17755: Brown: Re: 17555: FW: HAITI TALKING POINTS: (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Haines Brown <brownh@hartford-hwp.com>

Robert Klein's outline of the events of recent years is offered as
"talking points," and so let me, with some trepidation, accept that
invitation.

There seem to be three possible conclusions from Klein's sad account:

1. Aristide was bad news to begin with, and with Famni Lavalas, the
   chickens have come home to roost.

2. Assuming Aristide was OK to begin with, for reasons all his own
   (corrupting influence of power?) betrayed his initial policies and
   principles.

3. The effect of U.S. intervention to salvage the first presidency of
   Aristide created conditions that made it impossible for Aristide to
   realize his initial policies and principles.

I'm not sure the extent to which folks are inclined to launch a
critique of the principles and policies that Aristide initially
represented. A debate on this issue would at least bring forward the
basic difference among friends of Haiti. Also, it is possible Aristide
never seriously meant the positions he espoused, but this would be
difficult to prove. So I put aside this first option.

In any case, Klein's contribution does not seem to allow for the first
option, even though it's certainly a possibility.

As a person interested in the philosophy of history, I'm inclined to
reject the second option because efforts to explain history as the
effect of human nature always fail. That is, what is constant can't
explain what is particular, and history consists of particulars.

Also, from a moral viewpoint I can't accept the second option because
of its pessimistic implications. It forces me either to embrace a
direct democracy that would under present circumstances result in
tragedy (it would give license to the powerful to crush the weak), or
cynically distance myself altogether from politics and give up hope.

As for the third option, there are the conditionalities associated
with U.S. interests that over the years have been imposed on Haiti,
and such conditionalities appear to have disastrous consequences
elsewhere. The U.S. has engaged in policies that have hurt Haiti
(sanctions) and failed to act when it could have helped (refugees).

If we blame the U.S. for corrupting Haitian political life (not a
difficult presumption, for responsibility is a function of power, and
there's no question who really has the power), then what is the
implication? To point out the misbehavior of Famni Lavalas then seems
a red herring, and the Democratic Convergence is in no position to
offer an attractive alternative, whatever its intentions.

Does all this point to a fourth option, not implied in Klein's review?
Wouldn't the only remaining option be for a anti-colonial struggle to
arise and channel all the animosity against the common enemy?

Haines Brown