20769: Esser: Aristide Must Be Restored To Power In Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

The Sacramento Observer
http://www.SACOBSERVER.COM

March 23, 2004

Aristide Must Be Restored To Power In Haiti
 By Bill Fletcher Jr.

(NNPA) - In the midst of the current crisis in Haiti, an issue has
emerged among many people of conscience in the U.S. concerned about
the future of that country. The question facing pro-democracy forces
is whether, in addition to demanding an investigation of the U.S.
role in the destabilization of President Aristide, and in addition to
calling for the disarming of the thugs, that it is correct to call
for the restoration of President Aristide to office.

The arguments against making such a call seem to come down to the
fact that President Aristide remains a lightning rod in Haiti and
that there are many Haitian progressives on the ground in Haiti who
oppose the president. Those who are against calling for the
restoration of President Aristide are often concerned that supporting
such a demand will color U.S. progressives as ‘pro-Aristide,' leaving
us little room to reach out to the broad Haitian progressive movement.

In looking at this matter, one must keep in mind that fundamentally
there is a question of democracy and constitutional rule at stake.
Specifically, a duly elected president was removed from office
through the combination of a civilian opposition movement that chose
not to use legal means to challenge him; through the military
intervention of thugs from the old regime; and, according to
President Aristide, the connivance of the U.S. and the French,
resulting in a kidnapping.

A demand for the restoration of President Aristide is not a comment
on Aristide himself. It is a demand for the restoration of
constitutional democracy, albeit with its deficiencies. In demanding
the restoration of President Aristide we are saying that an illegal
action(s) was taken that disrupted the agreed upon process along
which Haiti was to function. In fact, the failure to demand the
restoration of President Aristide amounts to the acceptance of the
results of a coup, albeit in subtle terms.

Taking a pass on the demand for the restoration of President Aristide
because of criticisms of his performance as Haitian president is
saying that legal process can be trumped by political disagreements.
Insofar as legal instruments exist to address concerns about the
performance of an elected leader, they should not be disregarded. To
do so is to fall into the law of the survival of the fittest.

The argument against the demand is sometimes phrased in terms of how
President Aristide is divisive. Such an argument is, in point of
fact, irrelevant, since, as noted above, the matter is constitutional
rather than personal.

Yet, there is a deeper problem here that should be explored. There
are bitter divisions in Haiti that include skin color, class, gender,
and human rights. There are no angels in Haitian politics, so there
is no simplicity to the political situation. What Aristide
represented for many people, irrespective of whether he was able to
fulfill the promises he made, was an attempt at politics that
addressed the conditions of Haiti's majority, i.e., of the poor.
Tackling this question was and will be divisive. There is no
consensus candidate when it comes to addressing the vast disparity of
wealth, income and privilege in Haiti. The fact of division alone
cannot be interpreted as condemnation.

It is also the case that the Haitian people will have to settle their
own accounts with President Aristide. As we have earlier said,
President Aristide lost sections of his base due to what we believe
to have been some significant political errors. Some of those errors
may have been unavoidable, while others certainly were. This
situation, no matter what one thinks about the relative merits or
demerits of President Aristide cannot be settled through the de facto
acceptance of the result of a coup.

What makes it essential that people of conscience speak clearly and
unambiguously in favor of the restoration of President Aristide are
the circumstances that followed his exit. In a manner reminiscent of
the exile of Toussaint L'Ouverture more than 200 years ago, President
Aristide was spirited out of Haiti and dumped in near isolation
thousands of miles away from home. While the Bush administration
enjoyed ridiculing the notion that President Aristide was kidnapped,
the fact that he found himself sitting in the Central African
Republic under the intense scrutiny of the French-backed government,
unable to have regular and open communications with the media, let
alone his supporters, renders less than credible the rhetoric of
Bush, Powell, et. al., to the effect that President Aristide left on
his own volition. In fact, the circumstances of President and Mrs.
Aristide (the latter being a U.S. citizen) seemed fairly close to
what was once called "preventive detention." The Bush administration
has failed to give a straight answer to anyone as to how one can
explain the Central African Republic interlude.

The exit of President and Mrs. Aristide from the Central African
Republic and their return to the Caribbean has been interesting in
terms of the reaction that it has garnered from the Bush
administration. The arrogance of the administration on the matter of
the status of President Aristide is almost unbelievable, but also
compounds the credibility problem that Bush, et. al., have on the
matter of their role in Aristide's exit. The Bush administration's
insistence as to the alleged inappropriateness of Aristide being in
the Caribbean could lead an observer to infer that their suggestion
that President Aristide voluntarily left Haiti and the Caribbean was
less than truthful.

Try as many may, there is no getting around a basic fact: if there
was a coup against a legitimately elected leader, the remedy is not
passing blindly forward in the hope of creating a better day. The
remedy is full restitution, in this case meaning, restoration to
office and the completion of his elected term unless he is removed
through constitutional steps. It would be equally acceptable,
constitutionally, should President Aristide choose to step down
voluntarily, but not under duress and against his will.

TransAfrica Forum and many other groups have demanded a full
Congressional investigation of the role of the U.S. government in the
overthrow of President Aristide. This is about more than whether he
was literally kidnapped. It involves an investigation into the
destabilization efforts that have unfolded over the last several
years.

Pressure must be put on the administration to account for its
actions, but pressure must be placed on international bodies such as
the United Nations, the Organization of American States and CARICOM
(the Caribbean Community) to conduct their own investigations.
President Aristide, for example, should be invited to the United
Nations to address that body. He should be provided a means and
opportunity to explain publicly what happened to him and to his
government. Additionally, troops from other nations not associated
with a vile policy toward Haiti should replace the current occupation
force, disarm the so-called military opposition and help with the
return to constitutional democracy.

That said, as long as the world ignores the need to restore President
Aristide to office, the crisis will not be terminated. In fact, any
successor government will lack legitimacy. At best the burner will
have been turned down a bit, while the stew simmers awaiting a change
in pressure before it boils over.

Bill Fletcher Jr. is president of TransAfrica Forum, a Washington,
D.C.-based non-profit educational and organizing center formed to
raise awareness in the United States about issues facing the nations
and peoples of Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. He also is
co-chair of the antiwar coalition, United for Peace and Justice. He
can be reached at bfletcher@transafricaforum.org.
	 
Copyright © 2004 Sacramento Observer.
.