21175: Esser: Perspective and Interpretation (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

The Jamaica Observer
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com

April 07, 2004

Perspective and interpretation
by Becki Patterson

Anyone using or allowing the use of violence and intimidation to
achieve political ends is a terrorist. It does not matter whether
their motivation is religious or secular. Since Bin Laden brought to
the fore the use of religious fanaticism as a motivation for terror,
some seem to be ignoring the fact that there are others who use
terror without any such labels or references. It is wrong for loss of
life to be excused with the aim of achieving political ends. Those
who do this have no right to be in power and to hold office. Being in
power and holding office carries the responsibility of knowing when
the greater good of a people overrides personal political stature,
fame and even fortune.

Few support the Canadian interpretation of Aristide's "resignation".
Foreign Minister Bill Graham said in the Canadian parliament: "Of
course, his decision was the result of the deteriorating security
situation in his country and he was motivated, as he said in his
resignation letter, by a desire to avoid a potentially bloody civil
war. That letter clearly indicates that it was his decision to leave
and, to his credit, it was a decision that spared his nation worse
violence, indeed, the possibility of a humanitarian catastrophe."

The point of Aristide's departure is that the killings have
decreased, although through an artificial method - the presence of an
organised, foreign army.

There has been no army in Haiti for the past eight years. The current
method by which the violence has been reduced in Haiti is considered
by some as being violently incorrect. The same could be said about
interim prime minister, Latortue, getting on a platform with convicts
and drug smugglers, praising them as freedom fighters while not
ordering their arrest. On the other hand, supporters of Aristide are
being arrested.

Democracy is about meeting the people's needs, not the desires of
leaders. Haiti's condition is explained because this tenet has been
consistently disregarded. Already Prime Minister Latortue is shaping
up to be more of the same - in fast forward mode because of the
comfort he has from US backing, that is conveniently ignoring his
early and outrageous indiscretions. This is where international
pressure must be exerted. An election that reinstates the voice of
the people must be held quickly. It must adhere to the constitution
and be held in the 90 days stipulated by the constitution.

It is a tragic but somewhat laughable irony that on Monday, Colin
Powell, who had consistently argued for early Haitian elections,
stood beside Latortue and agreed that Haiti's elections will be in
2005. It does not matter what the constitution says. If the only
factor delaying elections was Aristide, why not now obey the
constitution?

Powell's visit will be interpreted by some as giving legitimacy to
Latortue and, by extension, to the thugs and drug runners with whom
he has publicly aligned himself.

Aristide's choices just over a month ago were resignation and
departure or assassination. If that was the reality, then Aristide
should count his blessings. Unfortunately for him, he is finished
politically. If he goes back to Haiti, and is not killed, the
constitution prevents him from standing for a consecutive term.
However, his Fanmi Lavalas party can win subsequent elections. Would
the US allow this obvious embarrassment?

Opportunities appear to abound for political opportunists.
Haiti's political party landscape is confused by the absence of a
coherent opposition. Convergence Democratique, the 15-party coalition
that refused to take part in any activity until Aristide left, is
fractious. It agrees on only one thing - that Aristide should go. Now
that he is gone, there is no core.

It is not surprising, therefore, that in the days before Aristide's
departure, the "voice" of the opposition was a small group led by
well-known Haitians that had one agenda - maintaining their control
of the country's parlous economy. Numerically, they would not stand a
chance in an election.

Would it be too far-fetched, then, to suggest that delay in the
election, backed by Powell, is to ensure the "correct" result - one
that does not embarrassingly indicate Aristide's latent influence? If
the voice of the majority rang out for Fanmi Lavalas once before,
given the opportunity it can do the same again.

The economically depressed people of Haiti have one real weapon - the
vote. Anyone with an interest in Haiti should be working to ensure
that this process takes place, rather than overseeing the removal or
installation of a leader not determined by the people.

Some readers interpreted last week's column as an attack on Aristide
and Caricom. My argument, however, is simply this: the quality of
life, and rights of people, are fundamental to any form of politics.
If it is not, then it becomes something else. Sadly, for 200 years
Haiti has been an example of politics going wrong, and Caricom is yet
to really prove itself helpful to the process and people.

beckipatterson@hotmail.com
.