a1748: (a1734, a1724, a1720): Alternatives, impunity: Chamberlain replies to Arthur (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>

Charles starts his post by saying he's not ducking the question.  But by
the end of it, we still don't have his answer to Bob Walton's original
query as to whether Haitians would have "preferred the alternative" to the
deal to get the military out of the country "in exchange for avoiding a
bloodbath."  That alternative either being a bloodbath or else them staying
in power to, as I said, continue their "killing and raping and looting"
with impunity.

Of course it is a disgrace and a crime that "nearly 150 torturers" (that's
from all countries, not just Haiti) are living freely in the US, but
Walton's question was wider than that.  I was simply trying to encourage
the "out-of-the-box" thinking that Charles refers to.  To talk about the
taboo matter that screwed up the Left at the time (publicly and privately)
as to whether Aristide betrayed his cause by agreeing to be returned by the
US military (and thus tacitly accepting the US deal with the generals,
later quietly endorsed by Aristide's parliament if I remember rightly).  I
think it's historically interesting (and relevant), because since then we
have heard little but charges of betrayal hurled at Aristide by people who
swallowed their ideologies (and hoped no-one would notice) by accepting the
return of Aristide the saviour, who descended from the sky, deus ex machina
style and replete with symbolism, in a US army helicopter that landed on
the lawn of the presidential palace and physically, visibly delivered him
back to his patient and long-suffering followers.

This interesting point of Haitian history is traditionally sidestepped by
recourse to a current rallying cry (a perfectly valid one) about impunity,
which is important.  It serves as a diversion, but if one ventures to call
it that, one risks being conveniently accused of favouring impunity, which
of course one isn't.  It's just a taboo, and history is full of them and
it's healthy to flush them out.

Duperval was indeed convicted in connection with the Raboteau massacre, but
not because he was directly responsible.  The senior army figures were
indicted in a catch-all action along with the two or three who actually did
order the action.  I've no objection to the catch-all method, but let's see
it for what it is.  To my knowledge, Duperval and most of the others were
not directly involved.  But of course, they could be said to be morally
responsible, so bravo for indicting and convicting them.   The same
question might arise about whether Aristide should be indicted for being
morally responsible in the same way for the Jean Dominique murder (either
for ordering it, not stopping it or not ensuring it was investigated
expeditiously).  Same goes for Dany Toussaint.  Is his indictment to be for
conceiving it, doing it, or simply obeying orders from someone or some
faction that, now the deed's been done, has dumped him (but against whom he
has enough power to keep the Gassant investigation at bay) ?

I am not at all "ignoring the very contemporary and very relevant issues"
Charles refers to.  I'm glad to hear him advocate "breaking out of boxes"
in thinking in  terms of pro or anti-Lavalas.  I've been trying to do this
in Corbettland for the past seven years and have taken a fair bit of abuse
for it.  My critique of (as Charles calls it) 'revolutionaries,
'ideologues' and 'the correct line' is part of this, even though Charles
insists on calling it "box" thinking when it is simply calling people to
account for their professed beliefs.

I have to say that it is only recently (and very welcome it is too) that
Charles has been thinking "out of the box."  Some of his posts these days
are a far cry from the many 'correct line' messages of the past which, to
me, did not carry discussions forward very much.  Now he has pulled back a
fair bit from (in his case) Lavalas, he is far more interesting and now we
have his admirable book.  The spur, the Damascene conversion, seems, as for
many, to have been the Jean Dominique murder.  A little like the shock of
the Soviet invasion of Hungary long ago (1956) that was the turning point
for tens of thousands of foreign believers in a Soviet paradise.
Ideologies nearly always pervert or are perverted by their advocates and we
are best breaking free of them as soon as we can in the interests of all,
for they can cause tremendous damage.

Charles is now (as ever) opposed to US policy (fair enough) but doesn't 100
per cent (far from it) support Aristide, in contrast to his earlier stance
to which he seems to be (unconsciously) referring when he says:

> The time to break out of these boxes [anti-US = pro-Aristide,
> pro-US = anti-Aristide] is way overdue.
> Those who wittingly or unwittingly seek to perpetuate
> this sterile way of looking at Haitian politics do a great
> disservice to those who are concerned about Haiti,
> and more importantly, to the Haitian people.

I couldn't agree more, Charles.  Welcome aboard, finally, and may you long
continue your admirable militancy for the rights of ordinary Haitians and
for the outside world's better understanding of Haiti.


        Greg Chamberlain