US Hypocrisy on Haiti...? - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

Corporate Pig · **US Hypocrisy on Haiti...? -** 02-28-04

It appears the US Administration can't decide which 'angle' on the Haiti crises it should support...

firstly they support President Aristide....

Quote:

U.S. Warns Haiti Opposition Against Aristide Ouster

Reuters
Fri Feb 13, 2004 05:39 PM ET
Refer: http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=4358232

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Haiti's opposition on Friday against ousting President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was restored to power a decade ago by a U.S. invasion and now faces an armed revolt.

"We will accept no outcome that is not consistent with the constitution. We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti," Powell told reporters after a crisis meeting with mediators.

Flanked by Canadian and Caribbean ministers in a show of regional unity to resolve the Haiti crisis peacefully, Powell said the nations were mulling whether to send police to bolster Haitian authorities.

Powell urged the former Roman Catholic priest, who was elected to a second term in 2000, to comply with an accord mediated by the CARICOM bloc of Caribbean nations that included his pledge to disarm gangs aligned with political parties...

..The United States says the surge in violence stems from Aristide's practice of using gangs of thugs to intimidate political opponents.

"What we need now from President Aristide is action and not just expressions and words of support" (for the CARICOM agreement), he said.

Considered a champion of Haiti's fledging democracy when he became its first elected leader in 1990, Aristide has seen his once overwhelming popularity fade amid accusations of corruption, political violence and civil rights abuses.

and then only 12 days later...
they're calling for him to resign.

Quote:

Bush Believes Aristide Should Resign

Yahoo News
Fri Feb 27, 3

8 PM ET
By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer
Refer: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...i_040227015360

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration believes the best way to avoid an armed rebel takeover in Haiti is for President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to resign and transfer power to his constitutional successor, a senior U.S. official said Friday.

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps indicated that it is preparing a possible mission to waters off the coast of Haiti. Any such deployment would be aimed at deterring a potential refugee crisis and to protect the estimated 20,000 American citizens in Haiti.

Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) signaled that direction in administration policy in remarks Thursday night, said the U.S. official, who discussed the situation only on grounds of anonymity.

It was not clear whether the more assertive U.S. policy has been communicated directly to Aristide.

President Bush (news - web sites) decided to support a tougher line on Aristide following an extended debate within the administration over how to proceed in the face of the gathering crisis in the Caribbean nation, the official said.

Without pressure, this official added, Aristide may elect to try to remain in power even if his defeat at the hands of armed opponents seems certain.

If Aristide is forcibly removed, Haiti would be run by an illegal regime with no international standing and little possibility of securing popular support.

madsen · 02-28-04

I have seen alot of other governments wanting to go in their too. Alot of Canadians and Europeans want to send in troops for a 'humanitarian' mission.

Remember that this was how Aristide came to power in the first place. The US government put him in power back in the 1990's.

IMO, these do-gooders cause more problems than they solve. Better to just let the Haitians decide for themselves if they want Aristide in power or not. If Aristide is a benign ruler, then people will defend the government. If Aristide is a pig, then the people will join with the rebels.

Corporate Pig · 02-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsen

Remember that this was how Aristide came to power in the first place. The US government put him in power back in the 1990's.

and thus they continued to support him until about 10 days ago...
when they did a 'backflip'...

I wonder why they changed their stance (as in Washington)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsen

IMO, these do-gooders cause more problems than they solve. Better to just let the Haitians decide for themselves if they want Aristide in power or not. If Aristide is a benign ruler, then people will defend the government. If Aristide is a pig, then the people will join with the rebels.

Yes... exactly..
let the Haitian people decide - NOT WASHINGTON!

espically NOT Colin Powell for that matter...

Quote:

"We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti"

- Secretary of State, Colin Powell
13 Feb, 2004

Jordyn · 02-29-04

well, i think america has proven to have poor choices when choosing leaders...for our country, and others.

02-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by madsen

IMO, these do-gooders cause more problems than they solve. Better to just let the Haitians decide for themselves if they want Aristide in power or not. If Aristide is a benign ruler, then people will defend the government. If Aristide is a pig, then the people will join with the rebels.

Oh, kind of like in Iraq?

Jordyn · 02-29-04

didn't russia fall shortly after having democracy introduced by the us?

Lawson · 02-29-04

I don't see where the hypocrisy is. The US backed Clinton's handpicked leader, Aristede, because he was the first demcratically elected President in Haiti. Too bad he was scumbag, and a thug.

Now that it appears that he will be overthrown, the US is negotiating to prevent a bloodbath, which is the proper thing to do.

Sixgun_Symphony · 02-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lillith

Oh, kind of like in Iraq?

Saddam Hussien was an enemy. This is war and it matters not what the Iraqi's want.

Hell, we did a regime change in Germany, Japan, and Italy back in the 1940's. You going to complain about that?

Arty · 03-01-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jordyn

didn't russia fall shortly after having democracy introduced by the us?

Are you talking about 1991? Russia introduced democracy and market reform all by itself, which led to a collapsing economy and an attempted coup by communist-conservatives. The coup was defeated, largely by Yeltsin, who was President of Russia, and Yeltsin started giving out orders. Gorbachev found himself without any practical power, despite still being President of the USSR.

Arty · 03-01-04

As for Haiti, I think it's probably less a case of hypocrisy and more a case of realism. By the time of the second statement it was pretty clear that there was no way that Aristede was going to stay in power whatever happened. It was a question of how best to minimise the bloodshed.

dgg9 · 03-01-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arty

Are you talking about 1991? Russia introduced democracy and market reform all by itself, which led to a collapsing economy .

Well that's just it -- they didn't introduce real democracy or free markets. They shifted to an untenable in-between position, which is more or less raw gangsterism. There are elections -- but candidates are jailed and intimidated. There are markets of a sort -- but the fundamental basis of rule of law is not there.

Arty · 03-01-04

I'm not talking about the situation post-1991, I'm talking about the situation between about 1987 and 1991, when the problem of gangsterism was not really an issue. The problem there was one of adjustment. Having had a controlled economy for so long it was the sudden changes, in some ways swift and in some ways incomplete, that caused problems. I'm not saying that the free market per se was the cause of Russian economic collapse, it was its botched introduction. The Chinese clearly learnt a lesson or two and have done the economic transition incredibly effectively.

Corporate Pig · 03-02-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

I don't see where the hypocrisy is. The US backed Clinton's handpicked leader, Aristede, because he was the first demcratically elected President in Haiti. Too bad he was scumbag, and a thug.

Now that it appears that he will be overthrown, the US is negotiating to prevent a bloodbath, which is the proper thing to do.

If thats what you like to "believe"...

Quote:

Aristide: 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'

News.Scotsman.com
Aristide: 'U.S. Forced Me to Leave Haiti'
Refer: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2597051

Haiti?s president Jean-Bertrand Aristide said that he was ?forced to leave? the Caribbean country by US military forces who said they would ?start shooting and killing? if he refused.

Mr Aristide was put in contact yesterday with The Associated Press by the Reverend Jesse Jackson following a news conference where the civil rights leader called on Congress to investigate the president?s departure.

When asked if he left Haiti on his own, Mr Aristide quickly answered: ?No. I was forced to leave.

?They were telling me that if I don?t leave they would start shooting, and be killing in a matter of time,? he said during the brief interview via speaker phone. He spoke English with a thick accent, his voice obscured at times by a bad connection.

When asked who the agents were, he responded: ?White American, white military. They came at night. ... There were too many. I couldn?t count them.?

Mr Aristide told reporters that he signed documents relinquishing power out of fear that violence would erupt in Haiti if he refused to comply with the demands of ?American security agents?.

He said he was in his palace in the capital Port-au-Prince when the military force arrived. He said he thought he was being taken to the Caribbean island of Antigua, but instead he has been exiled to the Central African Republic.

He described the agents as ?good, warm, nice?, but added that he had no rights during his 20-hour flight to Africa.

Mr Aristide?s wife, Mildred, initiated yesterday?s telephone call, said Shelley Davis, a special assistant to Mr Jackson. She said the reverend and the president?s family have been close for about a decade.

Mr Jackson said Congress should investigate whether the US, specifically the CIA, had a role in the rebellion that led to Mr Aristide?s exile.

Mr Jackson encouraged reporters to question where the rebels in Haiti got their guns and uniforms.

?Why would we immediately support an armed overthrow and not support a constitutionally elected government?? he said.

Mr Aristide, who fled Haiti under pressure from the rebels, his political opponents, the US and France, arrived yesterday in the Central African Republic, according to the country?s state radio. He has claimed that he was abducted from Haiti by US troops who accompanied him to Africa.

The White House, US defence officials and State Department have denied allegations that Mr Aristide was kidnapped by US forces eager for him to resign

Haiti?s president Jean-Bertrand Aristide said that he was ?forced to leave? the Caribbean country by US military forces who said they would ?start shooting and killing? if he refused.

Mr Aristide was put in contact yesterday with The Associated Press by the Reverend Jesse Jackson following a news conference where the civil rights leader called on Congress to investigate the president?s departure.

When asked if he left Haiti on his own, Mr Aristide quickly answered: ?No. I was forced to leave.

?They were telling me that if I don?t leave they would start shooting, and be killing in a matter of time,? he said during the brief interview via speaker phone. He spoke English with a thick accent, his voice obscured at times by a bad connection.

When asked who the agents were, he responded: ?White American, white military. They came at night. ... There were too many. I couldn?t count them.?

Mr Aristide told reporters that he signed documents relinquishing power out of fear that violence would erupt in Haiti if he refused to comply with the demands of ?American security agents?.

He said he was in his palace in the capital Port-au-Prince when the military force arrived. He said he thought he was being taken to the Caribbean island of Antigua, but instead he has been exiled to the Central African Republic.

He described the agents as ?good, warm, nice?, but added that he had no rights during his 20-hour flight to Africa.

Mr Aristide?s wife, Mildred, initiated yesterday?s telephone call, said Shelley Davis, a special assistant to Mr Jackson. She said the reverend and the president?s family have been close for about a decade.

Mr Jackson said Congress should investigate whether the US, specifically the CIA, had a role in the rebellion that led to Mr Aristide?s exile.

Mr Jackson encouraged reporters to question where the rebels in Haiti got their guns and uniforms.

?Why would we immediately support an armed overthrow and not support a constitutionally elected government?? he said.

Mr Aristide, who fled Haiti under pressure from the rebels, his political opponents, the US and France, arrived yesterday in the Central African Republic, according to the country?s state radio. He has claimed that he was abducted from Haiti by US troops who accompanied him to Africa.

The White House, US defence officials and State Department have denied allegations that Mr Aristide was kidnapped by US forces eager for him to resign

Lawson · 03-02-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporate Pig

If thats what you like to "believe"...

Aristide arrived in office a poor priest, and then left a corrupt millionaire.

Bush went to the UN to build a coalition on Haiti, and then negotiated an exile for the corrupt ruler to avoid further bloodshed. That's the same thing he did in Liberia, btw. That's great leadership.

Corporate Pig · 03-05-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

Aristide arrived in office a poor priest, and then left a corrupt millionaire.

Quite ironic statement, given its exactly what Bush is... 'a corrupt millionaire'.

Do you have links to support your claims that Arstide was a "Corrupt Millionaire" ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawson

Bush went to the UN to build a coalition on Haiti, and then negotiated an exile for the corrupt ruler to avoid further bloodshed. That's the same thing he did in Liberia, btw. That's great leadership.

Wow... how amazingly ignorant ignorant of you.
Completely ignorant of the past month in Haiti to try some revisionist historical work.

start by reading Colin Powell words...

Quote:

"We will accept no outcome that is not consistent with the constitution. We will accept no outcome that in any way illegally attempts to remove the elected president of Haiti.."

- Colin Powell, US Secretary of State.
13th of Feburary, 2004

even further, Bush COULDN'T have "negotiated an exile for the corrupt ruler"... If the US Administration was trying to negotiate a "power-sharing, interim government" which would INCLUDE Aristide.

Quote:

U.N. to send peacekeepers to Haiti

CNN.com
Monday, March 1, 2004
Refer: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americ.../haiti.revolt/

Bush administration officials said that the new government would likely be restructured to give more power to the prime minister and less to the president.

Political opposition leaders earlier had rejected the same proposal as long as it included Aristide, Haiti's first democratically elected president since it declared independence from France in 1804.

Aristide had spent last week refusing to step down, instead pleading for international help to put down the insurrection.

The United States, France and the Caribbean nations had backed a proposal for a power-sharing, interim government, but the opposition said it feared Aristide would not hold up his end of the deal and refused to sign on...

...State Department officials told CNN that Powell, Graham, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, Caribbean leaders, U.N. leaders and Haitian Roman Catholic bishops worked overnight to solve the crisis.

In 1990, Aristide was elected president. He was overthrown in a 1991 coup, restored to power after intense pressure by U.S. officials in 1994 and won a new term in 2000 -- in elections his political opponents claim were fraudulent.

finally, Lawson its becoming Self-Evident why you support the removal of Aristide - the FIRST democratically ELECTED leader of Chile..
Simple - you support Right Wing Totalitarian Dictatorships...

otherwise, why else do you support the removal of an "elected leader"?

dgg9 · 03-06-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corporate Pig

otherwise, why else do you support the removal of an "elected leader"?

Typical ignorance. Leftists seem to think an election is some sort of all-absolving sacrament, that allows anything -- corruption, genocide, instituting dictatorship. But becuse the guy was elected once, it doesn't matter.

Hitler was elected too.

RedHawk · 03-07-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgg9

Typical ignorance. Leftists seem to think an election is some sort of all-absolving sacrament, that allows anything -- corruption, genocide, instituting dictatorship. But becuse the guy was elected once, it doesn't matter.

Hitler was elected too.

True--what we SHOULD have done is ignore the situation and let the rest of the er--Haitians kill the SOB.

THEN you woul hears Jesse Jackson screaming louder than Al Sharpton looking for Bin Laden.

Corporate Pig · 03-09-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgg9

Typical ignorance. Leftists seem to think an election is some sort of all-absolving sacrament, that allows anything -- corruption, genocide, instituting dictatorship. But becuse the guy was elected once, it doesn't matter.

Yes... it is the typical ignorance of the right-wing...

So where are the links, as to the stories of "Genocide and Torture" as performed by Aristide?
Will they ever appear, or don't you have any?

Seperate to this - Are you then proposing that YET ANOTHER dictatorship, is the best thing for the country of Haiti?

Why don't you advocate the removal of Geroge Bush & the constitution in the US,... wouldn't Military rule be best in these "times"?