OK, So what the hell is going on in Haiti?
Posted by Ron Smith - December 1, 2004 at 3:22 pm
Maybe Reed and Daniel can help us out, but I saw this report while perusing the counterpunch site:
"We Must Kill the Bandits!"
Lula's Troops in Haiti
By BEN TERRALL
"We Must Kill the Bandits!"
Lula's Troops in Haiti
By BEN TERRALL
http://counterpunch.org/terrall11172004.html
With the coverage here of Lula's seeming reluctance to issue the decree on Safe Rooms and the new policies regarding drugs, here's another sticky point, the participation of Brazilian troops in the destruction of Haiti. Brazil is participating in the post-Aristide occupation of Haiti, and according to the article, troops are hunting "Bandits" that support Aristide. Now Aristide was no angel, but I think we agree that what's in Haiti now is well, hell. Any thoughts?


Lula, Haiti, and Realpolitik
Submitted on December 1st, 2004 by Al GiordanoLarry Birns at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs put out a press release, "Powell Returns to Haiti Today to Witness Some of the Damage that His Policies Have Wrought," today noting that Colin Powell is visiting the island-bound nation:
It's not pretty. When one remembers that this was the scenario that Washington had attempted in Venezuela in 2002 and various times since - the kidnapping and forced exile of a democratically-elected leader and the imposition of an authoritarian regime, and all the attention that got regarding an oil-rich country - the lack of attention to Haiti by news organizations with resources is inexcusable.
So, what about Lula and Brazil's role in Haiti?
The story is one of realpolitik and conflicting goals. Three little-considered truths...
1. The Cuba Factor. Lula would not be placing Brazilian troops in the lead in the Haiti occupation without the expressed consent of Fidel Castro. What's that about? Cuba, obviously, is concerned that the geographic proximity of Haiti to Cuba could make it a launching pad for foreign invasion by that mentally-infirm trigger-happy little man in the White House. Many of Lula's top cabinet members and party officials - including Ze Dirceu, perhaps the most important of them all - would not be alive today had Cuba not offered them sanctuary years ago when a brutal military dictatorship controlled Brazil. Castro believes that Brazil taking the lead on the UN occupation of Haiti mitigates strongly against the country being used as a military launching pad against Cuba.
2. The Brazilian Military Factor. Like it or not, the military in Brazil remains a gigantic, oversized, really, institution. It has a brutal history of men like that General Heleno mentioned in the Counterpunch article, with ugly, indeed fascist, attitudes. By sending them somewhere else, Lula keeps them from sitting idly in Brazil where, as elsewhere, idle hands are the devil's garden. Lula does a lot of such pandering to the military brass... Buying them sleek new weapons while the country has no conflicts with any other... Keeping alive their dreams of Brazil becoming a nuclear power... Recently giving them the permission to shoot down drug-suspected flights... and sending them off to Haiti satisfies part of that agenda as well. Like it or not, indeed, the Lula people feel that the Armed Forces is a beast that must be fed lest it start dreaming nostalgically again of reasserting the old military dictatorship.
3. South American Union and Unity. Note that Kirchner's Argentina sent troops to Haiti, too. It's not just Lula on the left (and Kirchner, likewise, wouldn't do it without the blessing of Castro). The increased role of Latin American troops on the island sets other precedents, not all bad, from the longterm goals of South American unity. It will, in the future, make it more difficult for the UN to occupy any Latin American country without lead participation by troops from the countries down here.
There are, in my respectful opinion, a lot of presumptions and examples of "half-thinking" in the Counterpunch article.
The first question not asked is: If Brazil refused to send troops to Haiti (one gets the sense that it's what the author would like to see, although he doesn't say so overtly), would that change anything for Haiti's people?
In other words, would there then be no occupation?
No, of course there would still be an occupation. But it would be US, French and Canadian troops continuing to take the lead, behaving just as brutally (if not more so), continuing the precedent of outsider intervention in Latin America, and posing a greater military threat to nearby Cuba.
We have yet to see it play out. Brazil (and Argentina) taking the lead in the Haiti occupation may be part of a longer term strategy to hasten the return of Aristide and/or Lavalas.
Remember one other factor: the CARICOM nations in the Caribbean Community continue to stand tall refusing the recognize the Latortue regime in Haiti.
Things are moving under the water in the Caribbean. Lula and Brazil might or might not be part of a real game plan to extricate UN troops from Haiti faster. Nobody should be surprised that a military officer from Brazil behaves like a goon: a lot of them did for decades, the institutional culture does not end with the first presidential administration trying to grapple with it.
But I think it is very extreme "catastrophizing," typical in too many activist circles, to presume that because Brazil has troops there that the situation is worse or different than it would be if Brazil did not have troops there. I think it is also an example of demanding "purity" from governments of the Left when governments, by my anarcho definitions, are imperfect and impure by nature. In many ways it reflects a double standard.
Do I defend the occupation? Hell no. I think the UN should get out of there. But do I understand realpolitik, and that there are factors like the three above at play that might pan out as a longer term successful strategy to accomplish that goal sooner? Yes, I understand them.
I don't know if that's the case. But if it is, do the activist demands for "purity" work against a positive undertow, so far unseen, in the Caribbean sea and the future Latin American Union?
Questions and question marks... That's where all concrete answers begin.
Pressure Brazil; Reed Lindsay's latest
Submitted on December 1st, 2004 by Benjamin MelançonWhat we should be doing is pressuring Brazil to stop supporting police raids against Aristide supporters, both individual arrests and shooting sprees in the slums, and to take a stand against the paramilitaries.
The current governement of Haiti is unelected, illegal, and illegetimate, and I don't think it would last without U.N. support. But a common Haitian opinion is that the U.N. does nothing. Brazil itself was pleading for help, for other countries to send troops, NPR reported on October 16.
I feel guilty about not following up on my own overview of the coup, but here's actual original reporting from the J-School's most celebrated: Reed Lindsay's latest article on Haiti is in the November 30 Washington Times. I don't know if it's been edited or in what ways, so forget about details of presentation. Look what he does to lead readers of this extremely right-wing newspaper to an understanding of the situation in Haiti:
Read Lindsay's whole article.
Anyone who wants a relentless stream of articles about Haiti can e-mail Marguerite Laurent at
Erzilidanto (at symbol) aol.com. You don't even have to say you want to be on her information clearinghouse list, and you'll be on it. At least that's what happened to me.
Rio Group to consult Aristide on Haiti plan
Submitted on December 3rd, 2004 by Benjamin MelançonA month ago the heads of state or foreign ministers of nineteen Latin American nations met in Rio de Janeiro for the 18th summit of the Rio Group (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela, Mexico, Panama, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua). The Jamaica Observer editorial from October 7:
The 15-nation CARICOM leaders, as the Observer hoped, used the acknowledgement of Aristide's importance to sign onto the Rio Group plan. U.S.-installed dictator Gerard Latortue then tried to undermine the initiative (or, rather, the key element of Aristide's at least minimal involvement) by calling for an international arrest warrent on Aristide.
P.S. What people in the U.S. can do for Haiti: demand that the U.S. give refugee status to Haitians fleeing political, economic, or environmental disaster. I'll write more on this later but I think it's important enough to put out right away.
First of all, this saves people's lives. Second, this makes a repressive government which people flee a problem for the United States-- I understand that the "Haitian refugee problem" was an important reason Clinton engineered Aristide's first return.