[Marxism] Haiti, a Caracas redux

Chris Brady cdbrady at sbcglobal.net
Wed Feb 11 15:41:48 MST 2004


The New York Times—the infamous information business that misinformed
its readers with bogus WMD reports—again marches in step with the US
Administration.  As with the Iraq Attack, so with Haiti: the NYT
advocates another US armed invasion, and for humanitarian reasons.  The
USA did such a great job in Haiti before (see Stan Goff’s book “Hideous
Dream”). To wit:

Haiti Erupts
New York Times, EDITORIAL, 11 Feb. 2004
[clip]
Haiti’s democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, helped
bring this crisis on himself, with his encouragement of mob violence,
politicization of the national police and failure to ensure fair
legislative elections.
[clip]
Full:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/opinion/11WED3.html?th

The NYT sounds like it did about the Caracas abrota-coup. The NYT’s
breathlessly excited, gleeful anti-Chavez EDITORIAL is worth a
re-examination, if only of its first couple of sentences:
Hugo Chávez Departs
New York Times EDITORIAL, 13 Apr. 2002
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/13/opinion/_13SAT1.html
“With yesterday's resignation [!] of President Hugo Chávez, Venezuelan
democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator.  Mr. Chávez, a
ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed
power to a respected business leader, Pedro Carmona.”

           The NYT went on to portray Chávez as “promising change he
never delivered,” hence no different than other populist deceivers, left
or right.  That’s how the US and media (like a business, Father & Son,
Ltd.), presents Aristide: a liar, a deceiver, a traitor to the people
who believed in him.

           The BBC at the time noted that: “Far from condemning the
ouster of a democratically elected president, U.S. officials blamed the
crisis on Mr. Chávez himself.”  (See also: “U.S. Offers Tough Message to
Venezuela's Chavez” (Reuters, 14 Apr. 2002); “U.S. Advises Chavez to
Respect Democracy” (Associated Press, 14 Apr. 2002)).  See the above
EDITORIAL: “
Aristide, helped bring this crisis on himself
”  Ah, those
democratically-elected despots always seem to ultimately face the
justice of the Fates and Furies.  Plus ca change
 les memes choses.

           Ever conscious of the need *to appear* to present a full,
objective report, or at least “both sides” of an issue (as if the world
was two dimensional), the NYT counseled caution:  “Yet many of the
insurrectionists are former Aristide allies with even weaker democratic
credentials.”  But why not tell Americans about how much American money
and power has already gone to the very opposition the NYT lumps into its
curses on both camps?  If there is a raging struggle between forces that
could tip either way, the fact that one side was substantially and
significantly augmented by US support, while the other was deprived of
such and so much more, just might indicate that the US is culpable for
the crime, killing and corruption that ensued.  Instead, the US blames
Aristide, and suggests he would best serve by not serving at all:

 Haitian Forces Battling Uprising Report Retaking 3 Towns
 NYT, Wed., 11 Feb. 2004; Front Page.
"In Washington, the Bush administration suggested that it might support
 Jean-Bertrand Aristide's stepping down as part of a political
settlement."

It's been supporting that all along.













More information about the Marxism mailing list