(more info)About this campaign '08 videos: Watch the No Sixth Term For Bush...
About this campaign '08 videos: Watch the No Sixth Term For Bush Clinton Foreign Wars video, Clinton and Bush both intervened in many foreign wars
(less info)
haiti's horror:
a modern-day coup d'etat.
by anthony fenton
july 11, 2005
"generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. the objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of individuals belonging to such groups." (quoted in robert davis and mark zannis, the genocide machine in canada, p. 9)
many apologists for the february 29, 2004 coup in haiti claim that aristide was a "dictator," an "authoritarian," or, that "he armed gangs," and "he was corrupt." many also claim that he was subsumed by a "popular uprising" that was going to sweep him out of power. according to this narrative - which is echoed and maintained by the corporate media, western governments, and the haitian client regime among others - the u.s. marines showed up at just the right time in the midst of widespread civil unrest that would surely have resulted in a "bloodbath" or worse, civil war.
accordingly, the marines and the u.s. embassy provided sage and timely wisdom to the embattled aristide, convincing him to "resign" and agree to be flown to the central african republic (another former french colony), without first having the chance to address the haitian citizenry. we are told that this was not a coup d'etat, but that aristide willfully resigned, end of story. we make the reality, you abide by it.
new reality
the question was (and remains): who is willing to accept this reality?
the canadians certainly are. they signed on to it immediately, as did the french, the eu, brazil, chile, russia, china, and others. within the societies of these countries, there was no great opposition to this new reality. everyone who signed on to the new reality was handed a script from which to practice and read her or his new lines. of course, we now have the benefit of a year of intensive research, independent investigations, and regular on the ground reporting, which demonstrate that this new reality was merely the logical consequence of years of preparation for the ultimate fall of aristide and the popular lavalas movement.
there are also those who did not initially accept this reality, and continue not to. outside of aristide, who immediately claimed that he was overthrown in a "modern-day" coup d'etat, and lives as the exiled president of haiti in south africa, many others oppose the new circumstances. http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=5bd3c00d8555ff48ebc2fa32458db597b19feeb4 those who continue to defy the new imperial reality are, not surprisingly, those countries who would have the most at stake were this sort of intervention to become the international norm. 'if they get away with this in haiti, who's to say that we're not next?' asks the 14-nation caribbean community, the 53-member african union (representing approximately 1 billion people), cuba, and most vocally perhaps, venezuela's hugo chavez.
