24512: anonymous: FW: commenting on Article from Sachs (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

The sender writes:

>From a Haitian who wishes to remain anonymous and who is not a member of
this list. Yet it is important that we hear from another voice.


> Subject: Article from Sachs

> I read the article and I need to clarify a few things:
>
> 1) Mr Sachs is making arguments to undermine the Bush administration
> involvement in Haiti. It is clear that the majority of Haitians do not
> agree with the US way of doing things in Haiti, the traditional way since
> 1915, and even since the 19th century. Having said that, the majority of
> Haitians was determined to get rid of the corrupt and backward government
> of Aristide. So, we need to clear the air and tell the truth about the
> reality of the events in Haiti. Aristide autocratic rules began clear by
> 1995. The parliamentary elections were rigged at that time for the Lavalass
> party. The UN and most Haitian observers denounced the elections. This
> crisis stayed throughout the Preval administration. In May 2000, bogus
> parliamentary elections were done. Spectacular assassinations of
> journalists, pro democracy activists like Jean Dominique were carried by
> Aristide thugs. It is known that the December 2000 election of Aristide was
> boycotted by the opposition and only 10% of the electorate went to the
> poles. Aristide was elected in a landslide in 1990. But he was not in 2000.
> Mr. Sachs is distorting the truth about 2000 landslide election of
> Aristide. Aristide is a dictator and corrupt leader. There are tremendous
> amount of data and reports to support that.
> 2) Using Haiti to go after Bush is OK. But, we need to understand that Bush
> did not start the revolt against Aristide. Assuming that is a slap in the
> face of the Haitian people. Haitians are smart enough to know that Aristide
> did not work for their interests. Students, Workers, Peasants, Human right
> groups, had started demonstrating against Aristide even before his election
> in December 2000. The actual American policy is being fought by the
> Haitians now, but Haitians do not wish to have Aristide back. We put him
> out. Bush used Haiti for his own political gains. We agree with this
> premise, but the fact is still clear, Aristide was on his way out sooner or
> later. The anti Bush clan should not use the Aristide issue to make gains
> against Bush, they should reflect on the actual US policy and denouncing as
> well the corrupt former government. If Haiti is really their concerns, they
> need to stop this "love Aristide" rhetoric. We need to support the
> democratic movement in Haiti and stay vigilant against imperialistic moves
> by the US. Period.
> 3) In all of the history of Haiti, besides Boirond Canal and maybe Jean
> Pierre Boyer, Aristide is the worst leader of haiti. Even worst than
> Duvalier. He fouled the people and left them hanging because of his mental
> disturbances and thirst for power. The rule of Law did not exist under
> Preval and Aristide, only the Chimeres ruled. There was no justice, drug
> dealers were making the rules, killing and torturing the population. There
> was no education or health programs. Everything was designed to fight
> enemies and stay in power. This is contrary to what the Haitian people
> want. The police was corrupted and were the gangs.
> 4) things are still though because the US policy is preventing us to disarm
> the former soldiers and the chimeres. The rebuilding of the institutions is
> slow because the infrastructure does not exist and obstacles are
> everywhere. The fight is on. Talking about Aristide as a player in Haiti is
> making more obstacles to Haiti's future than Bush policies.
>