12837: Re: 12830: Lavalas and "the process" - Simidor responds to Pierre (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Hyppolite Pierre <hpierre@irsp.org>

Daniel,

I read your reply with great interest because first of all, you provided us
all with some new information here. Nevertheless, we need to consider the
substance of your argument to shed lights on this very important issue. Here
is what you wrote on the issue of free trade zones in Haiti between the DR
and our homeland.

Read your writing, please:
"The DR came up with this free zone initiative partly to take advantage of
Haiti's unused export quota on the US market, and partly under the
pretext of debt reduction.  Haiti's foreign debt is around $1 billion;
the DR's debt stands close to $7 billion.  So far, the US has only agreed
to consider a proposition that will allow the two countries to pay the
interest on their debt into something called the Hispaniola Fund that
will be administered by a joint US, Dominican and Haitian commission.

Again, this is what you wrote, that "the US has only agreed to consider a
proposition", and you go further writing:

" This commission will be in charge of running the free trade zones along
the border."

Now, if I understand you correctly, if it is a proposition, it's not final
yet. That means it is still at the studying phase.

Well, this would imply that your original post on this issue (post 12593) in
which you conclude that:

"Aristide's recent free-trade zone agreement with the Dominican Republic,
which basically hands over 10% of Haitian territory to the Dominican
government, is the latest in a series of scandals rocking the Lavalas
regime." was incorrect. Why? Because this free trade zone agreement that you
are referring to is still at the proposal stage. There is no final accord
yet. That is according to your own written words.

In any case, there are some even more important issues here, which I am glad
you have brought up to the forefront. It is the issue of not only free trade
zones that we are discussing, but also the perhaps much larger issue -which
is still in the context of our debate - of a market economy and territorial
integrity.

Granted, I am replying to you here in haste. But this is not the first time
that countries sign free trade agreements. What I will do within the next
couple of days is find out as to the specifics of those deals amongst other
countries, to find how "unfair" this proposal is to Haiti.

In the meantime, you wrote about this tripartite commission, which would be
responsible for administration of that free trade zone. You mentioned
specifically the United States, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti as the
three individual partners.

Now, how do you infer from this, that Aristide is seceding 10 percent of
Haiti's territory to the Dominican Republic, when there is not just one, but
three (3) partners in that deal? Well I would have thought that your next
question would be, as part of the thinking "process", what would be the role
or roles of Haiti as a partner in that Commission? Would it have the status
of an observer, or that of an active participant?

Again, the same question. Under which jurisdiction will the "free trade
zones" be? A new one created by that tripartite commission? One with laws
based on United States jurisdiction? Or one based on the Dominican Republic
laws and regulations? Please keep in mind Daniel, that there really is a
much larger issue here. Consider for instance, the European Union.

Maybe that will make the issue of free trade clearer to you and others.
There is this new trend that had really begun with the emergence of the
European Union as a single entity. Nations agree to lose some of their
sovereignty to benefit more in the economic sphere. Your concern regarding
this is the same as a country like Switzerland for instance which still
refuses to become member of that community. Well, Switzerland can afford to,
for now.

The reality is this. You have a European Parliament, and laws. To become a
member of that union, nation states, rich nation states of Europe agree to
give up part of their sovereignty for the larger economic benefit.

Daniel, again I have to ask. Would the Haitian State leave the "zones",
without unencumbered by Haitian, electoral "process"? Would we be giving up
on that territory, and even in a de facto manner, have the Dominican
Government assure security to civil society?

These were and are still my questions. Why? Because you said it yourself
that as part of the "process", the United States has only so far agreed to
the text of a proposal, not a final resolution.

In any case, just like I mentioned it above, there is even a much larger
issue at play here. It is the issue of a market economy, and the way the
world is turning, whether you, and I, and everyone else disagree. Let me
explain myself here.

You wrote in your post: "But I fail to see what Haiti gets in return, other
than a few hundred jobs which typically yield 11 cents for assembling an
article of clothing that retails between 10 and 25 dollars on the US
market."

I know. I understand very well your point here, and am sure that more than
one individual or group will agree with you. On the other hand, we must
consider some very important facts that many of us have put aside, overcome
by our emotion, our romanticizing the poor and all.

I didn't see the Soviet Union survive under your theory. In fact, it
collapsed. I didn't see Mao's China thrive with an average economic growth
of 8 percent or more for more that 15 years consecutive under your theory.
Deng's China did, and is still growing at very rapid pace economically.

What I also saw was a Taiwan becoming what it is under those very policies
which you and so many other leftists are against. Incidentally, Taiwan is
now one major economic resource for countries like ours, and Nicaragua.

I also saw dictator Pinochet's Chile, become a mecca for supply-side
economists, eager to show that weakness of the left which continues on
romanticizing the poor. Unfortunately, this is why many of my left-wing
friends call me, and sadly so, a disguised right-winger. I don't
romanticise. I like to deal with what's real.

My question to you, as it has been to all of them, is this: "Would you
prefer seeing a dying Haitian with those 11 cents to buy two (2) pieces of
rapadou for his hungry kids, or would you rather see them die of hunger,
because, there is more pride in that so very real death? I am not going to
get involved in a major argument with you over this. I will only say the
following, however.

When Baby Doc pushed forth the program that he is known for, of having
assembly industries in Haiti in the 1970's, there was a greater flow of
money circulating in society. Consequently, the middle class which has left
the country, grew a bit larger because of that very flow. Now, had he
considered other policies to strengthen our own economy, and control the
corruption in his administration, despite all his faults in the sphere of
human rights and all, Haiti would have been much better off today, and
perhaps, he wouldn't be looked upon today with such disgrace. Now this is
Daniel, whether you like it or not.

There are so many issues that you've raised here, which I will not be able
to tackle all in just this email. I will however say this to you on this
issue of free trade zones.

Like it or not, whether it is Aristide your archenemy, or Benjamin Dupuy, or
Bazin, or Pierre-Charles the former communist, or Manigat, or whomever else,
or even yourself for that matter who is in power, what is happening today in
the economic sphere in Haiti will happen anyway. There is neither ifs, nor
buts about it. It is happening and it will happen. Incidentally, it is that
concern over Aristide's refusal to apply such policies at first, just like
this is your concern today, that cause him to have all these economic
difficulties and the refusal by these international banks to lend him money.
This is also perhaps why the Convergence has not come out on this particular
issue. They know that they would have no choice but to implement that
economic policy.

I understand your concerns about Haiti's relationship with the DR. Many
members of this list who are still on my email list and who used to receive
my weekly analyses can email you, just like I can, some of my old texts
expressing my concerns over that relationship between the DR and Haiti. .
Yet, you raised this issue to entice or out of emotions it seems, because
the "process" is not rightfully taken into consideration here. You must
beware. But you must also move forward.

The real issue that we should therefore discuss about this free trade zone
is not whether this proposal will be accepted, but how. What will be the
modalities? Will the Haitian parliament have a say in the final, not the
proposed resolution?

I have to stop, for now. It's getting too long and I am writing on one flow.

Best to you, Daniel
Hyppolite Pierre
IRSP
http://www.irsp.org