"I visited President Aristide in Port-au-Prince in early 2001. He impressed me as intelligent and intent on good relations with Haiti's private sector and the US.
"Haiti was clearly desperate: the most impoverished country in the Western Hemisphere, with a standard of living comparable to sub-Saharan Africa despite being only a few hours by air from Miami. Life expectancy was 52 years. Children were chronically hungry."
"Instead, I was shocked to learn that they would all be suspending aid, under vague 'instructions' from the US. America, it seemed, was unwilling to release aid to Haiti because of irregularities in the 2000 legislative elections, and was insisting that Aristide make peace with the political opposition before releasing any aid.
"The US position was a travesty. Aristide had been elected President in an indisputable landslide [in 1990]... Nor were the results of the legislative elections in 2000 in doubt: Aristide's party had also won in a landslide."
"An exhaustive and convincing report by the International Coalition of Independent Observers concluded that 'fair and peaceful elections were held' in 2000, and by the standard of the presidential elections held in the US that same year they were positively exemplary."
Why then were the elections criticised as "flawed" by the Organisation of American States (OAS)?
On November 26, 2000, Aristide was nevertheless re-elected president with his Lavalas Party winning 90% of the vote.
Haiti's elections may have been imperfect but, given Haiti's history of appalling dictatorships and violence, they marked a major step forwards in democracy. It made no sense for the US to react so aggressively by cutting off vital aid, just as it has made no sense for the West to insist that Haiti should, yet again, submit to military violence now.
Since 2001, human rights activists and humanitarian workers in Haiti have documented numerous opposition killings of government officials and bystanders in attacks on health clinics, police stations and government vehicles. None of these killings were condemned by the US government.
Susskind notes that, according to a 2000 poll, Haiti's opposition represents only 8 percent of the population. The rebel gangs are linked to two groups financed by the Bush Administration: the right-wing Convergence for Democracy and the pro-business Group of 184. The Convergence is supported by the US Republican Party through the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute. The Group of 184 is represented by Andy Apaid, a supporter of the former Duvalier dictatorship and a US citizen.
The Council on Hemispheric Affairs reports that the opposition's "only policy goal seems to be reconstituting the army and the implementation of rigorous Structural Adjustment Programs". (Quoted, Susskind, op.,cit) Hence its lack of popularity.
As we described in Part 1 of this Media Alert, the "goodwill of the world" was expressed by supporting the massacre of the grassroots movement that had brought Aristide to power.
"There's enough indications from our point of view, at least from my point of view, that the United States certainly knew what was coming about two weeks before this military operation started. The United States made contingency plans for Guantanamo."
It is a standard response of the liberal press to concoct a false, lesser Western misdemeanour - here, 'washing our hands of Haiti' - and then to rage at that invention. This promotes the liberal media's 'dissident' credentials, without harming, or calling down the wrath of, power.
Once again, the US is depicted as an 'honest broker', as though Haiti had no history. The BBC is happy to report without comment the proposal that a democratically elected government might share power with a gang of killers with a history of gross human rights abuses.
In similar vein, prior to Aristide's departure, ITN's Bill Neely talked of George Bush "losing patience" with the Haitian president - Bush as the benevolent father-figure in the wings. (ITN, 10:15 News, February 28, 2004).
The level of analysis is hardly worthy of a high-school student, or comment.
This is technically correct - for the media, terrorists are by definition people who use terror and violence to threaten Western interests. People who use terror and violence to +promote+ Western interests are therefore not terrorists.
No question, then, that "the powers" might have been doing something other than wringing their hands behind the scenes.
"Under his leadership, the Haitian government has made major investments in agriculture, public transportation and infrastructure... The government [recently] doubled the minimum wage from 36 to 70 gourdes per day, despite strong opposition from the business community... President Aristide has also made health care and education national priorities. More schools were built in Haiti between 1994 and 2000 than between 1804 and 1994. The government expanded school lunch and school bus programs and provides a 70% subsidy for schoolbooks and uniforms."
Some time in the future when Western interests are under attack, the media will once again obediently rise up in outrage as the forces of violence and terror threaten some distant democracy (real or imagined). But, for now, our journalists and editors are happy to accept that Aristide "had to go", that he had "lost the support of his people and of the international community".
Forget the democratic process. Forget the landslide victories that make a mockery of the popularity of Bush and Blair. Forget the tidal waves of blood that preceded the first, imperfect sign that Haiti might at last be waking from the nightmare of history - of endless dictatorships, endless poverty, endless military coups bringing torture and death to the suffering people. None of that matters. What matters to the media is power. What power says goes.