HAITIAN BACKGROUND
Jeremy Allaire is a member of the Haitian Justice Committee and has closely
monitored Central and South American politics for many years. We publish
here an extract from an article he wrote shortly after the US invasion last
year and his replies to a couple of questions Freedom put to him regarding
the recent election results in Haiti and the prospects for the future. His
views are his own and should not be attributed to the HJC.
IN AN EFFORT to restore order, control the flow of refugees, and pave the
way for a new political-economic order in Latin America and the
Caribbean, the United States began a unilateral occupation of Haiti in
October. Since that time, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been
returned to power, extreme repression has subsided, and the country is
beginning to function once again. While Aristide's original mandate has
largely been usurped by the presence and dominance of the US in Haiti,
opportunities for progress remain. However, the future is highly
uncertain.
The picture in Haiti is certainly not rosy since the "restoration"
of democracy . This tiny nation remains highly impoverished,
class-stratified, malnourished, and ecologically devastated. The nation's
merchant and military elite have reluctantly accepted the so-called
"reformed" or as the Wall Street Journal said, "tamed" Aristide.
In exchange for his return, the US has offered the elite an economic
package highly beneficial for the manual-labor intense export-assembly
sector, including cuts in virtually all public social services and a
commitment to keep labor rights to a minimum.
The military isn't without its benefits either. In a violation of
UN and Geneva conventions, the U.S. pushed Aristide to pursue a path
of "reconciliation" a code word for refraining from pursuing justice by
arresting, trying, and jailing members of the military responsible for killing
over 4,000 during the previous three years of repression. A blanket
amnesty combined with a program to train and integrate the military into
the police and other sectors of society has kept the guns silent for
now.
With the elite and military pacified for the time being, the
situation is stable and calm. As London-based reporter Charles Arthur
says, "Now the streets of Port-au-Prince are bustling with people and
traffic. There is electricity 24 hours a day. Groups of men sit outside
their houses playing cards and dominoes, and street vendors ply their
trade late into the evening. One man in the poor district of Bel-Air said,
'for the first time in three years we can actually sleep at night without
fear of being beaten or shot.'"
While this may characterize the situation in Port-au-Prince,
things are less than calm in other sections of Haiti, particularly the
country-side where human rights groups and Lavalas members (the
movement which brought Aristide to power) continue to report murder,
extortion and other abuses by Section Chiefs and paramilitary associates.
Merrill Smith, an attorney with Church World Service, issued a report on
January 6 documenting more than 70 politically motivated killings during
the first two months of the US occupation. Smith argues that "This level
of political violence is comparable to all but the very worst periods of
the pre-occupation regime."
A national disarmament program was stopped short almost
immediately following the US intervention. And many former paramilitary
members involved in political killings are known to be hiding weapons. In
several incidents, known murderers have been brought to US authorities,
only to be turned away by officials who claim that the US role is to
protect Haitians from ongoing, "Haitian-on-Haitian violence".
Of the some 5000 troops discharged by the Army,
approximately 2000 have been asked to be part of a civilian police force.
But the other 3,000 have retained their rights to their pension and their
guns. As a result, crime has surged in urban areas, as former soldiers
use their weapons to rob businesses, the government, and the military.
Unemployment among the military is also a major concern, and one
reason the US has acted quickly to recruit members into a police training
program.
Another major human rights issue concerns the forcible
repatriation of Haitian refugees in violation of international and US law.
5000 refugees remain at the Guantanamo Naval Base, where US officials
have begun to return them against their will without asylum hearings. In
many instances, refugees are handcuffed and harassed, then repatriated
to a US military base at Port Au Prince where they are given $16 and a
note asking that they be employed for a government service. Human
rights groups say the returning refugees face a dangerous future,
particularly with so many uncontrolled paramilitary groups on the loose.
And in a blatent double standard, U.S. officials say they anticipate
accepting the vast majority of 30,000 Cuban refugees currently waiting
for U.S. asylum.
The "economic reform" package being imposed on Haiti is a
traditional IMF/World Bank Structural Adjustment program. The reforms,
aimed at stimulating foreign investors and domestic profits, will cripple
any efforts to adopt domestically oriented programs. The package calls
for the "vibrant Civil Society" to replace social services provided by the
government, though these are already skimpy. Official aid will be
directed through USAID and NED to organizations compatible with US
political interests.
Aristide's capitulation on this and other matters has troubled
many of his original supporters. His speeches have tended to be more
moderate, compared to his impassioned and critical words in the pre-coup
years. Others believe Aristide is doing the best he can given the
overwhelming dominance of the US in Haiti.
As US troops leave Haiti and as elections near, tensions are
likely to rise. Given the current situation, the future is unlikely to change
dramatically. But there are some opportunities, with Lavalas building
momentum around the coming parliamentary and presidential elections.
Father Jean-Yves Urife, editor of the pro-Lavalas weekly, Libete, says,
"The people have recovered their freedom of speech, association, and so
on. Haitian democracy is grassroots democracy. So if we take the
chance that has been given to us by the same nation that made the
coup, we can organize ourselves for the future."
*************************
We followed up Jeremy's comments by asking him the following questions...
FREEDOM: What if any significance do you think can be attached to the recent
election
performance of Aristide's supporters?
First of all, I think it is important that we make a distinction between three
types of Aristide supporters. The first two are basically those core groups
that supported his original rise to power in the 1990 elections. The 'Lavalas'
was basically a coalition of hundreds of various grassroots organizations
and parties that managed, somehow, to back one major candidate in that election.
However, at that time, and even today, there remain significant divisions
between the original Aristide supporters.
A large segment of the original Aristide supporters were deeply involved in
various forms of radical organizing -- peasant groups, neigborhood watch groups,
radical unions and students, and so on. These groups naturally took advantage
of Aristide's enormous popularity with the poor -- he spoke common sense,
dignity, and democratic revolution, though he really wasnt tied to a particular
political program. Remember, the Haitians are deeply religious people, and this
certainly helped play a role in their support for him, even among people that
had never really entertained the idea of popular revolution, etc.
But you also saw that an enormous base of Aristide's support came directly
from the poor -- urban and rural -- people that hadn't been really tied
to any political committment, but simply put, saw Aristide as the only
true authority in the country. This base of people, and a large portion
of groups that followed his rise to power, remain strongly in support of
him, though there is growing suspicion over his political program, which
appears to be largely shaped by dominant foreign and local elite interests.
And that is where the major split in support occurs. The traditional
radical segments of the popular movement -- not the Lavalas -- are outrightly
lambasting Aristide and his program, mostly due to his basic acceptance
of virtually all of the demands of the occupying force, namely the ongoing
subservience of the political-economy to transnational interests. And this
is largely true, though the degree to which Aristide actually takes it
seriously one never knows.
Remember, Artistide is a deeply radical priest -- his sermons and his
mission has been one of tremendous dedication to the poor. I think he
believes, and I think his followers believe, that if they live it out
long enough, that if they wait for the American's go home, that they
can finally live out the revolution they began.
The radical segments of the movement really feel that its too late, that
all has been yielded to imperial interests, and that Aristide is now
the servant of the rich. Again, there is some merit to this, but I don't
think it is so clear cut.
As for the elections, the divisions appear between the Lavalas folks
and the radical groupings. The election victory was also strongly
attacked by the radical left on grounds that it was unfair, that
there were significant improprieties, and so on. A number of major
groups, including one of the largest peasant groups, boycotted the
elections. It does appear that there were some improprieties, though
certainly nothing as widespread as elections of the past. Remember,
the UN and US did supervise these elections, etc. The biggest problem
was in the countryside, I am told, where booths were not even set up in
some places, even when they were officially supposed to be there.
There is no doubt that the Aristide folks stacked the decks in their
own favor, but it was a real election, and, to a certain degree, Aristide
does have the support of the largest portion of the poor, at least
right now.
That leads to the third type of Aristide supporter, which is the US
and the International community, which support him in rhetoric and
for reasons of stability. They're assuming that tacit support of the
Aristide regime is appropriate and necessary in order to keep any
significant social upheaval from taking place, and are largely certain
that Aristide will continue to basically take orders from the US
and various international lending agencies. He's done a remarkable
job in meeting their demands, though many will not be played out
until the next couple of years. Again, it's hard to know what
Aristide's strategy is.
FREEDOM: If Haiti is to achieve any meaningful degree of independant
development it will surely have to rely on the strength of its popular
organisations. What traditions are there in Haiti in this respect?
This is a crucial and a complex question. At face value, yes, the
popular organizations are at the core of social revolution in Haiti.
Those remain active today, and have been giving significant breathing room
over the past months.
Really, dating back into the 70s there were strong peasant based
organiziation, with really serious popular organizing taking place after
1987, when Duvalier was outsted. That all culminated in what was basically
one of the regions first major democratic, non-violent, revolution in the
election of Aristide.
In terms of groupings, there are basically four major bases of popular
organizing and resistance. The strongest, and the major base of support for
Aristide, came from the church -- not the centralized church, but small,
base communities, mostly lead by youth and by a group of radical liberation
theology oriented priests.
This grouping, better known as Ti Legliz, is the truly dynamic and powerful
force in Haiti, and one that really follows Aristide's cue.
There have been many and varied Peasant groupings, with the most popular,
The Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) being the oldest and strongest -- and,
incidentally, one who's leadership is deeply anti-Aristide and anti-Lavalas
these days.
Labor unions have played an important, though marginal role -- there are
few significant labor forces, but in those areas where accelerated
light-manufacturing is taking over the poor's lives, labor has offered
a basic structure of resistence. There are also various labor groupings
that take their funding and direction from US sources.
Another major and important grouping came out of the resistence committees
or neighborhood committees in the urban slums. These groups fought and
organized to protect one another, to fight for potable water, electricity
and other basic social and ecomonic rights. They were also the target of
the greatest amount of terror during the coup years, as they were easy
and visible targets that could have a significant demonstration affect on
the masses of poor that lived in the mega-slums of Port-Au-Prince.
So, ultimately, that is where significant change is coming from, even
from the Lavalas/Aristide camp, despite what others think.
FREEDOM PRESS
http://www.lglobal.com/TAO/Freedom