20952: Esser: Re: 20940: Marassa question for Esser hoping to clarify (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

Delighted to be at your service:

Laennec Hurbon, has to my knowledge published works on art and
vodoun, but has not shown himself to be an outstanding commentator of
Haitian politics. In a statement to 'Le Monde' he said (in the Fall
of last year): "People are not easily duped by this imaginary battle
launched by an illegitimate government against a country presented as
some maleficent entity responsible for the lack of water,
electricity, or cars in the shantytowns." He is speaking here against
the call for restitution. While it's o.k. to be against that,
although he hasn't really made a good case, it's baffling to hear
that Aristide's government should be illegitimate. The government of
Haiti at the time, unlike his de facto successors, was universally
recognized as being legitimate. I do not know of a single
international body or government that refused to accept Jean-Bertrand
Aristide as the duly elected representative of his people. When
someone makes such arguments without ever backing them up, one has to
be careful in believing the rest of their statements. In any kind of
discourse it is the ability to make a case that, in the end, can
either make you look very bad or allow your statements to stand on
their own merits.

As to Lyonel Trouillot, I let him speak for himself: "... Haitians
weren't surprised when the democratic opposition, with no ties to the
rebels, this week rejected an American-drafted proposal that would
give it more power but also let President Aristide complete his term
in office." (NY Times OP-ED, February 26, 2004) So this analyst, if I
may call him that, is fond of the euphemism "rebels" for the sinister
characters that, by many accounts, terrorized the provinces. That can
be explained by his fondness for their objectives, but how do we
explain the statement that the rebels had no ties to what he terms
the "democratic opposition"? This term in itself is somewhat of a
misnomer because this "opposition" refused to take part in elections
or agree to democratic and non-violent solutions in the run-up to
Jean-Bertrand Aritide's ouster.

Jean Casimir, a former Haitian ambassador, is on the record as
somebody with a, shall I say, unique approach to analyzing current
affairs. "Quick-fix approaches, e.g., Aristide plus Cedras divided by
two or Fanmi Lavalas plus Convergence divided by two, amount to zero,
in Casimir's words, and are doomed to failure in Haiti." This is from
the Haiti Democracy Project, yet another "champion" of resolving
political issues democratically. I haven't read much about, or by,
Mr. Casimir but sentences such as the above don't make me regret it
either.

Chavannes Jean-Baptiste has himself gone public saying: "[Aristide
is] nothing but a political cadaver who will pass like garbage
through the history of Haiti". (in an article by Andrew Gumbel in
the 'The Independent', February 21, 2004) Besides being patently
offensive it shows disrespect for the Haitians that voted for him,
Aristide that is.

I have yet to read anything by Lolo Beaubrun, I like his music, but
as political commentator he seems more in the league of Wyclef Jean
and shouldn't quit his day job.


None of these persons mentioned are exactly shining lights when it
comes to writing on politics. In the sense of being able to
thoughtfully present an analysis that can be deconstructed without
falling apart. For that reason it is rather difficult to compare them
to Marguerite Laurent, Kevin Pina or Tom Reeves, all three of which
have produced bodies of writings that not only show their propensity
to decipher Haittian politics, but also their strong ability to back
up their statements. You may disagree with their conclusions, but it
is hard to challenge them on their abilities to present a viable
argument.

The others who have come out in opposition to Aristide have not been
able to come up with much, if any, evidence for their claims. It is
rather easy...: To use a favorite expression of the Associated Press
these days: Haiti is "teeming" with representatives of Human Rights
organizations that can not be counted to be on Aristide's side. If
there is merit to their accusations of terror and murder, why have
these individuals not come forward and gave their credible
information to others to enable investigations? It is easy to say
that certain police stations had become worse than Fort Dimanche
under the Duvaliers, but if it was so bad, why has nobody troubled to
amass more than collections of rumors. It is my belief that you can
not deny people their experience, but while victims of FRAPH have
come forward and gave their accounts, often under grave threats to
their lives or that of their relatives, the alleged victims of
Aristide's terror have shown a remarkable lack of interest in
fighting for their version to be heard. If one witnesses a crime and
stays silent about it or doesn't help in prosecuting the
perpetrators, they are either also guilty, at least on moral grounds,
or people might question if said terror has really occurred in the
way they would have believe us. That Haiti is a country that
struggles to enforce it's own laws is common knowledge, that
political murders are carried out, as well, but to make allegations
that such actions are either ordered by a head of state or condoned
is a matter that begs for more investigations. One can and should not
believe such claims from people that adamantly refuse to lay open
their sources and do nothing themselves to arrange for inquiries.

It does not matter if one lives in Haiti, a fact proven by many
writers on the country, but more if one is capable to sort the rumors
from the facts and being able to clearly convey thoughts. Often it is
even easier to portray a situation when one has the ability to step
back to better reflect. And you don't have to be Haitian to dissect
the politics of the country either, you just have to work harder on
understanding what's going on.

That people that were once for Aristide and are now against him
proves nothing besides the fact that they changed their opinion. This
is not so much about Aristide as it is about democratic principles.
The people in opposition to him, by and large, did not not favor
elections. For that reason alone, their calls of undemocratic rule
ring hollow. One has to suspect it was not so much Aristide that
changed, but his erstwhile allies that did not receive what they had
perceived is theirs. That some organizations came out against
Aristide, proves if anything, that a little money goes a long way in
a poor country. There has been a, by Haitian standards, serious
amount of money tossed around to foment dissent among Haitians.
That many organizations are against him, I have not seen conclusive
proof of. Haiti also has a lot of organizations, that often do not have
many
people behind them and many of the alienated people belong to Haiti's
rather thin middle class, that certainly has made not many gains
since the end of the Duvalier era.

On a final note, the history of politics is full of divisions in
political groupings, infighting among former allies and people that
are trying to undermine their past leaders. The Haitian history
leading up to the revolution is full with such tales. That doesn't
prove either side right or wrong, but it helps to understand why some
factions in Haitian politics such as the "affranchis" and their
descendants, have most often turned their backs on their fellow
country men and women when it came to a crossroads in the political
development of the country.

See: not really any confusions on my part. It seems like this time
around, as in the past, everybody is sticking to their scripts. This
doesn't make for an interesting narrative, but it lightens the load
on those who are willing to analyze what is happening.
.