Aristide Must Be Restored to Power in Haiti

BlackPress.com

http://www.blackpressusa.com/Op-Ed/speaker.asp?SID=16&NewsID=3277

In the midst of the current crisis in Haiti, an issue
has emerged among many people of conscience in the
U.S.A. concerned about the future of that country.

The question facing pro-democracy forces is whether, in
addition to demanding an investigation of the US role
in the destabilization of President Aristide, and in
addition to calling for the disarming of the thugs,
that it is correct to call for the restoration of
President Aristide to office.

The arguments against making such a call seem to come
down to the fact that President Aristide remains a
lightning rod in Haiti and that there are many Haitian
progressives on the ground in Haiti who oppose the
president. Those who are against calling for the
restoration of President Aristide are often concerned
that supporting such a demand will color U.S.
progressives as ‘pro-Aristide,’ leaving us little
room to reach out to the broad Haitian progressive
movement.

In looking at this matter, one must keep in mind that
fundamentally there is a question of democracy and
constitutional rule at stake. Specifically, a duly
elected president was removed from office through the
combination of a civilian opposition movement that
chose not to use legal means to challenge him; through
the military intervention of thugs from the old regime;
and, according to President Aristide, the connivance of
the U.S. and the French, resulting in a kidnapping.

A demand for the restoration of President Aristide is
not a comment on Aristide himself. It is a demand for
the restoration of constitutional democracy, albeit
with its deficiencies. In demanding the restoration of
President Aristide we are saying that an illegal
action(s) was taken that disrupted the agreed upon
process along which Haiti was to function. In fact, the
failure to demand the restoration of President Aristide
amounts to the acceptance of the results of a coup,
albeit in subtle terms.

Taking a pass on the demand for the restoration of
President Aristide because of criticisms of his
performance as Haitian president is saying that legal
process can be trumped by political disagreements.
Insofar as legal instruments exist to address concerns
about the performance of an elected leader, they should
not be disregarded. To do so is to fall into the law of
the survival of the fittest.

The argument against the demand is sometimes phrased in
terms of how President Aristide is divisive. Such an
argument is, in point of fact, irrelevant, since, as
noted above, the matter is constitutional rather than
personal.

Yet, there is a deeper problem here that should be
explored. There are bitter divisions in Haiti that
include skin color, class, gender, and human rights.
There are no angels in Haitian politics, so there is no
simplicity to the political situation.

What Aristide represented for many people, irrespective
of whether he was able to fulfill the promises he made,
was an attempt at politics that addressed the
conditions of Haiti’s majority, i.e., of the poor.
Tackling this question was and will be divisive. There
is no consensus candidate when it comes to addressing
the vast disparity of wealth, income and privilege in
Haiti. The fact of division alone cannot be interpreted
as condemnation.

It is also the case that the Haitian people will have
to settle their own accounts with President Aristide.
As we have earlier said, President Aristide lost
sections of his base due to what we believe to have
been some significant political errors. Some of those
errors may have been unavoidable, while others
certainly were. This situation, no matter what one
thinks about the relative merits or demerits of
President Aristide cannot be settled through the de
facto acceptance of the result of a coup.

What makes it essential that people of conscience speak
clearly and unambiguously in favor of the restoration
of President Aristide are the circumstances that
followed his exit. In a manner reminiscent of the exile
of Toussaint L’Ouverture more than 200 years ago,
President Aristide was spirited out of Haiti and dumped
in near isolation thousands of miles away from home.

While the Bush administration enjoyed ridiculing the
notion that President Aristide was kidnapped, the fact
that he found himself sitting in the Central African
Republic under the intense scrutiny of the French-
backed government, unable to have regular and open
communications with the media, let alone his
supporters, renders less than credible the rhetoric of
Bush, Powell, et. al., to the effect that President
Aristide left on his own volition. In fact, the
circumstances of President and Mrs. Aristide (the
latter being a U.S. citizen) seemed fairly close to
what was once called ’preventive detention.’

The Bush administration has failed to give a straight
answer to anyone as to how one can explain the Central
African Republic interlude.

The exit of President and Mrs. Aristide from the
Central African Republic and their return to the
Caribbean has been interesting in terms of the reaction
that it has garnered from the Bush administration. The
arrogance of the administration on the matter of the
status of President Aristide is almost unbelievable,
but also compounds the credibility problem that Bush,
et. al., have on the matter of their role in Aristide’s
exit. The Bush administration’s insistence as to the
alleged inappropriateness of Aristide being in the
Caribbean could lead an observer to infer that their
suggestion that President Aristide voluntarily left
Haiti and the Caribbean was less than truthful.

Try as many may, there is no getting around a basic
fact: if there was a coup against a legitimately
elected leader, the remedy is not passing blindly
forward in the hope of creating a better day. The
remedy is full restitution, in this case meaning,
restoration to office and the completion of his elected
term unless he is removed through constitutional steps.
It would be equally acceptable, constitutionally,
should President Aristide choose to step down
voluntarily, but not under duress and against his will.

TransAfrica Forum and many other groups have demanded a
full Congressional investigation of the role of the
U.S. government in the overthrow of President Aristide.
This is about more than whether he was literally
kidnapped. It involves an investigation into the
destabilization efforts that have unfolded over the
last several years.

Pressure must be put on the administration to account
for its actions, but pressure must be placed on
international bodies such as the United Nations, the
Organization of American States and CARICOM (the
Caribbean Community) to conduct their own
investigations. President Aristide, for example, should
be invited to the United Nations to address that body.
He should be provided a means and opportunity to
explain publicly what happened to him and to his
government. Additionally, troops from other nations not
associated with a vile policy toward Haiti should
replace the current occupation force, disarm the so-
called military opposition and help with the return to
constitutional democracy.

That said, as long as the world ignores the need to
restore President Aristide to office, the crisis will
not be terminated. In fact, any successor government
will lack legitimacy. At best the burner will have been
turned down a bit, while the stew simmers awaiting a
change in pressure before it boils over.

[Bill Fletcher Jr. is president of TransAfrica Forum, a
Washington, D.C.-based non-profit educational and
organizing center formed to raise awareness in the
United States about issues facing the nations and
peoples of Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. He
also is co-chair of the anti-war coalition, United for
Peace and Justice (www.unitedforpeace.org). He can be
reached at bfletcher@transafricaforum.org.]