(Some historical context: In his first term, ending in early 2001, Préval almost became the first freely elected Haitian president to complete his entire term and hand over power after a credible election. Despite the presence of UN and OAS observers, Préval was reportedly ordered, via threats from Aristide, to call the Electoral Council and demand that it count only the top four candidates for Senate, out of up to two dozen competing in each of nine national districts, in the May 2000 legislative and local elections. By not counting about one-third of the votes cast, Aristide’s Lavalas party would have won all the Senate elections after just one round of voting. This led to a massive boycott of the presidential and other elections, which Aristide won later in 2000. Much of the instability and the revolts which led to Aristide’s premature departure from office can be linked to that May 2000 electoral fraud.)
In the best possible world, these gains under MINUSTAH and Préval would not be lost, and the cautious optimism about “turning matters around” could become something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. This would mean key actors deciding that recovering from this disaster will require them to think and behave differently. It would mean putting the country, rather than narrow or corrupt interests, first. And it would mean changing the U.S. obsession with interdicting Haitian boat people, many of whom are genuine refugees at sea.
Realistically, that is too much to hope for. Still, the catastrophe should have one benefit: extending MINUSTAH’s likely mandate beyond a decade. That should help sustain Haiti’s democratic transition, and extend the amount and duration of foreign aid for rebuilding southern Haiti.
Aid, though, is not going to be enough. Like all countries, Haiti’s economy has to grow on its own. That means the government must generate its own tax revenue by extending the benefits and responsibilities of the rule of law to all. The polarized political class must start to compromise; the ruling and middle classes must start paying taxes to support a state that can offer schools, hospitals, and public safety for all of its citizens.
Instead of ignoring the leaders of the predatory state, the international community should provide enough aid for that government to enforce the law and encourage the gradual development of checks and balances, while also building schools, hospitals, and roads. Were that to happen, Haiti’s stigmatized identity at home and its frightful reputation abroad might also change; were that to happen, tourists and investors might return. Would this immediately change the game in Haiti? Not likely. But it could certainly help to even out the score.
Dear Mr. Chip:
I read your article "Is Haiti's Earthquake a "Game-Changer"? It reminded me of the journalist oath, "who, when, what and where"-- but not in a good way. The cavalier way you skimmed over the details of what you say was the "fraud' of the 2000 elections, claiming that it was the downfall of President Aristide... that was a lie. The way MINUSTAH is portrayed as securing the peace and subduing the "bandits" was also a lie. What you forgot to mention? The US financed and supported the coup against President Aristide in 1991 and 2004. It was a bipartisan effort. You see President Aristide balked at orders from DC to "Privatize, privatize, privatize. The oh, so needed presence of MINUSTAH? It's a fraud, speak to most Haitians on the street and they wonder, why are they still here? What are they doing for us? Why did they brutalize, arrest and kill members of Aristide's Fanmi Lavalas, Haiti's most popular party (who are barred from Feb 2009 elections)? Is that what you meant when you said, "marginalizing the party of the exiled Aristide"-- the disenfranchisement, murders, assassinations, disappearances, and illegal detentions? The "coup-de-grace" that discredits your claim about the 2000 elections, is that the legislators for the disputed seats stepped down--did that end the complaints from the so-called "opposition"? No, because the idea was to take down Aristide, not to reconcile. You knew that, didn't you?
The same "opposition" had mounted a laughable shadow government to challenge President Aristide, but that fell apart because they had absolutely no support for their plaintive cries of foul play in the elections. You see, President Aristide was forced by the Clinton administration to negotiate and appoint the members of the "opposition." These were people who colluded with the US to carry out the 1991 coup, you see. So they were bound to have a beef with Aristide's leadership--follow me? Well, that's where the "rebels," the muscle -- the thugs really (as Colin Powell admitted) -- trained and armed in the DR by the US came in. Fairly standard operation, you know the type, former members of disbanded military, rapist, murderers, drug traffickers, And that's just between their leaders, Guy Phillipe and Louis-Jordel Chamblain... nice partners for the Group 184, NED, IRI and other "democracy building" organizations funded by adherents of the racist Jesse Helms -- including John McCain (IRI)--all cozily under the umbrella of USAID funding. Did you forget to include those facts? By the way, Lavalas may be barred, but the "thug" as nicely described by Powell? His party is in. He was campaigning openly, so I guess the DEA was called in to just scare the guy back in line--no pun intended.
I am curious about how you came to the conclusion that MINUSTAH's role was to "help sustain Haiti’s democratic transition." The coup d'etat (that anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-peace and anti-diplomacy military opeation) that you seem to be supporting that removed Haiti's first democratically elected government qualified as a "democratic transition?" You have strange concept of democracy. The only transfer that occurred was Haiti's sovereignty to the "international community" -- in the form of the US Embassy, USAID, IDB, World Bank, IMF, UN -- probably in that order.
To paraphrase a saying in the Global South:
"Why has there never been a coup in Washington? There's no US Embassy there."
So you see, when you fill in all the facts like that, you make for a much more exciting and interesting story. You know what is a shame though? The thousands of Haitians who died because of the US intervention. In 1991 is was about 3,000, but for 2004 the bodies really mounted up -- why even the Lancet got involved, putting the death toll at 8,000 and the rapes at 35,000. Don't you hate when a simple "coup-knapping is spoiled by the body count?
I was mildly shocked that a person claiming
#1 Posted by Chantal Laurent, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 03:09 PM
The Rene Preval "selection" after the coup was an appeasement. It didn't fool the people for long. Preval is a puppet.
It is significant that there was "a Belgian citizen working as a consular for president Préval" before the earthquake. The "consular" was Philippe Dewez, a former IDB Representative in Haiti who died in the earthquake.
#2 Posted by Chantal Laurent, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 03:35 PM
Consul: The title Consul is used for the official representatives of the government of one state in the territory of another, normally acting to assist and protect the citizens of the consul's own country, and to facilitate trade and friendship between the people of the country to whom he or she is accredited and the country of which he or she is a representative.
Colonial and similar roles:
Under certain historical circumstances, a major power's consular representation would take on various degrees of administrative roles, not unlike a colonial Resident Minister. This would often occur in territories without a formal state government (thus warranting a full diplomatic mission, such as an embassy) or in relatively insignificant "backwaters."
Protectorates:
When a state falls under the "amical" protection of a stronger (often colonial) power, the latter is usually represented by a high ranking diplomatic and/or gubernatorial officer, such as a Resident general, Resident Minister or High Commissioner. However, if there is no such representation (in modern terms often at ambassadorial level), the task may fall to the only available "diplomatic" alternative: consular representation.
From Wiki.
NOTE: Haiti is SUPPOSED to be sovereign.
#3 Posted by Chantal Laurent, CJR on Sun 24 Jan 2010 at 04:04 PM
"The US was having trouble persuading the other leaders in Caricom [the Caribbean Community and Common Market] to turn against us (they were never able to persuade many of them), and they needed a pretext that was easy to understand. ‘Tainted elections’ was the perfect card to play. But when they came to observe the elections, they said ‘very good, no problem’: the process was judged peaceful and fair. And then as the results came in, in order to undermine our victory, they asked questions about the way the votes were counted. But I had nothing to do with this. I wasn’t a member of the government, and I had no influence over the Provisional Electoral Council, which alone has the authority to decide on these matters. The CEP is a sovereign, independent body. Then, once I had been re-elected, and the Americans demanded that I dismiss these senators, what was I supposed to do? The constitution doesn’t give the president the power to dismiss senators who were elected in keeping with the protocol decided by the CEP. Can you imagine a situation like this in the US? What would happen if a foreign government insisted that the president dismiss an elected senator? It’s absurd. The whole situation is simply racist; they impose conditions on us that they would never contemplate imposing on a ‘properly’ independent country, on a white country.
The Americans wanted to use the legislature against the executive. They hoped that I would be stupid enough to insist on the dismissal of the senators. I refused. In 2001, as a gesture of goodwill, the senators chose to resign on the assumption that they would contest new elections as soon as the opposition was prepared to participate in them. But the Americans failed to turn the senate and the parliament against the presidency, and it soon became clear that the opposition had no interest in new elections. Once this tactic failed, however, the US recruited or bought off a few hotheads, including Dany Toussaint and company, and used them, a little later, against the presidency."
An Interview with Jean-Bertrand Aristide
Peter Hallward
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n04/peter-hallward/an-interview-with-jean-bertrand-aristide
#4 Posted by Chantal Laurent, CJR on Tue 2 Feb 2010 at 09:56 PM