, and I trust that you will to.

salud y abrazo,

Al

The threat to send 2,200 Marines to Haiti to "stand by off the coast as a precaution" as the Washington Post reported today is classic U.S. gun-boat diplomacy based on my reading of history. I suspect it is a show of force to, among other things, prevent any move by other Latin American countries from intervening in Haiti.

The Bush administration's animus toward Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is not a subtle matter. Secretary of State Colin Powell is, in diplomatic speak, basically giving the "rebels" the go-ahead to take Aristide's head.

"Whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something he will have to examine carefully in the interests of the Haitian people," Powell told the press yesterday.

Since the administration so far seems to be equating the "rebels" with the "people," Powell's message might be interpreted by Aristide and his supporters as nothing short of a threat -- along with the 50-plus Marines already in Haiti and the 2,200 in the pipeline.

Aristide's position is even more dire if the words of Ira Kurzban, General Counsel to the Haitian government, can be trusted. According to Kurzban, Washington is backing the so-called rebels seeking to overthrow Aristide's government. Among those leading the paramilitary charge for the U.S. government in Haiti, he claims, is Louis Jodel Chamblain, a high-ranking holdover from the CIA-backed FRAPH death squad.

If the insurrection in Haiti is in fact a U.S.-backed coup, the seeds of that policy appear to have been planted a while ago, as evidenced by Powell's address to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in June 2003

The people of Haiti have waited a long time -- too long - for their leaders to meet their obligations under OAS Resolutions 806 and 822. Haiti’s democracy and economic growth are undermined by the government’s failure to create the conditions for an electoral solution to the political impasse.

Led by the efforts of OAS Assistant Secretary General Einaudi and the OAS Special Mission, the international community has provided substantial support for strengthening Haiti’s institutional capacity and civil society.

As a further sign of the commitment of the United States to this effort, I am pleased to announce that the United States will provide an additional $1 million to the OAS Special Mission to help improve the security climate for what we hope will be free and fair elections in Haiti. In addition, the United States has increased our humanitarian assistance to $70 million in the current fiscal year.

However, if by this September the government of Haiti has not created the climate of security essential to the formation of a credible, neutral and independent provisional electoral council, we should reevaluate the role of the OAS in Haiti.

From that speech, it sounds like the Bush administration isn't interested in supporting an OAS solution to the current instability in Haiti, an island nation of some 8 million people -- 80 percent whom live in utter poverty.

But the fix has been in since the controversial elections in Haiti in 2000 in terms of putting a financial stranglehold on that nation. The U.S. government also has used the war on drugs as a wedge issue in Haiti, as USA Today reported yesterday:

Haiti's failure to crack down on cocaine trans-shipments from Colombia has led to U.S. pressure at international financial institutions to deny further aid money.

Heck, if we start cutting off aid to areas we deem to be trans-shipment points for cocaine trafficking, we might as well cut off federal funds to half the cities along the U.S. border. (That issue soon morphs into the larger policy hypocracies related to the war on drugs in the whole of the Americas.)

The irony of the whole twisted Haiti affair is that Aristide, a former priest, is being accused of somehow helping to prop up the narco-traffickers and employing thugs to intimidate his opponents. What better way to discredit his connection to the poor than to accuse him of being a violent drug dealer?

Still, it is difficult for the average observer of the uprising in Haiti to judge the veracity of these charges against Aristide, as that appears to be all the U.S. media is reporting -- the charges, without providing evidence. As an example, this is what the Post reported today:

Both the rebels, who include former death-squad and military members, and their civilian opponents accuse Aristide of abandoning his promises to help the poor. They also charge that he has profited from international drug-trafficking and has enforced his will by arming gangs who terrorize and kill his opponents.

Translated: former CIA-backed FRAPH thugs are accusing a former priest of being a ganster. On the surface, it seems pretty lame if you ask me.

Can anyone substantiate these charges, or are we really dealing with disinformation designed to provide cover for the 21st Century version of U.S. gun-boat diplomacy? History can be a scary thing to repeat.

So after a little snooping around on the OAS site, I think Peña was referring to the
INTER-AMERICAN TREATY OF RECIPROCAL ASSISTANCE AKA the Rio Treaty of 1947, then amended in 1975. http://www.oas.org/csh/english/docconv&treat.asp
(Scroll down to the Treaty and the Amended protocol)

Now I'm not particularly familiar with legal treaties and the like, but I didn't see anything in the treaty that would allow Venezuela "unilaterally" lending support to Haiti, as good an idea as that may be. The closest I saw were several passages saying that nations under acts of aggression by other states can refer the problem to the "Organ of Consultation". If we take a stroll down memory lane, we can remember the fat lot of good the "Organ of Consultation" and the UN did for Jacobo Arbenz in 1954. (See Bitter Fruit for a highly detailed account of a coup in Guatemala not entirely dissimilar to the current crisis in Haiti.) I'm also waiting for a reply from a caraceño about what Venezolana de Television is saying about the coup, and whether or not they have mentioned any possible intervention. Al, I think it would be beneficial if multiple countries formed a multinational force to stop the FRAPH, do you have reason to think those three would act in concert, other than their status as the "axis of not so evil"? On another note, I did hear some speculation today that the opposition attack in Caracas today was designed in part to "keep Chavez busy" in light of the pending narcocoup. Well, that's enough baseless speculation for one post. Vamos a ver. KPFA is having a special day of Haiti coverage tomorrow (Saturday) maybe there'll be more information then. Of interest, Free Speech Radio News today claimed that American Airlines has cancelled all flights to and from Haiti, so they can't get a reporter on the ground. With the US naval blockade and the hostility of the Dominican Republic, it ain't looking so good. I'm also interested in the French position, they showed their position when they claimed their right to invade Iran after opposing Iraq II. Now they beat Washington to the punch to suggest Aristide's ouster.
You can also check out Venezolana de TV live on the web at
http://usuarios.lycos.es/aniven2002/vtv.htm if you can stand the awful pop-up that you have to click through.

A source in Miraflores (the presidential palace in Venezuela) wrote this to me early this morning:

Dear Albert,

A ningun momento Venezuela ha manifestado su intencion de aayudar militaramente a Aristide. Por lo momento solo se habla de ayuda humanitaria cuando las condiciones lo permiten. Es cierto que ayer durante la primera plenaria de la cumbre del G15, el Presidente Chávez declaró que probablemente muchas de las fuerzas internacionales quienes quieren derotar al gobierno legitimo de Aristide son las mismas que apoyan a sectores de la oposiciones venezolanas.

Estoy con la cumbre delñ G15 pero mañana te llamo. Me alegro de ver que Narco news is back.

un abrazo revolucionario,

(name of source)

I'll translate that:

Dear Albert,

At no moment has Venezuela manifested its intention to help Aristide militarily. For the moment all that has been discussed is humanitarian aid when the conditions permit it. It's true that yesterday during the first plenary session of the G-15 Summit, President Chávez declared that many of the international forces that want to topple the legitimate government of Aristide are probably the same that support the opposition sectors in Venezuela.

I'm still with the G-15 Summit but I'll call you tomorrow. Glad to hear that Narco News is back.

A bolivarian hug,

(name)

Another source who I reached late last night who is not in Venezuela but is close to many of the key leaders, including to Fidel Castro, offered a very pessimistic opinion. He said the common view is that that Aristide is likely to fall and that there is little that Chávez, or Lula, or the other pro-democracy governments in Latin America, would be able to do anything militarily or police-wise because Uncle Sam has already made it clear that he will plaster anyone who attempts it.

So, at this point, I view the KPFA (and earlier Democracy Now) report from Port-au-Prince of a looming rescue mission as an understandable kind of wishful thinking, some source's idea of a plea in the name of scoop, what in North American football is called a "Hail Mary pass." It doesn't sound like the quarterback is throwing it, though (he's being rushed pretty heavily in the backfield).

The last line of defense in Haiti is an underarmed population, many more of which support the elected government than support these well-equipped paramilitaries posing as "rebels" ...the Haitian people - despite all Commercial Media reports to the contrary - are not out of the game yet.

I must say that today I was a little underwhelmed by the Guardian UK's reprinting of an AP article on Haiti:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3801179,00.html
Using the general characterizations of the aristide supporters as thugs and the opposition as "rebels"

During the day Friday, an AP photographer saw rebels in a town 25 miles northwest of the capital.

``I heard the United States asked our men to stop their advance to Port-au-Prince. It's on the news on the Net,'' said the rebel leader, who checks a computer often at the front desk of the hilltop Hotel Mont Joli...

...``If (U.S. officials) ask us, it's because they have a better option, option for peace, and we always give peace a chance here, so we'll wait to see for one or two days,'' said Philippe.

``We will keep on sending troops, but we won't attack Port-au-Prince until we understand what the U.S. means.''

As he spoke, anarchy spread in the capital, with residents looting warehouses and government loyalists attacking passers-by. Amid the chaos, Aristide continued to ignore international appeals to resign before his term ends in February 2006.

the article continues:

A senior U.S. official said the Bush administration has concluded that the best way to prevent insurgents from seizing control is for Aristide to transfer power to Supreme Court Chief Justice Boniface Alexandre, his constitutional successor.

``We urgently call upon President Aristide to issue the necessary instructions so his supporters stop this violence,'' the U.S. Embassy statement said, adding that Aristide's ``honor, legacy and reputation are now at stake.''

The issue here is, as usual, omission of any real coverage of what's happening behind the barricades in Port-au-Prince, and a portrayal of Aristide as the impediment to peace.

On a related note, my good friend from Caracas sent me a reply as well as a an article about the violence in Caracas on the 27th (yesterday). I'll translate the bulk of the article later, but he noted that many Venezuelans are looking upon the situation in Haiti in dismay, There should be no doubt that Aristide is no Chavez, but the coup happening as we speak is a clear inexcusable act of US subversion (to use the 50's term more appropriately). My friend goes on to say that Venezuela has never promised military aid, but rather 1 million dollars in humanitarian aid for an airport. To quote my friend, a far better writer and orator than myself:

En cuanto a Haiti, y mas alla de los fracasos de Aristide, es lamentable ver que diversos sectores de izquierda de todas partes han caido en el cuento de la cnn, si bien parece evidente que él no ha logrado promover un proceso como el que se da acá, sigue siendo demasiado clara la linea por la que atraviesa la cobertura mediatica internacional, es frustrante para nosotros ver como se replica e intiesnifica la incomprensión que precedió al golpe de abril, en el sentido de caer presa del veneno mediático de las hegemonías.

Roughly Translated:

In the case of Haiti, and more relevant than the failures of Aristide, it's unfortunate to see that many sectors of the left everywhere have fallen victim to the story of CNN, it's very apparent that [Aristide] hasn't promoted a process like [Chavez] has done here, but the media have crossed the line with their international coverage.
It's frustrating for us to see how they are replicating and intensifying the ignorance that preceded the coup in april, as they fall victim to the media poision of the hegemons.

My friend goes on to describe the circumstances of yesterday's opposition march, mainly related to the decisions of the CNE, the electoral body in Venezuela, which is debating what to do with the great number (according to my friend 1.6mil) of recall signatures that are most probably frauds. Some sectors of the opposition have already admitted that they don't have enough legitimate signatures to call the referendum, what with the "writing excercises" (an entire page of signatures signed by one person) and other blatant examples of fraud.

According to my pal, the events of the 27th were intended to cause another April 11th. The leaders of the inappropriately named Coordinadora Democratica whipped the crowd into a frenzy, then led the crowd to several "focal points" where they might force the Guardia Nacional to kill some of the protestors, so that they could claim that Chavez murders his opponents. Unfortunately for the CD, the National Guard used tear gas and pellet guns to disperse the crowd and head them off from direct confrontation, so when the media vultures tried to find victims of Chavez's "CastroCommunist" dictatorship, they were hard pressed to find one. However, some of the opposition marchers did manage to injure a National Guardsman with a live round. It was the same strategy as Aprill 11th, with the same goal. It appears that it was unsuccessful.

I think many could tell you about the role of priests in Guatemala. Its means nothing. Priets are still people, not saints, and many 'faithfully' believe in US policy in Central America.

According to wire reports, President Aristide left his country at 6:45 a.m. this morning.

The oligarchy and the Court Appointed President in Washington got what they wanted: the toppling of another democratically elected government.

So what happens now?

For what it's worth, today's Chicago Tribune has a story by reporters Gary Marx and Cam Simpson with the title "Drug money reportedly funding Haiti fighting".

Here's the first two paragraphs and a link:

"If they take power, the Haitian rebels closing in on this capital city are promising a new and more democratic era in this historically troubled and violent country.

"But experts and diplomats say several of the top rebel leaders are former military and police officials who are suspected of major human-rights violations while in power and who allegedly have financed their insurgency with past profits from the illegal drug trade."

The rest of the story is here, but you may have to register with the Tribune to make the link work.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0402290254feb29,1,5559201,print.story?coll=chi-ne ws-hed

"They were all on the payrolls," one senior U.S. law-enforcement official said, adding, "There's nothing else to be involved in there if you want money."

And why was there nothing else to be involved in? Oh, right, US sanctions.

The removal of Aristide from office in Haiti follows a familiar pattern it appears.

Check out the following links detailing past CIA coups in Latin America. The similarities in the strategies are revealing in my estimation. I’ve included a few pertinent extracts from each of the links.

Chile 1973

Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him," prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate. Since the coup, however, few U.S. documents relating to Chile have been actually declassified- -until recently. Through Freedom of Information Act requests, and other avenues of declassification, the National Security Archive has been able to compile a collection of declassified records that shed light on events in Chile between 1970 and 1976.

These documents include:

... National Security Council strategy papers which record efforts to "destabilize" Chile economically, and isolate Allende's government diplomatically, between 1970 and 1973.

More Chile

The United States media has given ample coverage to Pinochet's detention on October 16. The dictator's career of repression during his regime was recounted but, with few exceptions (those that merely point out that the United States endorsed the coup) no mention is made of Washington's hardly disguised hand in the events of September of 1973, and during the following 17 years of dictatorship.

"To make the economy scream," wrote Richard Helms, at the time director of the CIA, in a memorandum dated September 15, 1970, during a meeting with President Richard Nixon and the Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger.

A cable from the CIA dated a month later, declassified and published by the National Security Archives in September, defined the strategy to be followed by the CIA chief in Santiago: "It is our firm and lasting policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. We have to continue generating the maximum pressure to this end using all appropriate measures. It is imperative that these actions be carried out in a clandestine and safe way, so that the hand of the United States government stay well hidden."

In the following years, according to official documents that are today declassified, the United States made possible this strategy by sending millions of dollars to finance economic sabotage campaigns, as well as projects of social and political destabilization. The CIA spent $8 million between November of 1970 and September of 1973 in order to undermine the Allende presidency.

Guatemala 1954

The CIA's operation to overthrow the Government of Guatemala in 1954 marked an early zenith in the Agency's long record of covert action. Following closely on the successful operations that installed the Shah as ruler of Iran [xxxxxxxxxxx] the Guatemala operation, known as PBSUCCESS, was both more ambitious and more thoroughly successful than either precedent. Rather than helping a prominent contender gain power with a few inducements, PBSUCCESS used an intensive paramilitary and psychological campaign to replace a popular, elected government with a political nonentity. In method, scale, and conception it had no antecedent, and its triumph confirmed the belief of many in the Eisenhower administration that covert operations offered a safe, inexpensive substitute for armed force in resisting Communist inroads in the Third World. This and other "lessons" of PBSUCCESS lulled Agency and administration officials into a complacency that proved fatal at the Bay of Pigs seven years later.

THE PLAN The planners decided to employ simultaneously all the tactics that had proved useful in previous covert operations. PBSUCCESS would combine psychological, economic, diplomatic, and paramilitary actions. Operations in Europe, [xxxxxx] and Iran had demonstrated the potency of propaganda-"psychological warfare"-aimed at discrediting an enemy and building support for allies. Like many Americans, US Officials placed tremendous faith in the new science of advertising. Touted as the answer to underconsumption, economic recession, and social ills, advertising, many thought, could be used to cure Communism as well. In 1951, the Truman Administration tripled the budget for propaganda and appointed a Psychological Strategy Board to coordinate activities. (57) The CIA required "psywar" training for new agents, who studied Paul Linebarger's text, Psychological Warfare, and grifter novels like The Big Con for disinformation tactics. (54) PBSUCCESS's designers planned to supplement overt

The January revelations revealed how much the "plausible deniability" of PBSUCCESS relied on the uncritical acceptance by the American press of the assumptions behind United States policy. Newspaper and broadcast media, for example, accepted the official view of the Communist nature of the Guatemalan regime. In the spring of 1954, NBC News aired a television documentary, "Red Rule in Guatemala," revealing the treat the Arbenz regime posed to the Panama Canal. Articles in Reader's Digest, the Chicago Tribune, and the Saturday Evening Post drew a frightening picture of the danger in America's backyard. Less conservative papers like New York Times depicted the growing menace in only slightly less alarming terms. The Eisenhower administration's Guatemala policy did not get a free ride in press or in Congress. In early 1954, a number of editorials attacked the President's failure to act against Arbenz, citing the continued presence of US military advisers as evidence of official

…the Agency, meanwhile, took steps to ensure that coverage in the American press had a favorable slant. Peurifoy met with American reporters in Guatemala City to discuss "the type of stories they were writing." At his suggestion, "all agreed to drop words such as 'invasion.'" The French and British consuls agreed to have a word with their correspondents. Agency officials had earlier managed to have Sydney Gruson, the New York Times correspondent, reexpelled from Guatemala.

1991 Haiti coup

The CIA and the Cocaine Connection

As Jesse Helms was using the CIA to slag Aristide in the media, an intelligence service in Haiti set up by the agency to battle the cocaine trade, had evolved into a gang of political terrorists and drug traffickers. Three former chiefs of the Haitian National Intelligence Service (NIS) are now on the list of 41 Haitian officials whose assets in the United States were frozen for supporting the military coup.

The CIA poured millions into the NIS from its founding in 1986 to the 1991 coup. A 1992 DEA document describes the NIS as a covert counter-narcotics intelligence unit which often works in unison with the CIA. Although most of the CIA’s activities in Haiti remain secret, U.S. officials accuse some NIS members of becoming enmeshed in the drug trade. A U.S. embassy official in Haiti told the New York Times that the NIS was a military organization that distributed drugs in Haiti.

Aristide’s exiled interior minister Patrick Elie says the relationship between the CIA and NIS involves more than drugs. Elie told investigative reporter Dennis Bernstein that the NIS was created by the CIA. Created, Elie says, to infiltrate the drug network. But Elie adds, the NIS, which is staffed entirely by the Haitian military, spends most of its resources in political repression and spying on Haitians.

After the 1991 coup, Elie maintains that the drug trade took a quantum leap, taking control over the national Port Authority through the offices of Port-au-Prince Police Chief Lt. Col. Michel Francois. It was Francois’s thugs, called attaches, who were primarily responsible for the waves of political killings since the coup.

United States government sources say the NIS never provided much narcotics intelligence, and its commanding officers were responsible for the torture and murder of Aristide supporters, and were involved in death threats that forced the local DEA chief to flee the country. Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee and received extensive CIA briefings, said that the drug intelligence the U.S. was getting came from the very same people who in front of the world are brutally murdering people.

Now comes the clean-up. But these things never really clean up very well; it’s hard to get the blood stains off the fabric of history.

Your observation about priests and saints is astute. But observations don't always convey the whole truth.

More to the point: Aristide was a devotee of liberation theology -- which I would argue sets him apart from the garden-variety priests who "faithfully" support U.S. policy in the Americas.

So, yes, Aristide was far from a "saint" in the eyes of the church -- given that he was expelled from his order in 1988 "because of his revolutionary teachings."

The well-armed insurgent troops killing people on their way to power take orders from the US government-- or at the very least view their interests as one and the same.  That's what jumps out at me in the AP story By Ian James (which is pretty much unfiltered pro-coup propaganda) excerpted above by Ron Smith.

"I heard the United States asked our men to stop their advance to Port-au-Prince. It's on the news on the Net," said the rebel leader [Guy Philippe], who checks a computer often at the front desk of the hilltop Hotel Mont Joli.

[...]

"We will keep on sending troops, but we won't attack Port-au-Prince until we understand what the U.S. means."