Alberta, August-agosto 2007
16
ALTERNATIVA Latinoamericana
ENGLISH SECTION
Since February 2004 Haiti has
been under the occupation of UN
forces; in theory these forces were to
"stabilize" the country but they have
contributed to chaos and alienation
and they have been responsible for
serious human rights violations. In
some ways the presence of foreign
troops has been a problem rather than
a solution. It is costly for Haiti to
maintain them and their actions
against the capital's poorest
neighbourhoods are human rights
violations.
Human Rights
Allegations of human rights
violations should not be surprising, since within the
"helpful occupying forces" there are troops from Brazil,
Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Paraguay,
Peru and Bolivia, whose armies have been involved in
human rights violations against civilians in the past.
The Dirty War in Argentina, from 1976 to 1983,
involved thirty thousand forceful disappearances, is the
best documented case of Operation Condor, created
by Chilean Colonel Manuel Contreras and supported
directly by the CIA. Condor was a "terror network" and
today the involvement of the American government is
so evident that the French government has reasons to
request Henry Kissinger's presence in Court.
Operation Condor, involved Argentina, Chile,
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia and it later
produced its own "child", known as Operation Charlie.
This last, a similarly network of military and
paramilitary assault forces, who tortured and killed
civilians in Central America and involved Nicaragua,
Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. The
connections between Latin American military and the
CIA were established early and through the School of
Americas (SOA), where counterinsurgency training
was provided to Latin American military who will be
later involved in heinous crimes. In 2001, and due to
popular pressure within the United States, SOA
changed its name to become the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, moving
from Fort Gulick to Fort Benning. Given this history,
inviting the military from these countries to a
"humanitarian mission" in Haiti seems surprising.
Why are they in Haiti?
There is a pattern of human rights violations in
Haiti by these troops. The first assault, in July 2005
killed 23 people and involved Brazilian troops; the
second massacre was in December 2006 and the third
was in January 2007 involving Brazilians as well as
troops from Bolivia, Uruguay and Chile. There were
mainly assaults on the poor in areas were popular
rallies had taken place. They were obviously
repressive responses to popular protest.
Raul Zibechi, journalist, discussing the
involvement of some Latin American progressive
governments challenges their wisdom in sending
military troops to Haiti. The involvement of Mercosur
countries in a mission they would have vehemently
refused before has to do, he says, with three factors:
(1) Brazil' s military geopolitical objectives in Latin
America, (2) lack of proper and open discussion about
the consequences of such involvement, and (3) a
secret concern about how to face the growing inequity
within their own countries (Repression in Haiti: The
Responsibility of the Left).
According to Zibechi, Haiti can be a "preparation
ground" for what may take place in Latin America as
poverty continues to grow. Colonel Oliva Neto, he
says, has argued on the need for South American
"military cooperation" to form a "National Defense
System" which, supposedly, would prevent military
incursion from an outside force by having military in
the region working together. A National Defense
System, however, could be used to control internal
rather than external challenges. Zibechi argues that a
concern about the urban poor goes hand in hand with
the Pentagon concerns about how to make "urban
warfare." Haiti could be the place where theories on
urban warfare are tested and where Neto´s wish for
South American "military cooperation" take place to
control the poor. The common denominator in
understanding what is taking place in Haiti, he says,
is "the war on the poor." It is right there where "the
strategies of George W Bush and some progressive
governments have reached out to shake hands."
Haiti's isolation
In what is taking place in Haiti two issues
seemed particularly relevant: class and race -or color.
The issue of class has been brought forward often and
in connection with what is taking place to the human
EDITORIAL:
In a
classical American Western, the difference
is as glar
ing as the midday sun in Colorado: there are
Good
Gu
ys and Bad Guys. The good ones are the
settlers,
who are making the prairie bloom. The bad
on
es are t
he Indians, who are bloodthirsty savages.
The
ultimate
hero is the Cowboy, tough, humane, with
a big revolver or two, ready to defend himself at all
times. George Bush, who grew up on this myth,
sticks to it even now, when he is the leader of the
world's only superpower. In late July, he presented the
world with an up-to-date western.
In this Western -- or, rather, Middle Eastern --
there are also Good Guys and Bad Guys. The good
ones are the "moderates", who
are the allies of the US
in the Middle East -- Israel, Mahmoud Abbas and the
pro-American Arab regimes. The bad ones are Hamas,
Hizbullah, Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda.
It is a simple script. So simple, indeed, that an
8-year-old can understand it. The conclusions are also
simple: the good guys have to be supported, the bad
guys have to bite the dust. At the end, the hero --
George himself -- will ride off into the sunset on his
noble steed, while the music reaches a crescendo.
The classical Western, of course, does not show
us the heroic pioneers stealing the land from the
Indians. Or the United States Cavalry attacking the
camps of the Indians, burning down the tents and
killing their inhabitants, men, women and children.
How the US government, after signing formal treaties
with the Indian nations, breaks them one after another.
And how it drives the remnants into desolate regions,
long before the term "ethnic cleansing" was first used.
Denial runs through the classical western like a
purple thread, as it does through this speech of
Bush's. This finds its main expression in a simple
fact: the occupation is hardly mentioned at all.
In the Palestinian community, for example, there
is a struggle between the "moderates" and the
"extremists". The extremists are killers. Why are they
killers? There is no why. They are killers because they
are killers. It's in their nature. They were just born that
way. The moderates are moderates because they are
moderates. Some people are just born good.
So the whole problem is a Palestinian problem.
They must decide. They must choose between
moderates and extremists. If they choose the
moderates, they will get everything they can imagine:
colorful glass beads and gallons of whisky. If they
choose the extremists, their end will be bitter.
The Jewish Israelis do not have to choose
between good and bad. Why? Simply because there
are no Bad Guys among them. They are just good.
They must help the good Palestinians. "Release" the
Palestinian tax moneys and give them to "Prime
Minister (Salem) Fayad". Not to the Palestinian
government, but to the darling of Bush.
What else is required from the Israelis? They
must understand that their "future lies in developing
areas like the Negev and Galilee -- not in continuing
occupation of the West Bank". (That's the only time
the occupation is mentioned at all.) They should
remove unauthorized outposts and end settlement
expansion. Also, they may "find other practical ways
to reduce their footprint (in the West Bank) without
reducing their security". Meaning: the occupation can
continue, but it would be nice if we take some steps
to make it less visible.
In many classical westerns there appears a
crook selling a patent medicine to heal all ills:
headaches and hemorrhoids, tuberculosis and
syphilis. George Bush has his own patent medicine,
which appears in the speech again and again. It will
heal all diseases and ensure the final victory of the
Sons of Light over the Sons of Darkness.
The label on the bottle says "Building Palestinian
Institutions". How come we didn't think of this until
now? Why did we go chasing off after all kinds of
solutions, and did not find this one, so simple, lying in
front of us for all to see?
It is an egg of Columbus, with a whiff of
Alexander the Great's sword cutting the Gordian knot.
The Palestinians have no institutions. The two good
people, "President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayad...
are striving to build the institutions of a modern
democracy." This means: "security services...
ministries that deliver services without corruption...
steps that unleash the natural enterprise of the
Palestinian people... the rule of law... "
All this under occupation, behind roadblocks,
walls and fences, while the main roads are barred to
Palestinians, while the West Bank is chopped into
pieces and cut off from the rest of the world.
In order to realize the vision of "building
Palestinian institutions", Bush is sending along his
poodle. According to Bush, the sole task of Tony Blair
The Middle East
according to Bush
US President's speech reinforces
myths from the Old West.
By Nora Fernández
rights of the poor, particularly those
who live in areas where people still
protest the occupation. Guillermo
Chiflet has denounced the troops in
Haiti: they are not providing
humanitarian aid but are waging a war
against the poor. In December 2006, 3
days before Christmas, occupation
troops stormed Cite Soleil, a poor
neighbourhood, and killed 80 people
women and children among them, he
argues. Since then they have
intervened regularly with helicopters
and tanks, well armed troops waging
war against civilian population (Rel-
UITA).
The issue of color, and
implications of racism, has been left out. The first
scholar to highlight how racism has affected
historically the way Haiti is treated by the West, is
Noam Chomsky. In deplying troops from Latin
America to "stabilize" Haiti, UN somehow presumed
that, as people of color, latinamerican troops would
treat Haitians better. It is an unfounded assumption,
as racism is as much an issue in Latin America as
anywhere else.
Latin America´s history, vis-a-vis Haiti, shows
that we have kept Haiti isolated. That being colonized
by different colonial powers, France versus Spain and
Portugal, connected us to differing cultures and favor
different languages. Thus, although located in the
same region of the world we know each other little.
Camille Chalmers, professor at the University of
Haiti and activist of PAPDA (Haitian Platform for the
Development of Social Movements) in an interview with
Claudia Korol (Adital), explained that Haiti has been
isolated from Latin America since its birth in 1804.
After a slave revolt expelled the French colonial rulers
and their allies. Haiti, the only revolution by slaves
able to defeat Napoleon, extended human rights
worldwide beyond "Europeans" to include people of
color: Blacks, Aboriginals and Asians. It meant the
end of slavery a lucrative business; thus, it was not
accepted and France imposed on Haiti a heavy debt
forcing them to pay France for more than a century.
Simon Bolivar went to Haiti for help and he
received ships, arms and men from Haiti's
revolutionary government, in exchange he promised to
end slavery in every country he liberated. Still, Bolivar
was not able to fulfill his promise and, despite the
support he received Haiti, isolated from Latin America,
was never invited to the first continental congress.
For the US, France and Canada, Latin American
military forces in Haiti are convenient: "people of color
controlling people of color" for money. In truth, as Haiti
has turned into "good business" for the military
involved and for Haiti's dominant class -who benefits
from the troops' spending like tourists. Few know that
Haiti pays for its own occupation 520 million dollars a
year, or about one sixth of its gross domestic product
of three thousand million dollars. Haitians are aware of
this; they rage about the costs of forces they
experience as frustrating, oppressive and abusive.
Business, as usual
For the UN deployment is "good business,"
since military ventures are financed with a lot more
ease than other ventures. Military missions favouring
the status quo keep the UN from becoming obsolete,
it has a role: "peace keeping efforts." Intervention,
however, is not improving Haiti's reality or solving its
crucial problems, economic and social in nature.
Intervention without help for development only makes
problems worse, argues Chalmers. But, intervention
can work for the ruling powers: it helps keep the
population at bay.
It is easier to call rebels "bandits" and blame
them for the situation than to change the status quo,
challenge neoconservative ideology and work to end
oppression. Chalmers argues that occupation
perpetuates the problem: stability is not achieved this
way but it could be achieved through engaging more
native police and working at democratizing the
country; however, Haiti cannot hire enough police or
work in a democratizing project while paying for the
occupying troops -here the irony.
The picture seems clear: governments are
removed, by force if necessary, whenever they do not
stick to the agenda of imperial powers. A war on the
people can be unleashed over them anytime as foot
soldiers are not in short supply. The best strategy is
to send foot soldiers from subordinated countries.
Their intervention on behalf of imperial powers helps
develop stronger networks and keep ruling powers
less visible. People are disposable. And, within
people, people of color and the poor are the most
disposable of all.
WHY ARE THEY IN HAITI?