12830: Lavalas and "the process" - Simidor responds to Pierre (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: karioka9@cs.com


In a previous post, Hyppolite Pierre wrote:
 > Depending on whether or not one adheres to the values of > a market
 economy, the Government may have, under the > present circumstances,
 stricken the best deal that it > could, for job creation in Haiti. Yet,
 because the details > of that deal are unavailable to the larger public,
 it is > difficult for us to make a clear determination of such. > This
 happens because the democratic process of transparency > in this case has
 not been completely followed.

 Part of the difficulty in communicating with Hyppolite is that he's so
 bogged down in the so-called "process" that he pays little attention to
 what's really at stake here.  To begin with, does "the process" ever slow
 Aristide down in his rough ride to absolute power?  Is rigging elections
 part of "the process?"  Or burning down CRESFED?

A good friend of mine, another Lavalas apologist, put it in slightly
different terms: "You have to learn to be patient, Daniel. Diplomacy is a
process that takes time.  What you start with is not necessarily what you
end up with, and what one government is forced to sign can be undone by another."

In other words, wait and see.

A couple of days ago, the Haiti Collective on WBAI had an interview with
Ben Dupuy, Haiti-Progrès' director, live from Port-au-Prince.  With
Hyppolite in mind, I asked Dupuy to elaborate on the 10% land deal.  He
declined to identify any of his sources, but told the story of how he
held a press conference in the capital, and publicly challenged the
Lavalas government to deny his allegations if they were not true.  So
far, the government refuses to confirm or to deny any of the allegations.

But of course there are no real secrets when it comes to Haitian
politics.  It is even possible that the government leaked the story to
allow people to blow up some steam before the deal goes into effect, or
to set up the stage for something slightly less revolting.  From the
point of view of this humble Haitian patriot, however, any Dominican
control over any portion of Haiti's territory is entirely unacceptable.

The DR came up with this free zone initiative partly to take advantage of
Haiti's unused export quota on the US market, and partly under the
pretext of debt reduction.  Haiti's foreign debt is around $1 billion;
the DR's debt stands close to $7 billion.  So far, the US has only agreed
to consider a proposition that will allow the two countries to pay the
interest on their debt into something called the Hispaniola Fund that
will be administered by a joint US, Dominican and Haitian commission.

This commission will be in charge of running the free trade zones along
the border.  This, I presume, is the answer to Hyppolite's persistent
question. Now what?

Is the 10% land deal directly related to the free zones?  Or do you
really need 3,000 square kilomiters of land to build a few assembly
plants?  Personally, I can see why the Dominican government wants control
of such a big chunk of Haiti's territory.  But I fail to see what Haiti
gets in return, other than a few hundred jobs which typically yield 11
cents for assembling an article of clothing that retails between 10 and
25 dollars on the US market.  The usual explanation for an agreement of
this kind, and for keeping it secret, is money changing hands under the
table - which, as I explained earlier, is the Dominican government's
preferred way of dealing with Haiti's so-called leaders. Do I have
"proof" that Aristide is getting paid?  It is silly to even ask.  And
yet, given the deeply rooted corruption within Lavalas, and given that
graft and corruption are part of the normal intercourse between the two
countries, is it not logical to infer that corruption is involved in "the
process?"

Daniel Simidor