Haiti’s new president is a friend of coup-plotters, fascists, and armed right-wing groups in his country and abroad.

No sooner had Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly been confirmed the winner in Haiti’s deeply flawed presidential election than he jumped on a plane and headed to Washington, where he met with his country’s real power brokers: officials from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the US Chamber of Commerce and the State Department.

Many of Haiti’s poorest citizens were not dissuaded by former singer Michel ‘Sweet Micky’ Martelly’s near-total lack of political experience.

There, he committed his desperately poor country - where some 700,000 people are still homeless as a result of last year’s earthquake - to fiscal discipline, promising to “give new life to the business sector”. In exchange, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave him a strong endorsement. “We are behind him; we have a great deal of enthusiasm,” she said. “The people of Haiti may have a long road ahead of them, but as they walk it, the United States will be with you all the way,” she added.

Martelly, a well-known kompa singer, is an unusual choice to lead Haiti. With no political experience, he represents a clear break with the country’s other democratically elected presidents since the island nation ousted the dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier and ushered in an unprecedented era of democracy.

The US press billed his victory as “overwhelming”. But with Haiti’s most popular political party, Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas, banned from participating in the election, a vast majority of Haitians didn’t vote. Martelly took the presidency with just 16.7 per cent of the electorate.

Compare this dismal turnout with the election of Haiti’s last two presidents. Aristide, a popular liberation theologian priest, won the presidency twice in landslides where a majority of the electorate voted, first in 1990 and again in 2000. Aristide’s first prime minister, Rene Preval likewise was elected twice by large margins with high turnouts, in 1995 and 2006. In this election, Martelly got two-thirds of the vote — but three-quarters of registered voters didn’t turn up.

It bodes ominously for Haiti, but Martelly may have more in common with Gerard Latortue, the head of state imposed on Haiti following the 2004 US-backed coup d’etat against Aristide. A South Florida talk-show host, Latortue, like Martelly, had no background in politics. But, like Martelly, he did have friends in Washington.  During Latortue’s brief stint in office, 2004 — 2006, Haiti experienced some 4,000 political murders, according to The Lancet — while hundreds of Fanmi Lavalas members, Aristide supporters, and social movement leaders were locked up - usually on bogus charges. Latortue’s friends in Washington looked the other way.

Martelly’s Washington friends include Damian Merlo, his presidential campaign manager. Merlo’s CV should alarm anyone concerned with democracy in Haiti. Merlo has worked for Otto Reich, the Iran-Contra veteran and supporter of coups in Honduras and Venezuela. Merlo has also worked with the International Republican Institute, which — under the banner of “democracy promotion” — funds “civil society” organisations to destabilise governments it deems to be a problem.

During his stint at IRI, Merlo took steps to weaken Brazil’s governing Workers’ Party. Prior to taking on Sweet Micky’s campaign, Merlo beefed up his experience with John McCain’s failed 2008 presidential bid. McCain, interestingly, chairs IRI’s board, and brought Reich on as a foreign policy adviser during the 2008 campaign.

Many Haiti observers may be familiar with the IRI for the key role it played in overthrowing Aristide’s government during his second term. IRI trained and funded various anti-Aristide groups, promoted anti-Aristide propaganda, and, as described in a New York Times feature article in 2006, even worked to undermine political solutions being negotiated with Aristide by the US embassy and the Organisation of American States. Two years earlier, the IRI was also deeply involved in the failed coup against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.

Support and campaign

While in Washington, Martelly promised his supporters that he would promote transparency when it came to foreign aid. That openness, however, apparently doesn’t apply to his campaign donations, raising the possibility that he is funded by the same groups which drove Aristide from power in 2004. Martelly admits that he received financial support from foreign sources but, in response to questioning by the Miami Herald, he refused to identify them other than saying they are “people who believe in us”. When pressed, he deflected, telling the interviewer, “you talk to them”.

All told, Martelly reportedly spent some six million dollars on his campaign - the equivalent of $15billion in the US. To put this in perspective, Obama is hoping to spend US$1billion on his upcoming reelection campaign.  These deep pockets were probably the deciding factor in his victory.

It was Merlo, along with right wing Spanish PR group Ostos & Sola with close ties to Spain’s neo-fascist Popular Party, that successfully made-over Martelly’s public persona, putting him in a suit and encouraging him to tone down his rhetoric. These spin doctors counselled him to go from “Sweet Micky” — popular and bawdy entertainer, to the more respectable Michel Martelly — presidential candidate.

Still, some disturbing “Sweet Micky” outbursts bubbled up towards the end of the campaign - troublesome YouTube moments that might have doomed a presidential contender in the United States.  In one, apparently recent, video, Martelly was filmed surrounded by a small group of friends at a club. “All those shits were Aristide’s faggots,” he shouts in kreyol in the candid video, while pulling his T-shirt up and rubbing his belly. “I would kill Aristide and stick a dick up his ass.”  This was followed by an audio recording - also posted on YouTube, accompanied by a photo of Martelly in a suit - in which the candidate denounced Fanmi Lavalas: “The Lavalas are so ugly. They smell like s**t. F**k you, Lavalas. F**k you, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.”

Martelly’s ties with coup-supporting Republicans in the US and neo-fascists in Spain are perhaps the least worrisome of the president-elect’s relationships. His relationship to Haiti’s violent far-right goes way back. It is well known, for instance, that he ran a nightclub frequented by Duvalierists in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. He has also admitted to having joined the Tonton Macoutes - the world-infamous, murderous militia of the Duvalier dictatorships - in his younger days.  Martelly has also spoken freely about his friendships with convicted murderer Michel François and others involved in the coups against Aristide - which Martelly also admits he supported. His famous song, “I Don’t Care” is a rebuff to controversy about such associations.

Obama’s push

Despite all these documented troublesome statements and associations, the Obama administration went to great lengths to ensure that Martelly wound up running in the election’s second round.

Official results in the disputed first round initially had the government-supported candidate, Jude Celestin, placed second, with Martelly close behind in third. Martelly’s campaign alleged widespread fraud and other irregularities. True enough, but it was not clear that the net fraud went against him. When an Organisation of American States “expert” mission was sent in to determine the actual runner-up, they selected Martelly by recounting only a sample of the ballots, without using any statistical inference. The 234 tally sheets that they disqualified turned out to be from areas where Celestin had strong support. Six of the seven members of the OAS mission were from the US, Canada, and France - that is, the countries that supported the 2004 coup against Aristide. When questioned by independent experts from the Centre for Economic and Policy Research (who actually counted all the voter tally sheets in their independent election report), the mission could not explain its methodology.

In fact, the mission’s chief statistical expert - US statistician Fritz Scheuren — admitted that the OAS mission had no statistical basis for its recommendation: to replace Celestin with Martelly. Observers noted that it was also highly unusual - perhaps unprecedented - for an election to be overturned without a full recount.

But that is exactly what happened. The Obama administration insisted that Haiti’s electoral authorities accept the OAS mission’s conclusions and put Martelly on the ballot. Hillary Clinton made a surprise trip to Haiti - in the midst of the Egypt uprising — just for this purpose. Preval was threatened with a cut off of US aid and even with being flown out of the country before his term was up - ala Aristide in 2004 - to pressure him to weigh in with the electoral council — even though the council, by law, is supposed to be independent.

Ultimately, the council never achieved a majority of members to support putting Martelly on the ballot.  But the council’s spokesperson publicly stated that it had, and the election proceeded - with Martelly running instead of Celestin - with legal experts unsure whether the election would have any legal validity.

In short, the US government got its way. Following the deeply flawed first round of elections, Martelly supporters launched violent protests, sometimes attacking other candidates’ partisans. By the time they were over, five people had been killed in the riots. Other disturbing incidents persisted even after Martelly was selected for the runoff ballot. On March 8, for example, three campaign workers for Martelly’s opponent, Mirlande Manigat, were found murdered, their bodies mutilated in apparent signs of torture. The killers remain unknown, as does the motive.

Martelly and the army

To many observers, the violence seemed well-orchestrated, and Martelly conspicuously did or said little to attempt to reign in his raging supporters. Journalist Kim Ives has noted that, during the campaign, Martelly began organising something that looked familiar to the old system of Tonton Macoute “volunteers”.

“For $30, before the election, potential voters could join the Base Michel Joseph Martelly,” writes Ives, “and invest in a pink plastic membership card, with photo, which promises many advantages (such as a job, say) when the Martelly administration comes to power.”

As Ives notes, during the Duvalier period, “every Macoute received a card that afforded him many privileges, like free merchandise from any store he entered, entitlement to coerced sex, and fear and respect from people in general”. The Macoutes became one of the most notorious death squads to wage terror in the region during the Cold War - no small accomplishment.

Considering this history, one proposal Martelly made on the campaign trail is especially alarming. He has promised to reconstitute the Haitian army, which Aristide disbanded over fifteen years ago.

The modern Haitian army was notoriously bloodthirsty. Established by the US military during its 1915–1934 occupation of Haiti, the army has long been denounced as a prolific human rights abuser. Since its 1995 disbanding - following overwhelming support for the measure in a popular poll - its “veterans” (including suspected narco-trafficker, Guy Philippe, and Louis Jodel Chamblain — head of security for Duvalier since his surprise return in January) have played a prominent role in the country’s violent right wing. They were involved in overthrowing Aristide in 2004 and, in the past, have also engaged in occasional attacks on police stations, pro-Fanmi Lavalas communities, and even the presidential palace — sometimes wearing their old uniforms. When the death squad named the Front for the Advancement of the Haitian People terrorised the Lavalas support base following Aristide’s 1991 ousting, it too was headed up by former soldiers - who were also funded by the CIA.

The Associated Press visited one would-be “army” camp just weeks before the second round of elections, encountering men there who proudly acknowledged their role in the 2004 coup. Some had served in the military during Aristide’s first exile, when the army ruled Haiti, killing and raping thousands. The AP called it “a tableaux of the pro-military fringe right, a looming presence in Haiti”.

Some of these “soldiers” and “officers”-in-waiting told freelance journalists just a few weeks later that Martelly had visited their camp during his campaign - certainly an ominous sign of things to come.

In the past, Martelly has made other worrying statements. He has said that, “Haiti needs a Fujimori-style solution” - a reference to Peruvian president Alberto Fujimori’s power grab, when he dissolved Congress — and called for the outlawing of “all strikes and demonstrations” - something his backers in Washington would undoubtedly welcome.

Greg Grandin is a professor of history at New York University and a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the author of a number of prize-winning books, including most recently, Fordlandia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford’s Forgotten Jungle City (Metropolitan 2009), which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History, as well as for the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle Award.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/05/20115413435816393.html

Attack on Libya is “War of Plunder and Aggression”

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, at Champaign, says the U.S. is involved in an “all-out war” of “plunder and aggression” in Libya. “This is the first major outright power grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against Africa in the 21stcentury,” says Boyle.

“Humanitarian” Bombing Bogus

David Swanson, peace activist and publisher of the we site “War Is A Crime,” says President Obama’s claims that “humanitarian” motivation is nonsense. “If there were an Obama doctrine that said: Where there is a humanitarian crisis, we’re going to go bomb people, we’d be bombing our own puppet dictators.”

Western Military Occupation Likely

“When the U.S. invades another country, which happens frequently, we generally leave U.S. military bases there,” says Marjorie Cohn, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego. “The countries who are bombing Libya don’t really know who the opposition is,” says Cohn. “It could be al Qaida.”

Whose Interests Are Served?

Ali Ahmida, an historian of Libya and chairman of the political science department at the University of New England, is generally sympathetic to the rebels. But, he worries that the revolt could be “hijacked for other people’s agendas.”

Obama’s Haiti Policy is “Deeply Cynical”

Haiti’s recent presidential elections, which offered a choice of only two rightwing candidates and for which only about a quarter of the population turned out, will produce a government that has “absolutely no constitutional or popular credibility.” Brian Concannon, Jr., of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, calls President Obama’s claim that the U.S. is bringing democracy to Haiti is “deeply cynical.”

http://blackagendareport.com/content/black-agenda-radio-progressive-radio-network-glen-ford-and-nellie-bailey-–-week-march-28–201

Contact: Ajamu Baraka, 404–588-9761

U.S. Walks Tightrope On Democratic Reforms In Middle East But Speaks Different Language In Haiti

The demands of the people for democracy in Tunisia that subsequently swept through Egypt and are now engulfing Bahrain, Iran, Libya and Yemen have consumed U.S. foreign policy attention in recent days. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration has responded differently to events in each country depending on geopolitical factors. Thus, the administration’s harshest words have been reserved for Iran, while State Department officials have walked a semantic tightrope in Egypt and Bahrain in a desperate effort to preserve those longstanding and strategically important alliances.

Still, at least part of the message emanating from Washington has been generally consistent: The monarchs, dictators and autocrats in the Middle East must respond to the will of the people and institute democratic reforms or risk the consequences.

While street protests and their aftermath in Egypt and elsewhere have dominated the headlines, events unfolding in Haiti offer a very different view of U.S. policy on democracy in other nations. On Feb. 7, the Haitian government issued a diplomatic passport to former President Jean Bertrand Aristide, whom the U.S. helped oust from power and force into exile in 2004. At a news conference two days after the passport was issued, State Department spokesperson P.J. Crowley stated that Aristide’s return to Haiti might prove “an unfortunate distraction” that the U.S. would “hate to see” prior to the presidential and legislative elections scheduled for March 20.

In sharp contrast, the U.S. offered only a tepid response when former dictator Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, whose brutal regime orchestrated the deaths and disappearances of more than 50,000 people, returned to Haiti in January. Meanwhile, the U.S. has continued to meddle in Haiti’s internal affairs, forcing the government to withdraw its presidential candidate, Jude Celestin, and replace him with pro-military pop singer Michel “Sweet Mickey” Martelly, who finished behind Celestin in a disputed first round vote.

Human Rights advocates have also been focused on the Middle East of late, documenting human rights abuses when possible and demanding that governments facing popular dissent do not resort to oppression as a means to quell the protests. Such vigilance is critical, especially as the U.S. contorts its pronouncements – and, no doubt, its actions behind the scenes – to protect its interests in the region.

As important as the outcomes in the Middle East will be, the human rights community must closely monitor U.S. intervention in Haiti’s democratic process and hold the U.S. accountable for continued selectivity in its commitment to democratic principles around the world. The people of Haiti, who have suffered the consequences of U.S. interference in their country for decades, deserve no less.

###

http://www.ushrnetwork.org/content/pressrelease/us-walks-tightrope-democratic-reforms-middle-east-speaks-different-language-hai

With so much else on his plate, President Obama can be forgiven for not giving Haiti the same attention it received after a devastating earthquake six months ago.

However, there is a step he should have taken before now that would go a long way toward relieving some of the additional economic stress that the disaster dumped on the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country.

Obama should ease immigration rules so more Haitians can live and work in this country and send money back to their homeland. Already such remittances are said to account for a third of Haiti’s gross domestic product.

There is ample precedent for Haitian immigrants to receive special consideration. The United States has opened its doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees over the years, including many who fled neighboring Cuba. Helping more Haitians to emigrate would represent a similar humanitarian effort.

There are about 55,000 Haitians who have already been approved for visas to join family members in the United States. But standard procedure requires them to wait from four to 11 years before they can come here and become legal U.S. residents. An additional almost 20,000 Haitians are waiting for visa approvals.

No congressional act is needed for the president to expedite the handling of these immigration cases. The sooner he does that, the sooner the Haitians will be able to find employment in this country that allows them to send help home. That aid over time will improve Haiti’s ability to stand on its own legs without as much foreign assistance.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors has asked Obama to create a Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program, which would be similar to a program created by President George W. Bush in 2007 to allow Cubans to come and live in the United States while awaiting their visa approvals.

Haitians deserve the same consideration. Disparate treatment by foreign powers of this country birthed by rebellious slaves is one reason it is an economic basket case. The earthquake made matters worse. But our country promised to do all it could to help. Its next step should be to open its doors wider to Haitians.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20100702_Editorial__Helping_the_Haitians.html

THE U.S. CONFERENCE of Mayors, meeting at its annual convention this month in Oklahoma City, did something extraordinary. With no dissent, the mayors called on President Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to “promptly” grant entry to 55,000 Haitian visa candidates with relatives in the United States, a measure that would result in tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in annual cash transfers flowing into Haiti’s gasping economy. And what was the response from the administration, which has pledged to do all it can to alleviate the humanitarian suffering that befell Haiti in January’s earthquake? Silence.

The issue here is a cohort of Haitians whose relatives live in the United States as citizens or permanent residents, and whose immigration petitions have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In other words, they are on their way to the United States sooner or later anyway, once the visa backlog — the result of quotas set by Congress — is cleared. The main question is whether Haitians will face a wait for visas that can last from four years (for the spouses and children under 18 of legal residents of the United States) to 11 years (for siblings of U.S. citizens). Given Haiti’s travails, they can and should be moved to the front of the line — if not by the administration, then by Congress.

There is a recent precedent. Under a program launched by DHS in 2007, the United States has granted entry to about 28,000 Cubans whose family-based immigration petitions have been approved. In effect, they are allowed to wait here rather than in Cuba while the government processes their applications to become permanent residents. And while Haitians would not enjoy the same legal status as Cubans, who are eligible for green cards a year after arriving, the administration could grant them “temporary protective status” on arrival and allow them to work. With similar effect, Congress could adjust its quotas to expedite the issuance of visas to Haitians.

The mayors’ resolution was remarkable because their cities — not the federal government, not the states — might bear the costs associated with an influx of Haitian immigrants. Many of the immigrants would be low-skilled workers with no mastery of English. In the handful of places where most would settle, services, schools and budgets would be stretched — even as municipalities face high unemployment and anemic bank accounts.

Nonetheless, the mayors rightly cited the profound suffering in Haiti, the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation, and the moral imperative facing America, the richest.

The Obama administration was quick and forceful in directing personnel, resources and public attention to Haiti after the Jan. 12 quake, and it has pledged large amounts of aid to rebuild the shattered country. Still, no aid program would help Haiti as much as admitting the tens of thousands of Haitians caught in the visa backlog. Remittances to Haiti amounted to about $1.5 billion last year and may reach $2 billion this year. Mr. Obama could further strengthen that lifeline.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504520.html