[Peace-discuss] Haiti

Tue Jan 17 19:54:16 CST 2006

There's an interesting exchange of letters involving Marc Weisbrot in  
The Nation [Jan 30 or Jan 16] about Aristide and his "progressive"  
opposition.

What Batay Ouvriye seems to have done differently was to oppose  
Aristide, when the U.S. administration wanted to get rid of him. They  
put their funds in opposition hands.

And the fact that Aristide accepted U.S. help is not quite equivalent  
to the help Batay Ouvriye received. Yes, this too compromised  
Aristide, but in essence he had to accept the money in order to try  
to govern.

Weisbrot says that the accusations against Aristide himself, which  
you repeat, are mostly hearsay, and not affirmed by evidence.

I don't know the facts of these matters, but I distrust any group  
that accepts U.S. dollars against a legitimate adminstration the U.S.  
doesn't like.

--Mort

On Jan 13, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Ricky Baldwin wrote:

> I don't know that I can straighten anything out -
>
> And I don't think I really want to get into defending
> Batay Ouvriye's defense.  As far as I'm concerned, it
> would be missing the point anyway.  So let me just say
> this:
>
> Seems to me the main issue is that the US took various
> measures to destabilize Aristide's regime, including
> withholding promised aid, possibly stirring up old
> partners in thuggery, definitely dumping loads of cash
> in support of any and everybody who was  pissed off at
> Aristide (some with, some without good reason,
> perhaps) - and the fact that the AFL-CIO continues its
> now 50-year support of US foreign policy (even though
> they changed the program's name).
>
> Yes, it appears that this radical union federation
> Batay Ouvriye was among the recipients.  Was it a
> mistake to take the money?  Maybe.  But more
> importantly, what exactly did they DO differently as a
> result of the money?  I have seen nothing at all that
> indicates that they veered one degree in any
> direction.  After all, they had been angry critics of
> Aristide's populist-reformist (or, they say,
> collaborationist) government for years, as have many
> members of his own party.  Is the whole argument
> really just guilt by association?  Or of who is or
> isn't a worthy victim?
>
> Or is it more than that?  Where is the criticism of
> the many other groups who took US money, some of whom
> actually DID something to help overthrow Aristide?
> (What is the allegation that Batay Ouvriye actually
> did, by the way?  I haven't heard anything.  Is it
> only that they criticized his government for
> repressing them, for not living up to its promises,
> for not being what they'd hope for?  Can't they do
> that?)
>
> We should recall that Aristide himself accepted US aid
> not so long ago.  Was he wrong?  We KNOW that aid had
> a price - in policy changes, abandonment of reforms,
> free trade zones, etc. -  so was it worth it to
> restore him to office?  Again, it seems to me the main
> issue is our government's evil tampering, squeezing,
> violence, etc., not whether some folks under heavy
> fire have made the right decisions.  Worth talking
> about?  Sure, it's part of the story, part of the
> awful effect of imperialism, part of understanding
> what happens in the real world (as opposed to the
> media fantasy world).  But do we denounce them for it?
>  Not I.
>
> But let's be honest.  Sprague - and the one or two
> other critics of Batay Ouvriye who are writing so much
> about them lately - have had nothing to say about
> Aristide's government cracking down on labor union
> organizing, possibly including some killings, and
> Lavalas-affiliated violence.  Rightwing attacks
> against Lavalas and Aristide folks (as well as Batay
> Ouvriye and others) have been much more severe, of
> course.  But in turn the Aristide government's actions
> seem to me much more severe than anything Batay
> Ouvriye has actually done, unless there is something
> their critics haven't mentioned yet.
>
> And finally just to reiterate: Batay Ouvriye has and
> does denounce the current repression (though Sprague
> claims they don't), has been attacked (though Pina
> says they haven't), and did not join the Group of 184
> that really began the coup (with US aid of course),
> regardless of what we think of their ideas or
> statements.
>
> I don't know if that helps anybody in thinking about
> this.  And if anybody has seen anything that might
> shed more light on this, I'd love to see it.  This is
> I think a very important discussion, because it
> fleshes out what imperialism and capitalism really
> mean, and because the media ain't gonna tell us squat.
>
> Ricky
>
>
>
> --- "Morton K. Brussel" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe Ricky can straighten this all out. A turgid,
>> almost
>> impenetrable, defense of Batay Ouvriere is to be
>> found at
>>
>>
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=55&ItemID=9504
>>
>> Reading it, I'm less than impressed. They defend
>> taking money from
>> anyone, they attack Aristide, without really
>> criticizing his
>> overthrow. They cast aspersions on his election,
>> saying the lumpen
>> proletariat supported him. Hmmmm.
>>
>> --mkb
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060117/3593e127/attachment-0001.htm