In 2003, the Ottawa Initiative was held in Montreal. The purpose of the conference was to decide the future of Haiti’s government, though no members of the Haitian government were invited to participate. Canadian, American, French, and select Latin American officials were present, but no Haitians. It was, in essence, the first meeting of the conspirators that would carry out the 2004 coup d’etat against the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Two months later, journalist Michel Vastel leaked information about the conference in an article in L’actualité. In it he asserted that conversations were held about the removal of Aristide and the reinstatement of a military regime. While his source, Denis Paradis, would later deny that he leaked the information, the article was never retracted by the magazine.

A year later, the United States, Canada, and France cooperated in an operation that would see Aristide removed from power. Among their assets, which included known drug lords and arms profiteers, was the newly named “National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti”, more commonly known prior to that as “The Cannibal Army”. In September of 2003, the leader of the group, Amiot Metayer, was found dead, his eyes shot out and his heart brutally removed. His brother, Buteur Metayer, immediately claimed the government responsible, vowing vengeance, and set the coup in motion. The group began occupying various Haitian towns, working its way towards the capital. With the ‘rebels’ mere miles from Port-au-Prince, Aristide was whisked to the airport by US operatives. During this portion of the operation, Canadian special forces, JTF2, were charged with securing and holding the airport. In the end, Aristide was flown to the Central African Republic via Antigua and Bangui.

It all appeared so clean. Under threat, the United States, as if the cavalry, had shown up at the last minute to whisk Aristide to safety.

While much of the media and members of the Bush Administration asserted that Aristide voluntarily left the country, interviews with him, and others, have since revealed that not to be the case, that he was, in truth, forced into exile having never stepped down. Besides the detailed work “Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment” by Peter Hallward, Naomi Klein’s interview with Aristide in 2005 sheds a great deal of light on the reality of what occurred…

“It was only ten years ago that President Clinton celebrated Aristide’s return to power as “the triumph of freedom over fear.” So what changed? Corruption? Violence? Fraud? Aristide is certainly no saint. But even if the worst of the allegations are true, they pale next to the rap sheets of the convicted killers, drug smugglers and arms traders who ousted Aristide and continue to enjoy free rein, with full support from the Bush Administration and the UN. Turning Haiti over to this underworld gang out of concern for Aristide’s lack of “good governance” is like escaping an annoying date by accepting a lift home from Charles Manson.

A few weeks ago I visited Aristide in Pretoria, South Africa, where he lives in forced exile. I asked him what was really behind his dramatic falling-out with Washington. He offered an explanation rarely heard in discussions of Haitian politics–actually, he offered three: “privatization, privatization and privatization.”

The dispute dates back to a series of meetings in early 1994, a pivotal moment in Haiti’s history that Aristide has rarely discussed. Haitians were living under the barbaric rule of Raoul Cédras, who overthrew Aristide in a 1991 US-backed coup. Aristide was in Washington and despite popular calls for his return, there was no way he could face down the junta without military back-up. Increasingly embarrassed by Cédras’s abuses, the Clinton Administration offered Aristide a deal: US troops would take him back to Haiti–but only after he agreed to a sweeping economic program with the stated goal to “substantially transform the nature of the Haitian state.”

Aristide agreed to pay the debts accumulated under the kleptocratic Duvalier dictatorships, slash the civil service, open up Haiti to “free trade” and cut import tariffs on rice and corn in half. It was a lousy deal but, Aristide says, he had little choice. “I was out of my country and my country was the poorest in the Western hemisphere, so what kind of power did I have at that time?”

But Washington’s negotiators made one demand that Aristide could not accept: the immediate sell-off of Haiti’s state-owned enterprises, including phones and electricity. Aristide argued that unregulated privatization would transform state monopolies into private oligarchies, increasing the riches of Haiti’s elite and stripping the poor of their national wealth. He says the proposal simply didn’t add up: “Being honest means saying two plus two equals four. They wanted us to sing two plus two equals five.”

Aristide proposed a compromise: Rather than sell off the firms outright, he would “democratize” them. He defined this as writing antitrust legislation, insuring that proceeds from the sales were redistributed to the poor and allowing workers to become shareholders. Washington backed down, and the final text of the agreement–accepted by the United States and by a meeting of donor nations in Paris–called for the “democratization” of state companies.

But when Aristide began to implement the plan, it turned out that the financiers in Washington thought his democratization talk was just public relations. When Aristide announced that no sales could take place until Parliament had approved the new laws, Washington cried foul. Aristide says he realized then that what was being attempted was an “economic coup.”
“The hidden agenda was to tie my hands once I was back and make me give for nothing all the state public enterprises.” He threatened to arrest anyone who went ahead with privatizations. “Washington was very angry at me. They said I didn’t respect my word, when they were the ones who didn’t respect our common economic policy.”

So what now?

With MINUSTAH (The United Nations Stabilization Mission In Haiti) proving to be ineffective, not to mention being accused by various human rights groups of collaborating with local authorities in various questionable activities, the arrival of some 10,000 US troops in Haiti to assist in relief efforts could very well present an opportunity. Despite the fact that a serious tragedy has occurred, the opportunity that it presents is surely not lost on those that, some six years ago, colluded in the overthrow of Aristide’s government – even though the UN force in Haiti has spent much of its time dealing with the very same notorious elements that were employed during it.

With the death toll rising, and the very real possibility of a humanitarian crisis developing, Haiti has been reduced to little more than a shell. Its government is, at this point, useless – which is saying something being that it wasn’t particularly effective prior to the earthquake. In short, it is in the perfect state to take advantage of without having to wade into otherwise murky waters.

January 15, 2010

A new report at Alternet examines the troubling prophetic beliefs of ex-President George Bush in the run up to the Iraq war…

“In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.”

[…]

“Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.

The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse Palace, baffled by Bush’s words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university’s review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.”

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”. Interestingly, who else has been accused of spewing that sort of nonsense over the last eight years and claimed dangerous because of it?

May 26, 2009 Leave a Comment

It’s been fifteen years since some 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis and moderate Hutus were systematically killed in 100 days by members of the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi militias – both of whom were directed by the Akazu, an informal Hutu organization consisting of influential Rwandans within the government and armed forces that opposed any sort of governmental power sharing structure with Tutsis.

If President Juvénal Habyarimana’s assassination was the incident that ignited the genocide, the fact that French troops airlifted Agathe Habyarimana and thirty other members of the Akazu out of the country gives credence to Philip Gourevitch’s investigative research that the Akazu were responsible for President Juvénal Habyarimana’s assassination, which would include the complicity of his wife and the highly influential Colonel Théoneste Bagosora. In truth, the French were responsible for arming Rwandan Government Forces who then, in turn, trained and equipped the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi.

There is no questioning that the world turned its back on Rwanda. Preoccupied with events in the Balkans, even the United Nations undermined its own peacekeeping operation in the country. The commander of that operation (UNAMIR) was Canadian General Roméo Dallaire who would be so haunted by what he perceived as his inability to protect innocent life that he attempted to take his own in 2000 despite the fact that the efforts of the skeleton force left him saved the lives of some 30,000 people.

Not surprisingly, the statements made by Ban Ki-moon and President Paul Kagame this week have been, in my opinion, rife with hypocrisies. The UN’s failure during those 100 days continues to highlight the unwillingness of the international community to act at a time when they were more than willing to intervene in the Balkans – a reality that speaks to the value of political, and perhaps even racial, priorities rather than the safeguarding of life itself. The Security Council could have done more, but chose not to, and France’s position as a permanent member should certainly not be disregarded given their support of the Rwandan government at the time. That said, Britain and the United States cannot be overlooked either being that Kagame was, at the time, the head of the Rwandan Patriotic Front. While the RPF’s military advance was the primary factor that led to the end of the killings, the fact that Kagame received military training at Fort Leavenworth in 1990, and that the RPF was trained and received logistical support from the British and Americans, speaks to a much broader US/UK regional agenda – one that would later be emphasized by the fact that the RPF received training from US Special Forces in the years that followed and, in 1996, were used in the military campaign to overthrow the government of Zaire. Beyond that there are also accusations that the US and UK have shielded Kagame, and the RPF, from prosecution regarding crimes of their own.

What happened during those 100 days outside of Rwanda had a significant impact on what occurred inside of it. Politics, at the end of the day, helped seal the fate of almost 1 million innocent people. The United States, for example, actually opened a dialogue with those leading the genocide but no action was taken. They also lobbied for the complete withdraw of UN forces in Rwanda in April, with then Secretary of State Warren Christopher disallowing US officials to use the term ‘genocide’ until he finally employed the term at the end of May. Three weeks would pass before any other US official would term what had occurred as ‘genocide’. Confirmation of this information is, if you can believe it, easily attainable. Simply visit George Washington University’s National Security Archive.

Taken from your home in the middle of the night you are hacked to death in your front yard. Maybe your daughter or wife is raped and then killed, or taken to some cage where they are repeatedly raped to death. The same fate befalls the young couple next door, the old man across the street, your relatives in other parts of the country. It is all beyond reason and madness comes nowhere near describing it. Not even evil is a strong enough word.

We are, in the end, but the sum of our inactions. Hate is not, nor will it ever be, something that can be defeated by bombs or bullets. Hate blossoms where cowardice reigns and courage is martyred Vaudevillian.

April 9, 2009 22 Comments

Following up on an entry I wrote yesterday about the collision between the HMS Vanguard and the Le Triomphant – it seems that the collision took place in the mid-Atlantic on February 6th, raising questions by some as to what the boats were doing there. Again, as I suggested yesterday, the two ballistic missile submarines could have been carrying out an exercise, which would explain the location and why both countries are claiming it a ‘random accident’. That said, there is the chance that the two simply collided in a freak occurrence. Subs of that sophistication possess some of the most sophisticated passive sonar in the world – but they are also designed to be extremely difficult to detect. Another factor to take into consideration is the size and therefore limited maneuverability of boomers. The HMS Vanguard, which is the lead boat in her class in the British navy, is some 150 meters in length, or approximately 164 yards, and 15,680 tons displaced submerged. Put into perspective, that’s the length of an entire NFL football field plus over half of another one.

While I touched on the power of the vessels yesterday with regards to their capabilities, to put it in layman’s terms, the two boats were armed with missiles that could produce the equivalent of 1,248 Hiroshima’s. As has been British policy since the 1960’s, the Royal Navy keeps at least one ballistic missile submarine on station 365 days a year.

February 17, 2009 8 Comments

First, a message to Roy who was texting me while watching the Gunners play Cardiff at The Emirates. You’re a BASTARD!

Now that that’s out of my system, on with it…

The American naval slang term given a ballistic missile submarine is ‘boomer’ (US designation SSBN). While there are a variety of different classes of nuclear submarines – fast attack boats (US designation SSN) and cruise missile boats (US designation SSGN) – ballistic missile submarines are the largest of their kind due to their function and use within a nation’s nuclear deterrent infrastructure. In truth, boomers are the most deadly of all nuclear delivery options given their global maneuverability and ability to shower multiple targets from close proximity. In short, you could park a ballistic missile submarine off the coast of Iran and strike various targets within that country with multiple warheads within so slight a timeframe as to ensure basically no warning. The nuclear compliment of a US SSBN is 24 Trident II missiles. Under the auspices of SORT, each missile is limited to 4 to 5 warheads, though they have the ability to carry 12 MIRV warheads. Were the entire compliment used on a single target it would possess enough destructive power to produce a 24 x 3.8 megaton event. By comparison, the nuclear weapon dropped on Hiroshima was 13-18 kilotons. In short, a single SSBN could wipe Tehran off the face of the earth.

One of the deadliest features of the ballistic missile submarine, besides its nuclear compliment, is its ability to stay submerged for extreme periods of time and the strategic value that that reality presents. The Russian Typhoon class, for example, can remain submerged without requiring resupply for periods lasting up to six months.

Ballistic missile submarines are propelled by nuclear powered twin screws which, like anything underwater, have a signature sound. Because of this, nuclear submarines employ some of the most advanced sonar in the world, which is used for both navigational purposes as well as the detection of surface and other submerged vessels. Modern boats also have the ability to communicate via satellite with naval commands employing ELF and VLF frequencies, allowing them to remain at specific depths and therefore undetected.

Throughout their history there have been a few incidents involving nuclear submarines which have almost produced catastrophic results. Perhaps the most famous was the 1961 accident aboard a Soviet K-19 operating south of Greenland in which a major leak occurred in the boat’s reactor coolant system sending its reactor temperature skyrocketing to almost 800 degrees centigrade, which is the thermal point at which fuel rods begin to melt. Given that the boat, which was hurried into service, was put to sea lacking any back-up cooling system, the boat’s crew were forced to deal with the situation knowing that they may very well be forfeiting their lives in the process. Ultimately, seven of them did. The boat’s Captain, Nikolai Zateyev, rightly worried that if the boat were to produce a nuclear event that it might be misinterpreted by the United States as a preemptive strike. In 2006 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, an honour he shared with his crew, for the actions taken during the incident.

I mention all of this because today both the French and British governments publicly acknowledged that two of their ballistic missile submarines, the HMS Vanguard and the Le Triomphant, were involved in a collision, though both countries refused to divulge when exactly the incident occurred. According to representatives from both nations, the collision occurred at very low speed (both boats are capable of achieving speeds of 25 knots) and that the incident only produced minor damage to both boats. But as Stephen Saunders, a retired British Royal Navy Commodore and naval expert, commented…

“This really shouldn’t have happened at all. It’s a very serious incident and I find it quite extraordinary. The whole point is to go and hide in a big chunk of ocean and not be found. They tend to go around very slowly and not make much noise.”

Angus Robertson, a member of Scotland’s National Party commented…

“[Prime Minister Brown] needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world’s second-largest ocean.”

The answer is probably very simple – exercises. First, Saunder’s mention of ‘noise’ is something that has to be taken into consideration. Were either boat moving within the radius of the other’s sonar, which as I mentioned is some of the most advanced in the world, they would have been detected. This raises the question as to whether or not one of the boats was in the other’s baffles at the time and the collision was the result of one drifting into the back of the other. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least were that the case, as mention that both boats were operating at slow speeds could account for it, especially if the exercise was specifically devoted to detection related to positioning.

In truth, that seems the most likely reason, as allies operating in such close proximity would surely notify each other of that fact. Added to that is the afore mentioned reality that the likelihood that they were simply creeping around at slow speed somewhere in the Atlantic and happened to run into one another is extremely unlikely, even given the very closely guarded position of missile boats. There are, of course, other explanations, such as inclement surface weather were both operating at a shallow depth, but even that seems a stretch to be honest. Even though subs are difficult to detect, they are not entirely silent unless their engines are disengaged, their crews and internal operations ordered silenced, and they’re drifting. Added to that, there is absolutely no cause for an allied sub to follow another in its wake in an attempt to remain undetected, unless, of course, it was concerned about revealing its position to another nation, even if an allied one.

I am, by no means, an expert though, just someone that has always been fascinated with submarines.

February 16, 2009 15 Comments