Talk:2004 Haitian rebellion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Caribbean
Caribbean Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Caribbean, and areas of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

The article really feels like just Aristide propaganda, leftist and anti-West. Maybe it is right, but it need to show better understanding of the other side, relying less on Aristide-aligned sources only.

Question: would it be a good idea to add this map to this page? Reason I ask instead of just doing it: it's already on the Haiti page and might be redundant, but it might help others who are interested in this current event but unfamiliar with Haitian geography to find some of these locations.

Just a thought. RadicalBender 17:37, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to be able to follow the events on the map as they are mentioned in the article. Without a geographic idea of what's happening where, it's hard to get a full understanding of events. Many people, of course, might be interested in just reading about the rebellion without going to the main Haiti article. Everyking 17:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK then. I added the map towards the bottom where it begins to list place names. RadicalBender 18:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] French?

I am assuming that the proper names of the gangs and groups in this story are originally in French. Whenever possible, we need to provide in paranthesis the original French names. Kingturtle 06:32, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

For example, what is the real name of the Cannibal Army? Kingturtle 06:34, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
According to the Buteur Metayer article, the Cannibal Army and the Artibonite Resistance Front are the same group. If this can be verified, it should be incorporated into the article.

[edit] terrific map to help tell this story

PDF sincerely, Kingturtle 06:45, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Causes

The paragraph about "causes" of the war is really poor. War is not a natural event like an earthquake; nothing "causes" it. Somebody decides to start it.

Also it's not clear that Aristide's rule is "democratic". It's not even clear WHAT the government of Haiti has been doing. Are legislators or judges elected periodically? Are local official elected? Why is there semi-slavery there? (See restavek.)

Way too many unanswered questions. Please do more research, I'm concerned. --Uncle Ed 21:40, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Suggest a word or phrasing to use in place of "causes", if you don't like that one. Yes, the government of Haiti, to the extent that it still exists, is democratically elected. The article, like the event, is a work in progress. If you think it's lacking some information, add it. Everyking 22:25, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Also: I'm concerned, too. I'm concerned that you mean to rewrite history to favor the rebels and the opposition (as I gather from your denial that Aristide's government is democratic), even though this article has been completely fair and even-handed. Everyking 22:28, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I suggest speaking of the motivations of the rebels who started the war, rather than the "causes" of the war. Also, I want to know what the phrase "democratically elected" is supposed to mean. (Especially since I vaguely recall that there were irregularities in the election process which to some minds cast doubt upon its legitimacy.) The phrase is clearly not a synonym for "freely elected", because Haiti didn't have freedom of the press, or sufficient security for candidates: it was more like a "referendum" on whether we should keep our dictator or not, as South Korea did a couple of times before it really started to become democratic.
If no one really can answer my question, I'll have to do the research myself, but I'd prefer it if the people who seem to know more than me would just put the correct facts into the article. --Uncle Ed 14:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"An estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens are currently in Haiti. "

A bit ethnocentric, wouldn't you say? What significance does the US population have on this war any more than the population of Japanese or Kazakhstanis or Martians? Not everyone reading Wikipedia is from America and gives a damn only about the slight risk of American casualties in a foreign war.

  • Because the U.S. is considering sending in the Marines. The U.S. government is involved specifically with the history of Haiti. Kingturtle 22:03, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Morocco?

Is it for sure that Aristide is now in Morocco? All info I find just says that's one of many places he could be, including Dominican Republic, Panama, Taiwan... Garrett Albright 00:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Morocco has said he isn't welcome there. We'll just have to wait and see where he turns up (a matter of hours, I imagine). South Africa and Panama appear to be the strongest possibilities. Everyking 00:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll take Morocco out of the article, then. Bcorr, if you have a source for him being in Morocco, please cite it somewhere and edit it back in.

[edit] Aristide controversy

...since May 2000 when defeated political parties refused to recognise the results of parliamentary and local government elections. They claimed the landslide election victory by Jean-Bertrand Aristide's Lavalas Family Party was achieved through fraud and vote-rigging.
Uniting in the Democratic Convergence coalition, the opposition parties then boycotted the presidential election in November 2000 on the grounds that it, too, would be rigged. Aristide, whose first term as President had expired in early 1996 and who, according to Haiti's constitution, could not hold office for consecutive terms, stood more or less unopposed. He was duly returned to the National Palace and begun a second five-year mandate in February 2001. [1]

Above quotes I found on Google make it seem like Aristide was NOT democratically elected, but rather in direct violation of Haiti's constitution. The article should at least mention that there is a controversy over the legitimacy of his presidency. I would suggest that the phrase democratically elected not be used except as properly attributed POV. --Uncle Ed 16:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, the article does mention that: "According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, however, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of Haiti's 2000 legislative elections." It also says that Aristide's supporters BELIEVE that the rebellion was an attempt to overturn his democratic rule. So, isn't that NPOV? This is what makes me wonder about your own motivations here.
Okay, let me clarify: I'm for democracy, freedom and prosperity. To the extent that this conflicts with NPOV, I may need someone to hold me back! So before writing on a topic I feel strongly about I usually let off some steam on the talk page... Thanks, I feel better now :-) --Uncle Ed 19:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, if you want to cite articles, I think this one explains things a bit better: "Two elections took place in 2000. The first elections, in May, saw full participation by a range of political parties, including the Lavalas party of now-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. In the May elections of legislators and municipal government authorities, Lavalas won by a landslide. Observers from the Organization of American States did not fault the conduct of the elections. However, in eight cases, the electoral council seated Senators who had won by a plurality of the votes, not by an absolute majority. Because these eight Senators were Lavalas party candidates, the opposition immediately cried fraud.
Knowing they would lose the presidential election in November 2000, the opposition Democratic Convergence refused to participate. They cited the eight contested senatorial elections as "proof" that the presidential vote would be rigged. In November, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected." [2] But I still think it's a moot point, because the article doesn't even say that he was democratic: just says his supporters think that. Everyking 17:16, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oy, the conspiracy theories are already batting about. Maxine Waters is claiming she has talked on the phone with Aristide's wife, who said that they were abducted out of their own country at gunpoint and claiming a coalition, including the US, engineered this rebellion. Needless to say, she made no mention of Aristide's legitimacy or lack thereof... Garrett Albright 18:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Since democracy and free markets generally produce peace and prosperity, I conclude that it's likely Haiti lacks either democracy or free markets. But this is just theory. A really good article on Haiti's history -- not just the 2004 Haiti Rebellion would address this. --Uncle Ed 19:52, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, there we have a fundamental disagreement, Ed. Democracy does not produce peace if there are people attempting to violently undermine democracy -- especially not if those people have backing from abroad. But I have no interest in debating personal ideologies here, except to say that it's generally wise to let your theories develop according to the facts, rather than letting your theories determine what you consider fact.
It seems to me that you are determined to criticize this article, but I don't see what your point in doing so is, unless you just want this to be a POV condemnation of Aristide in favor of some rebels who are known for having some very undemocratic credentials. Couldn't you talk about constructively adding things to the article instead of complaining that it dares to represent both sides? I changed the point about "causes" to "motives" days ago, and that is fine with me, but I would very strongly object to simply labeling Aristide an unconstitutional dictator without regard for a widespread belief and in contravention of the simple facts of this matter. Everyking 20:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think we are in violent agreement. You seem to believe, as I do, that Democracy tends to produce peace. You also seem to believe, as I do, that there are people attempting to violently undermine democracy in Haiti. So I presume you would agree that violent opponents of democracy have prevented its emergence, growth and flowering in Haiti.

Anyway, I haven't said we should call Aristide bad and the rebels good. I am only saying we should avoid calling Aristide "democratically elected". He seems to have been declared the winner of a couple of votes, but we need clarification on whether those votes were "democratic". Saddam held an "election" in early 2003 and "won" 100.0% of the vote. No one really considers that vote to have any validity because there was no secret ballot, and men had to sign their names in the presence of a judge. --Uncle Ed 21:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I like "won in a flawed election". He had agreed to not stand for election in 2000 in any case. Well before that he began reforming a group similar to the Tonton Macoutes (not sure of English spelling). Definatly not possible to be considered a Democracy when armed thugs go around enforcing political will. Rest assured, the rebels have got their own problems, and their own Swiss bank accounts to fill... Dominick 13:23, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I would not accept this phrasing in the article, because a great number of people do not believe the election was flawed, and you are taking that for granted. Everyking 14:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are right, facts are not in evidence. I think perhaps the violation of the agreement we had, that Aristide would NOT stand in the 2000 election, is what I am referring to. In addition there were irregularities, people not free to go to the polls, ballots being lost, if that isn't flawed tell me what word is better. I think there are 'a great many people' that think SOMETHING was fishy with the 2000 election in Haiti.Dominick 15:45, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about "won in a disputed election" ? Bleedingcherub (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)



The ousted president was speaking from the Central African Republic, from where it has been rumoured he will travel on to South Africa.

taken from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3534781.stm

[edit] Attempts at democracy in Haiti

Preval's five-year term was beset by almost constant political crises. A deadlocked Parliament, allegations of widespread corruption, and resignations by key government officials impaired political, economic and social reform. On January 11, 1999, the four-year mandates of most local and legislative officials ended, while elections to replace them never occurred. Preval refused to extend their mandates, ushering in a period of rule by decree. On May 21, 2000, elections were finally held. A flawed method of counting votes and other irregularities assured the ruling Fanmi Lavalas Party of a sweeping victory. The Organization of American States pulled out its observers and the international community registered strong protests against the vote-counting methodology.

The opposition refused to accept the results of the May election and in protest, called for a boycott of the Presidential election scheduled for November 26, 2000. Despite numerous negotiation efforts, opposition leaders refused to participate, and the November election went forward with no international support. Jean- Bertrand Aristide was declared the winner. As of April 2001, the opposition does not accept Aristide as President, and the political crisis continues. --US State Department post report on Haiti

Misleading. The opposition boycotted on a pretext in order to discredit Aristide by giving ammunition to those who would point to his 91% of the vote and call him a dictator. They objected to the legislative elections because some (8) senators won with a plurality, but even if the opposition had won all 8 of those seats, it wouldn't have prevented a Lavalas majority. If all the facts are given in a forthright manner, you can word it any way you want. Everyking 22:11, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good, now we're getting somewhere. Please add to the article the idea that some advocates (and name them, if you can) assert that the opposition's boycott was merely a pretext to discredit Aristide. --Uncle Ed 14:19, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed, I don't much care for the changes you've made. This sentence: "According to supporters of Aristide's government, the rebellion is a coup attempt by former soldiers of the now-disbanded army (which ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994) on behalf of the old elite of Haiti, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and democratic rule." does not require quotes around "populist" and "democratic", because the whole thing is "according to supporters of..." It is merely saying what they think. If in the following sentence -- "According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, however, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of Haiti's 2000 legislative elections." -- I was to add quotes around poor governance and rigging, that would look pretty silly too, don't you think? Everyking 20:13, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] image and table

can the image be put in the table so they are the same width? Kingturtle 02:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope, you didn't say the magic word: please... how rude! --Maio 02:28, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
Please :) Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Assaulters?

I think we can find a better word than assualters. Dissidents, inciters, provocateurs, rebels, revolutionaries? Kingturtle 02:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*shrug* I just copy/paste'd it from Battle of Mogadishu. Anyhow, here is the Merriam-Webster definition of 'assault' in any case. --Maio 02:36, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)
How about just "attackers"? Also, if we wanted to standardize this model to use for other conflicts, words like rebels and inciters and revolutionaries wouldn't always apply. Everyking 02:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I know what it means...and it isn't wrong....but i usually see assaulter used for sexual assaulter. So I thought we could use a different word. Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] this is a community effort

Everyking, this is a note just to remind you that this article is a community effort. Is ouster really that much better a choice of words than expulsion? You don't have to correct every single little detail seconds after they've been changed. Let other people participate. I don't want to feel like any edits I make here are going to be changed seconds later. Kingturtle 02:33, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got an edit conflict and was impatient to get what I had typed posted, so I just copied and pasted, not figuring that the difference between the two words would matter much. And though I do feel ouster is a better word to use, feel free to change it back if you want. Everyking 02:38, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No problem. Just be more aware that others are working here too, and that we are just as passionate. Kingturtle 02:44, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rebellion?

Lots of things are still happening in Haiti, which may or may not be properly covered by this article on the rebellion. Perhaps another article should be set up to deal with the political situation developing in post-Aristide Haiti, and this one should be reserved for the February 5 - 29 military conflict? Everyking 03:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ownership of this article

Everyking, you have made a lot of edits and most of the comments. But you do not own this article. You agreed, when you clicked the "save" button, that others may edit your words mercilessly.

Please be gracious in allowing others to add points of view (POV) that you do not agree with. Each POV must be properly attributed to its advocate, so if Jimmy Carter said the 2000 election was "completely and perfectly fair and a shining example of democracy at work", then:

  1. The article will NOT say that the election was fair and democratic, but
  2. The article will say that Carter called the election fair and democratic

I hope you understand the distinction between #1 and #2 above. The first makes the Wikipedia assert the point as a fact; the second merely reports that Carter asserts the point as a fact. --Uncle Ed 21:17, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'd like for you to explain to me how this contradicts anything I have said or done, Ed. I think your attitude towards me and this article in general is quite counter-productive. Everyking 21:51, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, feel free to kick my butt! --Uncle Ed 14:48, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Aristide fled the country on a US military aircraft?

Just removed that text until a valid reference is provided to back up that statement. --Maio 22:14, Mar 3, 2004 (UTC)

Following weeks of violent protests, a U.S. military aircraft carried the displaced Aristide and his American wife, Mildred Trouillot Aristide, to the Central African Republic. [3]

Please put the text back now. Thank you. --Uncle Ed 14:52, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nope, it was not a Military aircraft, [4] [5] all military aircraft have to have markings. An unmarked white Lear jet possible would have been a contractor, possible hired by a "three letter' agency. Dominick 16:22, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Aristide was taken to the international airport, after he was made to sign a statement for Chief Justice Alexandre to be interim President, and flown out on a jet aircraft provided by the United States, to an unannounced destination. [6]

So many contradictory sources! How about, "flown out on an aircraft provided by the U.S."? with no mention if it was military or what type of aircraft it was? --Maio 16:34, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Other articles have alluded to that fact. I believe that COlin Powell admitted so much. This is not denied by the US government, and the trip is detailed best if you read this refernce. [7] So flown out in an aircraft provided by the US is the US governments position, and has the advantage of being NPoV AND true. (Thats a joke) Dominick 18:01, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
How about including all points of view...."According to the U.S...." "according to Aristide". Tell the reader both sides. Kingturtle 19:23, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] small r rebellion?

Why the change? Dominick 19:19, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not a proper name. --Wik 19:21, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict concluded?

Maio, I have to dispute your edit asserting that this conflict is ongoing. Skirmishes have continued in some places, apparently, but I think we can say that this conflict basically ended with Aristide's departure. There were skirmishes in parts of the country before February 5, too, but we haven't changed that date. Everyking 21:05, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do agree with you, but someone removed the reference stating that "there are still many reports of gunfights and executions across haiti; no new government is recognized, old government still exists". IMO the rebellion was over on Sunday, February 29, 2004 at Port-au-Prince, Haiti when Aristide resigned, because afterall that was the purpose of the rebellion, to overthrow Aristide. --Maio 21:22, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I missed that before. Well, we'll leave it like this for a few days, and then if the conflict is proven to genuinely be over, we can backdate it to February 29; if it flares up again, we can just leave it this way. Everyking 22:25, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Haiti coup

Is it time to start calling the rebellion a "coup" or "coup attempt"?

Generally, when the head of state leaves the country to "prevent bloodshed" that sounds like a coup has been going on. Wouldn't you guys all agree?

And it seems to me this is not the first time I've heard conflicting reports about who's the leader after a coup or regime change. Saddam said "I am the president of Iraq" when US soldiers pulled him out of his spider hole. Didn't Aristide or someone else continue to claim he was the "real leader" of a country after being deposed 10 or 20 years ago? (I don't remember that well, help me out here, please.)

Nicholas Kralev in today's Washington Times wrote, "Mr. Aristide also insisted he is still Haiti's president." [8]
Well, typically we regard a coup as a sudden overthrow of the government in a single "stroke", so this wouldn't really apply. Everyking 17:46, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I second a change to coup. It is possibly more objective, as it suggests a militarily overthrown against a resume. Secondly, rebellion is perhaps the favoured word of the invading US forces' press releases. A recent article published by The Guardian is food for thought: The ouster of democracy -- In Haiti, Washington confirmed a foreign policy that is driven by self-interest and delivered through force. --prat 01:26, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)
The armed movement does not qualify as a coup under the conventional definition of the term. On the other hand, the alleged kidnapping of Aristide would qualify as a coup, but while I do suspect it is likely that he was kidnapped or in some manner forcibly removed from office, it would be POV to state that in the article as fact when there is still so much doubt. Everyking 01:37, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I-wish-he-would-make-up-his-mind Department

Oh dear, doesn't Mr Aristide know hard hard it is to keep up a wiki when he keeps changing the story? It has been reported that[9] he will return to Haiti, and he really didn't resign. He didn't want further bloodshed, so he left, was kidnapped, or something else. I think that OUR article should not be changed for a bit, until this is made clearer by the parties involved. I think those parties now no longer include Mr Aristide, so if they say it is a resignation, then it would better be phraised an abdication, or that he fled Haiti. So did he or didn't he? Dominick 15:38, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disorganization?

Ed, if this article is disorganized, it's only because of all the changes you've been making. Why on earth did you put Aristide's claims about his resignation above the basic description of the rebellion? Everyking 17:56, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree. IMHO, We have the ability to make instant changes. We should keep an article like this as up-to-date and current as possible. As the story changes, so can the article. We have the ability to do this. We have enough writers interested in keeping this article up to date. I think in the long run, the article will be more accurate if (rather than sit back and wait) we stay on top of its development. Kingturtle 18:01, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, if we chase the story too close, and change this from every rumor that comes out, with one political motivation or another, we will get a poor product. I like seeing a story, waiting for the "me too!" articles from other outlets, then adding it here. A little fermenting is a good thing, I prefer to let my plums ferment a bit before eating, so perhaps some confusing wiki entries need a bit of aging too. Dominick 19:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
EK, I don't care whether rebel claims or "basic description" goes first. But Aristide's government was recognized by a lot of other countries, so what he says should get at least some prominence. And I don't think there is any clear and simple "basic description" possible. It's more complex than that.
There are multiple points of view (POV) here: (1) that Aristide should stay in power; (2) that the rebels should assume power; (3) that someone ought to try to hold free elections in Haiti. (Guess which POV I favor?)
To really write clearly and fairly about Haiti's current civil war or "rebellion", the question of the legitimacy of the 2000 elections needs to be fully explored. Why did the opposition refuse to recognize the results of the first election for legislators? (Just because they lost, or what?) And if they boycotted the presidential election, can we say that a candidate who runs unopposed has a "mandate"? Or must we take into account claims of the opposition that the elections would have been rigged?
Transition to democracy is complex, and this article will have to be very long to cover all the details. I'm not "disorganizing" it, I'm willing to work with you; propose a different outline if you don't like any of my suggestions. --Uncle Ed 15:17, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well, I think that Aristide's claims about his resignation, while important, are more appropriately placed after a "basic description" and a chronological outline of events. It was, after all, the last thing that happened, and I don't think it's the most important.
I think the article as it stands is reasonably well-organized. The 2000 elections have a mention, but I think to go much further beyond the present level of detail would be more appropriate on an article specifically dealing with those elections. However, if you want to write more about the elections and include it here, I won't object. Everyking 20:41, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] latest news

news item . i don't have time today to write this into this article. can someone? Kingturtle 23:19, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) See also Aristide refuses to admit defeat (The Guardian) --prat 01:26, 2004 Mar 9 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Aristide being a dictator

I've found several claims that Aristide is a Marxist dictator, just as corrupt and power-mad as Saddam Hussein.

The claims that he was "democratically elected" are challenged by those who say he stole elections and this came to power illegitimately (hence, he is a dictator).

Like most dictators, he keeps power by terror and uses foreign aid (a) to prop up his gov't and (b) to live luxuriously -- while the people languish in poverty.

Tim Collie writes in a Florida newspaper article:

Despite international efforts during the last 20 years, and a U.S. invasion in 1994 that restored President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power after a 1991 coup, Haiti has been unable to nurture democracy, economic growth or sustainable environmental programs. [10]

--User:Ed Poor

Ed, you might want to use this source instead: [11] --Maio 23:14, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ed attacks me and declares that I do not own this article, as if that isn't plain, but he feels free to rework it into a celebration of the rebellion with all the right-wing energy he can muster. I suppose in the end this article will be about how death squad chiefs and coup plotters turned into the founding fathers of Haitian democracy, and I won't dare question it, lest I be accused of trying to control the article. Everyking 00:24, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I object to your personal remark. I have not "attacked" you, but by accusing me of having done so it is rather YOU who have attacked ME. If you feel that declaring that neither you nor I "owns this article" amounts to an attack, please explain your reasoning. Otherwise I wish you would delete your own remark.
For what it's worth, I'm opposed to the "right-wing". Hitler and fascism are bad, in my view; I don't celebrate them or anything connected to them. And I don't know why you think I might bias the article in that direction, when all my remarks above have been about neutrality rather than about using the article to take sides. Are you sure you know what my politics are? (And do they even matter here?)
I am not aware of any death squads or coup plotters EVER becoming the Founding fathers of a democracy. In my own country, John Hancock and his fellows were non-violent civilians. If I have any bias, it is in favor of non-violent transition to democracy. I don't like coups or wars. I haven't seen anyone emerge from the current Haiti crisis who even ADVOCATES democracy. If you can, please add them to the article. (And stop with the personal remarks, please.) --Uncle Ed 14:36, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Take this to a private discussion boys. E-mail, instant messaging or whatever. There is no reason why I or any other Wikipedian has to read this discussion between the two of you. --Maio 15:03, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
Guys this isn't about what wing you have. The accusation of bias can be aired here, why not get it out in the open, just be civil. (start POV)I don't think any of the players in the Hatian coup are able to support democratization of Haiti. As much as I loved to see Baby Doc go, he did keep people from being shot dead on the street to loot the corpse. Aristide seemed to retain power only by arming some selected slum thugs, and much like Mugabe, ran a sham democracy. Now these Aristide-armed thugs are able to go beyond just mugging people, they can chase off the police, shoot anyone who resists and take the inventory of entire stores. I think the PoV of the outlook for Haiti is a distinct issue from reporting the verifiable facts that occur. (end POV) I think the language is okay, since we specify Aristide CLAIMS he is president which is true. We also state so-and-so CLAIMS this and CLAIMS that. Anyone can claim anything. Dominick 16:13, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't think what I said is really a personal attack, no more so than what you said about my supposed refusal to allow alternate POVs into the article. One more thing: everyone likes a transition to democracy. Haiti had one in 1990, and another in 1994...how many transitions do you need to get there? If you start to write something but perpetually go back erasing your work and starting from scratch after completing the first sentence, you'll never actually finish anything. Everyking 18:01, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Maio is right: this discussion seems to be about two Wikipedians, rather than about anything specific to the article. Let's talk about the article now.

Can anyone shed light on any of the following issues?

  • Legitimacy of Aristide's regime
    • Supporters call him "democratically elected" and say the vote was "free and fair"
    • Detractors call him a "dictator" and don't accept the voting results
  • Past and future of democracy in Haiti
    • Timeline of election campaigns, press freedom/restrictions, candidate announcement/murder/withdrawal
    • Registration process: Voter ID cards, delays, areas affected
  • Socialism vs. Free Markets
    • Is Aristide pro-Marxist?
    • Has USA exploited Haiti for raw materials, etc.
  • Education, health
    • What does the country need? Who's planning on providing it?

--Uncle Ed 21:02, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I beleive that it is better to locate those points in other articles, not necessarily in this one. For example, they may be referenced on this article, while being further discussed in Politics of Haiti, History of Haiti or in Aristide's biography. User:Adam Carr probably has more information about the timeline of the campaigns and about the future of the country; see [12]. --Maio 22:19, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election Fraud

According to Human Rights Watch,

The government's refusal to reconsider the skewed results led the Electoral Monitoring Mission of the Organization of American States (OAS-EOM) to quit Haiti before the second-round balloting, labeling the elections "fundamentally flawed." [13]

The government in power disregarded Haiti's constitution, which required each legislative candidate to win at least 50% of the vote in their district. After the votes were cast, the government declared its own party's candidates as winners, although they only gained a plurality.

One wonders what the results would have been if voters had known before the election, that even if most voters opposed the government's candidate he would win anyway. --Uncle Ed 14:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're drawing too much from this, Ed; as I've mentioned before, the 8 seats Lavalas won by plurality would not have affected Lavalas's overall majority, even if the opposition had won all 8 of them. Violating the letter of the law is not a proper thing to do, but it does not equate to violating its spirit. However, I will add a little more to the article to explain the circumstances of 2000. Everyking 17:09, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You're entitiled to your opinion, and I trust that when you add ideas to the article that you agree with you will label the POV according to its advocate. Like, Mr. X of the PDQ Commission said that the opposition's boycott was silly because the 8 seats wouldn't have affected the balance of power. The only reason they boycotted is that they KNEW they were going to lose anyway. Aristide won the election fair and square. Then we can include comments from other observers who disagree with that POV. Agreed?

If you read the reference provided, the last part of this sentence is utterly false. They were supposedly referring to an election in 1997, not the one in 2000.

"The National Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR) says that the government delayed the distribution of voter identification cards, and that this led to 95% of registered voters boycotting the election. [14]"

Moreover, in the previous reference [15], Congressman Conyers says "The AP reported that, 'Last week, millions of Haitians braced under a scorching sun and the threat of violence and voted. According to official records about 60 percent of the three million eligible voters went to the polls, surpassing many established democracies.'"--GD 04:32, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Explotation

There isn't much to explot for raw materials. I know of a few cement plants. Unfortunatly, t'aint much else left. Too bad they never struck oil in Haiti. Cocaine shipments dont count as an export either.

Exports:
coffee, mangoes, sugarcane, rice, corn, sorghum; wood
$298 million f.o.b. (2002)
CIA Factbook

Considering the US AND the EU agreed that the elections were flawed, that weighs heavily in my opinion I don't know too many things that the US and the EU would agree on.Dominick 17:25, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, it should be pointed out that both the US and France very likely had a hand in his ouster, so surely that must compromise the neutrality of their claims regarding his election in your mind.
Exploitation of resources is not really an issue here, so I don't think it warrants inclusion. The issue is fundamentally all politics. Everyking 17:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ouster

I think the undisputed facts are:

  • The U.S. told Aristide they couldn't (and wouldn't) guarantee his safety.
  • The U.S. took him out of Haiti by airplane.
  • Aristide left behind a note which mentioned "resignation" as a kind of last resort.
  • Aristide showed up in Africa -- but not in U.S. custody.
  • Aristide traveled to Jamaica -- a guest of the gov't there.

[edit] Claims by Aristide

  • US "kidnapped" him.
  • He didn't really resign.
  • He's still the rightful president of Haiti.

[edit] Claims by White House

  • US didn't kidnap Aristide.
  • The note amounts to a resignation.

(Not sure WHO America recognizes as Haiti's leader)

Anyone agree with any of the above? --Uncle Ed 21:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree that what you say is undisputed is undisputed and that what you say is disputed is disputed. I don't think the gulf about how this article should progress is really all that wide. I confess it I find it quite irritating when you work so hard to add information that only reflects one POV, but as long as it's stated correctly, of course I can have no real objections to it. Do you, Ed, have any objections to the way the article is presently done? Everyking 21:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Actually, no :-) You're doing a fine job, and I'm happy to let you do most of the work. I'm a typical, ignorant, middle-aged white man. All I know about Haiti is what I've heard from my taxi driver (Jean from Haiti); read at Wikipedia; or found in on-line searching since the rebellion. I'm kind of a democracy buff, though. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with
  • US didn't kidnap Aristide.
The US position is that he resigned, and we provided him technical assistance (the plane). Refutation of a claim by an allegedly metall unstable strongman ruler is not a position. How about
  • Aristide is mentally unbalanced.
A fact is we provided the plane, after he resigned, and nobody made him sign anything. If the letter was dictated by American agents, don't you think they would have run it by a lawyer? Dominick 01:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You don't believe it is disputed that Aristide resigned voluntarily? Am I reading this right? Everyking 01:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think Dominick is speaking about public opinion: asserting, perhaps, that most people support the US position that Aristide resigned and voluntarily accepted a ride to safety. I'm pretty sure Dominick realizes that Aristide and some of his supporters dispute the US position and call his plane ride a "kidnapping", etc. Is that right, Dominick? --Uncle Ed 12:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Since you ask my PoV, I think that he resigned. I suspect he had "buyers remorse" after resigning. That would fit into what I know about the man, he vaccilates, a lot. Now tell me, the guy gets on the plane with an entorage, if he was kidnapped he could have said no, he could have had a roit at the airport. When they threatened him he could have said go ahead and shoot me. I believe that he requested a fly out, when the plane landed he thought it through. If we indeed kidnapped him, why would we want to fly him to a third country? It doesn't fit with the confirmed facts. Despite what I am saying, DEFACTO, he is gone. With or without his cooperation, Haiti may be on the path to a new era (or more of the same). Recall that Papa Doc started as a great friend of the common man, fighting typhus, and turned into a beast, like Aristide. I realize what they claim, but many claim all kinds of outrageous things, that need not be given the same space as verified fact. Mention it, but don't rate it like gospel because of other reasons like Bush bashing.Dominick 13:48, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary sources like Democracy Now

This is poorly sited by a reliable source. DN is a radical organization without any standing in respectable media. If this was an historical paper and I was a professor, I'd fail it for lack of credible sources. This article just points to a leftist bias and not accurate historical documentation. Diggerjohn111

I dont know how to treat activist sources that dont collect thier own news, but rely on activists in the field or full time news organizations. They repeat news tidbits from other places. Any ideas? Dominick 22:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I resent your characterization that DN! is a "secondary source." They probably do a better job at reporting the news than most "mainstream" news organizations. They'll ask the tough questions that most would tend to avoid. Nor does DN! just "repeat news tidbits from other places." They talked with reporters on the ground in Haiti just like other news organizations did. When the delegation that went to retrieve the Aristide's from the Central Republic of Africa, Amy Goodman of DN! went with them. So who did CNN turn to when they covered his return to the Caribbean? None other than Amy Goodman. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/03/15/2142232 That's not repeating news tidbits, that's good reporting.
Why have you deleted my description ("Includes exclusive interviews with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, his wife, and his lawyer as well as U.S. Reps. Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee.") and moved the link to the bottom? Do you not think that this link is the most important and informative in the short list? Do you think the fact that Aristide and his wife were interviewed to tell their side of the story as somehow insignificant to this article? --GD 01:38, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Resentment has no place in NPoV, the order is chronological, and I consider Democracy Now to be an activist organization. All PoV can be carried, with equal wieght. Not more or less important, but I would put mainstream sources first and alternative second. The description read as an advertisment for the DN site. It was out of place with the other sources. The comments by the Reps were a sideshow to the reals things going on in Haiti. Read up higher here for a discussion of this topic we had in the first few days. I imagine the DN crew is not able to maintain a continual presense on the scene, while mainstream news agencies are. Generally the news agencies use stringers. Likewise the site was adjusted to give it EQUAL weight. Dominick 01:52, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why does this article not mention Canada's involvement in the planning of the coup. 142.173.65.37

[edit] Legionnaire Killed

I read that a French legionnaire was killed in an accident (I think he was cleaning a loaded rifle). http://www.amicale-online.ca/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=29 Zntrip


[edit] Introduction?!

This article is in serious need of a bit of an introduction. As it is right now, there's a single sentence before it just jumps right in with the timeline, saying something like "The first city captured was . . .". We need to have a description of what the event was, the major players therein, the causes, the results, et cetera before we jump into the nitty-gritty bits of it like that. Something like "The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a conflict fought for several weeks in Haiti during February 2004 that resulted in the premature end of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's second term, and the installment of an interim government led by Gerard Latortue. Rebel groups, allegedly aided by Big Brother and friends yadda yadda yadda; opposition was blah blah blah. Unrest had been growing among x since the Aristide government refused to privatize a, b, and c." And so on. I don't know enough about the issue or about Wikipedia introduction standards to write one myself, but there's got to be someone out there who does.

Kai 06:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Kai that this article could definitely use a much better, well-developed introduction. Additionally, the article is still somewhat disorganized and in parts is poorly written, with some information being repeated unnecessarily. Just some ideas. Oh, and several parts should be updated to reflect later knowledge (such as "as of April 2004," which uses the present tense right after). I think it would also be nice to mention a current state of affairs, even though the rebellion has been over for some time. --Cromwellt|Talk 02:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

In August, this article was moved to "2004 Haiti coup" (from "2004 Haiti rebellion"), which I just noticed now. I don't believe this is correct. This article covers the full scope of events that occurred in February 2004: first a gang rebellion, then intervention by ex-soldiers into the rebellion, and ultimately an arguable coup as the final act of the drama (although that characterization of it as a coup is disputed by some and it is probably POV to directly assert that). I suggest it be moved back to the original title. Everyking 04:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. — A "rebellion" conducted by external forces and their allied business elites is called a coup. Robotman1974 02:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, you went ahead and moved the page? Where was the consensus for that? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A significant length of time had passed. Now I notice it has been moved back. I continue to strongly oppose this. "Rebellion" is a fully accurate and NPOV characterization; "coup" is arguably POV and only applies to the final stage of the events. Everyking 05:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Brazil Haiti 2005.jpg

Image:Brazil Haiti 2005.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV title?

Is "coup d'état" a NPOV term for what went on in 2004? I'm not sure. 206.135.142.245 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsoured material moved to talk

Please add back material that have soures that verify it.Ultramarine 10:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of rebels

The rebellion began with the capture of the country's fourth-largest city, Gonaïves, on February 5, 2004, by a rebel group calling itself the Revolutionary Artibonite Resistance Front. This group changed its name to the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haïti on February 19.

The rebels and the civilian opposition demanded the resignation of President Aristide, but he emphasized his determination to remain in office until the expiration of his term on February 7, 2006, saying that Haiti should not continue its history of moving from "coup d'état to coup d'état," but should instead move from "elected president to elected president." Aristide's opponents, while accepting in principle that Haïti should have an elected president and a constitutional process, disputed his legitimacy and accused him of ruling undemocratically.

According to the rebels and the civilian opposition, the rebellion is a natural consequence of what they consider Aristide's poor governance and the alleged rigging of the 2000 elections by his Lavalas Family party.

The rebellion was primarily led by former soldiers of the Haitian army, who were responsible for civilian massacres during the early 1990s. Even prior to the widespread violence that engulfed the country, a low-level rebellion was waged by some ex-soldiers in the central part of the country since at least 2003, resulting in several dozen deaths. Furthermore, on February 14, 2004, a number of former soldiers (including the notorious former militia leader Louis-Jodel Chamblain) returned from exile in the Dominican Republic and announced their intention to join the rebels based in Gonaïves.

According to supporters of Aristide's government, the rebellion is a coup attempt by former soldiers of the now-disbanded army (which ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994) on behalf of the old elite of Haïti, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and rule.

The rebels attributed much of their rapid success to Aristide's failure to disarm the army when he disbanded it in 1995; however, they insisted that the popular support they enjoyed was an equally important reason. Haiti's police force of 5,000 proved too small and poorly armed to be effective in resisting the rebel advance, and in some places, such as Cap-Haïtien, the police seemed not have mounted any substantial resistance at all.

Another component of the rebellion were the armed gangs which have frequently been a source of violence in Haiti in recent years. The most prominent of these gangs, the "Cannibal Army," long acted as Aristide's primary support base in the city of Gonaïves before turning against him in recent years. This gang, which went on to become one of the main elements of the National Revolutionary Front, claimed the weaponry it used to fight the government during the rebellion was given to it by Aristide at a time when it still supported him; allegedly, the main purpose of this was to intimidate the opposition during the 2000 elections. The government, however, said that the rebels possessed firepower far greater than that of the Haïtian police, and that the weaponry must therefore have a foreign origin.

To a large extent, Haitian politics has been defined by such gangs for the last decade. While it was an anti-Aristide gang that initiated the rebellion in Gonaïves, pro-Aristide gangs fought back on behalf of the president. Gangs on both sides have been accused of grim atrocities, such as executing supporters of the other side and setting fire to their homes.

According to many supporters of Aristide, the country's civilian opposition acted as a fifth column in support of the rebels. The opposition denied this, but many of its members acknowledged their support for the rebel cause, and stated that they share with the rebels the common goal of Aristide's ouster: according to them, they disagreed with the rebels only on the question of employing violent rebellion to that end.

[edit] Timeline

Beginning in Gonaïves with the capture of that city's police station on February 5, the rebellion quickly spread to the nearby port city of Saint-Marc. 150 policemen unsuccessfully attempted to retake Gonaïves on February 8, losing between three and 14 officers in the battle. Saint-Marc was, however, recaptured by police and pro-Aristide militants by February 10, although sporadic fighting continued in the area. Apparently in cooperation with the rebels in these northern and central cities, the south-western city of Grand-Goave was taken by rebels at around the same time, but it too was recaptured by police shortly thereafter.

In the following days, the rebels pursued a strategy of advancing toward the country's second-largest city, Cap-Haïtien, and the town of Dondon, just south of Cap-Haïtien, changed hands several times in the fighting. Furthermore, some of the rebels reached the Dominican border, blocking the main road between the two countries and enabling the aforementioned exiled former soldiers to cross into Haïti. By February 17, the rebel forces had captured the central town of Hinche, near the Dominican Republic border.

On February 19, rebel leader Buteur Metayer declared himself president of the areas under his control, with former Cap-Haïtien police chief Guy Philippe as commander of the rebel army. On February 22, the rebels captured Cap-Haïtien with surprisingly little bloodshed; the city's police had already made clear their reluctance to fight, and the well-armed and trained rebels had little difficulty sweeping aside the resistance of the city's pro-Aristide militants. On February 24, the rebels followed this success with the capture of the northwestern city of Port-de-Paix and with the capture of Tortue Island, off the northern coast, the next day. These gains effectively ended government control in northern Haïti.

On February 26, a new band of rebels captured the country's third-largest city, Les Cayes, in the southwest. More rebel successes followed, as they captured the strategic crossroads of Mirebalais, 30 miles from the country's capital, Port-au-Prince. Many foreigners were evacuated from Haïti in anticipation of an assault on Port-au-Prince, but an estimated 20,000 U.S. citizens remained in Haïti as of the end of February.

International mediators led by the United States proposed a peace plan on February 20 which would have allowed Aristide to serve out his term but with substantially reduced powers, a prime minister from the civilian opposition, and fresh legislative elections. It was virtually the same plan Aristide had agreed to weeks earlier with Caricom. In a news conference the next day, Aristide agreed to the plan.

The plan, however, was rejected by the opposition, which continued to demand the president's resignation. France blamed Aristide for the violence and suggested that he should leave office in favor of a transitional government; however, many governments in the region were more supportive of Aristide, alarmed at the precedent that would be set by the overthrow of a democratically elected leader by armed rebels.

The United States, which intervened in Haiti in 1994 to restore Aristide to power, publicly adopted an ambiguous stance on the issue. While condemning the rebellion and claiming that it did not support the violent overthrow of democratically elected leaders, it also pointedly blamed Aristide for contributing to the violence and has suggested that an end to the crisis might require Aristide's absence from the political scene.[citation needed] For its part, the Haïtian government accused the U.S. of supporting the rebels and planning Aristide's ouster.

Some American politicians strongly criticized the Bush's administration's stance on Haiti, on the grounds that it was failing to take a moral stand in defense of Haïtian democracy. On February 25, for instance, U.S. Congresswoman Corrine Brown called the Bush Administration's non-intervention in Haïti racist.

President Bush refused to soften U.S. policy on Haïtian refugees. During the week ending February 27, the United States Coast Guard repatriated 867 refugees.

[edit] Other evidence of coup d'état

Other potential indications of the United States, France and Canada influencing the coup d'etat include the fact that at the same time the diplomatic mission was trying to bring Aristide back to the Caribbean, U.S. officials including National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell gave statements that indicated clearly that the U.S. did not welcome Aristide in the 'western hemisphere'[source needed]. Not only did the United States not support the elected president of Haiti back into power but USAID and CIDA had been actively funding the interim government and helping it to prepare for elections in the fall of 2005/early 2006. USAID, CIDA, and the NED also heavily funded the political opposition throughout the Aristide Administration- the same opposition who supported the embargo which starved the Haitian government of 35% of its national budget.[citation needed]

[edit] Lavalas

Lavalas supporters view the rebellion as an antidemocratic attempt to control the Haitian economy. Since the rebellion, Lavalas supporters have engaged in large protests demanding Aristide's return.

Lavalas says it cannot field any candidates due to political violence. It has been suggested that the U.S., France and Canada are glad to see Lavalas excluded because they want the interim government to be perceived as legitimate, but do not want Lavalas to control the Haïtian parliament — which many argue would be very likely in a free and fair election.

[edit] World Bank Interim Cooperation Framework

Aristide has said in an interview with Naomi Klein that the main motivation for the foreign support of his overthrow was privatization. Specifically, Aristide has suggested that his refusal to sell state-owned enterprises, such as phones and electricity, resulted in a decision to have him removed. There is some evidence for this assertion, as the World Bank's Interim Cooperation Framework has stated:

"…in key sectors of the economy such as telecommunications, energy, potable water, ports and airports… management contracts will be prepared in those cases where private sector participation is deemed appropriate…"

It is particularly relevant to the coup d'etat that one of the first actions of Aristide's second term was the disbanding of Haïtian military which ruled Haiti from 1991 to 1994 on behalf of the old elite of Haiti and was extremely corrupt and authoritarian. This measure received incredible popular support from a civilian population who had suffered under several military coups. Interestingly, this measure was immediately reverted by the interim government put in power by the coup, which seeks to put an end to Aristide's populist policies and rule.

[edit] Aftermath

Following the departure of Aristide, the rebels entered Port-au-Prince, declaring their intent to protect Alexandre and the people from pro-Aristide militants, popularly known in the government controlled media as "chimères". In the days since, they have sent mixed messages about their intentions: rebel leader Guy Philippe first declared himself the "chief" of a new Haïtian military and vowed to arrest the pro-Aristide prime minister, Yvon Neptune, but then promised to disarm his forces. On March 3, at least three people were killed in a battle between rebels and pro-Aristide militants. Supporters of Aristide have vowed to continue pressing their demands for his return, and on March 7, 6 people were reported killed at an anti-Aristide rally.

The death toll from the conflict is believed to have been at least 300. Prime Minister Neptune has estimated that the cost of the rebellion from fighting and looting amounts to about U.S. $300 million.

After two weeks in the Central African Republic, Aristide departed for Jamaica and arrived there on March 15. The visit was ostensibly for the purpose of enabling him to see his young daughters, but the transitional Haitian government claimed that the visit could destabilize Haiti further by encouraging Aristide's supporters and announced it was breaking off diplomatic relations with Jamaica in protest. In response, Jamaica announced that it would not recognize the new Haïtian government.

The argument is that the governments of the United States, France and Canada were interested in the removal of Aristide from power because of his populist tendencies. For example, in 2003, Canada hosted a meeting of Haïtian opposition leaders called the Ottawa Initiative which concluded that "Aristide must go". At the same time, the United States, France and Canada were funding the rebel groups, via opposition NGOs and the International Republican Institute, and provided the necessary military and logistic support for the rebellion. Rebel leader Guy Philippe has been trained by U.S. forces and had been on the CIA payroll. Other prominent rebel figures had also been previously trained by the U.S. despite their participation in previous rebellions and terrorist acts with some living in the U.S.

U.S. authorities claim that the pressure Foley placed on Aristide to resign was initially diplomatic but once that failed, the delaying of the arrival of extra bodyguards and dismissal of the current agents would have meant a death sentence to the President. Aristide and his wife along with this former security team was taken to a U.S. aircraft and not informed of their destination until several hours later. They were not allowed to look out the planes windows and were told that they would be harbored in the country to the Central African Republic. Aristide was kept under strict military surveillance and could not communicate freely for days. The United States government denies these allegations.

[edit] more of a rebellion than a coup d etat.

The history as reported is more of a armed rebellion than coup d etat, [A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government, often through illegal means by a part of the state establishment] take from the artical on coups in wikipedia. If the west was involved it would be more accurate to call it an intervention. I believe coup is being used because it is a loaded word to make a political statement. Wikipedia should be about facts not politics.(Lproth 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

Agree. If no objections I will change the title shortly.Ultramarine 12:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deterioration of article

I've reverted this article back to the way it existed in April, because a huge amount of content was removed in the meantime. The content outlining the course of the rebellion itself was written by myself, based on press reports, while the rebellion was ongoing in February 2004; at that time Wikipedia as a whole was very weak on referencing and I didn't think to add citations. I don't know if the content was removed for lack of citations or some other reason, but the content can all be verified and, while it absolutely should be referenced, that's no excuse to remove all the content. If anything in particular is disputed, feel free to remove and discuss the point here, or better yet, find the press report that the info came from in the first place and cite it. Everyking (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More information added to first sentence

The 2004 Haiti rebellion was a regime overthrow following Haitian conflicts spanning several weeks of February 2004 and concerning the legitimacy of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's presidency.

Consensus has been expressed on the discussion page regarding all of these pieces of information. Anyone have a problem with the mention of the Aristide legitimacy conflict as such?

Bleedingcherub (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)