October 2, 1991: The Day The US Spoke Erroneously Right

Nicolo Machiavelli’s The Prince illustrates the three essential abilities for a prince to govern: to redirect others to his own advantage, to manipulate resources, and to have the opportunity to access power. The United States of America undeniably has these three making it a master of political power play.

This shows in USA’s meddling in the current war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Matt Swagler, in his Behind the War in Congo, concludes that the strife in Congo is a “logical outcome of intervention by Western governments and profit-seeking corporations.” He asserts that the USA is fuelling both sides of the conflict to protect mining interests in the country. Swagler explains:

"Even if the U.S. could…guarantee a more stable environment … instability since 1994 has actually been the means by which many foreign profiteers have been able to move into the region…Ernest Wamba Dia Wamba states…"many neighboring countries would rather prefer having a weak Congo around, especially if they can even benefit from…the looting of resources in the Congo."

Congo is just one country exploited by the USA. The infamous 1974 Kissinger Report is a study made by USA on 13 countries (i.e. India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, etc) regarding population control. It explicitly details how a big population in these developing countries, where “special U.S. political and strategic interests” are present, could interrupt the smooth flow of materials from the said countries to the USA. The report recommended a population management program to be largely promoted in the 13 countries. It even discussed how the United Nations could be used to cover up the scheme.

For so many years, the USA had been an adept power player and had been getting away with it, but as the proverbial saying goes, “a fish is caught by its mouth.” On October 2, 1991, then U.S. Secretary of State James Bakes delivered a speech in front of the Organization of American States (OAS):

"This junta is illegal. Until President Aristide's government is restored, this junta will be treated as a pariah, without friends, without support, and without a future. This coup must not and will not succeed. It is imperative that we agree for the sake of Haitian democracy and the cause of democracy throughout the hemisphere, to act collectively to defend the legitimate government of President Aristide.”

The remark was made after Haiti’s first democratically elected President Jean Bertrand-Aristide asked for U.S. aid following a violent coup d’état. Then U.S. President George H. W. Bush even backed Baker’s call for Aristide’s reinstatement. There was also an attempt by the OAS to broker an agreement between Armed Forces Chief Lt General Raoul Cedras, the man in control of the junta, and Aristide but it was scrapped the deposed president at the last moment.

Nevertheless, the October 2 declaration proved to be a mere propaganda to avoid the indignation of Aristide’s substantial supporters, largely from Haiti’s urban poor. As events developed on October 5 and 6, the U.S. began humming a different tune. Kim Ives, in his opus, The Unmaking of a President, opines:

Most likely, Baker and Bush…supported Aristide's return in that first week after the coup so as not to challenge the shock and indignation of Haitians and other Latin Americans against so brazen and ille¬gal an ouster. But, in concert with the press, the U.S. government soon began tempering its call. "It is the rule of democracy that we support," White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater announced on October 7.

Apparently, U.S. intervention did not stop there as it was, several years later, revealed that the U.S. had a hand in the coup:

“Emmanuel Constant (founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad whose goal is to stifle support for Aristide) is widely alleged, and himself claims, to have been in the pay of, and under the orders of, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the coup period.”

U.S. interest in Haiti is unclear but it would be well to note that Aristide’s administration was stopped at the height of his crusade against the aristocrats and the military officers who subjected Haiti under dictatorship, preceding Aristide’s rule. He was absorbed in weeding out these elite members that he even created a quasi-militia. He also promoted to high positions enlisted officers bypassing the military promotion system. This effectively earned the status of a dictator.

This status placed a threat to Haiti’s struggle for democracy. The USA, undisputable champion of liberal democracy, had to intervene to promote the western ideology. Edward Sullivan, then a Member of the Assembly, 69th Dist. Albany, writes to the editor of the New York Times:

A stable, democratic Haiti, developing economically, could be a lively trade partner of the United States, bringing profit to both countries.

It was also in the interest of U.S. that it tried to put on the reins on the junta that it allegedly constructed. In its bid to impose upon Haiti liberal democracy, the Clinton Administration supported a call by the U.N. Security Council to deploy 1 200 soldiers to help in the restoration of democracy. However, as The Progressive, a Haitian newspaper, pointed out in its 1993 editorial, the USA also extended protection for the military officers leading the junta should they choose to step down.

In all these events that transpired, it is crystal clear that USA knows what it wants and knows how to get it. The October 2, 1991 speech showed us how powerful U.S. could lay claim and adjudicate on international issues and be heard. It is also one standing proof of U.S. feel for the pulse of the public. Baker in his speech spoke erroneously right. Right in the sense that it was the most appropriate words to say at the political situation haunting Haiti; erroneous in that it contradicts itself and its next step.

The October 2 statement is a flagrant evidence of USA’s mastery of the political game.