1. Statement by Jamaica's Prime Minister/Aristide to visit
2.. BBC: Haiti health system 'devastated'
3. Youth Reporter Phones in Story From Haiti, Pacifica
4. Ira Kurzban, Esq. raises questions about reporting of Associated Press
5. Description of recent PBS Lehrer Newshour (Senators Coleman/Dodd)
6. Sen. Dodd's March 2nd Official Statement on Haiti
7. AHP News - March 10, 2004 - English translation (Unofficial)
8. Stenographers to Power, US Press Torpedoes Aristide (CounterPunch)
9. The Right to Intervene, by Norman Soloman, March 11, 2004
10. Haiti Coverage: Mainstream Media Fails Itself, by Peter Phillips
11. Regime Change By Social Collapse: Canada, the US, and Haiti, by Kevin
Skerrett
12. U.S. Rules of Engagement Shift in Haiti (Washington Post)




1. STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER ON THE HOSTING OF FORMER PRESIDENT OF
HAITI, JEAN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE

The Most Honourable P. J. Patterson, Prime Minister of Jamaica

CARICOM under my Chairmanship has been deeply involved in the search for a
solution to the political crisis in Haiti.

Following the departure of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide a new
President has taken the Oath of Office. A Council of Wise Persons has been chosen
which has in turn recommended the appointment of a new Prime Minister, Gerard
LaTortue. He is well known to the regional and international community and
highly respected. He has already been in direct contact with me and proposes to
visit Jamaica for discussions prior to the meeting of CARICOM Heads of
Government in St. Kitts later this month.

Mr. Aristide has expressed a wish to return temporarily to the Caribbean with
his wife and to be reunited with their two young children who are currently
in the United States.

At his request, arrangements are being made for his travel and accommodation
in Jamaica. He is expected to arrive here early next week.

We have communicated our decision to our CARICOM colleagues and to the
Governments who were originally involved in working together to seek a solution to
the Haitian crisis.

I want to emphasise that Mr. Aristide is not seeking political asylum in
Jamaica. His stay in Jamaica is not expected to be in excess of eight to ten
weeks. He is engaged in finalising arrangements for permanent residence outside of
the region.

CARICOM remains committed to the goal of restoring and nurturing democracy in
its newest Member State as well as to social and economic development of the
people of Haiti.



2. BBC: Haiti health system 'devastated'


Haiti's hospitals are struggling to cope with the turmoil
The crisis in Haiti has had a "devastating effect" on the country's
precarious health system, a leading aid expert says.
"I am very concerned," Paul Farmer - a Harvard academic who also runs a
clinic in Haiti - told the BBC.
The country has been in turmoil for five weeks, following a rebellion that
has forced President Jean-Bertrand Aristide into exile.
The UN has appealed for $35m for Haiti, to avert a humanitarian crisis.
"During the past three years, Haiti... has been deprived of all access to
international humanitarian assistance," Mr Farmer told the World Today programme.
Fear
He said the US administration was responsible for the suspension of aid to
Haiti after the disputed 2000 election. "We have all the paper trail on that,"
he said.
My own staff are frightened to go to work and also patients are frightened
of seeking care

Paul Farmer
Mr Farmer added that the situation had been "particularly devastating" in the
past month.
Haiti's only medical school has been shut down and there have been threats to
health care workers in hospitals, he said.
Mr Farmer is a professor at the Harvard Medical School who for 20 years has
run a clinic in a slum in central Haiti.
"My own staff are frightened to go to work and also patients are frightened
of seeking care," he said.
Last Friday, he went on, rebel soldiers stole two of the clinic's vehicles.
They returned on Wednesday, asking for more supplies.
"What we said in response was - don't ask us for things, give us our vehicle
back," he said.
Access
Earlier in the week UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland said health
and food are the two most immediate priorities in Haiti.

The US and France have deployed troops in Haiti
He said the main problems were lack of resources, insecurity and lack of
access to parts of the country.
France and the US have sent 2,500 troops to restore order.
On Wednesday the country's new prime minister, Gerard Latortue, called for
national reconciliation and an end to the dictatorships of the past.
He was speaking after arriving back from exile.
Mr Latortue, a former foreign minister and UN official, was appointed to form
a transition government and organise fresh elections.



3. Youth Reporter Phones in Story From Haiti by JOHNNY Pacific News Service
(03-05-04), Friday, March 5, 2004

EDITOR'S NOTE: Johnny (last name withheld for his safety), 18, is a
former youth reporter with Radyo Timoun (Children's Radio) 90.9 FM in
Port-au-Prince, Haiti. This week rebels looted and burned it along
with the Aristide Foundation For Democracy in which the station was
located. Johnny told his story to PNS contributor Lyn Duff via
telephone from Port-au-Prince.

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti.

I was living in the gutter, dressing in old clothes and begging at the
airport when President Aristide took office in 1990. One of the first
things Titid [as President Aristide was popularly known] did when he
moved into the National Palace was invite a group of children who
sleep in the streets to visit the palace and speak out about the
conditions of the street children.

I heard on the radio the voice of Little Sony, one of the street
children, speaking from the National Palace about the rights of
children and I knew that the lives of the children in Haiti would
change.

When Titid became president he told the world that we street children
were people, we had value, that we were human beings.

Many adults didn't like this message. They said we were dirty and
should be thrown out like the trash that we are. But Titid loved us
and when I met him, he kissed me and put his hand on my face and told
me he loved me. And they were not the empty words of a politician.

During the first coup in 1991 the street kids were attacked and
Lafanmi Selavi [a shelter for homeless children started by Aristide
when he was a parish priest] was burned. Aristide came back from exile
in October 1994 and it was a new world for the children. Three years
of horror were over.

I was just a little child at that time but with Titid I felt
important. We went to Titid and told him that we wanted to have a
voice in democracy, to have a voice for children and he gave us Radyo
Timoun. We were the first children's radio station in the world, run
by children and promoting the human rights of all Haitians. We spoke
on the air about the news, about our hopes and opinions. Adults all
over the country heard our voices and were forced to accept that we
children are people too.

In the past eight years the radio station has gone through many
changes and transitions; it was criticized and vandalized but we knew
that behind mountains there are more mountains. The radio station was
moved from Lafanmi Selavi to the Aristide Foundation for Democracy.

Yesterday at the Foundation I saw gangsters and criminals in army
uniforms destroy the hopes and dreams of the Haitian people. They
destroyed the building, burned books and killed many people. A new
government run by these people will surely be bad not only for the
children but for all the people of Haiti.

I do not believe that President Aristide has abandoned us to this
misery. There is no electricity so it is hard to find news about what
is really happening but I have heard he was forced to leave and I
believe that. He would never leave us willingly. Last week Titid said
on the radio he would die before he would give up the struggle for
democracy in Haiti.

Right now it is hard to survive and we don't know what we will do to
find food and water. There are gangs everywhere in army clothes,
looting and burning, attacking people and robbing those that are
weaker. Everyone is fearful for the present and for the future.

The U.S. Marines stood by and did nothing while the library at the
Aristide Foundation was burned. With my own eyes I saw the American
Marines stand and watch while rebels cut a woman and shot her. I
yelled at them, "something"! and they swung their guns around toward
me and yelled, "Get back!"

While I hid in a field the American Marines put their hats on the
bodies of dead people and posed for pictures with them. It made me
sick because in Haiti we respect the dead. The Americans scare me; I
don't believe that they want anything good for the Haitian people
because they support the criminals who oppose democracy.

We are fearful of the old army because they are those who killed the
street children of Lafanmi Selavi. They killed the peasants in the
North who wanted to have democracy and supported Aristide.

A new government has no hope for the children of Haiti. I am scared, I
think the criminals will try to kill me too because I am one of
Titid's boys. But I am not just scared for myself. I am scared for all
the children of Haiti. And today I cannot stop crying.



4. Ira Kurzban, Esq. raises questions about reporting of Associated Press:


Onnce again, Ms. Paisley Dodds, of Associated Press, defies reality
and writes anti-Aristide diatribes without checking facts. On March 10, 2004 Ms.
Dodds writes: "Under Aristide. the prime minister's position was largely
ceremonial." Where did you get that from Paisley? Perhaps you were too busy
talking to your friends at the Embassy or among the "rebels" to notice that the
PM worked about18 hours a day? Ms. Dodds writes that the Deputy Foreign
Minister of South Africa visited President Aristide to discuss his long term asylum
plans. This is false. The OAU issued a strong statement condeming President
Aristide's kidnapping and expressing solidarity with him, not arranging his
"long term asylum plans." Paisely of course does not put quotes around what the
Deputy Foreign Minister allegedly said because she simply made it up. Third,
she says Aristide "fled" the country. Where did you get that one from Paisley?
Even Roger Noriega, the man who demonizes Aristide almost as much as you do,
does not say Aristide fled the country. He says the U.S. put him on an airplane
on the condition he provide the US a resignation. Is that fleeing? Then you
say Aristide "lost support" but from who Paisley? Was it the poor who are
demanding his return and represent 85% of the population or the 15% elite and
"intellectuals" that represent the persepctive from which you write.



5. Description of recent PBS Lehrer Newshour (Senators Norm Coleman of
Minnesota and Christopher Dodd of Conn) sent into Haiti Update. Senator Coleman
held the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere hearing on
March 10th.

"It was Dodd vs Coleman on PBS Lehrer Newshour. Dodd was great, saying the US
is in direct violation of its obligations under the Inter-American Democratic
Charter because it refused to honor the request for assistance by a
democratically elected president. and repeating that there are serious questions about
how Pres. Aristide was removed that must be investigated. He said "we walked
away from a democratically elected government.". He said Noriega confirmed at
today's hearing that "the US refused to support Aristide because he governed
badly and irresponsibly."

'The message to the hemisphere is that we help good leaders govern well and
we do not help bad leaders who govern badly.' Dodd was shocked by this and
said this is in violation of U.S. obligations and said that Noriega's
acknowledgement that the US refused to help the Haitian government when requested
sends
the message that the Inter-american Democratic Charter means nothing, and this
is very, very important news for the hemisphere. He said that Pres. Toledo in
Peru might assume that because he doesn't have a high rating in the popularity
polls that he may meet the same fate a Pres. Aristide...

6. Senator Christoper J. Dodd's March 2, 2004 Official Statement on Haiti
from his website:


For Immediate Release

Statement of Senator Christopher J. Dodd

The Crisis in Haiti: It Isn't Over Yet

March 2, 2004

Mr. President, on Sunday morning the democratically elected President of
Haiti was forced out of office. The armed insurrection led by former members of
the disbanded Haitian army and its paramilitary wing FRAPH, made it impossible
for the Aristide government to maintain public order, without assistance from
the international community. International assistance that was consciously
withheld. President Aristide left Haiti on Sunday morning aboard an American
aircraft.

President Aristide reportedly has gone into exile in the Central African
Republic. Members of the Black Caucus and others had an opportunity to speak to
President Aristide Monday and have publicly restated his claim that he was
forcibly removed from Haiti by US officials. Secretary of State Colin Powell has
denied that charge. Such an allegation, if true, is extremely troubling and a
gross violation of United States and international law.

Over the coming days, an effort should be made to reconstruct what happened
in the final twenty four to forty eight hours leading up to President
Aristide¹s departure, so that we resolve questions about the nature of US
participation
in the ouster of a the democratically elected leader.

Let¹s be clear however, that whether U.S. officials forcibly removed Aristide
from Haiti as he has charged, or left ³voluntarily¹ as Secretary Powell has
stated, it is indisputable that the United States played a direct and very
public role in pressuring him to leave office by making it clear that the US would
do nothing to protect him from the armed thugs who were threatening to kill
him.

There is no doubt that President Aristide made mistakes during his three
years in office. He allowed his supporters to use violence as a means of
controlling a growing opposition movement against his government. The Haitian police
were ill trained and ill equipped to maintain public order in the face of
violent demonstrations by pro-government and anti-government activists. Poverty,
desperation and opportunism led to widespread government corruption.
President Aristide must assume responsibility for these things.

But the blame for the chaos that Haiti has devolved into does not rest solely
on his shoulders.

The so called democratic opposition also bears a share of the responsibility
for the death and destruction that has wreaked havoc throughout Haiti for the
last several weeks. The members of the CARICOM, an organization of Caribbean
States, with US backing, had tabled a plan calling for the establishment of a
Unity Government to defuse the political crisis. The opposition rejected it out
of hand, apparently preferring the nation tailspin into anarchy as armed
thugs took over three of the four largest cities in the country.

A hundred or more Haitians have already lost their lives, and property damage
may be in the millions. Given the direct role that the United States played
in the removal of the Aristide government, it is now President Bush¹s
responsibility and moral obligation to take charge of this situation -- that means
more
than sending a couple of hundred marines for ninety days or so.

Rather, it means a sustained commitment of personnel and resources for the
foreseeable future by the United States and other members of the international
community who called for the removal of the elected government.

If the Bush Administration and others inside and outside of Haiti had been at
all concerned over the last three years about the fate of the Haitian people,
perhaps the situation would not have deteriorated to near anarchy. Nor would
the obligation of the United States to clean up this mess now loom so large.
It is now reaping what it sowed. Three years of a hands-off policy has left
Haiti extremely unstable with a power vacuum that will be filled one way or
another.

Will that vacuum be filled by individuals like Guy Philippe, a former member
of the disbanded Haitian Army, a notorious human rights abuser and alleged
drug trafficker? Or is the administration prepared to take actions against him
and his followers based upon long records of criminal behavior? It is rather
amazing that the administration has said little or nothing about its plans for
cracking down on the armed thugs that have terrorized Haiti since February 5.

Only with careful attention by the United States and the international
community does Haiti have a fighting chance to break from its tragic history. In the
best of circumstances it is never and easy task to build and nurture
democratic institutions where they are weak or non-existent. When ignorance,
intolerance and poverty are part of the very fabric of a nation, as is the case in
Haiti, it is Herculean.

Mr. President, given the mentality of the political elites in Haiti, -- one
of winner take all -- I frankly believe it is going to be extremely difficult
to form a unity government that has any likelihood of being able to govern for
any period of time without resorting to repressive measures against those who
have been excluded from the process.

It brings me no pleasure to say, that at this juncture, Haiti is a failing,
if not a failed state. The United Nations Security Council has authorized the
deployment of peacekeepers to Haiti to stabilize the situation. I would go a
step further and urge Haitian authorities to consider sharing authority with an
interim international administration, authorized by the UN, in order to create
the conditions necessary to give any future government of Haiti a fighting c
hance at succeeding. The US must lead in this multilateral initiative, as
Australia did in the case of East Timor. Not as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld
suggested yesterday, wait for someone else to step up to the plate to take the
lead. This will require a substantial, sustained commitment of resources by the
U.S. and the international community if we are to be successful.

The jury is out as to whether the Bush Administration is prepared to remain
engaged in Haiti. Only in the eleventh hour did Secretary of State Colin Powell
focus his attention on Haiti as he personally organized the pressure which
led to President Aristide¹s resignation on Sunday. Unless Secretary Powell is
equally committed to remaining engaged in the rebuilding of that country, then I
see little likelihood that anything is going to change for the Haitian
people. Mr. President, the coming days and weeks will tell whether the Bush
administration is as concerned about strengthening and supporting democracy in our own
hemisphere as it claims to be in other more distant places around the globe.

Mr. President, the people of the Hemisphere are watching.


-30-

7. AHP News - March 10, 2004 - English translation (Unofficial)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

A new prime minister for Haiti, but the problems are increasingly pressing,
11 days after the departure of Aristide


Port-au-Prince, March 10, 2004 -(AHP)- Eleven days after the departure of
President Aristide, under circumstances that remain troubling, the situation
remains confused in Haiti, despite the announcement of a choice for a new prime
minister to replace Yvon Neptune.

The problems of security are more and more caustic. And residents of
Port-au-Prince in particular still do not know who to call for any problems in this
area, as the international force presently in the country dos not have the
question of security for the population on its agenda.

The humanitarian, health care and social situation is felt just as sharply.
The prices for basic necessities have doubled. Those who yesterday clamored for
hospitals to be closed in order to advance their struggle now find themselves
having to urgently seek "a doctor, a nurse, an aide please", given the extent
of the crisis. It is evident that very little space is devoted to these sorts
of problems in these times of frantic struggle for control of every corridor
of power.

At the political level, the opposition political Platform has not managed to
conceal its dissatisfaction at the turn of events, despite its months of
anti-Aristide demonstrations. Its leaders did not even take part in the ceremony
to install the interim president, Boniface Alexandre, having preferred a
different member of the Court of Cassation to have been named president.

One of the leaders of the opposition coalition, Charles Henry Baker,
predicted Wednesday that the government that will be formed by the new prime minister,
Gérard Latortue, will fail.

Speaking over the airwaves of a radio station in the capital, Mr. Baker said
that the man who accepted the position of head of the government is like a
sacrificial offering because he won't be able to satisfy even half of the
population's demands.

Several others opposition sectors have said that the Platform did not know
that Aristide would have to leave the country and that it was taken by surprise.
In addition, it still has not submitted its "social contract" about which a
great deal of noise had been made and which was supposed to have propelled the
country forward on a new track.

The frustrations of the opposition Platform are also being expressed through
its appeals for the departure of what it calls "the forces of occupation".

"We wanted people to help us make Aristide leave, but we didn't ask for the
country to be occupied". Radio messages along these lines have been broadcast.

Another subject of major concern is that despite repeated calls for the
arrest of all the Lavalas leaders including Yvon Neptune, thousands of Aristide
supporters continue to take to the streets almost daily in port-au-Prince, to the
great disappointment of those who hoped that the American forces would help
them arrest all those whom they call "chimères".

This is why several opposition leaders have not ruled out the possibility
that they might examine whether one of the anti-Aristide rebel chiefs, Guy
Philippe, might once again take up arms.

In the mean time, five people were injured by gunshots Tuesday afternoon in
Delmas 67 (Port-au-Prince) where two homes were the target of shooting by
soldiers from the multinational force.

One of the victims said that some 30 soldiers carried out a raid in the area
and began shooting. The reasons behind these actions are for the moment
unknown.

It has also been reported that another confrontation took place Tuesday
evening between marines and armed men that ended with two of the armed men being
killed.

As to the six people killed during a demonstration Sunday by the opposition
Platform, the Miami Herald's edition of Tuesday, March 9, reported that the
investigators are not ruling out any theory in their investigation, including the
possibility that Guy Philippe's men might be involved.

The newspaper reports that immediately after the drama, a radio personality
whose name was not disclosed in the article, called on Guy Philippe to take up
arms to "provide security for the population".


AHP March 10, 2004 12:50 PM


------------------------------------------------------------------------

South Africa, the African Union and CARICOM call for an investigation by the
UN into the circumstances surrounding the departure of Aristide
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Port-au-Prince, March 10, 2004 -(AHP)- The Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs
of South Africa, Aziz Pahad, visited President Aristide Wednesday in the
central African Empire in order to obtain information regarding the circumstances in
which the Chief of State had to leave the country on February 29th.

For her part, the the South African Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mme Zouma,
indicated that she had received a call from her American counterpart, Colin
Powell, giving her his version of the facts.

The South Africans do not appear to be convinced by the American version
according to which Aristide left of his own volition and freely signed a letter of
resignation.

According to diverse sources, the fact that South Africa has asked for a
United Nations investigation proves that it has serious doubts.

The South African leaders are also in contact with CARICOM, whose member
states have similar doubts. Their desire is that light be shed on what Aristide's
lawyers have described as a modern coup d'etat.

The African Union had called Monday for an investigation under the aegis of
the United Nations to shed light on the conditions of Pres. Aristide's
departure, which the AU deems "unconstitutional". CARICOM also favors an
investigation by the UN.

In addition, the statements made February 29 by U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, that South Africa had refused to receive Jean Bertrand Aristide have
never been confirmed by Pretoria.

Sources have indicated that South African President Thabo Mbéki did not wish
to become complicit in an American operation against President Aristide by
immediately receiving him.

At the same time, Mr. Aristide's lawyer in France, Mr. Gilbert Collard,
announced Wednesday that a complaint will soon be filed against the French and U.S.
Ambassadors to Haiti, Thierry Burkard and James B. Foley, respectively, for
"abduction".

Mr. Gilbert Collard reaffirmed the accusations made by Jean Bertrand Aristide
over the airwaves of Radio France. Mr. Aristide said that he is the victim of
a modern coup d'etat.

The complaint also involves the former French Ambassador to Haiti, Yves
Gaudel, as well as writer Régis Debray and Véronique Albanel, who is the sister of
France's Foreign Affairs Minister, Dominique de Villepin .


AHP March 10, 2004 12:50 PM
-------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------

8. Stenographers to Power, US Press Torpedoes Aristide, by Mikje Whitney,
CounterPunch, March 10, 2004

"The unconstitutional removal of any leader cannot be condoned."

Percival Patterson, Caribbean Community President

The international community must not be seen to be wavering in its
commitment to democracy and respect for the rule of law, particularly
in the face of anti-democratic forces.

S. African Foreign Minister, Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma

"This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine."

Prospero; "the Tempest"

The most extraordinary part of the coup in Haiti was not the fact
that the Bush Administration was directly involved in the deposing of
a democratically elected leader. No, that type of criminal behavior
is almost a requirement of the office at this point in time. The real
surprise is that not one major newspaper in the country has spoken
out in favor of restoring Aristide to power.

This should be considered a positive development.

Many of us have tried to make the case that the major media are the
solitary province of corporate America, providing a world view that
tilts dramatically rightward and exclusively reports news that
doesn't infringe on their commercial interests. This can be a tough
sell. Many dismiss the notion as flagrantly conspiratorial.

The coup in Haiti proves otherwise.

The media has responded with such frightening uniformity that even
skeptics must be shocked.

Do we need to reiterate that the duly elected leader of the country,
Jean Bertrand Aristide, is now under virtual "house arrest" after
being trundled off in the middle of the night by an armed contingent
of US Marines?

Should we emphasize that he was elected by a margin of 92% by the
Haitian people in an election that was not contested, despite the
conspicuous attempts by the NY Times and the Associated Press to
create that impression? (In fact, only the Senatorial elections were
challenged; Aristide's election was never in doubt)

And yet these salient facts have made no impression on America's
recalcitrant press.

Perhaps, they have taken the Dick Cheney position that, "Aristide had
worn out his welcome."

Mr. Cheney should be grateful that that is not the accepted standard
for determining one's tenure in elected office.

Or, perhaps, our "free press" has adopted the Judith Miller
philosophy of journalism, "My job isn't to assess the government's
information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself."

Has there ever been a more apt description of a stenographer? The
only question we could possibly have for Miller is, "Were you sitting
on Rummy's lap when you were taking notes on the apocryphal tales
that led the country to war?"

But, Miller is no exception, and Haiti proves that. The entire media
system is rotten to its "capital-drunk" core.

The astonishing sameness of reporting on the details of the coup, and
the predictable omissions of any US involvement, would have impressed
the editors of Pravda. No brave soul has broken from the "party
line." No one dare speak out for something as inconsequential as
democracy.

Isn't it amazing that how similar the "corporate press" is to the
media in totalitarian states?

Joseph Pulitzer said it best, "A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press
will produce in time a people as base as itself."

'nuff said.

Mike Whitney can be reached at: fergiewhitney [at] msn.com


9. The Right to Intervene, by Norman Soloman, March 11, 2004

Between the Lines

Somewhere between military actions and economic sanctions on the one hand and
head-in-the-sand isolationism on the other, there is a middle ground that the
media never talk about.
If Mark Twain were living now instead of a century ago -- when he declared
himself "an anti-imperialist" and proclaimed that "I am opposed to having the
eagle put its talons on any other land" -- the famous writer's views would exist
well outside the frame of today's mainstream news media.
In the current era, it's rare for much ink or air time to challenge the right
of the U.S. government to directly intervene in other countries. Instead, the
featured arguments are about whether -- or how -- it is wise to do so in a
particular instance.It's not just a matter of American boots on the ground and
bombs from the sky. Much more common than the range of overt violence from U.S.
military actions is the process of deepening poverty from economic
intervention. Outside the media glare, Washington's routine policies involve pulling
financial levers to penalize nations that have leaders who displease the world's
only superpower.
In Haiti, abominable poverty worsened during the first years of the 21st
century while Uncle Sam blocked desperately needed assistance.
A former leading zealot for economic shock therapy, Jeffrey Sachs, was
insightful when he wrote in the March 1 edition of the Financial Times : "The crisis
in Haiti is another case of brazen U.S. manipulation of a small, impoverished
country with the truth unexplored by journalists." Among the unilluminated
realities: For years, the Bush administration has prevented aid from getting to
one of the poorest nations on the planet.
"The U.S. maintained its aid freeze, and the opposition (in Haiti) maintained
a veto over international aid," wrote Sachs, now an economics professor at
Columbia University. "Cut off from bilateral and multilateral financing, Haiti's
economy went into a tailspin."
With very little U.S. press coverage of such economic matters -- and,
likewise, scant attention to the collusion between the Bush administration and
disreputable opponents of the Aristide regime -- media acceptance of the current
U.S. military intervention in Haiti was predictable.
Prominent editorial carping hardly makes up for spun-out news coverage. And
in this case, the day after the coup that U.S. media typically refuse to call a
coup, the New York Times ran a lead editorial about Haiti on March 1 that
mostly let the Bush regime off the hook with a faint reproach.
The Bush administration, the Times editorialized, was "too willing to ignore
democratic legitimacy in order to allow the removal of a leader it disliked
and distrusted." The editorial faulted "Mr. Bush's hesitation" and went on to
say "it is deplorable that President Bush stood by" while men such as two
convicted murderers and an accused cocaine trafficker "took over much of Haiti." The
editorial's last sentence muted the critical tone, referring merely to
"mishandling of this crisis."
Even at its most vehement, the Times editorial accused the Bush
administration of inaction ("ignore" ... "hesitation" ... "stood by" ...
"mishandling"), as
though the gist of the problem was a kind of inept passivity -- rather than
calculated mendacity in the service of an interventionist agenda.
M eanwhile, also on March 1, the Times front page supplied an official story
in the guise of journalism. Failing to attribute a key anecdotal flourish to
any source -- while providing Washington's version of instantly historic events
-- the newspaper of record reported that Aristide "meekly asked the American
ambassador in Haiti through an aide whether his resignation would help the
country."
In the next day's edition of the Times , the front-page story about Haiti
included Aristide's contention that he'd been overthrown by the United States.
The headline over that article: "Haitian Rebels Enter Capital; Aristide Bitter."
Bitter.
Underneath such news and commentary runs powerful deference to Washington
policymakers, reinforcing interventionist prerogatives even when criticizing
their implementation. A basic underlying assumption that pervades media coverage
has been consistent -- the right to intervene. Not the wisdom of intervening,
but the ultimate right to do so.
In Port-au-Prince, on March 3, a long-unemployed plumber named Raymond
Beausejour made a profound comment to a New York Times reporter about the U.S.
Marines patrolling the city: "The last time they came they didn't do much. This is
not the kind of aid we need. They should help us build schools and clinics and
get jobs."
It's customary for news media to ignore Americans who unequivocally oppose
U.S. military interventions in -- to use Twain's phrase -- "any other land."
Journalists are inclined to dismiss such views as "isolationism." But the choice
is not between iron-fist actions and economic blackmail on the one hand and
self-absorbed indifference on the other. A truly humanitarian foreign policy,
offering no-strings assistance like food and medicine on a massive scale, is an
option that deserves to be part of the media discourse in the United States.
Norman Solomon is co-author of "Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell
You."


10. Haiti Coverage: Mainstream Media Fails Itself, by Peter Phillips,
CommonDreams, March 4, 2004


On February 29, Richard Boucher from the U.S. Department of State released a
press release claiming that Jean Bertrand Aristide had resigned as president
of Haiti and that the United State facilitated his safe departure. Within hours
the major broadcast news stations in the United States including CNN, Fox,
ABC, NBC, CBS, and NPR were reporting that Aristide had fled Haiti. An
Associated Press release that evening said "Aristide resigns, flees into exile." The
next day headlines in the major newspapers across the country, including the
Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times, and Atlanta Journal Constitution, all
announced "Aristide Flees Haiti." The Baltimore sun reported, "Haiti's first
democratically-elected president was forced to flee his country yesterday like
despots before him."
However on Sunday afternoon February 29, Pacific News network with reporters
live in Port-au-Prince Haiti were claiming that Aristide was forced to resign
by the US and taken out of the Presidential Palace by armed US marines. On
Monday morning Amy Goodman with Democracy Now! news show interviewed
Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Waters said she had received a phone call from Aristide
at
9:00 AM EST March 1 in which Aristide emphatically denied that he had resigned
and said that he had been kidnapped by US and French forces. Aristide made
calls to others including TransAfrica founder Randall Robinson, who verified
congresswomen Waters' report.
Mainstream corporate media was faced with a dilemma. Confirmed contradictions
to headlines reports were being openly revealed to hundreds of thousands of
Pacifica listeners nationwide. By Monday afternoon mainstream corporate media
began to respond to the charges. Tom Brokaw on NBC Nightly News, 6:30 PM
voiced, "Haiti in crisis. Armed rebels sweep into the capital as Aristide claims US
troops kidnapped him; forced him out. The US calls that nonsense." Fox News
Network with Brit Hume reported Colin Powell's comments, "He was not kidnapped.
We did not force him on to the airplane. He went on to the airplane willingly,
and that's the truth. Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call added,
"Aristide, .was a thug and a leader of thugs and ran his country into the
ground." The New York Times in a story buried on page 10 reported that "President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide asserted Monday that he had been driven from power in
Haiti by the United States in "a coup," an allegation dismissed by the White
House as "complete nonsense."
Mainstream media had a credibility problem. Their original story was openly
contradicted. The kidnap story could be ignored or back-paged as was done by
many newspapers in the US. Or it can be framed within the context of a US denial
and dismissed. Unfortunately, the corporate media seems not at all interested
in conducting an investigation into the charges, seeking witnesses, or
verifying contradictions. Nor is the mainstream media asking or answering the
question of why they fully accept the State Department's version of the coup in the
first place. Corporate media certainly had enough pre-warning to determine
that Aristide was not going to willingly leave the country. Aristide had been
saying exactly that for the past month during the armed attacks in the north of
Haiti. Aristide was interviewed on CNN February 26. He explained that the
terrorists, and criminal drug dealers were former members of the Front for the
Advancement and Progress of Haiti (FRAPH), which had led the coup in 1991 killing
5,000 people. Aristide believed that they would kill more people if a coup was
allowed to happen. It was also well known in media circles that the US
Undersecretary of State Roger Noriega for Latin America was a senior aide to former
Senator Jesse Helms, who as chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs committee
was a longtime backer of Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier and an opponent
of Aristide. These facts alone should have been a red flag regarding the State
Department's version.
As a former priest and liberation theologist, Jean Bertrand Aristide stood
for grassroots democracy, alleviation of poverty, and God's love for all human
beings. He challenged the neo-liberal globalization efforts of the Haitian
upper class and their US partners. For this he was targeted by the Bush
administration. That the US waited until the day after Aristide was gone to send in
troops to stabilize the country proves intent to remove him from office.
Mainstream media had every reason to question the State Department's version
of the coup in Haiti, but choose instead to report a highly doubtful cover
story. We deserve more from our media than their being stenographers for the
government. Weapons of mass destruction aside, we need a media that looks for the
truth and exposes the contradictions in the fabrications of the powerful.
Peter Phillips is a Professor of Sociology at Sonoma State University and
Director of Project Censored a media research organization.



11. Regime Change By Social Collapse: Canada, the US, and Haiti, by Kevin
Skerrett
In March of 2003, Canada's federal Liberal government broke with its
traditional support for US foreign policy by refusing significant pressure to join the
illegal bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq. Today, in early 2004, the
new Martin government is eager to demonstrate its enthusiasm for a renewal of
the Canada-US partnership, and the recent crisis in Haiti presented the first
significant foreign policy loyalty test for the Prime Minister. Would he
return to Canada's usual submission to US "leadership", or would he find a unique
Canadian path, as it has (historically) on Cuba? Are we heading for "deep
integration" or principled independent leadership?
This past weekend, the elected President of Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide,
has resigned. The recent history has been on the front pages: Faced with a
February 5th armed insurrection led by ex-death squad killers and veterans of the
disbanded Haitian army, Aristide began losing his grasp on significant parts
of the country, and this was followed by his complete abandonment by the US
and French governments. Aristide's resignation (willing or coerced, we may find
out in the coming weeks) came on Sunday, February 29th, provides a moment in
which to assess the "independence" of Canadian policy in the affair.
Interviewed on CBC radio this morning, the Jamaican minister of foreign affairs
referred to the forced resignation as the "33rd coup" in Haiti's history.
The stage for all of this was set a little over a week ago by the "peace"
agreement reached on Saturday, February 21st, with the involvement of US, Canada,
the OAS, and CARICOM - the organization of Caribbean states. The agreement
required of President Aristide the nomination of a new Prime Minister (from the
opposition, presumably) and the establishment of a new multi-party governing
council, to be composed of representatives from the political opposition.
Aristide immediately accepted the deal, and then by Tuesday, the armed "rebel"
groups (this is the media's term for the convicted killers set on a coup d'état)
rejected the "peace" deal outright, because Aristide's resignation was not a
part of it.
When this became clear, the stalemate was back and the governments of France
and the US, who never liked Aristide, unveiled what now appears to be the
unstated policy all along. The duo of Colin Powell and French Foreign Minister de
Villepin began inviting the resignation by Wednesday, and by Friday, Canada
followed suit, as Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham suggested Aristide
should "look at his responsibilities toward his people and say: 'Look, it would be
better that…I leave.'" With Aristide's resignation on Sunday, Graham, and
Paul Martin, now have their wish. But by chiming in their agreement with the
US/France position, Canada has turned its back on its more independent foreign
policy, particularly regarding Haiti, despite it being a country that "Canada
has traditionally considered one of its key areas of foreign-policy expertise."
The rationale for this shift, presumably, is the basic acceptance of the
outrageously distorted picture of Haiti drawn by the Associated Press - the
dominant source of Canadian news coverage, incorporated deeply into reporting from
assigned correspondents such as the Globe's Paul Knox and Canwest's Sue
Montgomery. That picture, and the story underneath, is a cartoon of civil strife in
a desperately poor country, confusing and unexplained political divisions, an
"embattled" recalcitrant leader, and the supposedly "humanitarian" role of the
international community - the US and Canada in particular. Such misleading
images are then complemented by the ugly, racist tinge found in the commentary
from far-right cold warriors such as Canwest's George Jonas. In his only
recent column devoted to Haiti, he drew an odious comparison of watching events in
Haiti to watching "a pack of hyenas fighting over a carcass," - an analogy
never made, as far as I know, with the strife Northern Ireland.
This ugly, slightly racist picture was further poisoned on Saturday by the
Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren, who sneered on Saturday that despite past
colonial efforts to civilize and democratize the country, "no real progress
has been made in creating a people who are susceptible to self-government."
For Warren, and no small number of the mainstream "expert" Haiti-watchers, this
is the problem - the people. And the people, in this case, are black.
The aid embargo on Haiti
It does not take much digging to discover that this picture is not only
racist but profoundly simplistic. For example, while regularly commenting on
Haiti's profound poverty, and on Aristide's supposed "failure to deliver the good"
that he promised, nowhere in the Canadian press can we find a serious
examination of the financial strangulation imposed on Haiti through the four-year
US/EU aid and loan embargo. This devastating policy has stalled some $650 million
promised through the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and other sources
since 2000, and to varying degrees prior to that. The human rights group
MADRE points out that the US froze transfers designed to "pay for safe drinking
water, literacy programs and health services." In effect, this embargo has
starved the Aristide government of promised, crucial, life-saving funds, and
transformed development finance and humanitarian aid into a vicious political
weapon - not very differently from the sanctions that destroyed the social
infrastructure of Iraq in the 1990s. A similar humanitarian catastrophe has been
brewing in Haiti, with few in the "civilized West" (or North) either noticing, or
really caring much.
The rationale for this US embargo draws from a dispute over Aristide's
democratic legitimacy - the elections of 2000. The Associated Press, and the
right-wing Aristide haters from both the Republican party and the media, sloppily
refer to "sham", "rigged", or "fraudulent" elections of that year. Canadian
reporting has been marginally better, referring more often to "flawed" 2000
elections, and then providing a quote from the political opposition complaining of
fraud and corruption. No one in the mainstream North American press has taken
the simple step of explaining the actual nature of the dispute, nor the
efforts of President Aristide and his government to resolve it.
There are, however, a number of independent and credible sources that provide
this information, including the group MADRE quoted above, the Council on
Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), TransAfrica Forum, the Democratic Black Caucus, and
several writers for Z Magazine. In summary, the disputed elections were
actually the senatorial elections of May, 2000, that had followed years of previous
electoral disputes and boycotts. MADRE point out that in 17 of the 18
contested Senatorial districts, Aristide's Lavalas Family party candidates were
declared the winner, when in fact the method of calculating the winners in 8 of the
18 contested districts (on a plurality, rather than majority basis) was
incorrect.
In response, Aristide asked for the resignations of the senators involved,
and attempted to establish a new electoral commission, but was stonewalled by an
opposition that simply continued to demand his resignation - and continued to
do so ever since, with US encouragement, funding, and support. The November
2000 presidential elections were boycotted by the major opposition groups,
which meant that Aristide won them handily - and was recognized as the
democratically elected leader by President Clinton and the rest of the international
community. Jeffrey Sachs has written a complete repudiation of the standard
election narrative, suggesting that "objective observers declared the elections
broadly successful, albeit flawed."
However, the newly "elected" Bush administration, no stranger to electoral
counting disputes themselves, exercised a grotesque hypocrisy by using the
controversy as an excuse for a full aid and loan embargo.
What has been the Canadian government's response to this US policy?
Interestingly, Canada's Haiti policy has had similarities with its policy on Cuba. In
the face of the US-led (EU supported) embargo, Canada has quietly maintained
an ongoing bilateral aid relationship with the Aristide government, disbursing
over $18 million in 2001/2002. Of course, such modest efforts are likely to
have been more than undermined by the embargo - yet this has yet to be
mentioned by any Canadian politicians, or the press. This utter failure to exercise
moral leadership and independence by exposing the criminal behaviour of the
US and shedding light on the nature of this electoral dispute has now drawn
international criticism. The Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) has been one
of the few truly independent voices on Haiti, and has condemned Graham for
"dragging Canada back to its traditional roost of "me-tooism" when it comes to
U.S.-sponsored initiatives." In their analysis of the election dispute, they
point out that, contrary to the Canadian suggestion that President Aristide has
not lived up to his commitments,
…Aristide has accepted every condition pressed upon him by CARICOM, the US
and the OAS. The bedrock problem regarding Haiti is that the country's
opposition refuses to negotiate with Aristide and will not consider taking up their
seat on the Provisional Electoral Council, without which no elections can be
held.
Interestingly, the generally anti-Aristide National Post ran a column that
admitted that whatever the "dubious" character of the 2000 elections "few doubt
[Aristide] would have won them anyway". The writer notes that direct
intervention aimed at "forcing him from office would look a lot like a putsch against
a legitimate leader." Of course, this helps us to understand the financial
strangulation strategy. The Canadian media has chosen to ignore all of this,
presumably because it muddies the simpler picture of Haiti described above -
and suggests the possibility of different, perhaps less humanitarian motives
behind US and Canadian policy.
Who is the "democratic opposition" in Haiti?
A third serious failing of our media coverage is the scanty detail provided
about the character, leadership, and political orientation of the supposed
"democratic opposition" to Aristide (as opposed to the armed thugs). One
important branch of the opposition movement, the Group 184 that is often quoted on the
CBC and in the Associated Press, is led by the American sweatshop owner André
Apaid, and he and the various elements of his "Democratic Convergence" have
long been beneficiaries of direct financial and diplomatic support from the US
and France. Neither country ever liked or trusted Aristide's leftwing
populism, his demand for reparations from France, or his 1996 decision to extend
diplomatic recognition to Cuba. They and the other groups comprising the
Democratic Platform are largely derived from the small, lighter-skinned Haitian ruling
elite that dominated Haiti under the notorious Duvalier dictatorships. Many
were also directly involved in the military coup that unseated Aristide in
1991, following the landslide election win that brought him 67% of the vote. It
is worth remembering that the US-supported candidate, World Bank economist
Marc Bazin, received only 14% of the vote that year. None of us should be
surprised if Bazin, who once served as finance minister under "Baby Doc" Duvalier,
and who understand "economics", is once again dragged out as a possible
replacement for Aristide within the next few weeks.
Having said all of this, it is important to recognize that there has been
growing disaffection with Aristide, and in recent weeks some leaders of popular
organizations that were either past supporters or politically neutral began to
join in the opposition call for his resignation. This is hardly surprising,
given that one of the conditions of his reinstallment by US troops in 1994 was
the abandonment of his populist and redistributive program, and the acceptance
of a World Bank/IMF structural adjustment package. These neoliberal policies
included requirements of layoffs of government employees, austerity measures,
and devastating cuts to the tariff structure protecting Haiti's relatively
efficient rice industry (among others). At the same time, it appears as though
Aristide has attempted to retain some elements of a redistributive program.
As MADRE argues,
Aristide has tried to walk a line between US demands for neoliberal reforms
and his own commitment to a progressive economic agenda. As a result, he has
lost favour with parts of his own political base and Haitian and US elites.
When this incendiary brew of discontent caught fire in recent weeks, many
quite understandable began to say "enough". Moreover, there has unquestionably
been documented human rights problems, reports from the ICFTU of attacks on
"opposition" trade unionists (i.e. those working with the opposition to force
Aristide's resignation), and other reports that progressives will rightly abhor.
Aristide has much to answer for, to be sure. Nonetheless, it is worth noting
that when a qualitatively higher level of abuses are carried by regimes
favoured by the White House (Colombia, Turkey, the list could go on), the response
is to send the government more weapons.
Canadian workers know the wrenching effects of so-called "free trade"
policies, and the unemployment and dislocation they bring. But bringing these same
free market policies to the poorest nation in the hemisphere, and then
compounding them with a crushing aid and loan embargo (on a government with an annual
budget of some $300 million US), was simply murderous. Paul Farmer, an
American doctor who has worked in Haiti for many years, wrote last year that the
"embargo has targeted the northern hemisphere's most vulnerable population, the
poorest people with the most fragile economy, ecology and society." The need
for improvements, he reports, is desperate, given that "there are only 1.2
doctors, 1.3 nurses, and 0.4 dentists for every 10,000 Haitians…And 40% of people
have no access to any primary healthcare, while HIV and tuberculosis rates
are by far the highest in Latin America." Of course, genuinely attempting to
address these problems through the state would violate the usual World Bank/IMF
proscriptions against public services and social expenditure. What feeble
efforts he has made to balance the impact of IMF austerity have him dismissed by
writers in the Wall Street Journal as a "crazy Marxist."
Regardless, Aristide had no money with which to attempt such programs anyway,
and Canada's feeble, quiet bilateral efforts have been more than undone by
the great "partner" with whom we seek "deeper integration." Of course, neither
Bill Graham nor Paul Martin have ever mentioned any of this publicly, nor
should we expect them to very soon. There is a missile defense program to be
joined, and a new Prime Minister wanting desperately to rebuild our pre-Iraq
camaraderie.
So gradually, the murky media picture begins to clarify - regime change by
social collapse. The suggestion has, in fact, been made. Many Canadians would
probably be surprised to learn that Congresswoman Barbara Lee (of the
Congressional Black Caucus, not coincidentally) has spent years denouncing what the
Bush government's policy of financial strangulation, arguing that the
"administration has decided to leverage political change in a member country by
embargoing loans that the Bank has a contractual obligation to disburse."
Interestingly, presidential candidate John Kerry offered further elaboration last
week w
hen he was asked about the motivation behind the Bush Administration's
punishing Haiti policy. "They hate Aristide", he answered, in a meeting with the
editors of the New York Times. Going one step further, Kerry unveils more bluntly
what he thinks has really happened, suggesting that the Bush White House
"sort of created the environment within which the insurgency could grow, take
root."
History Doomed to Repeat?
Watching what has happened to Haiti in the past few weeks, it is hard not to
recall obvious previous parallels, such as US-sponsored terror campaign of the
1980s against the similarly left-populist Sandinista government of Nicaragua
under President Daniel Ortega. After years of "contra" rebels terror, the
population of Nicaragua cried "uncle" and voted the Sandinistas out in 1990.
Other examples of regime change in Latin America abound: Panama, 1990; Chile,
1973; Guatemala, 1954. More recently, the US moved quickly to try to provide
support for the similarly anti-democratic coup against the left-populist Hugo
Chavez of Venezuela in April, 2002 - but were embarrassed to discover (again)
the depth of Chavez' popular support. There appears more reason than ever to
watch developments in Haiti carefully, never keeping our eyes too far from the
continuing struggle in Venezuela, and - the real prize for Bush - Cuba.
Kevin Skerrett is a trade union researcher active in Ottawa's Nowar-paix
(http://www.nowar-paix.ca).


12. U.S. Rules of Engagement Shift in Haiti by Peter Slevin, Washington Post,
March 11, 2004



U.S. Marines sent to quell violence in Haiti have received new orders to
seize guns from Haitians they encounter on patrol and to open fire, if necessary,
to prevent further killings, the senior American commander in the region said
yesterday.
The formal rule changes are designed to deter violence and protect 2,500
foreign peacekeeping troops from gunmen waging a brutal power struggle in the
aftermath of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's resignation, said Gen. James T.
Hill, chief of the U.S. Southern Command.
"These gunmen posed a threat to our forces," Hill told reporters at the
Pentagon. "Any loss of life is regrettable, but we will simply not tolerate acts of
violence against our multinational forces or innocent Haitians."
Hill outlined a more aggressive approach than the Pentagon first signaled
when President Bush dispatched troops last week to help restore order to the
scarred Caribbean nation. U.S. commanders, hopeful the presence of U.S. troops in
battle gear would calm the city, had declined to say whether Marines would try
to control street violence.
But the violence, including revenge killing and looting, has continued since
the Marines landed. Hill said U.S. troops on patrol have been fired upon "a
handful of times." Three attacks occurred Tuesday night, when Marines killed two
Haitians who had fired at them, a military spokesman said.
Ongoing bloodshed and the assertive tactics outlined by Hill illustrate the
perils faced by the White House in a military mission that did not exist two
weeks ago when Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was still trying to persuade
Aristide and the democratic opposition to accept a power-sharing arrangement.
The U.S. administration, which had long channeled its efforts through the
Organization of American States and the Caribbean Community, hoped to establish a
cease-fire among armed gangs and end years of stalemate between the
authoritarian Aristide and the political figures who demanded his ouster.
The opposition refused to go along, however, and unaligned rebel groups vowed
to overthrow Aristide by force if he did not resign. As the rebels advanced
and U.S. critics called for action, the administration reversed course and
urged Aristide to resign for the good of his country. He fled on Feb. 29.
Bush deployed Marines to Haiti to work alongside forces from France, Canada
and Chile, as well as Haiti's overwhelmed police. When the Marines arrived,
Hill said, U.S. commanders authorized their units to do whatever was necessary to
protect themselves when they felt threatened, including seize weapons.
The orders were expanded and made more explicit in recent days to cover
encounters at any time with armed Haitians who are not members of an authorized
security force. The U.S. troops need not feel threatened before acting, Hill said
he told his principal commander in Haiti by video conference yesterday.
"As his forces move through Port-au-Prince and they encounter any armed
Haitian," Hill said, "they are to take that weapon from that Haitian unless he has
a valid permit by Haitian law and is in the process of conducting some valid
security job."
Hill said it was clear from the start that "no one from the multinational
force going in was going to stand there and watch one Haitian kill another
Haitian without trying to intervene in that."
Hill discussed a wide array of armed gangs in the city, ranging from Aristide
opponents to militant followers of the former president, who contends he was
forced from office by the Bush administration, a charge U.S. officials deny.
"We are in negotiations with some of those groups, trying to get them to
voluntarily lay down their arms," said Hill, who reported that Haitian authorities
are working with foreign forces on disarmament.
Some Aristide loyalists, demanding that he be returned to power, declared
yesterday that they would not support interim Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, a
former foreign minister selected by a U.S.-backed committee of eminent Haitians.
Latortue, a 69-year-old Aristide critic, returned to Haiti yesterday from
Florida. He will replace Yvon Neptune, an Aristide lieutenant whose house was
gutted by opponents of the former government.
It was near Neptune's house, said Maj. Richard Crusan, a U.S. military
spokesman, that Haitians fired on a Marine patrol Tuesday night. The Marines fired
back, killing at least two gunmen, he said.
Another Haitian was shot Sunday after he opened fire on an anti-Aristide
demonstration. Marines shot a fourth man when he allegedly raced toward a U.S.
checkpoint in the capital, Port-au-Prince.
Describing Haiti as "a nation of violence for many, many, many, many years,"
Hill said weapons on the street include "everything from rusted M-1s to
top-of-the-line Uzis." He said international forces, working with Haitian police,
would try to locate and seize caches of weapons.
CIA Director George J. Tenet warned this week that the situation in Haiti
remains "very fluid," leaving the possibility of a "humanitarian disaster or mass
migration." He noted that anti-Aristide rebels still control much of the
country and have not honored earlier promises to surrender their guns.
"What concerns me is the possibility that the interim government, backed by
international forces, will have trouble establishing order," Tenet told