21380: Esser: Re: 21360: McCalla: RE: 21318: Esser: The American Learning Zone (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

Mr. McCalla writes that Tom Reeves makes many claims in his article,
no disagreement here. That his information is supposedly not based on
solid facts, sound analysis etc., needs some explaining. Does the
NCHR accuse the Haitian people, met by the delegation Tom Reeves
participated in, of lying? Has your organization looked into the
violence against Lavalas and come up with contrary evidence? One
never should deny people their own experiences and and as much as I
won't discredit eyewitness accounts when people suffered injustice
during Lavalas' time in office, I would never dismiss peoples
personal accounts of suffering in the present, unless there's
concrete evidence to the contrary. Maybe the NCHR has, to date
unpublished, information we don't have and will enlighten us, as to
why the NCHR believes that evidence gathered by Tom Reeves'
delegation is invalid?

Tom Reeves writes:

<...Although they were the only human rights group in the country
adequately funded and having trained monitors throughout Haiti, the
NCHR became completely partisan: anti--Lavalas, anti--Aristide. This
is simply not proper for a group calling itself a "Haitian Rights"
organization. During the final month before the coup, they abandoned
any pretext of impartiality, joining calls for the ouster of
Aristide, without reference to the means. After Feb. 29, they
continue to site abuses by "chimere," whom they call simply "Aristide
gangs," without documenting the connections. Though they told our
group they had "heard about" violence against unarmed Lavalas,
including the possible complicity of U.S. marines in the Bel Air
incident, the NCHR said they "lacked access" to the pro--Lavalas
shanty--towns. Of course they lacked access: they lacked any shred of
credibility as a human rights monitor. ...>

This seems the part that is the casus belli. In your response you do
not dispute Tom Reeves when it comes to claiming that the NHCR went
virtually overboard in it's opposition to Lavalas. The facts are on
Tom Reeves side, as a quick look at the NCHR's web-site will tell. It
is a little strange to see a Human Rights Organization, so partial as
to negate everything that is happening to partisans of the other
side. It seems: you didn't want to criticize Tom Reeves on the
merits of his writings, simply because his allegation is borne out by
the facts, including your posts to this very list. Whenever reports
of killings perpetrated against Lavalas came up you either chose to
stay silent or called it a fabrication. In this context it is
interesting to revisit the following incident:

In August of last year the NCHR saw attachés operating out of police
stations. Allegations which could not be proven beyond doubt by the
NCHR at the time nor verified by other observers. Mr. McCalla if I am
wrong on this count, would you please point me to reports by other
organizations claiming to have observed the same attachés? To read an
account of the situation at the time:
http://www.haiti-progres.com/2003/sm030827/eng08-27.html Haïti
Progrés in an article about the claimed (resurgence?) of "Attachés"
in Haiti (Vol. 21 No. 2 - August 27, 2003):

The writer concludes:
<..For years, Haitian progressives have viewed NCHR as far from
impartial in its role in Haiti. Under the guise of “human rights,” it
provides the “moral” veil for Washington’s merciless campaign of
undermining the Haitian people’s struggle for democracy and
sovereignty. ..>

or for the NCHR side (I suggest reading both, to form your own
opinion):
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:kByvpf-zClMJ:www.nchrhaiti.org/
article.php3%3Fid_article%3D88+special+brigade+nchr&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
where the NCHR states:

<...For some time, one has witnessed the return in force of the
attaché phenomenon with the grimacing image of all that it
characterizes. The National Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR) is
profoundly concerned about the development of this dangerous
phenomenon and the implication it has for democracy and stability of
the State, and so publishes this report as a warning to the public.
...> (From Google's cache of
http://www.nchrhaiti.org/article.php3?id_article=88 , since the NCHR
Haiti web-site is not available at the time of writing this)

I am slightly confused as to what "condescending sandelistas" are.
Can you clarify that term? Overall this paragraph sounds a little bit
upset, doesn't it. Critics are either wrong and can be proven so or
they are right... Why such silly statements that people, just because
they find themselves in disagreement with you <can't face
themselves>? I think we are all mature enough to realize that the
discussions here are in the end about practical solutions to complex
problems or at least the free and fair exchange of information and
opinions, not name-calling. If putting forth arguments as to why the
NCHR has not always acted in the interests of the Haitian people
makes me a "sandelista", I guess I am one too...


McCalla writes:

...Those who really wish to see a free, democratic, human rights
based, law-abiding state in Haiti should perhaps take the time to
really reflect on what it will take to reach each one of these
objectives. I, for one, am tired of condescending sandelistas acting
no better than the cowboys in Washington as they recklessly malign
democracy and human rights activists, because on the one hand they
can't face the truth, and on the other, they can't face themselves.
...