[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
a77: Dec. 17 crisis: Chamberlain replies to Dorcé (fwd)
From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>
> I wish you were as vehement about > holding
> minority class Haitians to the same standards
> as you do the masses.
Since I joined this group in around 1995, I've often
posted very "vehement" criticism of "minority class
Haitians" and until quite recently given Aristide the
benefit of the doubt.
> Is that what the non-Haitian is demanding/asking of the
> convergence? I think this is not what you say it is.......and
> I suspect that you know it and may have some reason
> to sell your spin.
I am in the pay of who, then, Cathy?
> The ends do not justify the means, folks.
Indeed. Can Cathy explain why it was necessary to attack
radio stations and their journalists all over the country
because (as the "demonstrators" clearly stated) they were
not broadcasting slavish support for the regime, because
they were giving voice to those deploring the corruption and
inaction of the government (along with the voices of some
couldn't-care-less politicians)? "Let democracy work," you
say. Well... yes. Nothing much to do with Amerikkky here.
If Osama bin Laden was president of the United States,
it wouldn't change one iota the fact of what is happening
in Haiti, the root performance of the regime. Though of
course it would provide a wonderful new set of excuses
for other regimes (possibly including Haiti) to hide their
brutalities behind. Old story.
Your country, Cathy, is a disgrace to the world in many ways,
as are your "minority-class Haitians." You're falling into a
famous trap to let opportunistic politicians in the rest of the
world use such things to justify their own misdeeds.
> We need to tell them to leave Haiti to their democracy
Improving the quality of governance, which is all ordinary
Haitians have ever wanted, is overwhelmingly up to whatever
regime is in power. Unless you believe the US urged
the government to buy those big houses for Chérestal and
Préval as a "provocation" or "manipulation." Outside powers
can only help or harm governance to a limited extent, but of
course a government (and its foreign apologists) will always
try to get away with claiming it is _entirely_ under the ferrule
of "outside forces." Even my old friends at Haiti-Progrès are
occasionally not falling for that these days, though they still
still seem a shade reluctant to get behind all those Haitians
who don't like either the FL or the Covergence and are simply
demanding some service from all the suits in Port-au-Prince
driving around in fancy Toyotas claiming to be representatives
of the masses.
Ben Dupuy's familiar line about the July 28 and Dec 17
attacks being "provocations to try to spark civil war and invite
yet another foreign military invasion," is a bit too kneejerk to
be very credible. Ben has been trying to sell this DR-invasion
line for years. He might prove to be right, but I suspect he
may've got stuck somewhere back in the 1960s,when he
started out in politics and there were a few incompetent
invasions from the DR. I don't know who all his "former
Haitian dictators (and) coup leaders ... presently living in the
DR" are. The most famous one there is Namphy, who's
never been a player since he was overthrown. Is Franck
Romain there now? Avril's in the Pénitencier in PauP,
Michel François is still running his electrical good shop
in San Pedro Sula (Honduras) and Cedras his computer
business in Panama.
Perhaps the strangest thing about the December 17 attacks
is how not a word has been heard from the attackers (or their
supposed supporters) claiming they had done it
(even anomymously) "to save the nation" etc. Even if they
"failed," they could get a lot of political mileage out of such a
claim and try to whip up a campaign to support another such
effort. But no. Absolute silence.
And the government. No parading of suspects or accomplices
on TV, no naming of any culprit organisations or people. Silence.
And a strange lack of extra security in PauP after the attack, when
one might've expected massive "security" patrols from
a government that one could assume had been badly shaken
by the attack. But no.
A paragraph from Michelle Faul's AP story of 19 December that...
"Aristide loyalists, speaking on condition of anonymity,
acknowledged the demonstrations in response to the attack
weren't spontaneous. They said pro-Aristide organizers told
them Sunday night, hours before the attack, that something
was happening and that they should mobilize."
... was interesting. Were these sources lying? Or do we say
it was just the good ol' CIA talking?