21552: Antoine: Re: 21541: Dailey: 21530- The unconstitutional abolition of the Haitian Army (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Guy S. Antoine <webmaster@haitiforever.com>

Peter Dailey wrote:
> Paul Farmer, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Norman "Otis" Richmond and
> others similarly misinformed have "criticized" La Tortue...for
> stating that Aristide's abolition of the Army in 1994...was
> unconstitutional.

Paul Farmer has a cause, which you may or may not espouse, but
I think that the "misinformed" label hardly applies to him.  He is
very knowledgeable about Haiti's torturous political history, and
has chosen to use his knowledge to advocate for the Haitian poor.
He has written several serious books to further his views.  While
this does not oblige you to subscribe to his opinion on that
particular topic, I think that Farmer has amply demonstrated that
he is not a misinformed person.

As for Mumia Abu-Jamal and Norman Richmond's knowledge of
the Haiti situation, I cannot vouch for either.  I only know Mumia
from his experience in Philadelphia and writings on other topics.

By the way, the U.S. appointed Prime Minister's name is Latortue, not
"La Tortue" (all jokes aside).

> Whether or not Aristide's action was constitutional is a legal
> question and not a  moral or practical one.

I absolutely agree with you on that point.  The real question is
why the much talked issues of the army's formal dissolution
and that of dual citizenship were never properly debated by the
Legislature, with the goal of either validating the prescriptions
of the 1987 Constitution or amending them via due process,
when deemed necessary.  As is usually the case, all the talk was
much ado about nothing, treading water for political survival
but not risking any real legislative action to advance the interests
of the population they were elected to represent.

> When the ill-fated Minouche Amendment was placed before the
> parliament last August, it was accompanied by a constitutional
> amendment that would have formally abolished the army, as well
> as one that would have done away with the tripartite system of
> magistrates.

I am so glad to have someone who appears to have some solid
information on the legislative agenda of Aristide's administration.
Just what was this "ill-fated Minouche Amendment" and in what
language was it formulated?  Are you referring simply to the
dual citizenship matter (or "double nationalité", as it is often
called, though on a list where we keep having to restate or
redefine "coup", "witness", "genocide" and other words, we would
be hopelessly lost in a discussion of nationality and citizenship's
varying concepts, from one culture to another, from one official
language to another, from one legal system to another) ?

Should that be the case however, I have to say that you have
preemptively stripped all notions of dual citizenship to the
eventuality of Mildred Aristide's eligibility  to succeed her
husband as President of Haiti.  I have a hard time conceiving
that that is all there was about the much talked about (but do
nothing about) dual citizenship amendment which was favored
by the majority of Haitians in the Diaspora, I surmise, and as
could be expected by their circumstances.

However, since there was so little real debate about it, as far
as I could tell, I am not knowledgeable enough to reject your
insinuation.  I am curious as to the level of your knowledge
or certitude that indeed it was all the consideration given by
the Aristide government to this matter.  Are you a "witness"
to the handling of this case, or are you just relaying the more
than predictable speculation and inevitable hearsay?  If you
can corroborate what you imply, it would be interesting for
us all to learn more about the facts of the "ill-fated Minouche
amendment" and just what transpired to seal its fate?


> For someone with a pistol at the back of their head, I doubt
> it makes a whole lot of difference whether the boot on their
> neck was issued by an army or police department, or belongs
> to some vigilante.

You are absolutely right on this score.  One relevant difference
however would be whether the violence is state-sponsored or not.
Another is the response of the state, even when the violence is
anarchic by nature and not attributable to specific directives from
the administration.  At issue is Haiti's persistent tradition of
impunity regardless of who is in power.  There is no denying
however that the United States has, over years and decades,, been
less than helpful in their utmost protection of protecting what
they consider "their" s.o.b.'s.  Though they are quick to decry the
breakdown of civil society, they do not appear to think twice about
contributing to it by providing arms, military training, intelligence,
and other logistical support to the s.o.b.'s that do their bidding.

> What Haiti desperately needs today is...to  prevent... warlordism
> in the countryside and gangsterism in the cities, and to reassert
> the rule of law.

I think that any sane person would agree with the stated goals.

> So far there is not a lot of cause for optimism.

Why do you not feel optimism at this juncture?


Guy S. Antoine
Windows on Haiti
http://haitiforever.com