15216: Ives, re Simidor review of Ives review of Dailey review (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: K. M. Ives <kives@toast.net>

Daniel Simidor's diatribe against my piece is as filled with inaccuracies
as Dailey's review, which is really all he is defending. But of course he
has to defend it, having unwisely praised it to the heavens early on.

But I really had expected the kind of ad hominem attack which sometimes
greets my pieces to come from a quarter other than a would-be leftist. When
will I ever learn?

First, I'm not saying Dailey is "soft" on US imperialism. I'm saying he
_defends_ it, for Chrissakes. And Dailey can't "counter" that he was not
treating "US predation" but Haitian, as Simidor argues. Simidor knows, or
should know, very well that any analysis of Haiti which leaves out the
central role of the U.S. is preposterous.

Furthermore, Simidor faults me for not expounding on "Lavalas corruption
and mismanagement as two key factors pushing the country to the brink."
First, my main concern was correcting some of Dailey's most egregious
fallacies. Second, these problems, as in most of the world,  cannot be
solved overnight, especially in a country where the educational system is
in distress. Lastly, I wager there'd be a lot less corruption and
mismanagement in Haiti if it weren't under assault. Cracks grow under
pressure. (Having opportunists and Duvalierist retreads in your ranks doesn
't help either, of course.)

Simidor also has to back up his Dailey-esque charges. He cites "the mammoth
thievery that the Titid-Mildwèt couple" (give me the evidence of the
millions stolen) and "the corruption of the democratic process" (show me
where would-be winners lost). As for "the rapacious and murderous gangs
associated with Lavalas," let's also be concrete. The violence which
Dailey, the Convergence, the OAS, and Washington decry is that of lumpen
associations - yes, sometimes anarchic, arbitrary, fanatical, and
dangerous - which are seeking to defend the government they elected against
clear attacks (like that of Dec. 17, 2001), having been terrorized, beaten,
and shot up themselves during the neo-Duvalierist dictatorships and coup.
They want no return to those reigns of terror when the "rapacious and
murderous gangs" of the bourgeoisie and grandons ruled. When Daniel and his
cohorts chant "pouvwa popilè," this is what it looks like. It's messy,
clumsy and sometimes misguided because it isn't disciplined, organized, or
checked by strong state authority (something Daniel dislikes). No, Aristide
is not "a nasty little dictator." Haiti's violence today has more to do
with destabilization-assisted chaos and Aristide's inability to "restore
state authority," as Préval promised to do.

But the essence of Simidor's arguments is that "Ives clearly holds a grudge
against the OPL gang for causing Aristide to give his side the cold
shoulder." This is just silly amateur psychology. I don't hold grudges
against anybody, whether it's Gerard Pierre-Charles, Jean-Bertrand Aristide
or Daniel Simidor. The world of politics is so filled with reversals and
fluidity that if one did this (as some super revolutionaries I know often
do), one would quickly find oneself in a sterile, little ivory cubicle,
castigating everyone for their impurities. My assessment of a person or a
party is based on many factors, including the history of their political
positions, their present position (both in words and practice), and finally
the larger political context. If I criticize OPL, it is on these criteria.

Ramsey Clark, Stan Goff, and Phillip Agee all switched sides. So did Jerry
Rubin, Eldridge Cleaver, and Karl Kautsky. So you see, Daniel, grudges are
useless.

Daniel comes with a lot of club-house "zen" that Ben Dupuy "hates [OPL]
with unrelenting passion" because it "kept him out of the limelight" and
"away from subsidies." Puh-leez! This is the kind of immature gossip that
has kept a particular sector of the Haitian left so irrelevant. It's as if,
unable to comprehend ideological differences, certain people must reduce a
conflict to the level on which they operate: the personal and petty.

So when Simidor turns in circles trying to figure out whether Dupuy broke
from Aristide or vice-versa, I can only scratch my head. Dupuy resigned as
Ambassador when, with OPL's prodding, Aristide signed the letter requesting
the U.N. Security Council to take up the case of Haiti, which, Haïti
Progrès predicted, would lead to the second U.S. occupation of Haiti.
Aristide chose a course which he had vowed he would never take. So APN and
Haïti Progrès took their distance. It's that simple. And many other groups
opposed U.S. intervention and criticized Aristide harshly, among them many
smaller popular organizations, Tet Kole, and even Simidor's cherished
now-OPL-affiliate MPP (at least in words and at first).

Simidor knows very well that Gerard Pierre-Charles was championing U.S.
intervention to restore Aristide all along. He helped organize an event
featuring Pierre-Charles in late 1992 at Clara Barton High School in
Brooklyn. The audience was aghast as Pierre-Charles made the case that only
U.S. imperialism could deliver Haiti.

"You can't honestly call the OPL leadership imperialist boot-lickers
without calling Aristide by the same name," Simidor tells me. Well, we have
called Aristide that, or words to that effect. But his genuflections and
compromises were all for naught. Bush's team still won't have him. So now
he's at odds with them. So we back him. Bush supports OPL. So we fight
them. Get it? No grudges.

As for Eddy Moïse and his FMR, he seems to me some kind of "agent
provocateur," or else crazy. His take-over of the Canadian Embassy in 1992
was very suspicious, particularly since his crew was given extensive
coverage and interviews by TNH, which was tightly controlled at that point
by one Col. Michel François.

Simidor is self-appointing himself "left spokesman" even more unfairly than
he alleges I do when he claims that "progressives across the board abhor
Aristide." I think many members of this list, as well as listeners to WBAI
99.5 FM in New York where we sporadically co-host a radio program, hold no
"grudge" against Aristide and yet consider themselves progressives.

Finally, concerning Simidor's search for "the hosts of PPN members," it's
no surprise he hasn't found them. They're in Haiti, not New York.

Kim Ives