20120: Nadel: Re: 20081: (Chamberlain) re: 20062: Esser/McCalla (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Joshua Nadel <nadel@email.unc.edu>

Mr. Chamberlain -

Whether allegations of corruption against the Aristide government are
true or not, it appears to me that the view of the opposition in Haiti,
as well as that of the United States (with the exception of the week or
so from Feb. 11-Feb. 19), is extremely short sighted.  By fixating on
the person of Aristide, they have in essence lost sight of the
importance of institutionalizing democracy.  If the president is
corrupt and violent, fine.  Agree to elections, show the world how
corrupt the government is.  Work through constitutional channels --
through legal channels.    I am not so naive as to think that this
would be either a) quick or b) without sacrifice.  However, it would
show that what matters is not who controls the government, and that
there are rules by which all players must abide, both government and
opposition.  The opposition cannot say that they played the political
game, any more--perhaps--than Aristide can.  And with the arrival of
the U.S. Marine-led international force, any true constitutionality has
been taken out of the picture.

The sad thing is that there were ample opportunities to do the right
thing, the last of which was the CARICOM power sharing compromise (to
which Aristide, in principle, agreed).  It would have pleased neither
side but would have ultimately been better than what there is now:
conflicting reports about the nature of Aristide's departure; U.S.
Marines holding a tenuous peace; Guy Philippe and his gang of human
rights violators loose with weapons chasing chimeres and their ilk; and
an opposition who could only agree on their desire to have Aristide
gone now beginning to show signs of internecine squabbling.

Had the U.S. done the right thing and intervened before Aristide's
departure to uphold the constitution, the short-term result may have
been a continuation of Aristide's presidency.  The more important,
long-term result would have been a message to both sides that there are
legitimate and illegitimate ways of governing, legitimate and
illegitimate ways of expressing protest, and that the system is more
important than one man--whether it be Aristide or Apaid.  In short,
what was needed to tackle the roots of the national crisis was the
upholding of the constitution, not the departure of one man.

Joshua



On Tuesday, March 9, 2004, at 07:43  AM, Bob Corbett wrote:

>
> From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>
>
>> Esser wrote:
>
>> it is strange politics to say the least to first condone violence by
>> not
> speaking out against it, and then wishing it would go away...
>
>
> Yet this is just what the scores of rent-a-radical writers who've
> suddenly
> discovered Haiti are doing.
>
> Condoning the violence, corruption and incompetence of Aristide's rule
> by
> carefully avoiding anything but the most sanitised mention of such
> "problems" and being awfully glad the spectacle of his overthrow has
> conveniently hidden it all from view.
>
> Haitians of all classes have been thoroughly abused and impoverished
> by the
> outgoing regime.  What's to come might (or might not) be worse, but
> it's
> sad to see so many people fooled by Aristide's ringing calls for
> "democracy" and "peace" when he showed such little interest in applying
> these ideals when he was in power.
>
> He clearly isn't the instrument Haiti needs to tackle the roots of its
> acute national crisis, any more that foreign occupation is.
>
>
>         Greg Chamberlain
>
>

++++++++++++++++++++
Joshua H. Nadel
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of History
CB 3195 Hamilton Hall
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC 27599