23690: Severe (reply): 23685/23672 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Constantin Severe <csevere@hotmail.com>

If one follows the constant of Haitian politics of destroying all rivals
while entrenching yourself in power. Then some of the decisions of the
recent Haitian political past makes sense. For instance, when Aristide was
on the ropes in early Februrary 2004. The "civil opposition" refused a power
sharing agreement that would of given them more than they possibly could
have hoped for even three months earlier. They made the bet that if they
bided their time either the rebels would eventually put some burning tires
around Aristide or the US would encourage him to take an early "retirement."

A zero sum game isn't limited to Haiti, but as applied in our Ayiti Cheri it
leaves a repugnant aftertaste. Whenever this 2005 election is held, why does
it seem that the choices are going to be between the side of death squads or
the party of gangsters/anarchy. It seems a segment of Lavalas feels that it
can only can succeed if the the transition government fails. While the
current government seems to have made the decision to eliminate Lavalas as a
legitimate political entity.

Looking at the current situation with many parts of the provinces outside of
the government's control and the beginnings of a low level insurgency why
doesn't the government bring in moderate Lavalas types who denounce violence
in all of its forms? It would be seen as a sign of weakness and they would
lose "civil society."