21730: Fenton: Reeves: Haiti's Disappeared (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Anthony Fenton <apfenton@ualberta.ca>

ZNet | Haiti

Haiti's Disappeared
by Tom Reeves; May 05, 2004
http://www.zmag.org

Returning to Haiti last month, I found a US. occupation not unlike that in
Iraq, but one of which very few Americans are aware. A month after I
returned from Haiti, and two months after the U.S. forced out the elected
President and a so-called "multinational force" occupied the country, Haiti
is in worse turmoil, with far more political repression than it has seen
since the junta of 1991-1994. The UN Security Council on April 30
approved a "peacekeeping" mission to Haiti to replace the "multinational
force" led by the U.S. The U.N. pledges 6,700 troops and 1,622 police for
the new force. The UN force is set to take command July 1, but U.S.,
French, Canadian and other troops from the original occupation will
continue to take part, despite condemnation from many quarters in Haiti
(including some in the current government) of what they call "a foreign
occupation." Despite a UN report in late April that called the situation in
Haiti "extremely volatile" and said that crime and violence in general had
increased since the departure of Aristide, the Security Council praised the
U.S. and its allies for their occupation since Feb. 29. Of the approximately
3500 troops under U.S. command, more than 2000 are U.S. marines. (AP
dispatches, April 30, May 1, 2004)

There is far more violence in Haiti than revealed by U.S. outlets like CNN,
FOX and the Associated Press, but perhaps not enough to whet the
scandal appetite of these media. In fact, in light of the extreme poverty (the
worst in this hemisphere) side-by-side with a tiny, ostentatiously rich elite,
and the extreme actions of ultra-right wing putschists and the U.S.
occupiers, it is surprising there was not much more violence. When
Haiti's poorest - the slum dwellers of Cite Soleil, Dessalines and Bel Air
in the low-lying areas of Port au Prince - saw their elected President
snatched and his dignity demeaned, it is surprising they did not take the
hand-guns which the U.S. has alleged were supplied to them by Aristide's
government (the government denied this) and slaughter a few score of the
mostly light-skinned millionaires in the up-hill suburb of Petionville. But
they did not. Dr. Paul Farmer, the public health worker universally praised
for his work against AIDS, malaria and TB in Haiti (and elsewhere),
explained, "I personally, in all my years in Haiti, have never once seen a
peasant with a gun. And almost all of the ones around these parts are
members of Famni Lavalas (FL - Aristide's party). Now I've tended to many
gunshot wounds, but they've been inflicted by former soldiers, police, or
people who have cars to drive-- not peasants." (email from Paul Farmer,
May 3, 2004)

Haiti made headlines for about three weeks. The U.S. media first covered
a "rebellion" against a "dictator," President Jean Bertrand Aristide, and
finally his abrupt removal in the middle of the night, Feb. 29. The U.S.
called this a voluntary departure which allowed the "restoration of
democracy." This is the version spun by corporate media. Aristide,
CARICOM (Haiti's Caribbean neighbors) and the U.S. Congressional
Black Caucus insisted Aristide did not resign, and was forced to fly to an
unknown destination. The U.S. took him to what State Department
briefings call the "most violent capital in he world," Bangui, Central African
Republic.

Critics said what happened was no rebellion - they called it a
U.S.-orchestrated coup. They pointed to testimony by the Creole specialist
hired by the State Department to translate what the U.S. called a
"resignation letter" from Creole to English. The letter was couched in the
subjunctive. It began, "If I were to resign...." This was similar to a letter
Aristide was forced to sign by the Haitian military in 1991, and was clearly
not a letter of voluntary resignation. That view was given little coverage,
and was dismissed as "ridiculous" by U.S. officials and most news
commentators.

I've been to Haiti many times since 1977. I helped organize the New
England Observer Delegations (NEOD) to Haiti between 1991 and 1998,
including many prominent Boston citizens. During the previous coup
period we witnessed horrible human rights abuses by the U.S. trained
Haitian army and their para-military FRAPH supporters, later proven to be
funded by the CIA. We also witnessed the almost universal jubilation of
the Haitian urban and rural poor (85% of the population) at the time of
Aristide's return. I also went to Haiti last March, witnessing the on-going
popularity among the poor for Aristide, as well as growing signs that a
genuine, U.S.-backed coup was in the works.

I went to Haiti this time to see the results of that coup. Again, I saw the
same conditions: massive violence against the poor, especially against
Lavalas and others associated with Aristide; the very same FRAPH and
former Haitian army figures committing the atrocities; continuing
overwhelming - though slightly less vocal - support for Aristide among the
poor (but not among the middle class professionals, some of which
supported him before, and certainly not the elite who have always
virulently hated him and his popular base).

I also went to Haiti puzzled and saddened by the deep rift in the Haiti
solidarity movement of which NEOD had been a vital part. I understood
why some were more critical of Aristide than others. But I did not
understand how disillusionment with him could translate into support for
an unconstitutional overthrow of a coup orchestrated by the U.S. I know
that my colleagues who supported those in Haiti who called for Aristide's
ouster at any cost, would insist they do not support a U.S. occupation, and
certainly not the return of the macoutes (as the Duvaliers' henchmen were
called). Yet this is what their position has helped bring about. I came
home convinced they were partly right about Aristide's alleged failings
(understandable, perhaps, for a leader in a U.S.-constructed neo-liberal
box) and dead wrong about what would happen if he was forced to leave.

THE "NEW REALITY" IN HAITI

What most Americans - including most American "progressives" do not
know are these facts:

(1) Many Haitians (including most of the poor majority) join the countries
of the Caribbean and Africa, the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus and
many other U.S. congress people as well as church and human rights
leaders to denounce the "rebellion" as a right-wing putsch financed and
supported by the U.S., and the ouster of Aristide as an outright U.S. coup
against a democratically elected President.

The U.S. and France, according to CARICOM officials, have threatened to
use the veto if CARICOM presses an investigation at the UN. Two
important meetings of CARICOM with U.S. officials, including one with the
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to discuss anti-terror measures,
have been canceled because the U.S. insisted the coup-installed Haitian
regime be seated and CARICOM refused. Caricom Secretary-General,
Edwin Carrington, said their decision not to sit at the table with
representatives of the Haitian government was a principled one. "Security
is very important to all of us, but I think the first thing that is of
importance
is the nature and regard for our community and you cannot compromise
on that principle," Mr Carrington said. (Speaking to the BBC Caribbean
Service, April 29, 2004.)

One hears today in the U.S. media, that Aristide's election in 2000 was
"fraudulent." There were questions raised by the OAS and others about
the legislative elections that year. The Presidential election was
monitored by international observers (Global Exchange and the
Catholic-oriented Quixote Center in Maryland) and by a much-praised
Haitian peasant group, KOZEPEP. The Haitian government monitor,
which set up the elections, was the CEP, which included no Lavalas and
several opposition members. All these monitors verified a free and fair
election with nearly 3 million voters, about 61% of those registered, giving
Aristide more than 90% against six minor candidates. Though the official
opposition - the Convergence - boycotted these elections, Gallup polls
commissioned for USAID and suppressed by the U.S., both before and
after the elections, indicate that the estimated turnout was correct - and
that most Haitians continued to support Aristide's election and the
Lavalas Party at least through 2002. In March 2002, 61.6% of those
responding said they sympathized or were members of FL, while only
13% indicated the Convergence or any of its constituent parties. When
asked to name the Haitian leader they most trusted, many said "none,"
but 60% of those responding picked Aristide, with the next closest figure,
Convergence leader Gerard Gourgue, receiving 3.7%. (I have a copy of the
CID-Gallup polls from 2000-March 2002, commissioned by USAID, and
leaked by a USAID employee. A final Gallup poll was done in March 2003
and similarly repressed. Those who have seen the results say FL
continued to receive support from more than half of those polled, and from
two-thirds of those identified as "poor.") The difference between the
Lavalas government and the current "de facto" regime on elections is that
Aristide went along with the rules that said opposition parties must be
part of the election council (CEP) which sets up elections. In late April,
after holding a conference with more than 1000 members attending -
many coming out of hiding due to severe persecution - the FL Party
refused to select a representative to the CEP, siting the widespread
violence against FL members. Religious leaders of the Ti Legliz
(so-called "little church" groups organized by liberation theology
advocates, similar to "base communities" in Nicaragua) held a protest
demonstration on April 29 at St. Jean Bosco church in La Saline, a
staunch Lavalas neighborhood. This is the site of a massacre in 1988 at
Aristide's parish church. Ti Legliz demanded an end to what they called
widespread persecution, including murders and arson against their
members. "No fair elections can take place in this environment," a Ti
Legliz spokesman said. (Agence Haitien de Press, April 29, 2004).
Nevertheless, Gerard Latortue, the de facto Prime Minister, says he
intends to go right ahead with elections - without Lavalas, clearly the
largest organized party in Haiti. The difference is that the U.S., OAS - and
evidently the UN - will go along with an election in a climate of fear that
excludes a major segment of the country's poorest people.

(2) The very same para-military and former Army officers who terrorized
Haiti during the previous coup are doing so today. Their victims are mostly
the poor and their popular organizations who supported (and still support)
President Aristide and FL. We interviewed many of these victims who said
they recognized their tormentors (and in one case rapists) as the same
men who had victimized them a decade ago. Among those terrorizing
Haiti today are many common criminals who were let out of the National
penitentiary by the "rebels," as well as major convicted human rights
abusers and mass murderers like Jodel Chamblain and Jean "Tatoune."

Chamblain staged his "surrender" at a posh Petionville hotel. He seems
poised to overturn his convictions and be re-invented as a "freedom
fighter." Brian Concannon is a U.S. lawyer and human rights expert who
advised the prosecutors in the Raboto massacre trials (where Chamblain
was convicted in absentia). Concannon says of Chamblain's surrender:
"...under the current circumstances, any case against [Chamblain] will be
a travesty. First, the victims are in hiding because his allies have been
terrorizing them. Second, the de facto Justice Minister publicly said earlier
this week that Chamblain has nothing to hide, which makes it clear that
the Justice Minister intends to do a whitewash. Third, the judge in the
Raboto case was beaten up by Chamblain's people on March 30, so
obviously you're not going to have a judge that will follow the case
seriously. And finally, the house of the Raboto trial's lead prosecutor was
burned down in February. So it's unlikely that you're going to have a
zealous prosecutor take this case."

One former Haitian officer, Remissanthe Raix, calls himself the current
army head, commanding more than 1600 soldiers, and adamantly
refuses to disarm. "We ARE the army and we are back," said Raix. In the
Central Plateau, another former Haitian army officer, Joseph
Jean-Baptiste, refused to disarm his troops, welcoming the Chilean
occupiers so long as their 30 soldiers didn't challenge his 400 in the
Hinche area. Shortly after the Chileans arrived (April 20) to spend days in
Hinche, going back to a Port au Prince base each night, two police
stations and the Hinche FL headquarters were burned.

(3) A violent repression is going on that approaches the level of the last
coup - 3000-5000 over three years. Several delegations of U.S. solidarity
leaders and human rights lawyers have documented and denounced this
on-going repression - among them the Quixote Emergency Observer
Delegation of which I was part, the EPICA (Ecumenical Program in
Central America and the Caribbean) delegation, the National Lawyers'
Guild delegation, the Black Lawyers' Association delegation, and the first
Amnesty International delegation since the coup. These are the first
serious attempts to investigate and document human rights violations in
Haiti since Feb. 29. (See Let Haiti Live "Human Rights Report," May 1,
2004 - www.haitireborn.org) Their indictment of the "de facto" government
for its failure to investigate such cases and its apparent complicity with the
perpetrators is scathing.

continued...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=55&ItemID=5467