Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Death Threats Against Lancet's Haiti Human Rights Investigator
"You are a dog ... you should die. We are going to necklace you," whispered a British-accented caller into the phone. It was the latest in a round of death threats that Athena Kolbe, Human
Rights Investigator and Master's level social worker at Wayne State University, had received. According to police officials, Kolbe first began receiving threatening calls at home and on her cell phone at 4:00 AM on the morning of Monday September 4.
Charles Arthur of the 'Haiti Support Group' circulated investigator's family and home address, says witness
JEB SPRAGUE & JOE EMERSBERGER
www.counterpunch.org
Kolbe, who co-coordinated a human rights study carried out in late 2005 by the Wayne State University School of Social
Work with Dr. Royce Hutson, led a team of twelve Haitian interviewers in surveying 1260 randomly selected households in
the greater Port-au-Prince area. The Haitian researchers interviewed Port-au-Prince residents about their experiences with
human rights abuses since the installation of Gerald Latortue as interim Prime Minister following the violent overthrow of
Haiti's elected President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
The Lancet article titled "Human Rights Abuse and Other Criminal Violations in Port-au-Prince Haiti: A Random Survey of Households" exposes massive human rights violations in Haiti, under the foreign-installed interim government of Gerald Latortue. It estimates that 8000 persons were murdered and approximately 35000 sexually assaulted in the greater Port-au- Prince area between February 2004 and December 2005. More than 90% percent of the sexual assaults reported in the study-involved penetration, explained the authors. The study first became public knowledge on August 30 when Pacifica Radio's Flashpoints aired an interview with Kolbe and Royce discussing the findings of the survey. It has stirred controversy ever since.
Days after an interview with Flashpoints' Dennis Bernstein, Charles Arthur, president of the UK's Haiti Support Group, denounced Kolbe as a "pro-Lavalas Family journalist" implying that Kolbe manipulated the survey findings. Articles about the study were quickly published in the Guardian, AP, and the Toronto Globe and Mail in which Charles Arthur was prominently quoted, but much remained unexplored --most conspicuously the findings of the study--but also what Kolbe has had to endure since the study was published.
It was her volunteer service in 1995 with Lafanmi Selavi, an orphanage for street children and child domestic servants in Port-au-Prince which Arthur claimed makes Kolbe too "biased" to conduct research. Aristide founded the orphanage when he was a parish priest ten years prior. Kolbe met Aristide and says she was "impressed with commitment to promoting the idea that children are people who need to be loved, respected and valued." Kolbe volunteered in several orphanages during postings in Haiti, Croatia and Israel.
Kolbe formerly wrote for the Pacific News Service writing under the name Lyn Duff (her mother's maiden name), publishing a smattering of articles during the next ten years about the experiences of marginalized Haitians including rape survivors, homeless children, factory workers, child laborers, and human rights victims. It was her experiences in Haiti and other developing countries that Kolbe says motivated her to return to university to peruse an academic career. Kolbe's co-author in the study is Royce Hutson, a former doctoral fellow at the Madison, Wisconsin-based Institute for Research on Poverty and a current associate professor of social work at Wayne State University.
Kolbe says, "I felt that in academia I could have a greater impact on developing ideas and policies which would help promote justice and healing for human rights victims," explaining that advocating for social justice is an essential tenet of the National Association of Social Worker's code of ethics. When starting her studies in late 2004 Kolbe decided to go by her father's surname rather than the hyphenated name she had been using previously. That decision, she says, was to avoid persecution for her sexual orientation, as she had previously been the subject of media reports about discriminatory treatment of gay youth.
In response to Arthur's allegations of "bias", Kolbe replies, "I am in no way a Lavalas propagandist as Arthur implies. Just because I wrote about Haiti and do not believe Aristide was a dictator, that does not make me Fanmi Lavalas. That is ridiculous," she said. "This survey was conducted fairly and accurately. The researchers conducted themselves without bias and interviewed and gathered information from 1260 randomly selected homes. To insinuate that the report is misleading is to allege a grand conspiracy involving dozens of people including our university's ethics committee which had full knowledge of my past history in Haiti and had no problem with it when they approved our research protocols."
A Haitian resident of London, who wishes to remain anonymous due to the death threats, explains that on Sept. 2 Charles Arthur told her and several other people that "We need to find this woman?s phone number so people can contact her and complain to her directly." The following day a flyer emblazed with Kolbe's photo was released titled "Who is Athena Kolbe?" Respond to Fanmi Lavalas Propaganda!!!!" Another witness, wishing to go unnamed due to the fear of being targeted, explains that Arthur was responsible for distributing the fliers. The flyer's text is identical to portions of Arthur's letter to the Lancet, which he posted online. It ends by encouraging people to "ask her why she is hiding her affiliation with Fanmi Lavalas" and gives Kolbe's phone numbers, email address, home address, and the address and phone number of her family members.
The calls began the next day, Kolbe explains, as she received over a dozen. One caller with a "clearly Haitian accent" called her a "Lavalas chimere" saying, "Do you know what we do to Lavalas chimere? You deserve to die painfully. We know where you are. We know who you are." In a later call she was threatened with rape, evisceration and death, said a police official. The harassment is being investigated by the FBI who have given the Wayne State University researchers "several options" to find the callers, says Hutson.
On September 6, Kolbe received a dead rat in the mail. Postal investigators are investigating the source of the package, which was postmarked in Brooklyn, New York. Just days after Kolbe received the dead rat in her mail a frequent poster on the Internet forum Haitiforever.com, Michel Nau, a senior analyst at Georgetown University, commenting on the Lancet survey claimed it smelled "like a dead rat."
"Intimidation and violence against journalists and human rights investigators critical of the coup government is nothing new, as Kolbe's death threats are the most recent." explains Randall White editor of Haitiaction.net, which frequently covered assaults on the poor by security forces of the interim government. Radio WKAT reporter Abdias Jean was executed on January 12 2005, according to witnesses after photographing the summary execution of three young men by Interim government police. Later that year, in September, SWAT members of the Police Nationale d'Haiti (PNH) arrested American journalist Kevin Pina and a Haitian photojournalist working for AP Jean Ristil. Ristil was arrested again and subjected to torture later in 2005 on orders from Haiti's Central Headquarters of the Judicial Police.
The persecution of those who expose human rights abuses is to be expected, says Hutson who explains that the research team expected "our methodology and findings to be subjected to intense scrutiny because we examined patterns of violations by political actors who might not have wanted those violations to be exposed." But, he says, "the charges of bias are baseless. We were aware Athena had written under another name and found no conflict. Our concern is the way UN soldiers are interacting with Haitians." Lancet Publisher, Richard Horton, explains the study had excellent credential and peer reviews, stating in the UK's Guardian newspaper, "It was very thoroughly reviewed by four external advisers," he said.
Several other human rights studies, such as those by the Miami University of Law, the New York University School of Law, the National Lawyers Guild, and Amnesty International, found the interim government and paramilitary forces guilty of extra- judicial violence, reports that received little coverage in the press (Sprague, 2006). One of the few local Haitian human rights groups to focus on violence within Port-au-Prince's slum communities, the Association of University Graduates Motivated For A Haiti With Rights (AUMOHD), has reported frequently on violence against Lavalas communities.
Kolbe concludes, "Our type of study can not be used to prove that no violations happened by a particular group; it can only be used to show broader patterns of abuse against the populace. Human rights workers reported patterns of violations by political actors against people throughout Port-au-Prince during 2004 and 2005 and that's exactly what we found."
The Lancet study found that 21 percent of the killings were attributed to members of the interim government's Haitian National Police (HNP), 13 percent to the demobilized army and 13 percent to anti-Lavalas gangs such as Lame Timachet. Most of the rest of the violations were attributed to criminal elements. The study also found a high amount of sexual violence committed since Aristide's ouster, much of it committed by anti-Lavalas political actors. Although Kolbe points out that the study found a number of sexual threats and threats of physical violence were issued by UN troops and Lavalas supporters.
Charles Arthur's organization the Haiti Support Group acknowledges amongst its associates a number of organizations which failed to report on the interim government's wave of violence upon Haitian slum dwellers, such as the Platform of Haitian Human Rights Organizations (POHDH) which received funding from the Canadian quasi-governmental agency "Rights and Democracy", a partner with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Also affiliated with the Haiti Support Group, the Batay Ouvriye (BO) who called for Aristide to "leave the country" is the recent recipient of $450000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS). Camille Chalmers, head of the Haitian Advocacy Platform for Alternative Development (PAPDA) another group affiliated with the Haiti Support Group, lobbied for the resignation of Aristide and coauthored a letter labeling Aristide a "dictator" with another PAPDA official, Yves Andres Wainwright who later become environment Minister under the Latortue government. Chalmers then established close ties with the Canadian "Democracy Promotion" agency Alternatives, who works with the NED and receives 50% of its budget from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Christian Aid a financer of the Haiti Support Group receives significant funding from the British government as well as CIDA.
The controversial human rights activist Pierre Esperance and his organization National Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR) refused to go into poor neighborhoods after the coup, which they explained to a Quixote Center delegation in March 2004. Esparance at the time of Aristide's ouster was a treasurer of POHDH, while his other organization NCHR received $100000 USD from CIDA, renewable every six months.
While the Lancet study was run on a small budget the aforementioned groups heavily funded and closely connected with Canadian, European, and U.S. government or quasi-government agencies have yet to subject their claims on human rights abuses in Haiti to similar peer-review. Charles Arthur did not respond to our requests for comments.
----------------------------
Joe Emersberger is a writer living in Canada with an interest in Haiti. Jeb Sprague is a graduate student and freelance journalist. Visit his blog at http://www.freehaiti.net
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sprague0911200...
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Wow this piece really gives a story not available in the other press. Now we see the whole entire story.
Letter to the Editor
Dear Editor,
In the article, “Death Threats against Lancet’s Haiti Human Rights Investigator” by Jeb Sprague and Joe Emersberger (September 11, 2006), in CounterPunch, it was said, “Also affiliated with the Haiti Support Group, the Batay Ouvriye (BO) who called for Aristide to "leave the country" is the recent recipient of $450000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).”
http://counterpunch.org/sprague09112006.html
In only one sentence, the duo “journalists” misled the readers with three blatant lies:
1) Batay Ouvriye is “affiliated” with the Haiti Support Group
2) Batay Ouvriye called for Aristide to “leave the country”
3) Batay Ouvriye is the recent recipient of $450,000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).
I) The relationship between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group is a relation of Solidarity and not “affiliation”. It is clear that Sprague and Emesberger are unable to decipher the difference between those two concepts. Solidarity is a process of showing support through concrete practices and actions politically, socially, ideologically and/or materially. Affiliation is a totally different concept depicting an organic association between two or more entities. It suggests an internal structure for decision-making for practices and actions. This does not exist between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group. By using this term so loosely in the article, Jeb and Emesberger knowingly and consciously misled your readers.
II) Batay Ouvriye explained in how many ways already that, yes, it criticized the Aristide government because this government was truly a reactionary, pro-imperialist, and anti-worker government (http://www.batayouvriye.org). As a working-class movement, Batay Ouvriye knew the ground very well and also knew the practices of lavalas against the working-class. In Haiti, the mass media did not make any noise about what lavalas was doing to organized independent and combative workers throughout the country from 1994 to 2004. CIMO, the police SWAT Team, under Aristide’s control, was often called by the bosses to crack down on workers in factories. Bosses also often called on Aristide’s chimeres to crack down on workers in factories. The media only gave news about the struggles within the ruling classes for power. The downfall of Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas Party government was part and parcel of these struggles within the reactionary and pro-imperialist Haitian Ruling Classes. This suggests clearly that Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas was reactionary and pro-imperialist. U.S. progressives only remember Aristide as this slum priest, a leader of the poor Haitians who used to blast imperialism. They don’t know about Aristide’s transformation over the years into a pro-imperialist bourgeois. Both camps in the ruling classes, the Aristide camp and the Apaid/Group 184 camp, in 2003 and 2004, called for the imperialist occupation of Haiti. Therefore, Batay Ouvriye in its analysis of the situation, at different moments, let it be known that it didn’t make a difference for the workers whether Aristide left power or not. The workers would still have to deal with the same reactionaries. Further, Batay Ouvriye has affirmed that both reactionary camps are two sides of the same coin. Omitting all the facts in this context is also very misleading for your readers.
III) Although in many instances, Batay Ouvriye always affirmed that it will accept any financial support regardless of where it comes from, it did not receive the alleged $450,000 USD from the NED/US State Department/Solidarity Center. It is not true. It is clearly false. Sprague and Emesberger would have to prove that.
In their article, they insinuated that Batay Ouvriye is on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center. Such an accusation is gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary. There is a major difference/contrast between an organization or movement that accepts financial contributions from any sources and an organization or movement that is on the payroll of a given government or governments. To confuse the two is unconscionable, parasitic, opportunistic, and misleading. Batay Ouvriye had already said what amounts it accepted long ago. Batay Ouvriye is not, cannot be, and has absolutely no interest in being on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center or any other reactionary and imperialist institution or government. The facts on the ground are proving the assumptions of Jeb Sprague wrong. Jeb Sprague is exploiting people’s limited knowledge of the workers’ struggles to spread disinformation. Batay Ouvriye is the only independent and combative workers’ movement in Haiti. Again, Jeb Sprague and Joe Emesberger use, in an opportunistic way, an occurrence to deface and smear the only genuine independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. In this instance, Sprague and Emesberger’s practices are also very misleading.
To continue to attack Batay Ouvriye in an article that has nothing to do with the Workers’ Movement proves to me that Jeb Sprague is part of a reactionary propaganda machine whose goal is to target the workers’ movement in the interest of the reactionary Haitian ruling classes and imperialism. These are the forces that will benefit wholly in the event that the Workers’ Movement is tarnished in the eyes of the progressive international solidarity movement. And this is key. The perpetrators are cleverly playing on progressives’ feelings in a carefully-crafted and very sophisticated seemingly international pro-Aristide campaign to absolve and uplift the reactionary Fanmi Lavalas Party and Aristide and silence the Workers’ Movement at the same time. One of the objectives of this campaign which is an effort to try to isolate Batay Ouvriye is not to be taken lightly. We really need to ask ourselves the very critical question: ‘Why is Jeb Sprague and co doing this? What forces does this controversy Jeb Sprague is feeding benefit? It is not the Haitian Workers, absolutely! It would be really interesting to find out who’s really behind these imposters.
Personally, I do not have a problem if Batay Ouvriye grabs a tool or money from the enemy to advance its struggles. It is controversial in the sense that other progressives would not be comfortable with that because, it seems, their only criterion to distinguish the good from the bad is “not to take anything from the enemy”. This logic is too simplistic. Jeb Sprague is exploiting this soft area as much as possible. However, the reality is more complex and hard core. Instead, in that complexity, the only criterion that truly serves the interests of the workers’ movement is really the concrete independent and combative practices and actions in the struggles of the movement on the ground that can be documented and proven. The Haitian Workers Solidarity Movement does not have adequate means to put the word out quickly enough. We need international support to do this. With that in mind, I am sure and certain that genuine progressives would quickly realize that, yes, Batay Ouvriye remains the only genuine, independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. And this one, and only one criterion, is the only cure that will protect them from Jeb Sprague’s (and co) pro-Aristide, pro-imperialist, misleading and anti-worker venom.
Please publish this letter in close proximity with Jeb Sprague’s and Joe Emesberger’s article of September 11, 2006. Thank you in advance.
Mario Pierre
September 13, 2006
Dear Editor,
In the article, “Death Threats against Lancet’s Haiti Human Rights Investigator” by Jeb Sprague and Joe Emersberger (September 11, 2006), in CounterPunch, it was said, “Also affiliated with the Haiti Support Group, the Batay Ouvriye (BO) who called for Aristide to "leave the country" is the recent recipient of $450000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).”
http://counterpunch.org/sprague09112006.html
In only one sentence, the duo “journalists” misled the readers with three blatant lies:
1) Batay Ouvriye is “affiliated” with the Haiti Support Group
2) Batay Ouvriye called for Aristide to “leave the country”
3) Batay Ouvriye is the recent recipient of $450,000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).
I) The relationship between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group is a relation of Solidarity and not “affiliation”. It is clear that Sprague and Emesberger are unable to decipher the difference between those two concepts. Solidarity is a process of showing support through concrete practices and actions politically, socially, ideologically and/or materially. Affiliation is a totally different concept depicting an organic association between two or more entities. It suggests an internal structure for decision-making for practices and actions. This does not exist between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group. By using this term so loosely in the article, Jeb and Emesberger knowingly and consciously misled your readers.
II) Batay Ouvriye explained in how many ways already that, yes, it criticized the Aristide government because this government was truly a reactionary, pro-imperialist, and anti-worker government (http://www.batayouvriye.org). As a working-class movement, Batay Ouvriye knew the ground very well and also knew the practices of lavalas against the working-class. In Haiti, the mass media did not make any noise about what lavalas was doing to organized independent and combative workers throughout the country from 1994 to 2004. CIMO, the police SWAT Team, under Aristide’s control, was often called by the bosses to crack down on workers in factories. Bosses also often called on Aristide’s chimeres to crack down on workers in factories. The media only gave news about the struggles within the ruling classes for power. The downfall of Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas Party government was part and parcel of these struggles within the reactionary and pro-imperialist Haitian Ruling Classes. This suggests clearly that Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas was reactionary and pro-imperialist. U.S. progressives only remember Aristide as this slum priest, a leader of the poor Haitians who used to blast imperialism. They don’t know about Aristide’s transformation over the years into a pro-imperialist bourgeois. Both camps in the ruling classes, the Aristide camp and the Apaid/Group 184 camp, in 2003 and 2004, called for the imperialist occupation of Haiti. Therefore, Batay Ouvriye in its analysis of the situation, at different moments, let it be known that it didn’t make a difference for the workers whether Aristide left power or not. The workers would still have to deal with the same reactionaries. Further, Batay Ouvriye has affirmed that both reactionary camps are two sides of the same coin. Omitting all the facts in this context is also very misleading for your readers.
III) Although in many instances, Batay Ouvriye always affirmed that it will accept any financial support regardless of where it comes from, it did not receive the alleged $450,000 USD from the NED/US State Department/Solidarity Center. It is not true. It is clearly false. Sprague and Emesberger would have to prove that.
In their article, they insinuated that Batay Ouvriye is on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center. Such an accusation is gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary. There is a major difference/contrast between an organization or movement that accepts financial contributions from any sources and an organization or movement that is on the payroll of a given government or governments. To confuse the two is unconscionable, parasitic, opportunistic, and misleading. Batay Ouvriye had already said what amounts it accepted long ago. Batay Ouvriye is not, cannot be, and has absolutely no interest in being on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center or any other reactionary and imperialist institution or government. The facts on the ground are proving the assumptions of Jeb Sprague wrong. Jeb Sprague is exploiting people’s limited knowledge of the workers’ struggles to spread disinformation. Batay Ouvriye is the only independent and combative workers’ movement in Haiti. Again, Jeb Sprague and Joe Emesberger use, in an opportunistic way, an occurrence to deface and smear the only genuine independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. In this instance, Sprague and Emesberger’s practices are also very misleading.
To continue to attack Batay Ouvriye in an article that has nothing to do with the Workers’ Movement proves to me that Jeb Sprague is part of a reactionary propaganda machine whose goal is to target the workers’ movement in the interest of the reactionary Haitian ruling classes and imperialism. These are the forces that will benefit wholly in the event that the Workers’ Movement is tarnished in the eyes of the progressive international solidarity movement. And this is key. The perpetrators are cleverly playing on progressives’ feelings in a carefully-crafted and very sophisticated seemingly international pro-Aristide campaign to absolve and uplift the reactionary Fanmi Lavalas Party and Aristide and silence the Workers’ Movement at the same time. One of the objectives of this campaign which is an effort to try to isolate Batay Ouvriye is not to be taken lightly. We really need to ask ourselves the very critical question: ‘Why is Jeb Sprague and co doing this? What forces does this controversy Jeb Sprague is feeding benefit? It is not the Haitian Workers, absolutely! It would be really interesting to find out who’s really behind these imposters.
Personally, I do not have a problem if Batay Ouvriye grabs a tool or money from the enemy to advance its struggles. It is controversial in the sense that other progressives would not be comfortable with that because, it seems, their only criterion to distinguish the good from the bad is “not to take anything from the enemy”. This logic is too simplistic. Jeb Sprague is exploiting this soft area as much as possible. However, the reality is more complex and hard core. Instead, in that complexity, the only criterion that truly serves the interests of the workers’ movement is really the concrete independent and combative practices and actions in the struggles of the movement on the ground that can be documented and proven. The Haitian Workers Solidarity Movement does not have adequate means to put the word out quickly enough. We need international support to do this. With that in mind, I am sure and certain that genuine progressives would quickly realize that, yes, Batay Ouvriye remains the only genuine, independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. And this one, and only one criterion, is the only cure that will protect them from Jeb Sprague’s (and co) pro-Aristide, pro-imperialist, misleading and anti-worker venom.
Please publish this letter in close proximity with Jeb Sprague’s and Joe Emesberger’s article of September 11, 2006. Thank you in advance.
Mario Pierre
September 13, 2006
I found this reply. Both these grants are in regards to SC programs with the BO. Mario Pierre continues to deny the facts.
To Mario Pierre
#1. A BO organizer openly said that BO was working for the Aristide government to "leave the country". I can forward you this.
#2. I have Solidarity Center officials on tape (you want to hear the recording??) stating the following:
"The solidarity center has 2 grants that are working in Haiti. One grant was awarded in May of 2005 [$350,000] and the 2nd is the NED grant for September 2005 [$100,000]. Those are the only grants that we have for the Haiti work between 2000 and 2006.
That May 2005 grant is from the anti-sweatshop fund from the democracy rights and labor department of the U.S. state department."
To Mario Pierre
#1. A BO organizer openly said that BO was working for the Aristide government to "leave the country". I can forward you this.
#2. I have Solidarity Center officials on tape (you want to hear the recording??) stating the following:
"The solidarity center has 2 grants that are working in Haiti. One grant was awarded in May of 2005 [$350,000] and the 2nd is the NED grant for September 2005 [$100,000]. Those are the only grants that we have for the Haiti work between 2000 and 2006.
That May 2005 grant is from the anti-sweatshop fund from the democracy rights and labor department of the U.S. state department."
Response to Jeb
Batay Ouvriye was not interested or focusing on whether Aristide’s government should leave or not. That has never been BO’s priority in the struggle. Batay Ouvriye has its roots in struggles since the Baby Doc years. Those militants were never afraid to engage and challenge the enemy under the existing repressive conditions. They relentlessly fought the enemy throughout the years of the short-lived governments after Baby Doc was forced out of power on February 7, 1986 much like the scenario of February 29, 2004 with Aristide. Was Baby Doc ‘kidnapped’ too? Was it a ‘modern coup d’ etat’? There are some similarities between those 2 events, the way Baby Doc and Aristide were taken out.
No, Batay Ouvriye did not call on Aristide’s government to ‘leave the country” even though it would have been justified to do so in its own right. It would have been justified because the lavalas government was reactionary and anti-worker in its nature and essence. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue. You can come up with your evidence but it is not going to prove anything worthwhile.
Batay Ouvriye in many events criticized the way Aristide was taken out of the country by the imperialists. However, it also criticized Aristide’s treacherous tendencies in calling for foreign intervention and for the occupation of Haiti. Aristide and the opposition both called the imperialists to come in. Remember that! Now, unfortunately for Aristide, he was not the beneficiary of the imperial presence. This is what happens when you rely wholly on foreign forces to shield your government instead of the independent forces of the masses.
If Aristide was so ‘popular’, why wasn’t he able to muster the support of the people into a mobilization to defeat this handful band of ex-soldiers as was the case of Chavez in Venezuela? This is a commonsense question no one has evoked yet to my knowledge. The truth is that support base did not exist except for the gangs in some of the slum areas. The Fanmi Lavalas Party was already split into bits and pieces. Members of Aristide’s own party were leaving the party left and right. There was absolutely no hope for Aristide in Haiti. His power imploded as a result of two events, the work of his twins, the traditional bourgeoisie with the support of a sector of U.S. imperialism, and also Aristide’s own doing, the corruption schemes, his dictatorial tendencies, his repression of independent workers’ organizations and elements of the masses that resisted the jurisdiction of his gangs. In this context, it is ridiculous at best and criminally unfair at worst to set Batay Ouvriye up as the culprit in the events preceding and leading up to the ouster of the Aristide government.
You insist on raising the issue of $450,000 grant from the Solidarity Center/NED/State Department. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that Batay Ouvriye said it does not know anything about this sum from the Solidarity Center. You respond that you have evidence. Well, bring your evidence on the table, and then we can discuss it. Meanwhile, you have to take into account the fact that Batay Ouvriye already said that it will accept any amount available for worker organizing from any sources. However, that does not give you the right to lie about something Batay Ouvriye knows nothing about. You also have no right to say that Batay Ouvriye is on the payroll of the NED/State Department.
Do you and the other BO-baiters ever thought about how was Batay Ouvriye able to build itself into a dynamic, independent and combative Workers’ Movement with the workers’ bare hands for 10 years, from 1994-2004? These were very harsh and tortuous years in the struggle against Big Imperial Company Giants like Disney, Cointreau liquor, Marnier-Lapotolle (Grand-Marnier liquor). Batay Ouvriye was not supported by the lavalas government. Instead, it got persecuted by lavalas goons everywhere. Also, during that time, there was absolutely no Solidarity Center support to talk about. Where were you? Where were all those so-called international solidarity “leftists” who are so ‘trigger-happy’ to chastise Batay Ouvriye today for accepting money from the Solidarity Center?
Batay Ouvriye was a movement that practically grew and baked in its own lard for those 10 years. Where were you, Jeb Sprague? Where was Joe Emersberger who’s now joining you in attacking Batay Ouvriye? Where were all the old and newcomer ‘leftists’ to come to the support of the Haitian Workers’ Movement then?
All the above means nothing to you due to your unwavering arrogance and ego. Your obsessive-compulsive tendencies will not allow you to distance yourself and repent. As a so-called researcher, journalist, and student of history, you have espoused something more like a National Enquirer outlook. You are looking to pick on any trivia and blow it up into a full-blown controversy unnecessarily. You are more interested in creating sensationalism than pursuing any worthwhile cause in the true interest of workers.
Your supremacist attitude that makes you think that you can take on a poor Black Haitian Workers’ Movement in a poor country, lie your head off about it, and dictate what it should do, who it should support or not, is so revolting, and condescending. It is very much like George Bush’s supremacist, hard-headed obsession to lie about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and take the whole nation to a senseless, stupid, endless, bloody and unjust war. You are doing the exact same thing with regards to Batay Ouvriye.
One question to you and your collaborators: Do you really take seriously or really believe in Elections or Democracy for Haiti and the Haitian Workers under imperialist domination? For us, Haitian Progressives, it is an illusion. Real Haitian Progressives never failed to denounce those who have always been ready to drag the masses into those illusions as opportunists and reactionaries.
It is fundamental that the masses build independent organizations under the direction of the workers in the struggle for real democratic changes in society. This is the alternative we need to strive for and support. Batay Ouvriye is that alternative in Haiti today.
Batay Ouvriye was not interested or focusing on whether Aristide’s government should leave or not. That has never been BO’s priority in the struggle. Batay Ouvriye has its roots in struggles since the Baby Doc years. Those militants were never afraid to engage and challenge the enemy under the existing repressive conditions. They relentlessly fought the enemy throughout the years of the short-lived governments after Baby Doc was forced out of power on February 7, 1986 much like the scenario of February 29, 2004 with Aristide. Was Baby Doc ‘kidnapped’ too? Was it a ‘modern coup d’ etat’? There are some similarities between those 2 events, the way Baby Doc and Aristide were taken out.
No, Batay Ouvriye did not call on Aristide’s government to ‘leave the country” even though it would have been justified to do so in its own right. It would have been justified because the lavalas government was reactionary and anti-worker in its nature and essence. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue. You can come up with your evidence but it is not going to prove anything worthwhile.
Batay Ouvriye in many events criticized the way Aristide was taken out of the country by the imperialists. However, it also criticized Aristide’s treacherous tendencies in calling for foreign intervention and for the occupation of Haiti. Aristide and the opposition both called the imperialists to come in. Remember that! Now, unfortunately for Aristide, he was not the beneficiary of the imperial presence. This is what happens when you rely wholly on foreign forces to shield your government instead of the independent forces of the masses.
If Aristide was so ‘popular’, why wasn’t he able to muster the support of the people into a mobilization to defeat this handful band of ex-soldiers as was the case of Chavez in Venezuela? This is a commonsense question no one has evoked yet to my knowledge. The truth is that support base did not exist except for the gangs in some of the slum areas. The Fanmi Lavalas Party was already split into bits and pieces. Members of Aristide’s own party were leaving the party left and right. There was absolutely no hope for Aristide in Haiti. His power imploded as a result of two events, the work of his twins, the traditional bourgeoisie with the support of a sector of U.S. imperialism, and also Aristide’s own doing, the corruption schemes, his dictatorial tendencies, his repression of independent workers’ organizations and elements of the masses that resisted the jurisdiction of his gangs. In this context, it is ridiculous at best and criminally unfair at worst to set Batay Ouvriye up as the culprit in the events preceding and leading up to the ouster of the Aristide government.
You insist on raising the issue of $450,000 grant from the Solidarity Center/NED/State Department. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that Batay Ouvriye said it does not know anything about this sum from the Solidarity Center. You respond that you have evidence. Well, bring your evidence on the table, and then we can discuss it. Meanwhile, you have to take into account the fact that Batay Ouvriye already said that it will accept any amount available for worker organizing from any sources. However, that does not give you the right to lie about something Batay Ouvriye knows nothing about. You also have no right to say that Batay Ouvriye is on the payroll of the NED/State Department.
Do you and the other BO-baiters ever thought about how was Batay Ouvriye able to build itself into a dynamic, independent and combative Workers’ Movement with the workers’ bare hands for 10 years, from 1994-2004? These were very harsh and tortuous years in the struggle against Big Imperial Company Giants like Disney, Cointreau liquor, Marnier-Lapotolle (Grand-Marnier liquor). Batay Ouvriye was not supported by the lavalas government. Instead, it got persecuted by lavalas goons everywhere. Also, during that time, there was absolutely no Solidarity Center support to talk about. Where were you? Where were all those so-called international solidarity “leftists” who are so ‘trigger-happy’ to chastise Batay Ouvriye today for accepting money from the Solidarity Center?
Batay Ouvriye was a movement that practically grew and baked in its own lard for those 10 years. Where were you, Jeb Sprague? Where was Joe Emersberger who’s now joining you in attacking Batay Ouvriye? Where were all the old and newcomer ‘leftists’ to come to the support of the Haitian Workers’ Movement then?
All the above means nothing to you due to your unwavering arrogance and ego. Your obsessive-compulsive tendencies will not allow you to distance yourself and repent. As a so-called researcher, journalist, and student of history, you have espoused something more like a National Enquirer outlook. You are looking to pick on any trivia and blow it up into a full-blown controversy unnecessarily. You are more interested in creating sensationalism than pursuing any worthwhile cause in the true interest of workers.
Your supremacist attitude that makes you think that you can take on a poor Black Haitian Workers’ Movement in a poor country, lie your head off about it, and dictate what it should do, who it should support or not, is so revolting, and condescending. It is very much like George Bush’s supremacist, hard-headed obsession to lie about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and take the whole nation to a senseless, stupid, endless, bloody and unjust war. You are doing the exact same thing with regards to Batay Ouvriye.
One question to you and your collaborators: Do you really take seriously or really believe in Elections or Democracy for Haiti and the Haitian Workers under imperialist domination? For us, Haitian Progressives, it is an illusion. Real Haitian Progressives never failed to denounce those who have always been ready to drag the masses into those illusions as opportunists and reactionaries.
It is fundamental that the masses build independent organizations under the direction of the workers in the struggle for real democratic changes in society. This is the alternative we need to strive for and support. Batay Ouvriye is that alternative in Haiti today.
Aristide was the democratically elected President of Haiti. If you go into slum communities in Haiti you will meet person after person who will acknowledge that he was a spokesman for the poor, they are not populist dupes as BO and others would have it. Lavalas owned Aristide. He did not own it. These people voted Lavalas because they felt and experienced the gains that were made. They saw the schools and medical centers. They saw the food distribution networks and town squares that Reuters and others refused to report on.
After his 2004 overthrow somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 people died. Much like following his overthrow in 1991. The interim government cracked down on the poor who wanted back democracy. The last defense for the poor were armed groups of urban youth - denounced as gangs by the elites. They were denounced as unpolitical gangsters by the educated "leftists". The most right wing critic of Aristide counts 216 politically motivated deaths during Aristides time in office (and this was during the time of a paramilitary campaign being waged from the Dominican Republic) Throughout Aristide's time in office, the United States, Canada, and Europe spent a tremendous sum of money to overthrow him, making Haiti politically skewed by dependency. After the coup this financier's relationship continued. 20 years of propaganda calling this man insane.
The sad story is that the large grassroots trade unionists - such as CTH who Pierre denounces as bureaucratic - have no voice. They have no computer or Internet. They have no bilingual officials. These are the unionists that were thrown in jail and hunted down after the coup. They had no ICFTU delegation to investigate the attacks. These are the trade unionists that every day works with the UNT and other unions that threaten imperialism.
Batay has NEVER condemned the mass repression and persecution of Lavalas or Lavalas affiliated unionists in Haiti. The Solidarity Center, who it works with closely, has never once condemned the mass repression and persecution of Lavalas workers. By not condemning it they have condoned it. There is a good reason Batay is not being attacked by the current US-installed government. Thousands of its members, which is rhetorical since it is so small and marginal in Haiti, have not been killed, jailed or forced into exile for a good reason. They are seen as tactical allies in the politics of fear and hate that have sought to justify the coup of February 29, 2004. Have you ever seen a single statement by Batay condemning the repression or persecution? The answer is no, because it quite simply does not exist in their lexicon of tactical appeasement with the current order.
When BO is confronted on it’s funding from the NED and the State Dept for Solidarity Center programs they have denied it time and again. Except for the few times that have back tracked- see their addmission of NED funding. Anyone can call the Solidarity Center and get a clear answer. $449000+ is being used for this ACILS program with Batay Ouvriye.
Wherever they stand on the political spectrum, most ‘well-educated’ critics of Aristide and Lavalas share similar values and priorities, and suffer from similar limitations. Their lack of any popular appeal, their reluctance to work in the neighbourhoods where most people live, their contempt for what they call ‘populism’, deprives them of any significant political strength. The left-leaning critics of Aristide and Lavalas who work for media-friendly and foreign donor-friendly groups like PAPDA or Batay Ouvriye are now regularly cited as ‘alternative’ voices in the international press, but when they hold a sit-in or demonstration in Haiti’s capital, perhaps fifty to a hundred people are likely to attend.
Batay Ouvriye has always used the story of Guacimal to attack the Aristide government. No evidence shows that the Aristide government sanctioned this attack. Everyone has said the killing of the two BO supporters was wrong. It was a horrible incident. But in fact the Aristide government took many positive steps towards aiding labor, which have been previously discussed. The Batay Ouvriye, along with its international supporters, used this incident to denounce the entire government - adding to the propaganda campaign. AHP, a Haitian newspaper, reported that one government official was killed and another wounded in this brief fight - an issue that has been ignored by the numerous Batay and other press releases.
The other problem is that these anti-Lavalas "left" groups are nearly all connected with CIDA/USAID/NED/British Govt funding. An issue that they and supporters have side stepped time and again. It is easy to denounce elected governments as corrupt and cruel because people in government always make mistakes, always commit abuse - but this essentially constructing an argument to blame the victim - to justify the coup and legitimize the campaign waged against Haitian participatory democracy.
Doctor Paul Farmer once explained that everyone knows Aristide is bad, the academics, the politicians, the educated, the middle class, the upper class - everyone knows he is bad, everyone that is except the 85% that voted for him and those he supported time after time.
After his 2004 overthrow somewhere between 8,000 and 10,000 people died. Much like following his overthrow in 1991. The interim government cracked down on the poor who wanted back democracy. The last defense for the poor were armed groups of urban youth - denounced as gangs by the elites. They were denounced as unpolitical gangsters by the educated "leftists". The most right wing critic of Aristide counts 216 politically motivated deaths during Aristides time in office (and this was during the time of a paramilitary campaign being waged from the Dominican Republic) Throughout Aristide's time in office, the United States, Canada, and Europe spent a tremendous sum of money to overthrow him, making Haiti politically skewed by dependency. After the coup this financier's relationship continued. 20 years of propaganda calling this man insane.
The sad story is that the large grassroots trade unionists - such as CTH who Pierre denounces as bureaucratic - have no voice. They have no computer or Internet. They have no bilingual officials. These are the unionists that were thrown in jail and hunted down after the coup. They had no ICFTU delegation to investigate the attacks. These are the trade unionists that every day works with the UNT and other unions that threaten imperialism.
Batay has NEVER condemned the mass repression and persecution of Lavalas or Lavalas affiliated unionists in Haiti. The Solidarity Center, who it works with closely, has never once condemned the mass repression and persecution of Lavalas workers. By not condemning it they have condoned it. There is a good reason Batay is not being attacked by the current US-installed government. Thousands of its members, which is rhetorical since it is so small and marginal in Haiti, have not been killed, jailed or forced into exile for a good reason. They are seen as tactical allies in the politics of fear and hate that have sought to justify the coup of February 29, 2004. Have you ever seen a single statement by Batay condemning the repression or persecution? The answer is no, because it quite simply does not exist in their lexicon of tactical appeasement with the current order.
When BO is confronted on it’s funding from the NED and the State Dept for Solidarity Center programs they have denied it time and again. Except for the few times that have back tracked- see their addmission of NED funding. Anyone can call the Solidarity Center and get a clear answer. $449000+ is being used for this ACILS program with Batay Ouvriye.
Wherever they stand on the political spectrum, most ‘well-educated’ critics of Aristide and Lavalas share similar values and priorities, and suffer from similar limitations. Their lack of any popular appeal, their reluctance to work in the neighbourhoods where most people live, their contempt for what they call ‘populism’, deprives them of any significant political strength. The left-leaning critics of Aristide and Lavalas who work for media-friendly and foreign donor-friendly groups like PAPDA or Batay Ouvriye are now regularly cited as ‘alternative’ voices in the international press, but when they hold a sit-in or demonstration in Haiti’s capital, perhaps fifty to a hundred people are likely to attend.
Batay Ouvriye has always used the story of Guacimal to attack the Aristide government. No evidence shows that the Aristide government sanctioned this attack. Everyone has said the killing of the two BO supporters was wrong. It was a horrible incident. But in fact the Aristide government took many positive steps towards aiding labor, which have been previously discussed. The Batay Ouvriye, along with its international supporters, used this incident to denounce the entire government - adding to the propaganda campaign. AHP, a Haitian newspaper, reported that one government official was killed and another wounded in this brief fight - an issue that has been ignored by the numerous Batay and other press releases.
The other problem is that these anti-Lavalas "left" groups are nearly all connected with CIDA/USAID/NED/British Govt funding. An issue that they and supporters have side stepped time and again. It is easy to denounce elected governments as corrupt and cruel because people in government always make mistakes, always commit abuse - but this essentially constructing an argument to blame the victim - to justify the coup and legitimize the campaign waged against Haitian participatory democracy.
Doctor Paul Farmer once explained that everyone knows Aristide is bad, the academics, the politicians, the educated, the middle class, the upper class - everyone knows he is bad, everyone that is except the 85% that voted for him and those he supported time after time.
Greetings
Batay Ouvriye sent the following in response to Jeb Sprague’s continued attacks against it. Since September 24, 2005, Jeb Sprague and a host of other agents of the lavalas bureaucratic bourgeoisie (Ben Dupuy, Haiti-Progres, National Popular Party, Kim Ives, the International Action Center, Haiti Solidarity Network) launched a smear campaign against the Haitian Working-Class Movement, Batay Ouvriye. This systematic international campaign aims to erase the heroic struggles of the working-class against all reactionaries, including the traditional bourgoisie, the lavalas bourgeoisie, opportunists of all stripes, and the imperialist company giants for the past twelve years in Haiti. This reactionary political current leading this campaign is trying to downplay, in a very twisted way, the repressive acts of the reactionary Aristide government while it was in power, and its poignant defense of the haitian ruling classes and imperialist interests.
In this response also, there is a formal rebuttal of the Solidarity Center concerning Jeb Sprague’s accusation that it received $ 450,000 in programs with Batay Ouvriye. Hopefully, with this latest revelation, Jeb Sprague will realize how misleading he has been up to now and change course.
Finally, that reactionary current should stop hiding behind the funding issue to avoid discussions around concrete battles and struggles of the working-class on the ground against the exploiters today. Its main characteristic is to revert to demogogy to get breathing space. Batay Ouvriye is still looking for representatives of the former lavalas government and its supporters in these very important struggles of the working-class in Haiti.
M. Pierre
Here it is:
Dear Comrades,
A while ago (July 8th, 2006), your site [meaning, 'rebelion.org'], as well as others, reproduced an article by Jeb Sprague (“El Fracaso de la Solidaridad: La CIOSL, AFL-CIO, OIT y ORIT en Haití”). In it, the author put out deliberate confusions, lies and false accusations concerning our movement, Batay Ouvriye. Given the right to an answer we believe we hold in such circumstances, we’re requesting you also publish our version.
While thanking you beforehand, we’d like to clarify, in starting, that this isn’t the first time this student, who would like to be a “militant of the Haitian situation” – although certainly from very faraway –, is hurling these libelous allegations. We’ve never considered answering him, nor the team upholding him, worthwhile, since we’ve determined that we play a part in the role he’s carved out for himself amidst the international left: with sensationalistic titles and statements, he is attempting to call attention to himself (with the individualism characteristic of the American petty bourgeois) and, especially, disparage organizations like ours which are in the field of combat, daily confront concretely the ruling classes and their rotten State. This can be verified on our website (http://batayouvriye.org) or, better yet, if one really wishes to be serious, in the field of the struggle itself, in Haiti.
We’ve chosen not to answer these people, ever calling for them, rather, to meet with us, precisely, in the field of struggle, opposing the bourgeoisie and the landowners… which, up to now, doesn’t seem to be happening. We won’t answer them because in spite of all possible demonstrations proving the falsehoods and weaknesses of their arguments, they always pretend to agree (as was evident in a San Francisco debate we participated in), but as soon as they address a different audience or people yet unaware of the depth of the debate, they return to the same maneuvers. This is a systematic disinformation campaign. Most important would be determining who is backing them, who they’re “working” for, what they’re really promoting.
We aren’t answering them directly because they’re using the characteristically bourgeois method of spitting lies and leaving the burden of proof to the victim party. This is a typical capitalist tactic, worldwide, to fire factory workers, for example.
However, we’ve always felt it necessary for us to clarify our positions before comrades potentially misled by the “revelations” of these students seeking recognition. And thus, once again, we will do so this time.
*
To begin with, we’ll clearly state: the financial sum advanced by Sprague is totally false. We have obtained funds from the Solidarity Center, first, following an public appeal (to which many others also similarly responded) and later with a financing of roughly $100,000 total for struggles in the free trade zones which, given the delocalization currently occurring in the global industry, in effect destabilizes employment within the United States itself. This logic of support, we understand it as such and all can also understand it so, insomuch as they think a little, if they can think a little. Ourselves, we use it. Furthermore, several times, we’ve repeated that as long as we can draw funds from wherever, we’ll do it. A militant criticism, at this point, might be threefold: to what use would these funds be put? According to what line of functioning, of struggle, would they be employed? What degree of independence might such a relation allow? In our case, it is with TOTAL independence that we function, in which the workers’ interests, and, more largely, those of the people, are the only pertinent criteria for us. Anyone can verify this. Further yet, we’ve openly and even in meetings organized by the Solidarity Center itself, criticized both its line and it past history in Latin America, as can be confirmed in our answer within this very debate (http://tinyurl.com/refmp), in a report on a meeting organized in Guatemala by the Solidarity Center itself (http://tinyurl.com/me8kf) and in the “Letter” that, after the event, we sent to the participants (http://tinyurl.com/rrw8h). In the same way, our position concerning the NED is also equally clear (http://tinyurl.com/mag5z).
*
In his more recent pieces, once again without any real proofs, Sprague continues to uphold his positions, alleging that those concerned in the Solidarity Center haven’t denied his assertions. We understand perfectly that virtually no one sees answering Sprague. However, since he believes his position is confirmed for this reason, we requested a clarification from this Center. Which we finally received and decided to include directly below – it can easily be confirmed with the author of these lines, Teresa Casertano, Americas regional program director at the Solidarity Center. When we asked about the $350,000 or $450,000 mentioned in the article in question, the answer was the following:
“This sum isn’t a grant to Batay Ouvriye. It’s a grant to the Solidarity Center and with this money we’ve covered Evelyn’s (Solidarity Center employee in the Dominican Republic) expenses and the agreement for the work in Ouanaminthe. He (Sprague) is referring to this grant when he asks about 12 or 18 months. The point in this is that it is a large amount of money and the Center requested that it not be used in only 12 months since it doesn’t make sense to spend money unnecessarily simply to spend it, but rather it should be used with moderation for needed things. The government told us we could use the same quantity in 18 months instead of 12 months and we accepted these 18 months because it was more sensible to have more time.” (June 23rd, 2006).
*
Thus, based on the principle of complete political independence which is for us uninfringeable and which, worldwide, drastically differentiates currents in struggle (the Cuban example is a quite clear one), that we say (and have said) that whatever sum is welcome. In a statement of position opposing other lies of another journalist of this same team, we referred, once again, to our “Clarification” (see http://tinyurl.com/89zpn) and, without hesitation, answered in point 3: “For example (and this will probably be his next "revelation") Sprague forgets to mention that, our position and our concrete struggles being crystal clear, we also informed the undercover agent-reporter Fenton that the rumor (or error) leading to believe that a million dollars were in question (rather than $100,000) was of no interest for us, simply because if this had been the case, we also would have taken it!” (Corbett List, # 27115, Jan. 2006).
*
Thus, ALL has already been said by us concerning this theme. Why, then, are these professional denigrators returning once again to forever set it on the table, using the ignorance of militants who perhaps might be greatly interested by such a debate?
First, to continue with their screaming headlines, in an attempt to assimilate us with the bourgeois-led movement that rose up against Aristide. Which we categorically refute. And no false speculations or deliberately and maliciously conjectured mishmash can prove the contrary. A flier of ours (our only participation, from afar, in the 2003 movement) quite clearly established our position (see, here, http://tinyurl.com/q2gob).
The feeble argument of attempting to assimilate us with the bourgeoisie-led anti-Aristide movement actually walks hand in hand with another, much more important, one, in which this league endeavors to pass the Lavalas government and its “big-eaters” clan (“gran-manjè", as the people named them) as the peoples’ choice. Which, once again, we clearly countered in our analyses and concrete struggles (http://tinyurl.com/89zpn).
We’ve come to realize that Sprague and those sending him to the front line have always refused to seriously debate this theme, hiding behind such limited arguments as the Aristide government’s democratic election, the attacks it underwent due to this origin, even going so far as to attempt comparisons with Chavez and Castro (this being the farce’s key argument). Beyond our clear rebuttals on this subject, clarifying for the public that is was Aristide himself who allowed (worse: worked for!) the first American intervention in 1995 and the following one, in 2004, which he signed just as well (the only difference amongst the various reactionary currents involved in this practice being that, this time, the imperialists kicked Aristide out)… beyond, therefore, our clear refutations on this subject, we should add that the lavalas government also received finances (from the IMF, the World Bank…) upheld by the extraordinary development wave of financial capital and the unsurpassed renewal of the banking system, both national and foreign (principally American). But the worst is that once this relationship was established, NEVER again did the people hear mention of “imperialism” or capitalist domination! Quite the contrary, the balance sheet of this government reveals its basic craving to serve the national and international ruling classes. NEVER, indeed, was there space or even a glimmer of support for the workers in the registered conflicts of this period.
Presently, the leading core of Lavalas isn’t directly in power. It’s useful – and possible – for it to use the basic popular demands anew to fool the people again, just as they had done when they felt attacked in 2003. This is a classical attitude of this populist movement which, in fact, never (ever since, and once at the head of the State) left the slightest leeway for the people and the workers’ demands, faced with their class enemies.
Analyzing, – better – seriously and scientifically, the historical process presently occurring in this Caribbean country, to precisely know how to proceed (in order therefore to advance consequently) towards the true emancipation of the workers and, with them, the entire people... Such is our objective. An analysis to which we invite all militants, internationally, instead of stagnating in the populist miasma. To leave the speculations of these small opportunists for whom the goal has always been to slip into the ruling classes, bureaucratic big shots first, the landowners and bourgeois of tomorrow.
Batay Ouvriye
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, September 15th, 2006
Batay Ouvriye sent the following in response to Jeb Sprague’s continued attacks against it. Since September 24, 2005, Jeb Sprague and a host of other agents of the lavalas bureaucratic bourgeoisie (Ben Dupuy, Haiti-Progres, National Popular Party, Kim Ives, the International Action Center, Haiti Solidarity Network) launched a smear campaign against the Haitian Working-Class Movement, Batay Ouvriye. This systematic international campaign aims to erase the heroic struggles of the working-class against all reactionaries, including the traditional bourgoisie, the lavalas bourgeoisie, opportunists of all stripes, and the imperialist company giants for the past twelve years in Haiti. This reactionary political current leading this campaign is trying to downplay, in a very twisted way, the repressive acts of the reactionary Aristide government while it was in power, and its poignant defense of the haitian ruling classes and imperialist interests.
In this response also, there is a formal rebuttal of the Solidarity Center concerning Jeb Sprague’s accusation that it received $ 450,000 in programs with Batay Ouvriye. Hopefully, with this latest revelation, Jeb Sprague will realize how misleading he has been up to now and change course.
Finally, that reactionary current should stop hiding behind the funding issue to avoid discussions around concrete battles and struggles of the working-class on the ground against the exploiters today. Its main characteristic is to revert to demogogy to get breathing space. Batay Ouvriye is still looking for representatives of the former lavalas government and its supporters in these very important struggles of the working-class in Haiti.
M. Pierre
Here it is:
Dear Comrades,
A while ago (July 8th, 2006), your site [meaning, 'rebelion.org'], as well as others, reproduced an article by Jeb Sprague (“El Fracaso de la Solidaridad: La CIOSL, AFL-CIO, OIT y ORIT en Haití”). In it, the author put out deliberate confusions, lies and false accusations concerning our movement, Batay Ouvriye. Given the right to an answer we believe we hold in such circumstances, we’re requesting you also publish our version.
While thanking you beforehand, we’d like to clarify, in starting, that this isn’t the first time this student, who would like to be a “militant of the Haitian situation” – although certainly from very faraway –, is hurling these libelous allegations. We’ve never considered answering him, nor the team upholding him, worthwhile, since we’ve determined that we play a part in the role he’s carved out for himself amidst the international left: with sensationalistic titles and statements, he is attempting to call attention to himself (with the individualism characteristic of the American petty bourgeois) and, especially, disparage organizations like ours which are in the field of combat, daily confront concretely the ruling classes and their rotten State. This can be verified on our website (http://batayouvriye.org) or, better yet, if one really wishes to be serious, in the field of the struggle itself, in Haiti.
We’ve chosen not to answer these people, ever calling for them, rather, to meet with us, precisely, in the field of struggle, opposing the bourgeoisie and the landowners… which, up to now, doesn’t seem to be happening. We won’t answer them because in spite of all possible demonstrations proving the falsehoods and weaknesses of their arguments, they always pretend to agree (as was evident in a San Francisco debate we participated in), but as soon as they address a different audience or people yet unaware of the depth of the debate, they return to the same maneuvers. This is a systematic disinformation campaign. Most important would be determining who is backing them, who they’re “working” for, what they’re really promoting.
We aren’t answering them directly because they’re using the characteristically bourgeois method of spitting lies and leaving the burden of proof to the victim party. This is a typical capitalist tactic, worldwide, to fire factory workers, for example.
However, we’ve always felt it necessary for us to clarify our positions before comrades potentially misled by the “revelations” of these students seeking recognition. And thus, once again, we will do so this time.
*
To begin with, we’ll clearly state: the financial sum advanced by Sprague is totally false. We have obtained funds from the Solidarity Center, first, following an public appeal (to which many others also similarly responded) and later with a financing of roughly $100,000 total for struggles in the free trade zones which, given the delocalization currently occurring in the global industry, in effect destabilizes employment within the United States itself. This logic of support, we understand it as such and all can also understand it so, insomuch as they think a little, if they can think a little. Ourselves, we use it. Furthermore, several times, we’ve repeated that as long as we can draw funds from wherever, we’ll do it. A militant criticism, at this point, might be threefold: to what use would these funds be put? According to what line of functioning, of struggle, would they be employed? What degree of independence might such a relation allow? In our case, it is with TOTAL independence that we function, in which the workers’ interests, and, more largely, those of the people, are the only pertinent criteria for us. Anyone can verify this. Further yet, we’ve openly and even in meetings organized by the Solidarity Center itself, criticized both its line and it past history in Latin America, as can be confirmed in our answer within this very debate (http://tinyurl.com/refmp), in a report on a meeting organized in Guatemala by the Solidarity Center itself (http://tinyurl.com/me8kf) and in the “Letter” that, after the event, we sent to the participants (http://tinyurl.com/rrw8h). In the same way, our position concerning the NED is also equally clear (http://tinyurl.com/mag5z).
*
In his more recent pieces, once again without any real proofs, Sprague continues to uphold his positions, alleging that those concerned in the Solidarity Center haven’t denied his assertions. We understand perfectly that virtually no one sees answering Sprague. However, since he believes his position is confirmed for this reason, we requested a clarification from this Center. Which we finally received and decided to include directly below – it can easily be confirmed with the author of these lines, Teresa Casertano, Americas regional program director at the Solidarity Center. When we asked about the $350,000 or $450,000 mentioned in the article in question, the answer was the following:
“This sum isn’t a grant to Batay Ouvriye. It’s a grant to the Solidarity Center and with this money we’ve covered Evelyn’s (Solidarity Center employee in the Dominican Republic) expenses and the agreement for the work in Ouanaminthe. He (Sprague) is referring to this grant when he asks about 12 or 18 months. The point in this is that it is a large amount of money and the Center requested that it not be used in only 12 months since it doesn’t make sense to spend money unnecessarily simply to spend it, but rather it should be used with moderation for needed things. The government told us we could use the same quantity in 18 months instead of 12 months and we accepted these 18 months because it was more sensible to have more time.” (June 23rd, 2006).
*
Thus, based on the principle of complete political independence which is for us uninfringeable and which, worldwide, drastically differentiates currents in struggle (the Cuban example is a quite clear one), that we say (and have said) that whatever sum is welcome. In a statement of position opposing other lies of another journalist of this same team, we referred, once again, to our “Clarification” (see http://tinyurl.com/89zpn) and, without hesitation, answered in point 3: “For example (and this will probably be his next "revelation") Sprague forgets to mention that, our position and our concrete struggles being crystal clear, we also informed the undercover agent-reporter Fenton that the rumor (or error) leading to believe that a million dollars were in question (rather than $100,000) was of no interest for us, simply because if this had been the case, we also would have taken it!” (Corbett List, # 27115, Jan. 2006).
*
Thus, ALL has already been said by us concerning this theme. Why, then, are these professional denigrators returning once again to forever set it on the table, using the ignorance of militants who perhaps might be greatly interested by such a debate?
First, to continue with their screaming headlines, in an attempt to assimilate us with the bourgeois-led movement that rose up against Aristide. Which we categorically refute. And no false speculations or deliberately and maliciously conjectured mishmash can prove the contrary. A flier of ours (our only participation, from afar, in the 2003 movement) quite clearly established our position (see, here, http://tinyurl.com/q2gob).
The feeble argument of attempting to assimilate us with the bourgeoisie-led anti-Aristide movement actually walks hand in hand with another, much more important, one, in which this league endeavors to pass the Lavalas government and its “big-eaters” clan (“gran-manjè", as the people named them) as the peoples’ choice. Which, once again, we clearly countered in our analyses and concrete struggles (http://tinyurl.com/89zpn).
We’ve come to realize that Sprague and those sending him to the front line have always refused to seriously debate this theme, hiding behind such limited arguments as the Aristide government’s democratic election, the attacks it underwent due to this origin, even going so far as to attempt comparisons with Chavez and Castro (this being the farce’s key argument). Beyond our clear rebuttals on this subject, clarifying for the public that is was Aristide himself who allowed (worse: worked for!) the first American intervention in 1995 and the following one, in 2004, which he signed just as well (the only difference amongst the various reactionary currents involved in this practice being that, this time, the imperialists kicked Aristide out)… beyond, therefore, our clear refutations on this subject, we should add that the lavalas government also received finances (from the IMF, the World Bank…) upheld by the extraordinary development wave of financial capital and the unsurpassed renewal of the banking system, both national and foreign (principally American). But the worst is that once this relationship was established, NEVER again did the people hear mention of “imperialism” or capitalist domination! Quite the contrary, the balance sheet of this government reveals its basic craving to serve the national and international ruling classes. NEVER, indeed, was there space or even a glimmer of support for the workers in the registered conflicts of this period.
Presently, the leading core of Lavalas isn’t directly in power. It’s useful – and possible – for it to use the basic popular demands anew to fool the people again, just as they had done when they felt attacked in 2003. This is a classical attitude of this populist movement which, in fact, never (ever since, and once at the head of the State) left the slightest leeway for the people and the workers’ demands, faced with their class enemies.
Analyzing, – better – seriously and scientifically, the historical process presently occurring in this Caribbean country, to precisely know how to proceed (in order therefore to advance consequently) towards the true emancipation of the workers and, with them, the entire people... Such is our objective. An analysis to which we invite all militants, internationally, instead of stagnating in the populist miasma. To leave the speculations of these small opportunists for whom the goal has always been to slip into the ruling classes, bureaucratic big shots first, the landowners and bourgeois of tomorrow.
Batay Ouvriye
Port-au-Prince, Haiti, September 15th, 2006
KOPA
Komite Otonòm Pwogresis Ayisyen • Miyami • Oktòb 2006
On The Attacks Orchestrated Against Batay Ouvriye
Since last year, Batay Ouvriye (BO), a workers’ movement based in Haiti, has been the target of vicious and unfounded attacks from a political current that thrives on controversy and sensationalism. It uses a sort of National Enquirer, Globe tactic and hearsay mixed with a low level of political, theoretical and ideological content. KOPA, the Autonomous Committee of Haitian Progressives (anti-imperialist) in Miami, is not only sending and reaffirming its solidarity to BO but strongly denounces these acts of provocation against one of the most militant workers organization in Haiti. These attacks emanated from the uncompromising position of BO against the Lavalas bourgeois leadership and their role at the reign of the Haitian State Apparatus.
In the course of our militancy in Miami, we have entered in discussions with many comrades engaged in political struggles. This is part of our on-going struggles, guided by a spirit of unity. The objectives were clear: to build a higher level of unity or at least to know the depth of our disagreements and define the level of unity with which to guide our political social practices. In fact, this is an on-going process guided by the principle UNITY-struggle-UNITY. Many points were covered and discussed without any form of opportunism for the sake of unity. We debated the questions of the working class in Haiti and its role qualitatively and quantitatively.
We discussed economist/reformist deviations in the struggles. We also covered questions of the Imperialist social formation of the US and imperialist domination. We do believe that the theory and the production of theory are a responsibility and a must for every progressive and revolutionary in the interest of our struggle internationally. Theory can’t be a recipe, a dogmatic or empirical guide for our struggles. It needs to be as up-to-date as the objective reality we are trying to interpret.
For this theory to be progressive, it needs to be done in a way for history to advance in the interests of the oppressed and dominated people. To be revolutionary, it should aim to transform reality radically where the workers play a determinant role in transforming that reality. Therefore, we, in KOPA, are not afraid of struggles and debate in order to achieve a higher level of unity.
Some comrades have addressed many points based on baseless and provocative attacks against BO. We are covering some aspects that have not yet been covered. That BO was part of the movement to build a labor front organization for the 184 group IS A BLATANT AND UNFOUNDED LIE. SUCH ACCUSATIONS COULD ONLY COME FROM PATHOLOGICAL LIARS. One thing for sure, namely, BO and the COMRADES affiliated to BO are not shy in expressing our positions, even if we are in a minority.
BO has always expressed clearly its position on the reactionary pro-imperialist opposition and the reactionary pro-imperialist Lavalas government. Those were not empty words in many conferences in Haiti, in demonstrations, even those organized by this reactionary opposition. The presence of BO was a force to reckoned with. In one of the marches organized by a reactionary sector of the students’ movement, the progressive students, revolutionary students and workers were denouncing Boulos, Apaid and Baker as our enemies.
In the May Day march in Cape-Haitian, in which well over a thousand people took part (there is video footage to prove it), the bourgeoisie was denounced as the mastermind of our problems. BO has always stood firm against any form of class collaboration. Now, where were these people who are now making these provocations against BO when the Lavalas forces were sending messages of love to the same people accused of killing and exploiting hundreds of Haitian laborers in the masses? Where were these ‘agent-provocateurs’ when Aristide nominated those butchers as head of economic development, and also nominated some old guard Duvalierists in many ministerial posts?
Aristide even went so far as to handpick a leading member of FRAPH as mayor of Cité Soleil. Where were these National Enquirer-style ‘journalists’ when the Lavalas government expropriated peasants and sold mostly fertile land in Ouanaminthe to build Free Trade Zones (FTZs). Their silence about these anti-national, and anti-popular practices of the Lavalas bourgeois leadership only shows the complicity and reactionary character of those who support its anti-popular and anti-national orientation.
These “journalists” also mentioned that BO kept quiet about the mass firings of civil workers. This speaks volumes of their limited understanding of countries dominated by imperialism, in general, and Haiti, in particular. In Haiti, a problematic that the Haitian dominant classes could not resolve basically is the contradiction of a dependent capitalism and a decaying feudalism. One of the consequences of this contradiction is large scale unemployment. The state apparatus becomes one of the biggest employers. Many governments use these public sector jobs as a strategy to silence dissent and maintain their political base through jobs of political patronage.
So, one can’t approach these complex problems from a simplistic viewpoint. It will only benefit the dominant classes and the hegemonic ruling class fraction, in this case the lavalas embryonic bureaucratic bourgeoisie. All the governments that preceded Lavalas, and including Lavalas itself, have used public sector employment as a way to co-opt, corrupt and control their political base, particularly in the sub-proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie.
In fact, the proponents of privatization used these practices to justify the need for structural adjustments. However, it is equally true that all those governments have used their political base and equipment and vehicles in public sector enterprises as tools of repression. The different provisional military governments were accused of such. Lavalas governments were accused of doing the same during different protests organized against them, and also during the periods of student protests.
Lavalas chimères – as well as ‘tonton macoutes’ during the Duvalier years – were ballooned onto these institutions’ payrolls, i.e. the ‘zombie’ checks. Some visible members of the Lavalas embryonic private and parallel repressive forces were on the State payroll and participated in acts of repression against students. Nevertheless, any real employees that were unjustly dismissed must fight and organize themselves to regain their jobs. In this light, Progressive organizations should strive to understand a problem from its internal contradictions to the concrete external manifestations of those contradictions before formulating a position.
KOPA reaffirms again its Unity and Affiliation with BO and denounces unscrupulous, unconscionable, anti-worker and reactionary attacks from the enemy camp, but welcomes constructive criticism in the spirit of unity, for our struggles against the dominant classes and imperialism to advance.
Chain reaction
From the five continents
from sea to sea
from land to land
your hand in mine
shoulder to shoulder
heart to heart
heart and soul
our genuine smile lighting up
like creepers of love
in spirit and actions
workers
peasants
proletarians
let’s cut down darkness along the way
let’s walk in dawn among clear dew
with open eyes and confidence
let’s march in a crusade
of peace and one love
because we owe it to ourselves
because this march is long overdue
because time’s up.
Kiki Wainwright
Komite Otonòm Pwogresis Ayisyen • Miyami • Oktòb 2006
On The Attacks Orchestrated Against Batay Ouvriye
Since last year, Batay Ouvriye (BO), a workers’ movement based in Haiti, has been the target of vicious and unfounded attacks from a political current that thrives on controversy and sensationalism. It uses a sort of National Enquirer, Globe tactic and hearsay mixed with a low level of political, theoretical and ideological content. KOPA, the Autonomous Committee of Haitian Progressives (anti-imperialist) in Miami, is not only sending and reaffirming its solidarity to BO but strongly denounces these acts of provocation against one of the most militant workers organization in Haiti. These attacks emanated from the uncompromising position of BO against the Lavalas bourgeois leadership and their role at the reign of the Haitian State Apparatus.
In the course of our militancy in Miami, we have entered in discussions with many comrades engaged in political struggles. This is part of our on-going struggles, guided by a spirit of unity. The objectives were clear: to build a higher level of unity or at least to know the depth of our disagreements and define the level of unity with which to guide our political social practices. In fact, this is an on-going process guided by the principle UNITY-struggle-UNITY. Many points were covered and discussed without any form of opportunism for the sake of unity. We debated the questions of the working class in Haiti and its role qualitatively and quantitatively.
We discussed economist/reformist deviations in the struggles. We also covered questions of the Imperialist social formation of the US and imperialist domination. We do believe that the theory and the production of theory are a responsibility and a must for every progressive and revolutionary in the interest of our struggle internationally. Theory can’t be a recipe, a dogmatic or empirical guide for our struggles. It needs to be as up-to-date as the objective reality we are trying to interpret.
For this theory to be progressive, it needs to be done in a way for history to advance in the interests of the oppressed and dominated people. To be revolutionary, it should aim to transform reality radically where the workers play a determinant role in transforming that reality. Therefore, we, in KOPA, are not afraid of struggles and debate in order to achieve a higher level of unity.
Some comrades have addressed many points based on baseless and provocative attacks against BO. We are covering some aspects that have not yet been covered. That BO was part of the movement to build a labor front organization for the 184 group IS A BLATANT AND UNFOUNDED LIE. SUCH ACCUSATIONS COULD ONLY COME FROM PATHOLOGICAL LIARS. One thing for sure, namely, BO and the COMRADES affiliated to BO are not shy in expressing our positions, even if we are in a minority.
BO has always expressed clearly its position on the reactionary pro-imperialist opposition and the reactionary pro-imperialist Lavalas government. Those were not empty words in many conferences in Haiti, in demonstrations, even those organized by this reactionary opposition. The presence of BO was a force to reckoned with. In one of the marches organized by a reactionary sector of the students’ movement, the progressive students, revolutionary students and workers were denouncing Boulos, Apaid and Baker as our enemies.
In the May Day march in Cape-Haitian, in which well over a thousand people took part (there is video footage to prove it), the bourgeoisie was denounced as the mastermind of our problems. BO has always stood firm against any form of class collaboration. Now, where were these people who are now making these provocations against BO when the Lavalas forces were sending messages of love to the same people accused of killing and exploiting hundreds of Haitian laborers in the masses? Where were these ‘agent-provocateurs’ when Aristide nominated those butchers as head of economic development, and also nominated some old guard Duvalierists in many ministerial posts?
Aristide even went so far as to handpick a leading member of FRAPH as mayor of Cité Soleil. Where were these National Enquirer-style ‘journalists’ when the Lavalas government expropriated peasants and sold mostly fertile land in Ouanaminthe to build Free Trade Zones (FTZs). Their silence about these anti-national, and anti-popular practices of the Lavalas bourgeois leadership only shows the complicity and reactionary character of those who support its anti-popular and anti-national orientation.
These “journalists” also mentioned that BO kept quiet about the mass firings of civil workers. This speaks volumes of their limited understanding of countries dominated by imperialism, in general, and Haiti, in particular. In Haiti, a problematic that the Haitian dominant classes could not resolve basically is the contradiction of a dependent capitalism and a decaying feudalism. One of the consequences of this contradiction is large scale unemployment. The state apparatus becomes one of the biggest employers. Many governments use these public sector jobs as a strategy to silence dissent and maintain their political base through jobs of political patronage.
So, one can’t approach these complex problems from a simplistic viewpoint. It will only benefit the dominant classes and the hegemonic ruling class fraction, in this case the lavalas embryonic bureaucratic bourgeoisie. All the governments that preceded Lavalas, and including Lavalas itself, have used public sector employment as a way to co-opt, corrupt and control their political base, particularly in the sub-proletariat and the petit-bourgeoisie.
In fact, the proponents of privatization used these practices to justify the need for structural adjustments. However, it is equally true that all those governments have used their political base and equipment and vehicles in public sector enterprises as tools of repression. The different provisional military governments were accused of such. Lavalas governments were accused of doing the same during different protests organized against them, and also during the periods of student protests.
Lavalas chimères – as well as ‘tonton macoutes’ during the Duvalier years – were ballooned onto these institutions’ payrolls, i.e. the ‘zombie’ checks. Some visible members of the Lavalas embryonic private and parallel repressive forces were on the State payroll and participated in acts of repression against students. Nevertheless, any real employees that were unjustly dismissed must fight and organize themselves to regain their jobs. In this light, Progressive organizations should strive to understand a problem from its internal contradictions to the concrete external manifestations of those contradictions before formulating a position.
KOPA reaffirms again its Unity and Affiliation with BO and denounces unscrupulous, unconscionable, anti-worker and reactionary attacks from the enemy camp, but welcomes constructive criticism in the spirit of unity, for our struggles against the dominant classes and imperialism to advance.
Chain reaction
From the five continents
from sea to sea
from land to land
your hand in mine
shoulder to shoulder
heart to heart
heart and soul
our genuine smile lighting up
like creepers of love
in spirit and actions
workers
peasants
proletarians
let’s cut down darkness along the way
let’s walk in dawn among clear dew
with open eyes and confidence
let’s march in a crusade
of peace and one love
because we owe it to ourselves
because this march is long overdue
because time’s up.
Kiki Wainwright
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=11093
September 30, 2006
[Editor's note: This is in response to a letter to the editor by Batay Ouvriye about Sprague and Emersberger's article on the Lancet Study on Haiti. In Batay Ouvriye's letter, we noted that there was no mention of the tragic implications of the Lancet study: 8,000 deaths and 35,000 rapes, most of which are attributable to the coup. It would be a shame if the implications of this study are lost in the debate.]
The most prominent international labor organizations active in Haiti, the ICFTU, AFL-CIO, ILO, and ORIT, working to support and strengthen labor organizations that agitated for the ousting of Haiti’s democratically elected government, have simultaneously refused to condemn the massive layoffs and persecution of public sector workers and trade unionists committed by its illegally-imposed successor (the interim government of Gerald Latortue). These labor institutions have chosen only to work with labor organizations that agitated for the ouster of the Aristide government, such as the the Coordination Syndicale Haïtienne (CSH), the Group of 184 labor front which they were instrumental in constructing, and the Batay Ouvriye. In June of 2006 Labor Notes Magazine revealed that the Batay Ouvriye is the current recipient of an American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS) Program with a total NED/State Department funding of $449,956. ACILS is also known as the Solidarity Center. The following provides greater detail in regards to this funding/program relationship. For more context read the June 2006 LABOR NOTES article: Failed Solidarity: The ICFTU, AFL-CIO, ORIT, and ILO in Haiti. <http://labornotes.org/archives/2006/06/articles/f.shtml>
#1.
The NED has a $99,965 grant with ACILS (Solidarity Center) to work with the "May 1st Union Federation - Batay Ouvriye."
The grant states: "American Center for International Solidarity $99,965. To promote the development and capacity of democratic unions in free trade zones. ACILS will work with the May 1st Union Federation- Batay Ouvriye to train workers to organize and educate fellow workers. Training will include developing organizational plans, networking with workers outside their factories, forming community and factory unions, and researching and monitoring working conditions. Finally, NGOs and trade unions from the U.S. and Canada will visit to discuss working conditions in Haiti." http://inthenameofdemocracy.org/en/node/8
Now available on the NED website http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-lac05.html#Haiti
#2.
The U.S. State Department has a $350,000 grant with ACILS for its program with the Batay Ouvriye. The Solidarity Center acknowledges that its officials began meeting with Batay Ouvriye in 2004. Also see below excerpts of a November 2006 recorded interview with Solidarity Center officials:
Teresa Casertano: The solidarity center has 2 grants that are working in Haiti. One grant was awarded in May of 2005 and the 2nd is the NED grant for September 2005. Those are the only grants that we have for the Haiti work between 2000 and 2006. That May 2005 grant is from the anti-sweatshop fund from the democracy rights and labor department of the U.S. Department of State. Harry Kamberis: Democracy, human rights, and labor bureau of the Department of State…Question: How much was that for? Teresa Casertano: $350,000...Question: I’m just curious why the solidarity center has not spoken out against these massive layoffs [of trade unionists following the coup]? Teresa Casertano: The executive council made a statement on haiti following feb 2004 [Note from the authors: The statement did not mention the persecution of trade unionist nor the specific persecution of trade unionist supporters of the ousted government. It made no mention of the massive layoffs. It made no mention of the persecution, jailings, death threats, and attacks on workers of the CTH, FTPH, and other labor organizations]. We make public statements. We make plenty of statements...Harry Kamberis: The solidarity center works very closely with the ICFTU who represents the voice of labor around the world... [note from the authors: The ICFTU and it's fraternal organization ORIT helped found the CSH, which would later become the labor component of the Group of 184 and agitated for Arisitde's ouster.]
#3
Charles Arthur, director of the Haiti Support Group (HSG) acknowledges that the HSG works with the Batay Ouvriye, which is often featured on its website. Labor organizations that supported Haiti's constitutional government and were heavily persecuted following the 2004 coup have been completely ignored by the HSG.
#4.
One of Batay Ouvriye's main speakers, Paul Philomé, at a tape recorded March 2004 Batay Ouvriye meeting with a Quixote Center Delegation explained, Batay Ouvriye, "..had worked to denounce all of the plans that the Fanmi Lavalas government had, we denounced them and fought to make sure those plans were not successful, and we also took positions so the government can leave the country.." Two months prior to the coup, the Batay Ouvriye declared "Down with the blood thirsty Lavalas thieves, criminals!" See <http://www.batayouvriye.org/English/Positions1/decsituation.html>
#5
On January 9, 2006 the Batay Ouvriye acknowledged part of its ongoing program with the Solidarity Center, after the release of classified NED grant documents obtained by Canadian researcher Anthony Fenton and published on the website inthenameofdemocracy.org. Following the publication of the documents the Batay Ouvriye responded, "...it appears Haiti’s Batay Ouvriye union may be a 'targeted beneficiary' for $100,000 this year, through the Solidarity Center which solicited the NED." See <http://www.batayouvriye.org/English/Positions1/smokinggun.html>
--------------------------
Joe Emesberger is a writer living in Canada with an interest in Haiti. Jeb Sprague is a graduate student and freelance journalist. Visit his blog at http://www.freehaiti.net
For more information:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...
BO's evidence largely comes from Kim Ives when he served as Dupuy's mouthpiece for the PPN in the Haiti Progres. Other anti-Aristide forces have been quick to point to Ive's criticism to justify their support for the Feb, 29, 2004 coup including Charles Arthur of the Haiti support group:
"We think you will find that what you describe as "the majority political party of the poor in Haiti" consistently sided with the bosses and foreign companies in their attempts to destroy independent workers' organizations. Just one example, which may not be generally known, epitomises the approach of the Lavalas Family Party. In March 2001, on the back of links created in the UK by the Haiti Support Group, a delegation from the War on Want organization and the GMB union visited St Raphael to meet and build solidarity with newly organized workers at the Guacimal company that supplied orange extract to the French giant, Rémy Cointreau. As the visitors from the UK climbed down from their vehicle, Fernand Sévère, the local Lavalas Family Party mayor appeared, and pulled a gun to stop the meeting from happening. A few weeks earlier, Sévère - clearly acting in support of the local bosses - had forced Guacimal plantation workers to end a 10 week strike. (Despite the determination and bravery of organized workers at Guacimal, and a spirited and well-supported international solidarity campaign, Guacimal and Rémy Cointreau managed to stall the struggle for decent pay and conditions. You can read one part of this story in the Haiti Progrès article entitled, "Haitian government supports big landowners in clash with peasants" www.haitiprogres.com/2002/sm020605/eng06-05.html) But to return to the story of Fernand Sévère, the Lavalas Family mayor of St Raphael, later in 2001 he was shot dead by the bodyguards of the local Lavalas Family deputy."
"Batay Ouvriye has always used the story of Guacimal to attack the Aristide government. No evidence shows that the Aristide government sanctioned this attack. Everyone has said the killing of the two BO supporters was wrong. It was a horrible incident. But in fact the Aristide government took many positive steps towards aiding labor, which have been previously discussed. The Batay Ouvriye, along with its international supporters, used this incident to denounce the entire government - adding to the propaganda campaign. AHP, a Haitian newspaper, reported that one government official was killed and another wounded in this brief fight - an issue that has been ignored by the numerous Batay and other press releases."
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$170.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network