19151: honorat re: status of the rebels (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: stanley honorat <stanhonorat@hotmail.com>

In this day of worldwide media coverage, Jean Bertrand Aristide and company
has used every chance to affect certain sensibilities around the world.  The
latest, among a long list, is the new vogue word: terrorism.  He is
expecting a sort of Pavlovian response when using this term in describing
the movement that has claimed roughly 50% of national territory in Haiti.
With the terrorist threat that is affecting the whole world, it is extremely
important to distinguish the differences between terrorism and the current
insurgency movement sweeping Haiti.
It is understood that the current movement is viewed differently depending
on which side of the issues one is standing.  However, whatever our
philosophical differences with armed conflict, we cannot sit idly by and
allow Aristide to misuse the current crisis in his favor.
Although there is no universally accepted definition for the exact
parameters of what constitutes terrorism, there is a definite distinction
between it and internal conflict in international law.  One specific
difference between the two is that in an internal conflict, there are two
parties, and in terrorism, there are three, the third being the main target
of terror (the other two, which are common to both are the aggressors and
the victims).  When a terrorist attacks, the main target is the person who
will subsequently be intimidated or terrorized (hence the term), not the
actual person attacked.  Furthermore, acts of terrorism are banned during
international and internal armed conflicts (Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949
and its two additional protocols of 1977), meaning that there is a
distinction.
A rebel force is considered terrorist if its main objective is, in essence,
to cause terror.  If the aforementioned force meets certain requirements, it
gains belligerent status.  Originally, these criteria included:
1-controlling territory within the state against which it is rebelling,
2-declaring independence, 3-having a well organized armed forces, and
4-being recognized as belligerent by the sitting government.
However, many governments would be hesitant to declare belligerency.  These
governments (such as GOH) would even refuse to admit how much territory is
lost, when it was lost, and by who is it controlled.  Therefore, the
international community has arranged certain minimum standards that will
allow belligerent status without a government’s recognition.  These include:
1-defining a conflict as an internal conflict, which occurs when fighting is
intense, organized, and extended enough to move past temporary disturbances
or tensions; 2-the conflict being confined within a state’s borders and not
involving foreign parties.  Once this has occurred, then several sections of
international humanitarian law come into play.
It seems that many apologists of Aristide are “screaming bloody murder” in
stating to any and all who will listen that there is no standing army to
speak of in Haiti and that the police force is small, inexperienced, and
ill-equipped.  The question one must ask is: who bears responsibility for
these facts?  This same president decided almost ten years ago that the
armed forces were no longer necessary and also chose to arbitrarily fire,
hire, promote, and transfer officers regardless of the statutes regulating
such matters.  It is odd that now, in what one hopes is its final hour; the
government wants us to come to its rescue, as if we would save rats on a
sinking ship.  These gentlemen have set the rules for their own game, and
now want others to help bear the burden.
Additionally, for those who speak of military intervention to resolve this
crisis, there are three possible outcomes to such a move- 1-the occupying
force would come to aide the government by removing the rebel force, 2-the
said force would remove the government, as in Iraq, or 3-the force would
remove both.  Analyzing these possibilities, we see that the second one is
far fetched, the first would be irresponsible, and the third would be eerily
reminiscent of Somalia in the 1990s.
Once again, this situation brings to light the fact that the (de facto)
president is guilty of many constitutional violations, in this case the fact
that he cannot ensure the continuation of the state.  This adds to the list
of violations that put him in a case of High Treason (Art. 21) and, whether
this government leaves within a few days or years, we hope that he will be
brought to trial.

_________________________________________________________________
Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/