19350: radtimes: Does Haitis non-violent opposition want a bloodbath in Port-au-Prince? (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: radtimes <resist@best.com>

Does Haiti's "non-violent" opposition want a bloodbath in Port-au-Prince?

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hait-f26.shtml

By Keith Jones
26 February 2004

Haiti's self-proclaimed, "non-violent" political opposition has rejected a
settlement to the impoverished Caribbean nation's political crisis
sponsored by the US, France, and Canada. The press has labelled the failed
settlement a power-sharing agreement. In fact, it gave the opposition
Democratic Platform—a coalition led by the political representatives of
Haiti's autocratic, traditional elite—virtually everything that it has been
demanding, save the immediate resignation of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the
country's democratically-elected president.

Under the settlement, Aristide would have been reduced to a figurehead
president, with his powers transferred to a prime minister chosen by a
tripartite commission in which Washington would effectively have the
deciding vote. This commission would also have been charged with organizing
new legislative and presidential elections and with reorganizing the
security forces so as to limit "political", i.e., Aristide's, influence.

In an attempt to persuade the opposition to drop its objections to the
plan, Washington further stipulated that there would be regular
assessments, possibly as often as weekly, of whether Aristide and his
Lavalas Party were complying with the terms of the "peace accord". The US
also let it be known that if it were dissatisfied it would depose the
president.

According to the New York Times, the opposition's rejection "surprised Bush
administration officials, who had drafted the power-sharing plan and seemed
confident of their ability to deliver opposition support." But the Bush
administration handed the opposition the whip hand in the negotiations when
it declared that—under conditions where much of the country had fallen to
an armed rebellion led by fascistic thugs—it would prop up Haiti's
constitutional government only if and when Aristide reached a deal with the
Democratic Platform.

The democratic pretences of the opposition have always been threadbare. It
includes disgruntled followers of Aristide, but is led by former supporters
of the Duvalier and Cédras dictatorships, and has a long and close
relationship with the Republican Party leadership, which, under the
presidency of Bush senior, supported the 1991 coup that ousted Aristide,
then bitterly opposed his restoration by the Clinton administration.

And like Washington, the opposition has been using the armed rebellion that
broke out in the north of the country February 5 and which is led by former
leaders of the disbanded Haitian army and the FRAPH death squad to press
for regime change in Port-au-Prince.

Initially, leaders of the Democratic Platform welcomed the uprising. Later
they re-dubbed themselves the "non-violent" opposition in a facile attempt
to put some distance between themselves and the gunmen. Yet on Monday, Hans
Tippenhauer, a prominent Haitian businessman, told an opposition news
conference that the rebels were "freedom fighters." Fearing Tippenhauer had
let the proverbial cat out of the bag, Andre Apaid, the sweatshop-owner and
US citizen who is the opposition's principal spokesman, interjected: "We
remain a non-violent and peaceful movement."

In rejecting the US-sponsored power-sharing plan, the opposition calculated
that the Bush administration would never snub them in order to shore up the
reviled Aristide. Indeed, Washington has responded to the collapse of its
plan by insisting that it is continuing to negotiate with the opposition
and stepping up the pressure on Aristide. The Associated Press reported
last night, "Two Western diplomats said they and colleagues were preparing
a request to ask Aristide to resign."

However, the opposition's cavalier dismissal of an accord that effectively
ended Aristide's rule and its indifference to the prospect Haiti will be
plunged into a humanitarian disaster and civil war, cannot but raise the
question as to whether it—or at least important elements within it—are
preparing for and plotting a bloodbath in Port-au-Prince. This could take
the form of welcoming an attack by rebels in the north, but more likely
would involve an independent bid for power as the national police force and
government continue to disintegrate. Haiti's business elite already has at
its disposal a vast number of private security forces, many of whose
personnel were formerly part of the Haitian army.

The World Socialist Web Site has no brief for Aristide. He played a pivotal
role in aborting the mass anti-imperialist movement that convulsed Haiti
between 1985 and 1991, has implemented social incendiary IMF restructuring
plans, and turned to violence and corruption to retain power.

But the opposition's claims that Aristide is worse than Duvalier, perhaps
even the devil incarnate, are not mere right-wing demagogy. Haiti's
privileged elite identify Aristide with a challenge from below and see his
removal as the restoration of the country's natural order—an order which
has consigned the overwhelming majority of the country's inhabitants to
illiteracy and abject poverty.

It remains to be seen just how far the "non-violent' opposition will
go—with Washington's connivance—in seeking to exact revenge on the
slum-dwellers of Port-au-Prince who propelled Aristide to power. But
already the likes of Hans Tippenhauer have been publicly feting the advance
across northern Haiti of rebel forces led by the armed thugs of previous
bloody dictatorships.

.