23173: Esser: Caricom's Haiti agenda victim of Ivan (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser <torx@joimail.com>

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

Caricom's Haiti agenda victim of Ivan
by Rickey Singh

September 19, 2004

AMID Caricom's continuing preoccupation with the disasters resulting
from the dreaded visitation of "Hurricane Ivan", some may well have
missed an important development in Haiti that has much to do with
ongoing differences within the Community on the basis for engagement
with the interim regime in Port-au-Prince.

That development was the passing of a "disarmament deadline" fixed
for September 15. It was expected that by then the rebels who had
contributed to the ousting from power of President Jean Bertrand
Aristide, as well as supporters of his "Fanmi Lavalas" party would
have surrendered their weapons, without facing arrest.

The rebels, some of whom were unwisely hailed as "freedom fighters"
by Prime Minister Gerard Latortue of the interim regime in March at a
rally, are now defiant against compliance with an agreement reached
in July to hand over all their weapons and be granted immunity from
prosecution.
Collapse of the agreement could further aggravate tension, not only
in Haiti, where sporadic clashes continue to occur between armed
rebels, many from the disbanded official army, and supporters of
Aristide.

It could create more problems also among governments of Caricom that
have differing views on the conditions for Haiti's return to the
councils of the Community and for full engagement with the interim
Latortue regime.
Disarming of all parties and elements in the Haitian conflict
situation and restoration of an environment conducive to law and
order and the conduct of internationally supervised competitive
elections, are among important factors for "engagement" prior to
Haiti's retaking its seat in Caricom.

Since Aristide was forced out of power on February 29, there have
been three separate meetings of Caricom Heads of Government - without
any involvement of, or representation by, the interim Haitian regime.
The latest such meeting was that of Wednesday (September 16) in
Port-of-Spain to deal, in an extraordinary session, with the
post-hurricane situations in the region, with the primary focus on
devastated Grenada.
Prior to last week's meeting, the Caricom leaders had met in St Kitts
for their 15th Inter-Sessional Conference in March, followed by the
25th regular annual summit in Grenada.

At both the St Kitts and Grenada meetings, the Haitian governance
crisis occupied a great deal of time but without resolving the sticky
conditionalities for collective "engagement" with the interim regime.
After the Grenada summit, optimism was not particularly high for an
emergency session of the Community leaders before a special meeting
by them scheduled for the first week in November on primarily
CSME-readiness, and coinciding with the inauguration of the Caribbean
Court of Justice (CCJ).

Now Hurricane Ivan's unprecedented devastation of Grenada would have
dashed any lingering possibility for the proposed special meeting on
Haiti before November.
"Collective engagement" with Port-au-Prince, as distinct from the
limited bilateral relations currently involving a few Caricom states
and Haiti, may also have fallen victim to the wrath unleashed on the
region by "Ivan" the terrible hurricane.
Even if the community leaders still meet in November in
Port-of-Spain, as still officially being planned for, it may prove
quite an enormous challenge to achieve consensus on the basis for
collective engagement, especially in view of the new security
challenges in Haiti and the rule of law climate, arising from the
collapse of the agreement for disarmament - even with the United
Nations peace-keeping force on the ground.

According to those in a position to know, the divisions that persist
among the community leaders over the basis for Caricom's collective
engagement with the interim Haitian regime, include questions about
the imprisonment - without trial, on murder charges - of Yvon
Neptune, prime minister in Aristide's administration, while known
armed rebels and criminals remain at large.
Further, it is felt that it may be better to avoid a row over Haiti
at the proposed Port-of-Spain special summit during the very week of
the presidential election in the USA.

It is known that the George Bush Administration was actively involved
in the installation of the interim Haitian regime with Latortue as
its prime minister, having been earlier played a key role in the
departure from office of President Aristide.
On the other hand, some Caricom leaders while anxious to resolve the
impasse on full engagement are, nevertheless, questioning the wisdom
of "wasting precious time" in arguing over Haiti at the scheduled
November summit.

I have been told that unless there could be some clear understanding
about a common resolve to "move the CSME-readiness process forward"
at the coming November meeting, then it would be pointless for the
leaders gathering in Port-of-Spain to "row over the timing and basis
for engagement with the Haitian regime", while Americans are occupied
that week trying to determine whether or not to give George Bush a
second term.
Prime Minister Owen Arthur of Barbados recently went public with his
declaration that his government reserved the right to engage fully
with the Haitian regime and, by implication, that it was not
necessarily waiting for a collective approach by the community.

But both Arthur's Vincentian and St Lucian counterparts (Ralph
Gonsalves and Kenny Anthony) were already on record as having
separately stated that it has always been the understanding that ANY
member state of Caricom was free to engage in bilateral relations
with the Haitian regime.
Concerns also persist over what has happened to Caricom's original
call, back in March this year at the emergency Kingston summit hosted
by Prime Minister P J Patterson, for an independent international
probe into the circumstances surrounding Aristide's sudden departure
from office.

Six months later, it is time for an official explanation, especially
since there is good reason to say that NO official request was ever
made to the secretary-general of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, for
such an international investigation.
Nor was ANY official effort made to get a meeting of the UN General
Assembly to at least discuss the circumstances of Aristide's fall
from power, without necessarily having to pass a resolution.

Further, it is now also known that when Caricom eventually moved to
involve the Permanent Council of the Organisation of American States
(OAS) in undertaking such an investigation, within the context of the
Inter-American Democratic Charter, with particular reference to
Article 20, Barbados, surprisingly, was not among the co-sponsors of
that resolution.
In the end, the initiative was frustrated and it was not until the
OAS General Assembly meeting in Quito, that a rather truncated
resolution was approved to mandate the Permanent Council to assess
the governance problem in post-Aristide Haiti and to produce a report.
Question: What exactly has been done about that mandate by the OAS
Permanent Council since the meeting of the General Assembly?
.