20743: Jepiem: Haiti: Some questions (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Jepiem@aol.com

In many haitian venues these days, you hear plenty of boasting about the
great accomplishment of Haiti the first nation (or is it prenation never to become
a nation?) having victoriously wresled its freedom from the colonialist
armies of Napoleon Bonaparte, the first and only black republic to have done so.
Haiti is in the midst of celebrating the 200th anniversary of that epochal
event. There are plays about the Bois Caiman ceremony, the seminal event which
galvanized the energies of the slaves towards the final January,1, 1804
consecration. At that ceremony, the Boukman motto was "Libete ou la Mau." ( Freedom or
Death). But this was 1804 and today in 2004 it is celebration. But even if it
is only a Celebration, I do have a few pertinent questions:
1) What happened to the 1987 Haitian Constitution? Is it still in effect? Is
it "en veilleuse" or are they picking and choosing which parts of it are
applicable? Has it been declared obsolete ("caduque" would fit the situation much
better) If so, are we to excpect a new Constitutional Convention or will
haitians find it giftwrapped one day under their pillow like Japan after the second
world war and more recently Irak?
2) These  foreign men with heavy weapons, casks and boots that run around in
humvees in Haiti now, who do they answer to? If they kill someone
inadvertently, willingly or mistakenly what court do they fall under? If one of these
soldiers rape a young girl who administer them justice?
 3) What is Haiti's international legal status? Is it a country occupied like
Irak or is it still independent. If it is occupied how did that come about
and why isn't there a governor like in Irak? If it is not, who runs Haiti now?
what is the line of command? Do the french and american generals receive their
orders from Mr Bonaventure or Mr Latortue?  When Aristide was president and
Duvalier before him and for that matter every haitian president, it was the
president, no matter any Constitution or any Prime Minister. The haitian people
always looked at their president as the one in charge and responsible for
everything, like it used to be with their forefathers in Africa ( the king or the
head of the tribe). That's why they had to go after Aristide and not anyone else
to bring about the change.
4) And to follow #4 is Haiti now a failed  state? Who would officially
declare that? What would be the legal implications? I have heard it say many times
before that Haiti was or was near being declared one. If it has not been
declared one why not? and what makes it different now? If it is and has not been
declared why not officially declare it so? And what will it take for Haiti to
rejoin the table of "civilized" and "independent" nations?
  These are some sincerely meant questions and not the rantings of some
disgruntled Aristidist nor the spewings of some leftist who won't "get over it". I
suspect more than a few would be interested in some answers. The UN and the
OAS and most of all those that brought about this constitutional or should I say
unconstitutional ( or is it anticonstitutional?) change should step forward
and provide them. Those answers have more than academic importance. I would
consider them vital because some assumptions of responsibilities would flow from
them. I won't hold my breath though. Why assume responsibility when no one is
holding your feet to the fire? Without answers though things will go on
without anyone being  really responsible and the finger pointing will be the only
answer to the continuing failure. There will never be a day of reckoning will
there?
Math Jay