27285: Ives (reply) to Simidor (27232), Dailey (27228) and Chamberlain (27222) Re: Haiti Progres vs. Batay Ouvriye (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

Ives replies:

Well, well, well... what have we here? Simidor, Dailey AND Chamberlain all 
standing together. Kind of proves my point about the convergence of right and 
ultra-left, I think. Let me respond to their points one by one:

Simidor tries to deflect the "silly notion" that "Batay Ouvriye helped 
overthrow Aristide two years ago and is now getting paid by the Bush 
administration for their efforts" by pointing at Aristide again. In previous 
posts, he said the Lavalas Family PARTY received "millions" from the U.S. 
government. Unable to respond to my repeated requests for proof of this 
assertion, Simidor has morphed his charge to saying the "Lavalas regime 
accepted millions." That's a big difference when a GOVERNMENT receives "aid" 
for public projects, etc. and when a private PARTY or ORGANIZATION receives 
"support," as the 184, Convergence and Batay Ouvriye have.

Furthermore, much of the U.S. assistance "to Haiti" during Aristide's truncated 
1994-1995 administration (one assumes this is the period Simidor refers to 
since even he is surely aware of the aid embargo from 2000-2004) was NOT to the 
central government, as it was during the Duvalier years, but rather to US NGOs 
and US contractors. This is part of imperialism's new paradigm to keep central 
governments -- especially suspect ones like Aristide's -- weak and dependent.

Simidor admits that "BO is to receive additional funds from the Solidarity 
Center" (some $100,000 as researcher Jeb Sprague revealed in Haiti Progres last 
week). He then says that he would never "accept NED money for the meager work" 
he does, but implies that it is justified in Batay Ouvriye's case because they 
are "organizing desperately poor workers in desperately poor Haiti." He admits 
that "some" of the Solidarity Center's reasons for funding BO are "not so 
innocent," but insists it has nothing to do with BO's stance towards Aristide. 
(I think it has everything to do with that stance.)

To cover Batay Ouvriye's back (and his own), Simidor contends that nobody is to 
blame for Aristide's ouster. Aristide overthrew himself with "his own stupidity 
and greed" and "the kind of alliances he chose to make." Washington, Paris, 
Haiti's bourgeoisie, and the ex-soldiers and Macoutes in the DR apparently had 
nothing to do with it. Would even a child believe this?

Yes, in Haiti Progres, we have "exposed Lavalas corruption" time and again, as 
Simidor says. We are not, as Simidor charges, "denying it today." Does that 
prove that Aristide was corrupt? Does that mean that the coup was justified? No 
and no.

There was indeed a "big imperialist la-di-da plot against Aristide," Haiti's 
elected and constitutional president. This is why Haiti Progres, despite the 
many just criticisms we have made,  rushed to Aristide's and the people's 
defense. It is a matter of principle. And we knew the coup's result would be 
the horror we see in Haiti today.

Although imperialism's central role in overthrowing Aristide is clear to all, 
"Batay Ouvriye has not changed its practice or its line in the intervening 
period -- Haiti-Progres did." This is correct and precisely the point. Ossified 
in sterile dogma, Batay Ouvriye and Simidor remain on the "ultra-left," 
attacking imperialism's target and OBJECTIVELY serving Washington's interests. 
Hence, the grant money.

Despite the (new?) revenue stream, it is absurd to say that "Batay Ouvriye has 
gone through a period of rapid growth" making the "very envious very mad." BO 
is as unknown and marginal as ever. In my experience, most Haitians have never 
heard of it, and those that do know it, see right through its infantile 
slogans.

Peter Dailey's post is startlingly bitter and vindictive. Perhaps this is 
because of the critique I made of a book-review-cum-baseless-diatribe he made 
some years ago. His assertions, as in his "review," are just not true. 
Suggesting that Ben Dupuy "helped to bring Aristide down" is just laughable. In 
the months leading up to the coup, Aristide had no more spirited defender.

And where did Dailey get this "selling out the Abner Louima movement" charge? 
First time I've heard that one. I think he's confused. I certainly NEVER saw 
Dailey in any of the many commuity mobilizations and meetings that Haiti 
Progres helped organize following the Louima torture. In fact, I've never seen 
Dailey (except at a Marx Aristide's funeral) in the Haitian community, period. 
This despite his supposed "25 years" on the scene.

Concerning Dailey's rehash of the de factos' "corruption" inquiries, I think 
the interview with Ira Kurzban that HP published some weeks ago adequately lays 
that to rest.

Dailey is really swinging wildly when he accuses Ben Dupuy of getting paid by 
the Aristide Foundation to carry out "Political Thuggery" with the JPP's Rene 
Civil. Where does he cook up this nonsense?

The charges in Dailey's last paragraph are as far-fetched as they are untrue. 
Calling Hatii Progres a "cult," the PPN "non-existent," Ben Dupuy a 
"self-promoting bloviator," etc., etc. He even gets the wardrobe wrong (Ben 
leans towards ties, scarves, and guayaberas, not "Nehru suits.") My, what petty 
(and erroneous) detail! What vitriol!

Finally, Greg Chamberlain has seized this opportunity, as he has done over the 
years, to refresh the ancient rumor -- originally concocted, I believe, by the 
late rumor-monger and ill-fated politician Rene Theodore -- that I sit on some 
banking fortune. Sadly, it is not true. But even if it were, it would be beside 
the point. There are well-to-do individuals throughout history -- Frederick 
Engels and Fidel Castro come to mind -- who devote their lives and their 
capital, however meager, to the people's struggle. The more power to them. I 
only WISH I had a banking fortune to contribute.

To all the gentlemen, from the both ends of the spectrum, let's drop the ad 
hominem arguments. They don't stamp their feet and demand to know all the 
finances of Paul Denis, Hubert Deronceray, Evans Paul, Serge Gilles, Himmler 
Rebu and a host of other politicians and pundits when they make outlandish 
accusations against Aristide or Dupuy. Simidor comes closest to debating the 
issue of NED funding of BO on its merits, but can't resist casting the 
occasional stone that there is something "sinister" in Jeb Sprague's perfectly 
justified, carefully documented, and extremely edifying revelations.

Kim Ives