26250: Dailey re 26226 (Antoine)and 26239 (Jean-Pierre) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Peter Dailey <phdailey@msn.com>

Were one attempting to summarize the status of Human Rights in Haiti over the 
last year, a detailed and comprehensive account could be drawn from NCHR-Haiti, 
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Haiti Democracy Project. The 
same could not be said for the IJDH, the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network, 
Trente Septembre, or the Haiti Progres. There has not been a single episode- 
the La Scerie massacre, the killing of Dred Wilme, the soccer murders, etc.- 
where their desire for short term political advantage has not overriden their 
commitment to the truth. If anyone doubts this he or she has only to consult 
these organizations' websites to learn that La Scerie was a hoax perpetrated by 
Pierre Esperance, that 14,000 Haitians have been killed since February, 2004 as 
part of a genocidal campaign, that 60+ Cite Soleil residents were killed in the 
shootout between the U.N. and popular community organizer Dred Wilme, etc.

Unfortunately, Windows on Haiti is not a whole lot more reliable. In his recent 
post, Guy Antoine protests threats against the press under the current regime, 
pointing to the jailing of Kevin and Jean Ristil, and attempts to intimidate 
Guy Delva- the name of Jean Roche is an interesting or not so interesting 
omission- and asks where is Robert Menard and Reporters Sans Frontieres? I 
don't imagine Guy is suggesting that the situation today resembles even 
remotely the assault on the press freedom under Aristide- that would be 
ludicrous. If his point is that Haiti today is in incomparably worse condition 
than it was in February, 2004, thanks to the blan, he could probably find a 
more persuasive way of asserting this than heavy-handed sarcasm, which doesn't 
really suit him. But I suspect that his remarks about the hypocrisy of the 
French, Kofi Annan, the Americans etc. really have no purpose more exaulted 
than venting his outraged feelings over the trampling of Haitian sovereignty by 
the foreigner. I suppose I am sympathetic, although I heard all of it, every 
single bit, word for word, in 1994 from people of the same social background as 
Antoine although decidedly different politics, an experience which reinforced 
my belief  that that sort of patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Given that MINUSTAH has been an enormous, expensive failure, why is it that the 
streets are not filled with people calling for the U.N.'s withdrawal, and that 
so far such calls have been limited to the Haiti Action Committee, Haiti 
Progres, and others with an interest in promoting disorder? Why, in a recent 
Gallup Poll taken in PauP, Gonaives, Jacmel, Jeremie, OKap, and Les Cayes, did 
the respondents overwhelmingly select J-C Duvalier as the best Haitian 
president of the last twenty years followed by Rene Preval? Why was the 
constitutional president at the bottom of the list along with Namphy and Avril?

The reality of Port-au-Prince today is that the population from top to bottom 
has been collectively traumatized by kidnapping and violence that has cut all 
the way across the ideological spectrum- from rapes by hoodlums who have 
outfitted themselves with razor blades and have turned popular neighborhoods 
into prisons from which no one may leave, from raids by police, ex-army, and 
criminal gangs financed by wealthy entrepreneurs. And as long as this is the 
case, MINUSTAH will continue to be seen as the one thing preventing the 
ultimate descent into a kind of Hobbesian universe and patriotic appeals such 
as Antoine's are likely to fall on deaf ears.


Apparently Dr. Allen and I have made some "clearly keen references" to the 
Haitian Constitution that Jean Jean-Pierre believes are part of a "wonderful 
trend." Thanks bro! And evidently he is curious about my "whereabouts" during 
the period from 1987 on when Haiti's laws were being violated on a daily basis. 
Well, for most of that period I was right here in New York City, same as you 
Jean Jean.

If I read him correctly Jean-Pierre is asserting that the present interim 
government is extraconstitutional or unconstitutional. This is true. (It was 
true of its predecessor as well although Jean-Pierre is apparently 
uncomfortable discussing this.) In fact, the interim government's claim of 
constitutional legitimacy is considerably more compromised that J-P's list of 
reasons would suggest.

As Mr. J-P notes, Article 137 states that the President will appoint a Prime 
Minister from the majority party in parliament. Since the term of the last 
sitting parliament had expired, this was an impossibility, hence the counsel of 
sages. Article 149 provides for an interim president whose term shall not 
exceed 90 days, by which time elections for a successor shall have been held. 
The impossibility of carrying out elections has resulted in the anomaly of an 
interim president serving 18 months. J-P correctly notes as well that the 
Haitian constitution makes no provision for a CEP, a situation dating back to 
1995.

All of these are a consequence of the collapse of the last government. From a 
constitutional point of view the remedy is elections. Finally J-P asserts "we 
either take or reject Haiti's constitution as a whole. Period. Selectivity is 
not an option." I do wish that J-P had indicated which party he subscribed to. 
If what he means is that all violations of the constitution are of equal 
gravity and that none are more serious than others, then this is pure 
sophistry.

Peter Dailey