21232: Fenton: RE: FWD: 21221: (Chamberlain) re: 21212: Fenton: Promo Capital (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Anthony Fenton <apfenton@ualberta.ca>

I'm most concerned with the anti-Aristide/anti-occupation position of
Chalmers, SOFA, Batay Ouvriye, and others.  If they are legitimately
anti-occupation, then why are they not demonstrating against it, especially
considering the fact that they helped bring about the occupation in the first
place? To be clearer: I know who to stand in solidarity with in Iraq and
Afghanistan concerning the occupation[s]. This is not so clear in the case
of Haiti. The logical consequnce of being opposed to occupation is that in
some way you *resist* occupation. And generally speaking, those who are
opposed to military occupation are generally those who are being
repressed by it. It would seem that Chalmers can only benefit from the
occupation, for while the occupation continues he can try and expand his
base of support, while the actually-existing base of popular support is
hunted down, executed, disappeared, divided, or generally silenced by the
occupying forces and the newly militarized Haitian police.

I fail to see how the question about Chalmers's background are
impertinent. Is it true that George W. Bush's father was Director of the CIA
and President of the United States? Is it true that Paul Martin's father was
a high-ranking Canadian politician?

In the cases of GWB and Paul Martin, Jr, these individuals are in fact
*more* brutal than their fathers were. While it does not *necessarily*
follow that Chalmers would be a Duvalierist in disguise [manifesting
currently in a 'faux-Left' disguise], I don't see why the question shouldn't
be
raised at all. In fact, I would love to hear from Camille how he differs from
his father. As I understand it the authoritarian left is separated by a thin
line from the authoritarian right.

>By Fenton's argument, anyone living in Haiti under Papa Doc was a
>Duvalierist and anyone living in the US under Bush is a er... supporter of
>the invasion of Iraq/Haiti, or a criminal accomplice to it by paying taxes
>to support it.

By my "argument", actually, sons and daughters of former Duvalier cabinet
ministers who are currently engaged in Haiti's "new" political environment
ought to be able to stand up to questioning and criticism on these
grounds.

Also, it's not a question of being a "supporter" or a "criminal accomplice"
regarding the invasion[s] of Iraq/Haiti, [and we should add Afghanistan]. It
*is* a question of moral responsibility. As a citizen, decisions are being
made in my name that I do not agree with. It is the responsibility of citizens
to challenge such decisions. The failure to do so allows for the
reproduction of the circumstances of terror that we are now seeing in all of
these places. And if these decisions were made illegally, if international
laws were violated in carrying them out, then this has to be interrogated
rigourously by those responsible...

anthony