at the WP site. Eugenia Charles-Mathurin, co-director of the "Haiti Reborn" program at the Quixote Center, was online Tuesday, March 2 at 11 a.m. ET, to discuss the overextending U.S. role in Haitian policy and the allegations that Aristide was forced to exile by the U.S.
<clips>
..Southport, Conn.: Is it remotely possible that the US could have been involved in physically removing the President of Haiti? If so, what are the ramifications of this?
washingtonpost.com: U.S. Assembles Peacekeeping Coalition in Haiti (Post, March 2)
Eugenia Charles-Mathurin: I think the U.S. is very much involved in the removal of President Aristide. We can go back to the creation of the Haitian opposition. We started seeing the International Republican Institute (IRI) along with USAID who began the process of building political parties whom they felt were compatible to face the Fanmi Lavalas political party. Then we had the May 2000 election where the oppositions participated as individual political parties not as a coalition and formed a coalition after the result of the election had been announced. We see the U.S. provide financial diplomatic support for the opposition. The IRI particularly does the training for the opposition in the Dominican Republic and we see the attempted coop in 2001 where Philippe was very involved in it. When the Haitian government asked for Philippe to be brought back to Haiti to be tried the IRI said he was not able to be found. But then again he was in Dominican Republic being trained and the U.S. sent weapons to the DR border and those weapons are being used in the current situation in Haiti. And then we see the resurfacing of Philippe. The U.S. has not denounced Philippe and Louis Jodel Chamblain for terrorizing the Haitian people and even now they are being supported when they should be arrested by now.
The ramifications are that the U.S. is giving the blood of the Haitian people to Philippe. We think it is wrong and takes away from the people's hope and dreams. The U.S., France and Canada are not supporting democracy with no process and basically supporting human rights violators.
...Washington, D.C.: So why didn't the US send in troops to stop the civil disorder before Aristide decided to leave?
Is it now US policy to support the backers of Papa Doc and Baby Doc?
Eugenia Charles-Mathurin: The US would have never sent support to assist President Aristide because they created the opposition. They've always supported every demand the opposition presented. We've seen Secretary Powell come out and say, we support the process of democracy. We don't want to overthrow an elected gov't. A few days later, a new plan was presented to Pres. Aristide, a plan that would have removed all of his power. He accepted it. The opposition rejected it and made a counter proposal that he be removed from office. Soon thereafter, Sec. Powell says, "We don't think PRes. Aristide is fit to govern Haiti." And in the blink of an eye, he was kidnapped and removed from the people who had elected him, without even giving him a chance to address them.
Yes, the US continues to show their support for Papa Doc and Baby Doc supporters, that include the former soldiers, members of FRAPH, and the Haitian elite. The US has never been interested in Haitians who are peasants, because they want to take away the land from them to build more factories, so the Haitian elite can get richer, the peasants will be forced out f their land, will have no education, and their children will be deprived of basic needs. It is also why they had rewrote the Haitian constitution in 1915 after they oocupied Haiti, making it possible for them to buy and own land in Haiti, something that the Haitian forefathers like Dessalines and Toussaint, who wrote the constitition, opposed. He said no foreigners should ever own land in Haiti.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20712-2004Mar1.html