1984-1986 : The proletarian revolution began in Haiti

1984-1986 : The proletarian revolution began in Haiti

In 1984, and especially in 1986, the Haitian people set out to rid themselves of the Duvalier dictatorship, which was supported by Western countries. Yes, the working people of Haiti experienced a revolution, attacking the barbaric "Tonton Macoutes" and overthrowing the dictatorship of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, backed by the USA. The regime was permanently shaken. Only recently have the major powers occupying Haiti allowed the Haitian army to return to its headquarters, which had been completely deserted after the revolution.

In the aftermath of February 7, 1986, the fall of Duvalier, groups of unemployed youth and workers armed with sticks, machetes, knives, stones, and jerrycans roamed the streets in the working-class neighborhoods of cities and some rural areas, chanting and targeting the Tonton Macoutes, their homes, shops, vehicles, and the offices of the VSN, the dictatorship’s party. However, the barracks and military posts were not attacked, and weapons seized from the Tonton Macoutes and other torturers of the regime were returned to the barracks ! Meanwhile, leaders of the Duvalier dictatorship were exonerated through a very slight period of opposition, such as de Ronceray and Bazin, and notorious torturers like Ti Boulé went unpunished. The Tonton Macoute militias were attacked by the people, but neither the army nor the government did anything to systematically disarm the armed gangs of the powerful. Many neighborhood activists and members of peasant or religious associations turned to this kind of political opposition, comprised of the talkative but largely inactive, and even less socially radical, democratic petty bourgeoisie : the KONAKOM and other "democratic movements." Or the Democratic Liaison Committees or PANPRA. The grassroots church committee movement, or Ti-Légliz, and the "Alpha missions" (meaning literacy and awareness-raising) provided a broad framework for poor youth and were more concerned with the plight of the most destitute than the democratic petty bourgeoisie, but they had no program that politically expressed the interests of the masses in the face of the military leaders and ruling classes. The CATH union also emerged at the forefront of the "democratic sector," even though, in fact, it offered no clear prospects for the exploited. And CATH, like the rest of the political opposition, quickly became entangled in political maneuvering. As for the Stalinist party, Theodore’s PUCH, its reputation for radicalism was undeserved. Theodore systematically aligned himself with the most fashionable generals or colonels of the moment. After "acknowledging" General Namphy, defending Jean-Claude Paul, celebrating with Avril, applauding Abraham, and congratulating Cédras, Theodore ended his career by applying for the role of representative in power of the oppressors of the Haitian people, as prime minister of the military dictatorship ! He, who had earned his stripes among the activists of the uprising, accepted the position of prime minister of the dictatorship before it withdrew its offer. When the PUCH called for a "yes" vote in the referendum of March 29, 1987, many people definitively distanced themselves from it.

The failure of this Haitian revolution stemmed from the fact that the parties and social, labor, religious, and political organizations that led it, far from desiring a seizure of power by the oppressed, aimed only to bring the people back into line. They never warned the people against Duvalier’s barely reformed army. They never called on the people to unite with the rank and file, nor on the latter to disobey their superiors. They never sought to disarm the militias of the powerful. They never hoped that this revolution would challenge the ruling classes and their system of exploitation. On the contrary, all their efforts were focused on reconciling the people with the army, the people with the ruling classes. The union leaders, religious figures, social democrats, and Stalinists collaborated, ultimately bringing the demagogue Aristide to power. He completely discredited himself by becoming a puppet of the US in 1994. Whether or not Aristide was in power, social calm never returned. This is why American and then international troops intervened, fearing a resurgence of the Haitian revolution !

The years of insurrection
1984

1984 : More than 200 peasants were massacred in Jean-Rabel after a demonstration for access to land. The Haitian Bishops’ Conference launched a short-lived educational program throughout the country.

In 1984, for the first time since the beginning of the Duvalier dictatorship, riots broke out, and slum dwellers looted food warehouses. Anti-government riots occurred in all the country’s major cities.

The first riots began in May 1984 in the city of Gonaïves. Despite the usual repression, the clashes and demonstrations continued. Schoolchildren and high school students protested, chanting : "Down with poverty, down with unemployment !"
In Raboteau, Gonaïves, on May 14th, the first signs appeared, clearly expressing what everyone was thinking : "Down with poverty !" Ministers sent to the scene were insulted. The demonstrations followed the slogans and spread to La Fossette in Cap-Haïtien, then to Hinche. The people’s revolt had begun, and it was far from over…

In May 1984, the La Fossette shantytown in Cape Town rioted.
1985

The young people, gathered at the Jérémie council in April 1985, expressed the suffering of an entire people, a suffering that erupted in their voices. Some, from the bourgeoisie and the lower middle class, joined the people, whether out of conviction or calculation. Hubert de Ronceray, a Duvalierist, thus became an opponent. The CATH trade union federation denounced the social and political situation. The government attempted to bolster its credibility with a referendum in July 1985. However, this forced it to allow some freedom of speech, and the result backfired. The Radio Soleil program "Garanti la lwa" (Guaranteed the Law) humorously denounced the lack of democracy. The radio station’s director was expelled, along with three other foreign priests. The PNDPH (National Party for the Defense of Human Rights) attempted to prepare an armed uprising. Its leader, Dr. Lionel Lainé, was arrested and assassinated.

It was in Gonaïves, the symbolic capital of Haitian independence during the era of Dessalines’ first Black republic in 1804, that the popular revolt took on a massive and public dimension. Already, in May 1984, demonstrations against the dictatorship in Gonaïves had turned explosive. On October 28, 1985, Pollux Saint-Jean, a native of Gonaïves, was arrested without trial. The people demonstrated, chanting "Let’s demand Pollux," which quickly transformed into protests with placards : "DOWN WITH JAN KLOD," "DOWN WITH THE CONSTITUSTYON," "DOWN WITH THE DIKTATI, LONG LIVE THE SOUL." This last slogan, favorable to the soldiers, is characteristic of the demonstrations in Gonaïves because it seems that in this locality, the soldiers were reluctant to implement the regime’s anti-popular measures. This is not how the army was perceived in many other regions, particularly in rural areas. On November 27, 1985, the slogan "Down with Jean-Claude !" was broadcast on Radio Lumière. Minister Alix Cinéa, dispatched to the scene, faced the people of the Gonaïves slums, who were not to be trifled with. Government empty promises would no longer appease the people. Clashes resumed. Leaflets circulated, clearly marked "Jean Clod assassin, aleousan !" Demonstrators entered schools and drew large numbers of young people into the streets.

On November 28, 1985, the army and militia opened fire and killed in Gonaïves : three unarmed schoolchildren were gunned down in broad daylight. From then on, the names of Jean-Robert Cius (19 years old), Michel Mackenson (12 years old), and Daniel Israël would haunt the uprising until the departure of the bloodthirsty "Baby Doc." In the streets of Gonaïves, young people demanded justice and were joined by those from Marchand-Dessalines, a small town in the Arbonite region. The entire youth of the country mobilized and urged their elders to join the movement. The radicalization was far from over. Religious communities were overwhelmed by the uprising and supported it.

Fearing public outrage over a burial, the authorities refused to accept the bodies and organized a clandestine interment. This was not just another murder for a dictatorship that had already committed many others. It was the final murder before the people rose up. The deaths of the three schoolchildren broke down all barriers. Religious communities, the petty bourgeoisie, workers, and the slum dwellers now united in a clear will : Duvalier is finished, he must be ousted ! There could be no greater clarification of what had allowed his dictatorial power to persist for so long : the interests of a ruling class. The Church expressed the people’s anger and did not hesitate to declare that these three deaths should signal change in Haiti. However, these religious leaders refused to address the root of the problem, while the people spoke of uprooting the dictatorship, of dismantling it. These leaders were reformists. In the Gonaïves cathedral, where all those denouncing the crime gathered, their text circulated, asserting : “If the entire people speak out, they will achieve democracy.” Not a word about the need to disarm the military hierarchy and all the militias. At most, it was clear to most that the USA had supported Duvalier despite all his crimes. The role of the Tonton Macoutes was emphasized, but not the equally criminal role of the army. On December 25, 1985, Radio Soleil was shut down, but from then on, the people managed on their own to disseminate their information and demands using handwritten leaflets, rallies, and meetings.
The leaflets in Creole that circulated left no doubt about the revolutionary nature of the mass uprising. Five slogans attest to this :

Babouket la tonbe : Remove the bridle (the gag of dictatorship)

Kouve you zè istorik : The events that are brewing will be historic

Rache manyok, bay tè a blanchi : Uproot the cassava to leave the land free (uproot the dictatorship to be reborn)

Vole gagè : To take to one’s heels (the dictator and his henchmen have no choice but to flee)

Teke mab la jous sa kaba : Strike relentlessly and to the very end

And finally :

Dechouke Janklod !

In Gonaïves, the protesters confronted the army. They were partially armed with machetes and knives and very determined. The army was forced to retreat. The protesters disarmed police officers and soldiers and seized rifles. They set an example for ordinary people throughout the country.

Throughout the country, the announcement of the assassination of Mackenson Michel, Daniel Israël, and Jean Robert Cius —the three students shot dead in Gonaïves during a demonstration demanding the departure of Bébé Doc—sparked mobilizations among high school students who refused to be intimidated by the repressive forces. These mobilizations were followed by mass demonstrations. Thousands of outraged young people and residents now openly campaigned for Duvalier’s departure, a movement that had not existed before.

In the city of Les Cayes, the second demonstration for the three young people against the dictatorship turned into a full-blown riot with barricades. The city was ablaze. Aristide was still just one of the popular priests of Les Cayes.

The protest demonstrations and especially the school strike gradually spread throughout the country in November-December 1985 : from Gonaïves, they spread to Jérémie, Les Cayes, Petit Goâve, Bainet, Belladère, Hinche, Cap-Haïtien and did not reach Port-au-Prince until January 1986, when the uprising became general throughout the country.

As for the young people, they declared, "As long as we don’t get what we want, we won’t go back to school." On the morning of November 29th, all the schools in Gonaïves were already in the streets, chanting, "Long live the youth ! Down with the Constitution !"

On December 2nd, students from the Cap-Haïtien high school sent an open letter to the authorities who were forbidding them from going to pray in the cathedral for the three victims of the repression : "No law forces a high school student to become a Tonton Macoute."

On December 5, 1985, the youth of Gonaïves launched a song : "Finally, let us be allowed to decide, to say what we want, because it is truly time for things to change in the country. We remain hopeful that this meeting will allow us to open our eyes so that we will fight until our country is freed from all these miseries…"

On December 5, 1985, Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, then still known as Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Salesian priest, distributed his "Letter for All the Families of Gonaïves" to the Verrettes parish in Gonaïves. In it, he wrote, among other things : "Faced with the bitter cup you are drinking in Gonaïves, we of the Verrettes parish, members of the Church, along with all citizens aware of the country’s situation, want to tell you how deeply our hearts ache to see Haitians, our fellow human beings, treating us like stray dogs or game birds. (...) We cannot understand at all how someone of our own blood could have given the order to fire on a people, children of this land." Aristide also launched his "Go Away, Satan," a poem in Creole calling on the people to expel Duvalier. The theme of the prayer vigils is : “Jesus was a man whose situation was dire, but who understood that it was because the situation of some was too good that his own situation was dire. He was a man who could see how the land of the peasants around him was being stolen, how the wealthy landowners gathered to extort money from the people, the poor unfortunate Jesus. He was a man who sought the origin of misery, hunger, and discord among his brothers and sisters ; he was a man who saw how some murderers killed for power. Jesus was a comrade who saw the poor become mere pawns for the rich and powerful so much that he decided to give the poor more importance, to be with them, to help them escape this situation. Yes, Jesus… he was a great revolutionary who came to change the entire structure of society so that every person could live as an equal with all others.” …Faced with this example that Jesus gives us, what do we ourselves want to do ? How do we want to organize ourselves so that the Haitian people can rise from this earth, so that they can have life, freedom, and be respected ? (…) This is what the three young men of Gonaïves understood, and this is why the stateless criminals murdered them. It was because they were defending the dignity of the country that they died. And what do we here want ? Are we going to let their blood flow in vain ? Are we not children of Goman, Toussaint, and Dessalines ? (…) We will fight. As long as the powerful use force. As long as the powerless do not rise up. Things will change, it’s true, when everyone opens their eyes. Things will change, it’s true, when exploitation is over. The religious leaders declared to the people : "Legliz se nou, nou se Legliz" and "We are counting on you, you can count on us. " The discourse was radical and socially conscious, but the political program was not. A working document from the Church in Gonaïves dated January 10, 1986, states :“Democracy is simple to explain… To achieve this, the people choose different representatives who form the State. The State and the government are there to respect the will and the program of the people… In order to allow for these free and fair elections, the State must guarantee the necessary freedom to express oneself. For the people to be able to organize themselves,… they must be able to understand taxes and why the State takes so much money from its own pocket… The army must protect the people… The State must allow peasants to have property titles fairly…”

However, the State then appears for what it is : a band of armed men serving a minority of profiteers and ready to massacre the masses.
1986

On January 15, 1986, the youth of Gonaïves wrote in their leaflet , "Kinbe pa lague joustan nou finn grizonnnen mab. Viv Ayiti ! You ayiti ki pi bel kote moun viv tankou moun." (Hold on, don’t give up until we’ve finished cracking the marble ! Long live Haiti ! A more beautiful Haiti where men live like men.)

In Port-au-Prince, at the beginning of January 1986, school directors, including those of Saint-Louis de Gonzagues, Bird College and Sacré-Coeur, establishments frequented by the middle and upper classes, decreed a day of mourning and prayer.

In January 1986, despite Duvalier’s attempts to suppress them, the demonstrations spread throughout the country.

On January 8, 1986, in Gonaïves, law enforcement officers shot and killed Dieulifet Petit, a bakery worker.

The mutiny is beginning to threaten the regime. Is it the work of rebellious soldiers or of officers preparing for the future, sensing the changing tide ?

On January 14, 1986, the "MOSOLDA, Mouvman Solda Lame Dayiti" (Movement of Little Soldiers Against the Dictatorship) emerged, declaring : "We can no longer serve our own oppressors. The people’s cause is our cause. We are soldiers of the Haitian army attached to the various branches of the country’s military. We created this movement to support and stand alongside the youth and all anti-government sectors to drive Duvalier, the Tonton Macoute officers, and their accomplices from the army and from power, in order to restore order and security for the Haitian people, under the rule of law and democratic freedoms. We call upon all other soldiers, asking them to support all actions and operations necessary to overthrow the corrupt dictatorial regime of Jean-Claude Duvalier." We commend the soldiers who refused to fire on the people, and protest against the formation of the criminal brigade, a group of Tonton Macoutes, intended to murder the people…. Headquarters.” Deputy Rockfeller Guerre wrote to the Haitian armed forces on January 20, 1986 : “Reading the demands on some of the placards, ‘Down with the constitution, long live the army,’ it is clear that the people have nothing against you. They love you because you are there to guarantee their security.” He knows that you are not responsible for his misery since you don’t drive luxury Mercedes, you don’t own castles in Haiti or abroad, you don’t have millions in foreign banks, and so many of you can’t afford school for your children, pay an average rent for a decent house... While renewing to you, Gentlemen of the Armed Forces, my profound admiration, my respect, and my determination to fight alongside you for the salvation of the Nation... Engineer Rockfeller Guerre, Deputy

The operation to whitewash the army begins, paving the way for its successor to the dictator, who already appears finished. Leaflets and demonstrations clearly show that the dictatorship is over, as illustrated by this leaflet from January 13th : "Down with Jean-Claude, down with any landing of foreign troops, long live a free Haiti, long live the popular strike… strike, strike, strike, strike…"

On January 25, 1986, the "Declaration number one" of the Provisional Committee for the Organization of the Struggle of the Haitian People stated : "In order to prepare a national strike with a view to overthrowing this dictatorial regime by inheritance, in order to succeed in rebuilding a land of Haiti where exploitation will cease, where the people can have the right to health, education for their children, security, freedom in all that a valiant people needs to live, WE MUST ORGANIZE.

To this end, each city, each town, each rural section, each neighborhood will form a people’s struggle committee. These committees will be responsible for disseminating information and coordinating actions throughout the country. All people’s committees must remain secret and operate covertly so that spies cannot discover them.

On January 28, 1986, three more people were shot dead in Cap-Haïtien. Three others died during the hiring of braceros in Léogâne. Protests against the hiring turned violent in Léogâne and La Croix-des-Bouquets. On the 27th, the civil court and the prosecutor’s office in Gonaïves were set on fire.

In Cap Haïtien, 40,000 demonstrators gathered on January 29, 1986 to demand the departure of Duvalier.

Throughout the provinces, young people stood up to the militiamen and soldiers who were shooting and killing. In Port-au-Prince, the Tonton Macoutes were concentrated and regrouped. A state of siege was declared on the evening of January 30, 1986.

On January 31, 1986, the people learned that the US was negotiating Duvalier’s departure, but this was still a premature announcement. Demonstrations erupted in Port-au-Prince. A state of siege was declared : a pall of terror descended upon the country, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Clashes broke out with the Tonton Macoutes, and the purge of the Tonton Macoutes began. At times, the army attacked the Tonton Macoutes.

Port-au-Prince, silent until then, entered the scene on the Friday before the dictator’s fall. It was a veritable demonstration of people from the working-class neighborhoods. The people of Saline were instantly on the streets of Lalue for the first uprising. It was a total crackdown by the security forces. But only the Tonton Macoutes and other zealous supporters of the regime were hunted down and killed. The army, with the support of the new government, was seen as having sided with the people.

On February 7, 1986, after weeks of anti-government protests, "President for Life" Jean-Claude Duvalier, known as Baby Doc, was ousted from power and sought refuge in France. The announcement of Duvalier’s fall was followed by widespread uprisings throughout the country. The Tonton Macoutes were violently attacked.

On February 7, 1986, Duvalier fell, and the announcement of his downfall, far from calming the situation, sparked a genuine popular uprising. Mass demonstrations throughout the country led to the overthrow of known Tonton Macoutes. Everywhere, spontaneous organizations sprang up to discuss the country’s future.

On the night of February 6-7, the American army took Duvalier into exile in France with a fortune representing approximately double the country’s debt, or 800 million dollars.

In a video recording released after his departure, Duvalier Jr. declared : "I have decided to hand over the destiny of the nation, the power, to the armed forces of Haiti, hoping that this decision will allow for a peaceful and rapid resolution to the current crisis."

Lieutenant General Henri Namphy, Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, was the first to respond : "The Armed Forces of Haiti, fully aware of their mission to defend the integrity of the national territory, responsible for maintaining order and public safety, as well as peace, had to seize the reins of power in order to safeguard and preserve the national heritage, so seriously threatened."

The only question was : by whom did the army consider the "national heritage" to be threatened ? By Duvalier and his cronies ? Or by the mobilized working people ? The answer would come very quickly…

It was the workers who were threatening the bosses who were worrying the army.

On April 26, 1986, the army was about to demonstrate what it perceived as a threat. A large memorial march was proceeding toward Fort Dimanche, the barracks where many of the 30,000 Haitians victimized by Duvalier were arrested and tortured. Suddenly, the army opened fire on the peaceful demonstration : six dead. The new power that emerged after Duvalier’s fall wasted no time in showing its true colors ! This was just the beginning of a long series of army crimes.

But this is not enough to bring a working people, who have only just begun to realize their strength, back into line. The fall of Duvalier also means that the workers are organizing, struggling, and fighting against their bosses. The iron grip of the dictatorship is no longer holding sway.

After Duvalier’s fall, returning exiles formed CATH-CLAT, which claims to be the Christian Democratic origin of the union that had been founded in 1980, taking advantage of Duvalier’s liberal rhetoric at the time, but which was swept away by repression in November 1980. The CATH Manifesto declares : “Unions are a good thing. When a worker can freely join a union, he feels responsible for his future, responsible for the future of the country. At the same time, he knows how far he can take his struggle… Currently, many conscientious employers recognize the value of unions in Haiti. We, CATH, wish to lend them a hand so that unionism becomes a reality in Haiti.” The union is not only there to make demands, it is also there to help the worker educate themselves, to learn, to accept the opinion of the group even if they do not agree with it ; this is how they learn to take responsibility and exercise their rights in relation to society.

In a leaflet distributed in Port-au-Prince on January 31, 1986, the CATH published its "Declaration on the events taking place in Haiti" :

"At this time of political crisis gripping the country, we at CATH, on behalf of every worker, cannot remain silent in order to help the country find a democratic solution, that is, one with the participation of all the country’s citizens."

Translate, we lead the working class by committing ourselves to ensuring that other classes, including the upper bourgeoisie, will not have their access to power challenged.

"We want to make it clear to everyone : CATH is not a political party, CATH does not seek power. And CATH does not want to be linked to any political party in order to maintain the freedom to defend the interests of workers against the State and employers."

But the CATH, which pledges not to be affiliated with political parties, does not pledge not to be affiliated with military or business leaders.
As for the CATH’s social program, it does not exist. This union only demands the right to free elections "so that the people can choose the person they want to lead the country."

The CATH would subsequently behave like bourgeois politicians and negotiate alliances with the bourgeoisie and military dictators.

No social or political force, neither the Ti Egliz, nor the Stalinist party PUCH, nor the CATH, will help the workers to address the little soldiers who are beginning to revolt to put an end to exploitation and oppression.

The 1986 revolution will fail… close to the finish line !

The hijackers of the struggle are indeed at work. The slogan they’re using speaks volumes about their intentions, which are by no means to disarm the armed forces that supported Duvalier until the very end and should be overthrown just as much as the Tonton Macoutes. They’re using the slogan "Diktaté à alé aba makout viv lamé" : the dictator is gone, down with the Tonton Macoutes, long live the army…

This is not the only deceptive tactic employed by these political professionals. They have also decided to present false objectives to the rebellious population. First, to make them believe that the army is on the side of the people ; second, to establish a military government before a power vacuum arises ; and finally, to create the illusion of democratization by initiating discussions on the constitution and elections.

Once legalized, political parties were created by the dozens, as well as newspapers and radio stations, but it was a National Council of Government (CNG), composed of six Duvalierists, that was tasked with ensuring the transition.

General Namphy, former Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, became president of a National Governing Council (NGC) composed of four military officers and two civilians. The National Governing Council that would rule the country would never be elected. The army now held power in place of the ruling classes.
The implementation of the deception

Denis Hautin-Guiraut, “Haiti without ‘Baby Doc’ : Explosion of joy and settling of scores”

“…Never in three decades has the population experienced such exaltation. It’s a veritable explosion of enthusiasm during the first hours of the day, following the initial skepticism… As things stand, the military-civilian junta has remarkably controlled the situation. Its youth—its members are between forty-six and fifty-three years old—and the oft-repeated assertion that the army does not wish to seize power but only to ensure a return to calm and greater stability in the country, have facilitated its task. But we must already think about the future. Even if the deadline is not officially set, it will have to come within a relatively short timeframe to maintain the full effectiveness of the current ‘transitional government.’”

Le Monde (France), February 9 and 10, 1986, p. 4.

Jean-Paul Mari, "The Miracle Survivors of Port-au-Prince"

“...A Duvalier government without Duvalier ? No, it’s about avoiding splitting the country in two and dismissing any idea of ​​revenge,” explains Rosny Desroches, a Protestant preacher and Minister of Education. Indeed, General Namphy keeps repeating that “the Council, driven by the purest selflessness, intends to be a provisional government.” In other words, the army has no intention of holding onto power. The Duvalier regime has collapsed from within : American pressure and popular uprisings only accelerated a slow decay. With the fledgling democracy in its arms, the army rushed to have it baptized in the church. A few hours after his investiture, General Namphy received the bishops. Their first objective : to secure the Church’s powerful intervention to restore calm to the country. (...) “The discontent will grow if we don’t hold elections very soon,” grimaces a high-ranking government official. For the moment, there’s post-Duvalier euphoria. But the race for power is going to be fierce.

Le Nouvel Observateur (France), February 14-20, 1986, p. 37.

CH, "Waiting for democracy"

“...The first task of the new government, which has just received ‘encouragement’ from the United States, will be to reconcile Haitians. And, first and foremost, to contain the settling of scores and personal vendettas, inevitable in a country scarred by the memory of terror… ‘Duvalier is gone, misery is gone,’ the crowd shouted. The following days brought a somewhat disillusionment. The return of a million exiles, for example ? ‘It will take place within the framework of the law. And not in the interest of certain petty politicians,’ explains General Namphy. New elections (the Chamber has been dissolved) ? ‘No electoral calendar is planned for the moment,’ he adds, looking tense. Clearly, the junta seems to be struggling to answer pressing questions in a situation of great instability and pathetic misery. This question remains : should they request the extradition of Jean-Claude Duvalier to try him in Haiti ?”

L’Express (France), February 21, 1986, p. 10.
The army in power deceives the people, then massacres them

Let’s return to the course of events in February 1986. On February 9, 1986, five thousand demonstrators demanded the formation of a civilian government.

In March 1986, Sylvain Diderot slapped a driver and was attacked by a poor crowd of people who turned on the soldiers. The army responded with a brutal crackdown, resulting in numerous deaths. Barricades were erected by the people in the streets. The new regime was no better than the old one.

On April 26, 1986, the Fort Dimanche shooting showed once again that the military power is the enemy of the common people of Haiti.

On November 7, 1986, 200,000 demonstrators took to the streets in support of Charlot Jacquelin.

On November 17, 1986, a general strike broke out demanding the dissolution of the National General Council (CNG). The Stalinist party, the PUCH, emerged as a radical force. Along with the Ti-Légliz (Little Churches), they were among the most radical activists. At that time, working-class people believed they had organizations that would truly strive to de-Macoute the regime... But it was an illusion.
1987

Taking advantage of the failure of a general strike called by the CATH union on June 30, 1987, to dissolve the CNG (National Management Center), the government banned the union and arrested its leaders. Faced with popular backlash, the CNG was forced to back down and release the union officials. The popular movement felt strong, but it followed misguided leaders, demagogues with no intention whatsoever of disarming the oppressors of the Haitian people. While the people admired Aristide, death squads were being established at the instigation of Régala and Jean-Claude Paul.

The rise in popularity was marked by the July 10th demonstration in the streets of Port-au-Prince, with the red flags of the PUCH and Theodore at the forefront. But the PUCH’s radicalism would not last.

From July 23 to 28, 1987, 250 farmers from Jean Rabel were murdered by the private militia of Poitevin and Lucas, demonstrating that the CNG (National Gendarmerie Committee) supported the perpetrators of the massacres. These murders were bound to encourage others. In the countryside, the demoralized Tonton Macoutes regained their confidence.

From September 1987 to September 1988, there was a proliferation of massacres organized by armed groups.

On November 29, 1987, the elections were cancelled. All the candidates in the November 29, 1987 elections, including Gourgue and Theodore, were perfectly aware that the army chiefs were preparing a coup d’état—the CNG had barely concealed its intentions—but they were careful not to warn the population. They feared more that the population would arm itself and overthrow the government than the risk of being threatened by a military coup.
The responsibility of "democratic" organizations

In the aftermath of February 7th, the fall of Duvalier, groups of unemployed youth and workers, armed with sticks, machetes, knives, stones, and jerrycans of gasoline, roamed the streets in the working-class neighborhoods of cities and some rural areas, chanting and targeting the Tonton Macoutes, their homes, shops, vehicles, and the offices of the VSN, the dictatorship’s party. However, the barracks and military posts were not attacked, and weapons seized from the Tonton Macoutes and other torturers of the regime were returned to the barracks ! Meanwhile, leaders of the Duvalier dictatorship were exonerated through a very slight period of opposition, such as de Ronceray and Bazin, and notorious torturers like Ti Boulé went unpunished. The Tonton Macoute militias were attacked by the people, but neither the army nor the government did anything to systematically disarm the armed gangs of the powerful. Many neighborhood activists and members of peasant or religious associations turned to this kind of political opposition, comprised of the talkative but largely inactive, and even less socially radical, democratic petty bourgeoisie : the KONAKOM and other "democratic movements." Or the Democratic Liaison Committees or PANPRA. The grassroots church committee movement, or Ti-Légliz, and the "Alpha missions" (meaning literacy and awareness-raising) provided a broad framework for poor youth and were more concerned with the plight of the most destitute than the democratic petty bourgeoisie, but they had no program that politically expressed the interests of the masses in the face of the military leaders and ruling classes. The CATH union also emerged at the forefront of the "democratic sector," even though, in fact, it offered no clear prospects for the exploited. And CATH, like the rest of the political opposition, quickly became entangled in political maneuvering. As for the Stalinist party, Theodore’s PUCH, its reputation for radicalism was undeserved. Theodore systematically aligned himself with the most fashionable generals or colonels of the moment. After "acknowledging" General Namphy, defending Jean-Claude Paul, celebrating with Avril, applauding Abraham, and congratulating Cédras, Theodore ended his career by applying for the role of representative in power of the oppressors of the Haitian people, as prime minister of the military dictatorship ! He, who had earned his stripes among the activists of the uprising, accepted the position of prime minister of the dictatorship before it withdrew its offer. When the PUCH called for a "yes" vote in the referendum of March 29, 1987, many people definitively distanced themselves from it.
1988

On January 17, 1988, elections were held under the auspices of the army. Voter turnout was low. Leslie Manigat became president.

On June 18, 1988, Namphy regained power and, on June 22, appointed a military government.

On September 10, 1988, a massacre took place during a mass in Port-au-Prince. Using revolvers, pikes, and machetes, General Namphy’s henchmen killed 13 people and injured 70.

September 1988 :
The soldiers’ rebellion begins, with the soldiers deposing their commanders and senior officers. There will be no policy from grassroots organizations to ensure that the popular movement unites with the rank and file to disarm the generals, the large landowners, and the ruling classes.

On September 18, General Prosper Avril, head of the presidential guard and former confidant of BébéDoc, overthrew Namphy. Throughout the following year, General Avril survived several coup attempts and was unable to restore social peace.
1989

On March 31, 1989, a military coup failed.

From August to November 1989, repression by the army or the "zenglendos", soldiers adopting the methods of the Tonton Macoutes, increased : kidnappings, assassinations, torture...

November 7 and 8, 1989, November 22, 1989 and November 29, 1989 : a series of general strikes against repression
1990

On March 12, 1990, abandoned by all his supporters, General Avril relinquished power and left Haiti. A few hours later, Theodore (PUCH), Father Adrien, and Victor Benoit (KONAKOM) appeared on the balcony of the army headquarters, hand in hand with General Abraham, and led the applause for the army...!!!! To the very end, nothing was done by the organizations that claimed to represent the working class to establish a workers’ policy independent of the military.

During 1990, former "Tonton Macoutes" terrorized the streets of the capital. Neo-Duvalierists created the Union for National Reconciliation, led by Roger Lafontant. A wave of popular protest prevented this party from participating in the elections.

On December 16, 1990, Father Jean Bertrand Aristide, a supporter of "liberation theology," won the presidential election by a landslide and became president on February 7, 1991. He was overthrown on September 30, 1991, by a coup d’état led by General Raoul Cédras, commander-in-chief of the army.
1991

January 1991 - The Gervais Massacres :
In Gervais, Artibonite, 12 farmers were killed and 8 went missing (in addition to 20 wounded and 494 houses burned). The causes, those responsible, and the perpetrators of the massacre remain a subject of debate. According to a diocesan commission in Artibonite (Danroc and Roussière), which investigated and documented the atrocities with photographs, a military commando supported by henchmen of a landowner carried out the massacre. According to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (ICHR, 1991), the massacre was part of a land dispute in the Terre-Cassée area, near Gervais, Guyton, and Coligny, where several farming families, including small landowners, had been at odds since 1973. A few days before January 17, following the destruction of a warehouse belonging to one of the parties involved in what was then only a land dispute, the justice of the peace ordered the arrest of 27 farmers from Gervais. On January 17, while carrying out the arrests, the section chief and his assistants shot and killed one of the farmers. Shortly afterward, the farmers from Gervais retaliated by killing the section chief’s assistants. Following these two assassinations, on the same day, the 17th, peasants from Guyton and Coligny, supported by soldiers from Saint-Marc (a sub-prefecture of Artibonite), went to Gervais and began the massacre. No judicial inquiry was opened.

On January 6, 1991, in the face of Lafontant’s coup d’état, the masses mobilized, but it was Aristide who calmed them, telling them to respect the constitutional order and wait for the elections. Workers were a significant force in the mobilization, and all those who came under Aristide feared them more than military coups. At the time, there were 60,000 workers in the Port-au-Prince industrial zone (Sonapi and Parc Mews) and 8,000 workers in the former industrial enterprises (Hasco, the Flour Mill, the Steelworks, the Cement Plant of Haiti, etc.). They demonstrated together en masse on July 10.

On July 10, 1991, a workers’ demonstration took place in front of parliament demanding a minimum wage of 28 gourdes.

In September 1991, following a bloody coup and a violent crackdown, a military junta led by General Raoul Cédras seized power. While Aristide had consistently celebrated "the reconciliation of the people and the army" since his election, Cédras and his clique set about proving the opposite by subjecting the country to a brutal repression. Aristide went into exile in the United States. The US imposed an economic blockade on Haiti, further worsening the situation on the island. Driven by poverty, thousands of Haitians fled or attempted to flee the country.

The leaders of American imperialism were not displeased to see the Haitian military wreak havoc in the working-class neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince. But the military did not simply subdue Haiti’s working class. They subjected the already weakened Haitian economy to such plunder, expanding racketeering, corruption, and drug trafficking to such an extent that it became an embarrassment even for the bourgeoisie itself, including for the American bosses who wanted to exploit Haitian workers in peace, earning a dollar and a half a day.

September 29, 1991 : With the overthrow of Aristide by General Cédras, whom Aristide himself had appointed as his Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces and whose coup was supported by the ruling classes, massacres in working-class neighborhoods left 2,000 dead in two days. From September to February 1992 : thousands dead, victims of the repression.
September 30, 1991 – first days of October : On the afternoon of September 30, a commando of soldiers went to Lamentin 54, in the suburbs of Port-au-Prince, opened fire indiscriminately on pedestrians and houses in the neighborhood, and threw grenades, also indiscriminately, into several houses in the area, apparently in retaliation for the assassination of a sergeant from the local barracks on the morning of the 30th. The repression continued for two to three weeks, resulting in a total of 30 to 40 victims. According to testimonies gathered by the Truth and Justice Commission, several bodies were allegedly thrown into mass graves dug near the neighborhood on the soldiers’ orders ; several young men were also reportedly executed after digging these graves ; other bodies reportedly "disappeared" after being taken away by truck.
October 1 and 2, 1991 : During the military coup in Martissant, a neighborhood of Port-au-Prince, for the two days following the coup, soldiers and paramilitary attachés terrorized the local population and killed at least seven people, including a minor. This massacre was allegedly organized after the home of an army lieutenant was set on fire on the night of September 30 to October 1.
October 2, 1991 : During the military coup, thirty civilians were killed in a single day in Cité-Soleil, a slum west of Port-au-Prince known for housing many supporters of President Aristide, by army soldiers after an attack on a local police station.
October 2, 1991 : At least seven people, including a child and a teenager, were killed in Gonaïves by the army during a demonstration in support of President Aristide.
1992

In February 1992, repression intensified in working-class neighborhoods, and Aristide supporters were hunted down. The 40,000 workers in the Port-au-Prince industrial zone were laid off.

On June 19, 1992, the military did not retain Theodore’s candidacy to serve as a puppet of the dictatorship and chose Marc Bazin as prime minister.
1993

The military and repressive forces are directly forced to assume power without the cover of a civilian government.
1994

The abuses committed by the armed forces are increasing without restoring calm and will allow the USA to occupy the country...

The City of the Sun set ablaze and bloodied

Some 70 men, women, and children died in an attack launched by members of the FRAPH (Front for the Repression of Human Rights in Haiti) on a poor neighborhood of Port-au-Prince known as Cité Soleil in December 1993. Some were burned alive in the fire started by the FRAPH members, while others were shot as they tried to escape the flames. Several people were reported missing, their bodies never recovered. According to some sources, the military and police simply stood by while the firefighters, who are part of the army, did nothing or were unable to do anything to fight the blaze. It appears that the attack was carried out in retaliation for the death of a FRAPH militant killed the previous evening. According to local human rights groups, the residents of the slum were not responsible for his death.

Repeated attacks against the Raboteau shantytown near Gonaïves

(Artibonite department)

Raboteau, a shantytown in the Artibonite department, has been a frequent target of the military. In November and December 1993, it was raided by members of the police and army who were searching for a local leader, Amio Métayer. When they couldn’t find him, they arrested several young men in his place, including Amio Métayer’s younger brother, Balaguer Métayer, known as "Chatte" (Pussy). All were beaten, first during their arrest and then again at the headquarters of the notorious Anti-Gang Investigation and Research Service (SIRA), a branch of the police commonly referred to as the Anti-Gang Unit. This service was formerly known as the Criminal Investigation Service and is headquartered near the National Palace. Over the years, it has been the site of numerous deaths resulting from torture or ill-treatment, as well as summary executions. All those arrested in Raboteau have been released, with the exception of "Chatte," who was detained in the military barracks in Gonaïves. At the time of writing, he was reportedly in very poor health after being subjected to torture. Amnesty International has been informed by reliable sources that he has been denied visits from a doctor, a lawyer, or his family.

The town of Raboteau was once again raided by soldiers in April 1994, still searching for Amio Métayer. Finding him no more elusive than the first time, they reportedly burned his home, ransacked other houses, beat villagers trying to flee, and arrested several people, including Amio Métayer’s father and sister. All those arrested were released the following day. However, on the morning of April 22, soldiers accompanied by members of the FRAPH surrounded Raboteau and fired shots into the air. As panicked residents tried to flee to the beach, the attackers allegedly pursued them, shooting them in the back and legs. Other soldiers and armed men positioned near the sea also reportedly fired on fleeing villagers and targeted people sleeping in their boats.

According to some sources, the attack left at least 50 people dead. Establishing the exact number of victims has been difficult because the military reportedly burned the bodies or threw them into the sea, and many residents fled the area. The military claimed that those killed died during an armed clash between the army and "terrorists" loyal to the exiled president.

"Disappearances"

The use of kidnapping to make people "disappear" seems to be increasingly common in Haiti. It is also true that many people choose to disappear themselves by going into hiding. Therefore, it is not always possible to know if someone from whom there is no news has truly "disappeared." Nevertheless, there are cases where people have indeed "disappeared" after being arrested or kidnapped. Some returned after being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment during interrogations about grassroots organizations. According to observers mandated by the OAS and the UN, 91 "disappearances" were reported to them between January 31 and May 31, 1994, 62 of which could be considered political. Twenty-eight of the presumed kidnapping victims were released. There is still no news of the others, and their families know nothing of their fate.

One of the most recent cases of "disappearance" is that of 24-year-old Jeanne Toussaint, who has been missing since June 19. It appears she was arrested by eight men who came to her home in Port-au-Prince and took her away in a black car. Some of them were wearing military uniforms, while others, apparently "attachés," were dressed in civilian clothes. The young woman’s husband, Levius Toussaint, was granted political asylum by the United States in 1993 after being arbitrarily arrested and beaten for his work as a news anchor and journalist under President Aristide’s government. He is one of the few whose asylum application to the United States was successful after being filed in Haiti. Levius Toussaint continues to be a vocal critic of the current military government in Haiti, and he fears that his wife’s abduction is an act of retaliation.

In the days immediately following the expulsion of the International Civilian Mission, Amnesty International received further reports of "disappearances," including those of Moïse Paul and Émile Georges. The two men "disappeared" from Cité Soleil on July 16 and 18, respectively. Local human rights groups believe they may have been abducted because of their activism within grassroots groups supporting the ousted president.

Torture

Torture remains a widespread practice in Haiti, and beatings during arrests are commonplace. Victims are often targeted because of their political opinions or activities, particularly those who support the return of President Aristide.

Consider the case of union leader Cajuste Lexius, arrested and brutally beaten by police on April 23, 1993, along with Phabonor St. Vil and Saveur Aurélus (or Orilus, depending on the source). All three were members of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT), one of Haiti’s largest independent unions. They were arrested while visiting Haitian radio stations to broadcast a press release calling for a general strike in support of the president’s return. On April 26, they were taken to the Anti-Gang headquarters, where they were reportedly mistreated again. Cajuste Lexius, who remained unconscious for two days after being beaten, was transferred to the military hospital. He received treatment for kidney failure and numerous open wounds on his buttocks. He was unable to walk or feed himself due to the torture he had endured, including the infamous djak (the victim’s arms and legs are bent and tied together ; they are then suspended from a stick passed through the crooks of their knees and elbows, and beaten). He was released upon his discharge from the hospital on 21 May 1993. Phabonor St Vil and Saveur Aurélus also required medical attention upon their release on 29 April 1993. Amnesty International assisted them in obtaining treatment.

Arbitrary or illegal arrests

Arbitrary arrests are reported almost daily in Haiti. Most are carried out without warrants or outside the hours stipulated by the Constitution in cases other than flagrant offenses. It often happens that those arrested are detained beyond the 48-hour period provided for by the Constitution, without being brought before a judicial authority. Last year, simply expressing the slightest support for President Aristide was enough to get arrested.

at home or in the street, and beaten. Jean Dominique and Jean-Marie Exil were thus arrested in Port-au-Prince in July 1993, then beaten and detained for several days simply because they were putting up posters in honor of President Aristide’s fortieth birthday.

Threats, harassment and intimidation

Threats, harassment, and intimidation are the daily lot of those who try to speak freely or collaborate with any organization the government considers a real or potential threat to its authority. The case of Jean (not his real name) is telling. This man is a member of the National Front for Change and Democracy (FNCD), which supported Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s candidacy in the 1990 elections. He also worked closely with those trying to denounce human rights abuses in Haiti. Soldiers first came to his home the day after the September 1991 coup. He wasn’t there, and his family was threatened with reprisals if they didn’t reveal his whereabouts. He went into hiding in Port-au-Prince, but a week later, a uniformed soldier pointed his machine gun at him, apparently intending to shoot. Jean fled and has been constantly changing hiding places ever since. In August 1993, an "attaché" found him and wounded him in the head. In May 1994, he received threats from someone he believed to be either an "attaché" or a member of FRAPH, who called him a Lavalas supporter. On May 30, he was again threatened by secret agents when they raided the offices of a religious group that collected information on human rights. Jean then decided to seek asylum abroad. He currently lives in hiding for fear of being killed.

Journalists attempting to report on abuses committed by the authorities have also been subjected to threats and harassment. In August 1993, John Smith Dominique Prien, an employee of Radio Plus, a private radio station in the capital, escaped through the back wall when more than a dozen soldiers attacked his house. Shots were fired in the yard, while the soldiers banged on the doors with their rifles and threw rocks at the roof. He had previously received threats from the military because of his work at the radio station. He believes the raid on his home was related to recent broadcasts on Radio Plus concerning the increasingly severe repression in Port-au-Prince.

Several journalists who were present when Antoine Izméry was forced out of a church at gunpoint before being assassinated in September 1993 complained of being mistreated by "attachés." Among them were Daniel Morel of the Associated Press and Hans Bazard of the weekly newspaper Haïti en marche. Bazard explained that the "attachés" who brutalized him also confiscated his camera, bag, and press card before chasing him away and threatening him, saying he would hear from them again. That same day, Wilson Suren, a reporter for Haitian News Service, was detained for approximately three hours.

Shortly after the assassination of Antoine Izméry, Radio Caraïbes employees received an anonymous phone call telling them, "After Izméry, it will be your turn..." The day before, on September 10, 1993, about twenty armed "attachés" allegedly stormed the radio station’s premises and threatened everyone present. They claimed that Radio Caraïbes had made a mistake by releasing the names of the attachés who were at City Hall on the day of the attack against Evans Paul, September 8 (see below). The director of Radio Caraïbes, Patrick Moussigac, was subsequently forced to leave the country.

In June 1994, in another attempt to muzzle the press, the authorities announced that foreign journalists would no longer be able to leave Port-au-Prince without special authorization. Any foreign national found in designated strategic zones around police stations and military bases, airports and communications centers, along the coast, or near the border with the Dominican Republic would be expelled. In early August, three American journalists were expelled for filming the Port-au-Prince airport too closely. Their driver and interpreter were detained at the National Penitentiary (see Appendix).

Destruction of property, extortion and corruption

Corruption and extortion have become commonplace among the security forces and their allies. Corruption also pervades the judicial system, and the collusion between the judiciary and the executive and military branches makes obtaining redress through the courts virtually impossible. Ordinary citizens have no recourse other than filing complaints with local or international human rights organizations, and their only protection is to go into hiding or be extorted.

This is why the testimonies received by Amnesty International concerning other serious human rights violations always contain accusations that the victim’s property was seized or destroyed by her assailants, or that she was forced to pay a sum of money in exchange for her release after being arbitrarily arrested.

Thus, in April 1994, after a wedding ceremony in a church in Carrefour, a poor neighborhood of Port-au-Prince, the pastor asked Paul (not his real name) to go buy food and drinks. Upon his return, Paul was attacked and threatened with death by two men, one of whom was armed. The pastor, who was lying on the floor tied up, was accused of holding Lavalas meetings and was also beaten and threatened. His wife was raped in another room. The assailants left with two VCRs, money, and the pastor’s wallet and glasses.

Violations committed against women and children

No one is safe in Haiti right now. Even the most vulnerable, including pregnant women and young children, are victims of atrocities.

Consider, for example, the case of four-year-old Jocelyne Jeanty. She was injured on her arms and hand when soldiers and attachés brutally beat her with rifle butts during a raid on Raboteau in December 1993. Fourteen children—aged four to fifteen—were victims of violence. Two people died : Evallière Bornelus, who apparently drowned while trying to escape, and Louisiana Jean, an elderly woman who died from a concussion.

Alerte Belance, 32, a market vendor and the wife of a known supporter of President Aristide, was also brutally attacked. She and her husband had been regularly threatened by the army because of their political opinions. On the night of October 16-17, 1993, members of FRAPH abducted her when they were unable to locate her husband. They took her to a deserted area on the outskirts of Port-au-Prince known as Titanyen, often used as a dumping ground for corpses. There, her captors repeatedly struck her nose, mouth, ears, and arms with machetes, then left her for dead. She miraculously survived, but her right forearm was amputated, and she is deaf from her right ear, which was severed. Doctors were able to partially reconstruct her tongue, which had been lacerated by her attackers. Hospital staff hid her when members of FRAPH came to the hospital where she was being treated to "finish her off," in her words. She has since fled abroad with her husband, a welder, and their three children.

Female political activists and those close to supporters of President Aristide are also victims of rape and sexual abuse. Those responsible, including soldiers and police officers, as well as attachés and zenglendos (militia officials), act with complete impunity. Although women are hesitant to report such crimes, available figures show a surge in rape and sexual abuse in recent months. As of October 1993, the MICIVIH (Military Intelligence and Prevention Center for Human Rights) had recorded only a limited number of rapes committed by soldiers. Between the end of January and May 1994, however, it documented 66 cases of politically motivated rape committed by military personnel and auxiliaries. Among the victims were ten minors and a woman who was six months pregnant. Similarly, a mission from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, sent to the country in May 1994, documented 21 cases of rape committed by soldiers, "attachés," and members of the FRAPH (Front for the Repression of Human Rights) between January and May 1994. The Haitian Women’s Solidarity Association also received numerous complaints of politically motivated rape. During a single raid launched by the army against poor neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince in March 1994, some forty women were reportedly raped, including an eight-year-old girl and a fifty-five-year-old woman. Only one of the victims was raped by fewer than three men. Mathilde’s case is representative : this twenty-seven-year-old woman recounted in June 1994 how four men in uniform suddenly entered her home while she was with her three sons (her husband, a supporter of President Aristide, had already been killed) and raped her. Mathilde was pregnant and suffered a miscarriage as a result of the rape.

In September 1994, the United States, with the agreement of the UN, finally sent an expeditionary force to the island. President Aristide was reinstated on October 15, 1994.

Aristide was reinstated in 1994 after the landing of 20,000 marines ousted Cédras from power. At the time, Aristide retained some credibility with the poor masses, but he worked tirelessly to extinguish all the hopes they had placed in him, doing absolutely nothing to improve the lot of the working class. On the contrary, while the regime’s elite and Aristide himself grew richer, the country, already one of the poorest in the world, sank even deeper into misery and famine. Simultaneously, Aristide increasingly relied on the police and armed gangs under his control, the "Chimères," to control the slums, terrorize, and silence the population.

The fact that leaders of the current rebellion, such as Louis-Jodel Chamblain and Guy Philippe, known for their involvement in numerous assassinations and atrocities during Cédras’s time, were welcomed as liberators in Port-au-Prince and several other cities, demonstrates the extent to which Aristide’s regime had become disconnected from the population. Certainly, many of the crowds who came to cheer them, perhaps the majority, came from the affluent neighborhoods of Pétionville, which had never accepted Aristide. But there were also people from working-class neighborhoods, applauding the former oppressors for having rid them of a regime that had become dictatorial and was widely despised.
1995

In December 1995, René Préval, a member of Aristide’s governing coalition, was elected President of the Republic
1999

May 28, 1999 : The Haitian National Police (PNH) killed 11 people during the night of May 27-28 in a shantytown above the Carrefour-Feuilles neighborhood of Port-au-Prince, following what was initially a routine patrol. According to the forensic examinations conducted by the MICIVIH (Military Investigation and Complaints Unit for Crimes Against Humanity) in the days that followed, these were extrajudicial killings carried out in cold blood. All 11 individuals had their hands tied behind their backs and were lying face down at the time of their deaths. Eight of the eleven victims were unarmed. Although this massacre did not appear to have political roots, it provoked considerable public outrage as it was the first major mass killing since the return of democracy and thus suggested that the violent tactics of the Haitian Police, which had replaced the Armed Forces of Haiti in 1994, against the poor had not ceased.
2004

February 11, 2004 : Event dubbed "sawmill massacre" by Haitian media. Fifty people, members of RAMSICOM (sometimes spelled RAMICOS), a popular organization opposed to President Aristide, were killed in the Scierie neighborhood of Saint-Marc (West Department) by armed and illegal supporters of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, commonly known as chimeras, and led by the Balé Wouzé organization, whose leader, Amanus Mayette, was then a member of Parliament.

French and American occupation troops landed in Haiti on March 1, 2004.

September 29, 2004, new US intervention to remove Aristide from power.

The Information and Communication Office of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti reports, "This Tuesday, December 14, 2004, MINUSTAH began, at 4 a.m., a large-scale operation to secure Cité Soleil, one of the neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince harboring armed gangs" :

"This large-scale operation aims to restore order and law in this part of the Haitian capital."

"It required the involvement of Brazilian, Jordanian, Sri Lankan ground troops and Chilean air force, as well as Formed Police Units (FPU) of the MINUSTAH civilian police from the Jordanian and Chinese contingents."

"The Cité Soleil neighborhood is currently under the control of MINUSTAH forces. No loss of life or injury has been reported so far. MINUSTAH forces intend to establish and maintain a permanent presence and gradually transfer responsibility for the security of Cité Soleil to the Haitian National Police."

Why are these large-scale operations always directed against working-class neighborhoods (Bel-Air, Cité Soleil), when armed gangs and other criminals violate law and order throughout the country, ever since the coup d’état overturned the constitutional order and restored the state of lawlessness ? Because MINUSTAH is there to crush the working class...

With the presence of troops and police forces from Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Croatia, El Salvador, Spain, Guatemala, Ghana, Jordan, Mali, Nepal, Niger, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Chad, Togo, Turkey, Uruguay, and Zambia, Haiti has become a veritable political and military Tower of Babel. The US and France are pressuring for a more violent military intervention, explains the Brazilian head of the MINUSTAH forces !
2008

2008 : Food riots and repression claim numerous victims
2009

The workers’ strike for 200 gourdes is spreading, finding support among young people and students, and threatening to become the political center of the popular revolt.

A MINUSTAH report acknowledges the failure of the operation and recommends placing Haiti under trusteeship with massive military occupation.
2010

The earthquake that devastated Haiti brought down government buildings and the MINUSTAH compound in Port-au-Prince. The US military took advantage of the situation to launch its military occupation operation, which was already prepared.
OLD ARTICLES ON THE HAITIAN REVOLUTION
An article from November 1991

Haiti after the coup – While diplomacy deals with Aristide, the army deals with poor Haitians

On September 29 and 30, the army high command seized power in Haiti, for the umpteenth time since the fall of the Duvalier dictatorship.
But unlike previous coups, this latest one did not simply replace one general with another, one clique of officers with another. The ousted and expelled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is the first civilian president elected under relatively regular conditions in the nearly two centuries since the existence of the Haitian state. He was elected in December 1990, by a veritable landslide victory, supported by the poorest classes of Haitian society, the impoverished peasantry, and the slum dwellers of the city’s slums.
This young priest, courageous during the final years of the Duvalier dictatorship, from a poor background, who denounced social inequalities, poverty, and the continued presence of Tonton Macoute dignitaries at the helm of power even after Duvalier’s departure, had become, in just a few years, the hope of the impoverished Haitian masses who dreamed of change but did not yet imagine they could empower themselves to achieve it. His surprise candidacy in the December 1990 presidential election shook up an electoral campaign that the masses had previously observed with apathy. It sparked genuine electoral mobilization, thwarting manipulation and ballot stuffing in the cities and overcoming the traditional fear of the authorities in the countryside. Aristide was elected in the first round with 67% of the vote, some six times more than his closest rival, Bazin, a candidate who nevertheless had significant money and resources, and who was supported by both the Haitian bourgeoisie and Washington.
Washington and Paris, the two tutelary powers, with their constant stream of observers on the ground, immediately grasped the significance of the event, and despite their previously expressed reservations about Aristide, they were among the first to recognize the legitimacy of the new president.

Aristide, already elected, wasn’t even officially sworn in yet when the first coup attempt occurred to prevent it. On the night of January 7, a small group of civilians and military personnel, led by Roger Lafontant, Duvalier’s former Minister of the Interior and the main leader of the far-right Macouti, occupied the presidential palace and forced the interim president, Ertha-Trouillot, still in office, to resign. But no sooner had the news spread than thousands, tens of thousands of men and women left the working-class neighborhoods to surround the presidential palace and the army headquarters, to the point that the army, initially cautiously waiting to see what would happen, decided to arrest the small group of coup plotters to protect them from the popular fury.
And so, barely six months later, Aristide was brutally removed from the presidential palace, arrested but saved at the last minute by, it seems, the interventions of the French and American embassies, then sent to Venezuela.

This time, the coup plotters had prepared the ground. It wasn’t one of those coups Haiti has become accustomed to since the fall of Duvalier—without going back any further—reduced to a showdown between rival military factions and sometimes resolved after a few exchanges of gunfire. This time, the population was targeted, to terrorize them, to prevent them from reacting as they had in January. The trucks from the "military training camp" from which the coup originated, supported by SUVs filled with armed civilians firing at anything that moved, had already claimed several hundred lives when General Cedras, the Chief of Staff, announced he was seizing power.

It does not matter whether the coup was prepared and executed from the outset by the general staff or whether the latter joined the movement once the coup had been initiated by the extreme right-wing Macoute, military or civilian (several hours after the start of the shooting, speaking of their perpetrators, Cedras was still saying "the rebels").

The armed repression was massive and bloody. The number of victims is estimated at over five hundred dead, with several thousand wounded. The indiscriminate shootings of the early days by an army that was all the more savage because it was not assured of victory, were followed by a more systematic, clearly class-based repression against the poor neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince, Carrefour, Bel Air, and against the slums of Cité Soleil, Cité Carton, etc.

Initially, there were reactions in many neighborhoods of the capital and even more so, it seems, in some provincial towns. But in Port-au-Prince, systematic gunfire from armed military and civilian groups shattered any gatherings that might have converged on the city center, as had happened in January. Attempts to stop the military trucks with trenches and planks of nails were thwarted by the intensive use of firearms, which the population had not anticipated. In some provincial towns—notably Gonaïve—the resistance was more determined, sometimes forcing the military to retreat locally. But it was an unequal struggle. The population was unprepared, neither materially nor, above all, politically, to face such a violent and bloody offensive by the army.

Aristide and the army

The population had, however, demonstrated its capacity to react in January. Furthermore, the army was numerically small, with only seven thousand soldiers for a population of six million, and, more importantly, for a capital city of nearly one million inhabitants, a large proportion of whom lived in the poorer neighborhoods. At the time of Aristide’s rise to power, it was notoriously divided between cliques of officers more adept at trafficking and smuggling than at military service. Moreover, while the officer corps as a whole, as well as a segment of the troops heavily influenced by the far-right Macoute faction, harbored a visceral hatred for Aristide and the "populace" he claimed to represent, Aristide, on the other hand, enjoyed sympathy among some of the rank-and-file soldiers, generally drawn from the poor peasantry.

But what more could be asked of the military as a "democratic gesture" than to accept as Prime Minister a "man of the left," even a former "communist," who also has Aristide’s own endorsement ? The United States, which doesn’t need to be more royalist than the king, could then proclaim that the democratic process was back on track—and lift the embargo. Even if, "temporarily," Aristide were asked to remain abroad, as Theodore envisioned. Even if, behind the puppet Theodore, the army had a completely free hand to continue its policy of repression, as well as its lucrative little schemes.

There remains the army itself. From the perspective of the political leaders within the military, Théodore has several advantages. He was the first non-Macoute political leader to support the military coup and to hail Cédras as the "savior of democracy." This deserves recognition. Especially since it wasn’t a moment of weakness : from 1986 onward, from Namphy to Avril, Théodore had courted every general who came to power. And when he seemed to pursue an "independent" policy toward the general in the presidential chair, it was to support Colonel Jean-Claude Paul.
Furthermore, Théodore made many political concessions to the Macoute circles themselves. He was one of those who, after Duvalier’s fall, campaigned for "national unity," even explicitly stating that Duvalierists should have their place in this union.
It is not certain, however, that Theodore will be accepted by the Macoutic circles and their extensions within the army. Hence, to convince them, Theodore’s veritable declaration of love during his press conference addressed to the army. But since feelings aren’t everything, Theodore also promises the army money and greater resources.

Honorat or Theodore : in any case, power will be in the hands of the general staff.

The coming days will reveal who will impose their solution : those in the ruling circles willing to make some concessions to the "democratic process"—that is, to the American recommendation to disguise the dictatorship behind a constitutional façade—or those who refuse. This will inevitably lead to a kind of showdown between the powerful figures in power. This showdown may remain discreet, but it could also manifest itself in armed demonstrations, or even a new attempted coup. Theodore’s home was reportedly threatened for the first time by an armed military group. It seems that, despite the "assurances" he claims to have, some soldiers are not to be believed. Given the army’s state of indiscipline, even within its own high command, and even if the "assurances" come from Cédras himself, they are no guarantee of success... [...]. If the Théodore government finally takes office and the United States gives it its blessing—and if the military agrees, why wouldn’t they, since even Aristide endorses Théodore—the poor masses will then witness the full extent of democracy granted to them under the aegis of the privileged classes. The absolute power of the section leaders in the countryside ; the systematic interventions of the military in slums ; the repression, the torture, the assassinations ; the right of all those who hold a shred of power, by virtue of their uniform, their revolver, their position—or their money—to steal from and plunder the poorest. Just like before. Just like in Duvalier’s time. Except that multiparty politics will exist—but it has existed for five years already, and even the perpetrators of the September 30th coup didn’t abolish it—and that clashes, verbal or armed, in Parliament will serve as a substitute for "democracy." These cowardly, greedy, spineless parliamentarians, subservient to every passing power, are, at best, what is granted to the poor masses as "representatives of the people." And this Parliament, which, without even changing its composition, has shifted from supporting Aristide to supporting Cédras-Nérette-Honorat, is the supreme guarantor of "democracy" !
It is likely that the poor masses won’t even have the right to Aristide’s return, because a "solution" will surely be found to keep him away, held only in reserve by the imperialist powers, in case, in the future, it becomes necessary to appease the poor masses. But if, despite everything, Aristide were allowed to return and if he were not transformed into a martyr by a Tonton Macoute soldier as soon as he set foot on Haitian soil, he would in any case be a helpless hostage.

Military policy

In the shadow of the negotiations under the auspices of the OAS, the army continues its policy of repression. During the coup, the indiscriminate, widespread repression aimed to strike the masses, to terrorize them. This was intertwined with the vengeance of all the Tonton Macoute thugs who felt threatened under Aristide, even though Aristide merely made speeches against them, without actually harming them.
For the past few weeks, something else has emerged. Through arrests, house searches, and targeted assassinations of activists, a political will is manifesting itself : the will to decimate, demoralize, and incapacitate this generation of activists who emerged before and after the overthrow of Duvalier—these women and men who lead associations, neighborhood committees, and the Ti Église (a Haitian parish church), who provide the foundation for the political organizations that claim to want to change Haiti in a more democratic direction.

These few thousand young people had many successive illusions, and their determination to act had many limits. Their perspectives were vague, and generally boiled down to the conviction that the order of things under Duvalier should not return, but without really knowing what needed to be done to make that happen.

But their mere existence was a threat to the established order, to the privileged class, to the military. Not for who they were or what they said, but for what they were likely to become. And also for what they did—despite the moderate nature of their activities—because the peasant associations, the youth groups in the countryside, and the neighborhood committees in the cities represented, in themselves, a challenge to the authority of the section leaders, a threat to control embezzlement, a structure parallel to the military structures. And even though the committees and associations never gathered large numbers, were neither very active nor radical, they did, in fact, foster a climate of political discussion. The ruling class in Haiti never tolerated the development of such a breeding ground. From it could emerge activists and organizations capable of providing the poor masses with the frameworks and structures they need to defend themselves and, fearing the fears of the wealthy, to liberate themselves !

Despite the repression, this activist milieu did not disappear. But it was severely tested and, above all, lacked prospects. It believed in democracy and freedom, and this conviction gave it the courage to overthrow Duvalier. It then believed in elections, but the massacres in Vaillante Alley blocked this prospect. Disoriented, it regained hope and believed it had found a new direction when Aristide ran for office.
Aristide was elected. But—whatever one’s opinion of his six months in power—September 30th showed that this power depended on the goodwill of the army, and that, despite what Aristide himself said, it was the same army as before, ferocious against the exploited classes.

What are the prospects ?

The activists who emerged in 1986 and who weren’t so terrified by the repression that they abandoned the struggle are, in a way, at a crossroads.
Those who are frightened by the repression, who become discouraged, are, in a sense, vindicating the military, who will conclude that terror is effective. But one cannot be an activist forever without prospects. And the one offered by the Lavalas leadership is not one. Distributing leaflets, doing graffiti, etc., to support the embargo certainly requires courage from the activists who do it, and this courage deserves respect. But the embargo doesn’t depend at all on the activists. It depends on Bush’s decisions. He can abandon it whenever it suits him. To offer this to the activists is to offer them inactivity, powerlessness. Furthermore, this means using them to campaign and spread illusions among the masses—the illusion that they can trust the leaders of the imperialist world, the Bushes, Mitterrands, or Ocampos, to fulfill their democratic aspirations. But what will happen tomorrow if the embargo only results in a Theodore-Cedras government ? How can we continue to honestly justify the sacrifices imposed on the poorest in the name of the embargo ? Activists must reflect on this question. They must realize the futility of this policy. Are the masses not sufficiently mobilized or mobilizable to propose an alternative ? Perhaps. But making them believe in Santa Claus or Bush’s democratic goodwill won’t help raise awareness among the poor and, above all, in their self-confidence.

And then there’s something else. The embargo, even as presented by the Lavalas leadership, is only a means to an end. The goal is to bring Aristide back.
But even if they succeeded ?

The day before the coup, Aristide was exactly where the Lavalas supporters wanted to put him. He theoretically held power. He had the support of 67% of the electorate. And yet, the clearly expressed will of more than two million men and women—to speak only of those who voted—was trampled upon by this corrupt, undisciplined, pathetic, and ferocious army, by barely more than four thousand men, some of whom were actually Aristide supporters.

But how was this possible ? Why were four thousand men able to impose their choice of leaders on several million citizens ? And above all, how can this be prevented in the future, even in the "optimistic" event that current developments lead to the return of Aristides ?

To ask these questions honestly, and to pursue them to their logical conclusion, is to challenge the policies of Aristide and the Lavalas leadership during their time in government. It is to challenge the lie of the "people-army alliance," to challenge an entire policy that consisted of offering the poor only words of hope, while the bourgeoisie was given advantages under the pretext of winning them over to the "Aristide cause." Ultimately, the bourgeoisie financed the coup, and the poor masses, denied the means to defend themselves and whose heads were filled with a false sense of security, were unable to defend themselves.
Activists who do not ask themselves these questions, who do not dare to go all the way with these ideas and break with their past illusions, are condemned, at best, to ineffectiveness and at worst, in the event that the masses were to get into a frenzy to the point of forcing the ruling classes to bring back Aristide to calm them down, they would be active accomplices in lies to disarm them again.

To accuse the poor, present or future, of being incapable of resisting the military would be sickeningly stupid. The country’s so-called "elites" have always accused "the people" of not being ready for democracy, not being ready for development. And this kind of accusation came from this "elite," this intelligentsia, whose few most honest members have generally always fled abroad to secure a less wretched life ; and whose majority used their knowledge and positions to contribute to the privileged classes’ plundering of the people.

The only way to avoid replicating this attitude within activist circles is to clearly and consciously choose the side of the exploited classes. There is no room in Haiti, not even for a truly effective democracy, without choosing to fight to organize the exploited classes, the working class first and foremost, discreetly, piecemeal during difficult times, and increasingly openly as the poor learn to defend themselves. Even for the relative freedoms and rights granted to other peoples, we cannot rely on top-down solutions. Salvation can only come from below. The working class and the poor neighborhoods organizing for their class interests—political as well as material—and giving themselves the means to defend themselves, this is the only possible foundation for democracy.

But this cannot be achieved by incantation, by chance, in the heat of events. It requires activists who defend this policy. It requires that they have made a fundamental choice beforehand. And this choice is that of the only political strategy that stems from the idea that it is the seizure and exercise of power by the organized proletariat that can radically transform society and overthrow not only the officer caste, the Tonton Macoutes, but the entire propertied class—that is to say, the choice of Marxism and communism.

At a time when the possibility of Theodore coming to power, as well as the collapse of regimes in Eastern European countries, shows the depth of the rot reached by "official" communism, this ideology which has only kept the "communist" label to better betray its spirit, to serve the bureaucracy of the former Soviet Union, it is essential that our generation of activists, after so many illusions, errors, hesitations, uncertainties, reconnect with the ideas of class struggle, with communism, with the battles that the proletariat wages, through its advances and retreats, to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie.

And if this choice is made, even by a significant fraction of the activist community, a truly revolutionary organization serving the proletariat could emerge from the trials of repression. A revolutionary organization whose activists would retain the enthusiasm of the youth of 1986, but without their illusions and naiveté. Activists who would know that freedom and democracy are inseparable from social equality, and that this social equality will not be given to the exploited classes, but rather that the exploited classes have the power to impose it by taking control of all the wealth of this country and its use. In that case, history may hold surprises not only for the uniformed executioners, but for the entire bourgeoisie, both Haitian and international.
An article from 1993

The return of Aristide […] that is the concession that the general staff has agreed to […].

This was, in fact, the only concession. For the rest, Aristide was forced to concede on almost everything. The American press reported that, until the very last moment, Aristide hesitated to sign the agreement, so many unsavory things were being asked of him. But at the last minute, he finally gave in. To save face, he refused to meet Cédras personally. But upon his return, he will have to meet and interact daily, if not with Cédras himself, then at least with the other members of the general staff, who are equally responsible for the September 30th coup. Incidentally, the Lavalas supporters (1) present as a sign of Aristide’s future power the fact that he will be responsible for appointing the future commander-in-chief. This is an outrageous claim after what happened on September 30, 1991, under the authority of Cédras, who had already been appointed by Aristide. But in addition, Aristide would have to appoint the new commander-in-chief from among the generals of the high command, and there were only four, all equally responsible for establishing and maintaining the military dictatorship : Biambi, Duperval, Max Mayard, and Cédras himself.
On the most important issue, Aristide had already conceded long before the Governor’s Island negotiations by granting amnesty to the entire army for its coup. He only clung, for months, to the idea of ​​expelling Cédras from the army and even from the country. This was tantamount to absolving the civilian and military leaders responsible for September 30th, because it certainly wasn’t Cédras alone, nor even flanked by Colonel François, who personally massacred the three thousand victims of the repression. But at the last minute, they even persuaded him that Cédras himself would not be dismissed, but rather "assert his right to retirement." The army thus refused to provide even a single scapegoat from its own ranks. No, on the contrary, its leaders proudly asserted that they had been right to stage the coup, thereby bringing about, to use Cédras’s recent cynical expression, a "democratic correction" to Aristide’s regime. By signing the Governor’s Island Agreement, Aristide not only absolved the army of the past coup, but he also implicitly granted it the right to bring about this kind of "democratic correction" to the functioning of the political system in the future.

Not only will the army still be there after October 30th, with the same general staff, the same hierarchy, the same rabid dogs, and therefore in a position to overthrow Aristide whenever it chooses, but it will be able to do so with the tacit approval Aristide has just given it. Furthermore, the threat of a coup will serve as justification, even for the Lavalas leaders, to oppose all demands and even to disavow demonstrations in favor of Aristide. "No provocations" so as not to give pretexts to the coup plotters. This is the name on which the opposition will be silenced. Without even having to intervene, the general staff will exert constant pressure on political life. Which will not prevent it, however much Aristide discredits himself, from intervening anyway. […]

From today onward, however, there is a pretense of recognizing Aristide as head of state. He will officially appoint the future Prime Minister, whom the American advisors have undoubtedly already chosen for him. This Prime Minister will, however, have to be approved by Parliament.
There is obviously a surreal aspect to the power theoretically granted to this collection of doormats, on which all the military have wiped their feet, called Parliament and the Senate. And let’s not dwell on the ridiculousness of all these people, fussing about, taking themselves seriously in the role assigned to them. They do, however, have a function. By pretending to increase the role of Parliament, that of the President of the Republic is diminished.

We saw how easily the army dismissed Aristide two years ago, even though he enjoyed the authority of the most widely elected president in Haiti’s history and was accused of concentrating too much power in his own hands, particularly in relation to Parliament. Well, this time, even officially, he will have only a limited role. The Prime Minister will govern. Parliament will control the Prime Minister. And of course, the army will still be overseeing everyone, under the tutelage of the United States. And Aristide will no longer be the "elected president," but the "rehabilitated" president, brought back by the grace of the United States, as conservative publications like Haiti Observateur are already keen to point out.

It doesn’t matter ; Aristide is now, once again, the president. His signature will now be required on official documents. He was even given permission to speak on national radio. Oh, with precautions, so as not to offend the military or the Tonton Macoutes : Aristide had to make his first statement since the signing of the Governor’s Island Agreement on an American radio station. But the national radio stations agreed to broadcast his speech. It’s true that he wasn’t at all aggressive toward the military coup leaders. On the contrary, he addressed the army, saying that it is "the responsibility of the current leaders of the military institution to guarantee everyone’s safety." His message was heeded : that very evening, the military, in the name of maintaining order, beat Lavalas activists and sympathizers who were demonstrating in Cité Soleil, brandishing portraits of Aristide. […]

Why did the United States sponsor Aristide’s return ?

Although the acceleration of negotiations for Aristide’s return in recent weeks is clearly the result of increased pressure from US leaders, for many poor people it is still their victory.

There is some truth in this feeling among the poor masses. Ultimately, it is the fear of the poor masses and their revolts, both in Haiti itself and, more generally, in the volatile region of the Caribbean and Central America, that makes Aristide useful to American imperialism (just as Juan Bosch is useful to them in the Dominican Republic) (2). But only ultimately, because if, in practice, the Americans have accelerated the movement for Aristide’s return, it is precisely because the masses are demobilized and Aristide’s return will only be perceived as a victory passively, and certainly not as a dangerous encouragement to join the struggle. Moreover, this is one of the reasons why the imperialist powers, who have treated Aristide as head of state from the beginning, have nevertheless been in no hurry to pressure the military to accept his return ; One of the reasons, also for adding, even now, an additional waiting period until October 30, is that the imperialist leaders want it to be done gradually, so that the masses do not emerge from their apathy.

Because if the choice to bring back Aristide was made by the Americans the day after the coup, it was obviously not to respect the feelings and interests of the poor masses but to deceive and demobilize them and avoid the danger represented by these hundreds of thousands of poor Haitians gripped by hunger, living in subhuman conditions and, moreover, terrorized by a bloody military dictatorship that is hardening day by day.

Aristide still lives on in the hearts of the poor masses of the population, despite everything. By sponsoring his return, the United States is trying to regain his credibility for maintaining order and stability in Haiti.

That’s why they used their influence to convince the army to accept the return. The UN-imposed blockade is also a means of exerting pressure. While some sectors of the bourgeoisie benefit, others suffer. The political and military crisis triggered by the September 30th coup is detrimental to business. It’s no coincidence that the meeting of political parties to give parliamentary cover to the US-dictated solution will be followed by a meeting of Haitian and American business leaders and IMF representatives with Aristide. Haiti interests them, especially because of the low wages. But for business to thrive, order is essential. And social peace is crucial : that’s what they’re asking Aristide to guarantee.

The far-right Macoutic movement and so-called progressive nationalists oppose American interference.

A civilian mission, and soon an international police force, are supposed to guarantee the smooth running of the transition period.
The civilian mission is already in place. Its members are not solely occupied with lounging by the pools of the luxury hotels where they are staying. Radio Métropole reported that it organized meetings in several provincial cities, bringing together section leaders and the officers or non-commissioned officers commanding local military posts, to convince them of the necessity of democracy. At the end of these meetings, notably in Hinche, they distributed the text of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the soldiers present. The latter must have appreciated this commendable educational effort. The mission was somewhat less successful in front of Saint-Jean Bosco (3) or in Cité Soleil where, although duly summoned by Lavalas officials, the international observers had to be content with watching the soldiers beat the demonstrators, while themselves being subjected to a barrage of insults.

As for the military mission, it hasn’t arrived yet. The signatories and protectors of Governor’s Island are being very discreet about it. It is expected to consist of around a thousand military personnel, from Latin American countries or perhaps Francophone countries, officially intended to ensure that the transition takes place.

Would this military presence discourage any potential coup attempts by the most hardline Macoutic factions ? Perhaps, but it’s not certain. It is at least as much intended to demobilize the poor masses, if only by reinforcing the argument : there’s no need to mobilize to protect Aristide’s return ; there are troops for that.

Meanwhile, however, the potential presence of these foreign troops is the pretext invoked by the Macoutic circles to cloak their inherent hostility to Aristide’s return in the trappings of outraged nationalism. This is nothing new. For two years, the military coup leaders, the far-right Macoutic faction, and drug traffickers have made extensive use of nationalist or Black nationalist demagoguery to deny anyone the right to interfere with their freedom to traffic and murder in their own country. All this, of course, does not prevent them from depositing their stolen money with the very imperialist power whose interference they pretend to oppose, nor from whining for its recognition.

However, the denunciation of foreign intervention is also the reason invoked by some so-called progressive nationalists, such as Ben Dupuy and more generally the Haiti Progress movement, to distance themselves from Aristide.

The poor should certainly not see these foreign troops as friends, much less protectors, even if they are officially sent to protect Aristide’s return. These troops, instruments of United States policy, are just as much enemies of the poor masses as the Haitian army.

But the verbal anti-imperialism of people like Ben Dupuy shouldn’t obscure the fact that these same people didn’t protest at all, let alone resign, when Aristide, still at the National Palace, advocated for a marriage between the army and the people. These nationalist-progressive cliques are just as responsible as the most moderate Lavalas supporters for the disastrous policies that disarmed the poor in the face of the army. And even today, by breaking with Aristide on the issue of verbal anti-imperialism, these people continue to deceive the poor, concealing their responsibility for the repression by the national state apparatus, the national army. Indeed, it is precisely in this that even their supposed anti-Americanism, even their supposed anti-imperialism, to which their progressive political identity is limited, is completely bogus. Since the American occupation troops were withdrawn from this country almost sixty years ago, it is indeed "our" national state apparatus, it is indeed "our" army, "our" political class, that have been the principal instruments of imperialism.
That is why workers, day laborers, the unemployed, the rural poor, the proletariat have nothing to expect from either the protagonists of the Governor’s Island Agreement or its most vocal opponents […]

Voice of the Workers, July 15, 1993
***
Since this text was written, the process imposed by the United States has begun. A process of democratization ?

Not even on the garden side !

Oh, the actors planned in the "democratization" scenario played their parts. Aristide, for starters, inaugurated his role as "restored president" by gracing with his presence this meeting of businessmen, organized in Miami. There, American capitalists interested in subcontracting in Haiti met with representatives of major Haitian bourgeois dynasties, such as Mews and Bigio, proud to have financed the coup, and Brandt, the "Rockefeller of Haiti," according to the Miami Herald, who reportedly spearheaded a fundraising effort among business leaders to help the coup government pay the soldiers’ salaries. The highlight of the meeting was Aristide’s embrace of the president of the Haitian Chamber of Commerce, representing all these prominent figures. These same business circles had no trouble accepting Aristide’s nomination of Robert Malval, the head of one of Haiti’s largest printing companies, as his candidate for Prime Minister.

The constitutional procedure was scrupulously respected. The Senate, then Parliament, debated Malval’s candidacy, with numerous motions and counter-motions. Malval indulged himself by giving his government a vaguely "left-wing" slant, by including some former ministers or high-ranking officials from the "Lavalas" government overthrown by the army ; by giving the Ministry of National Education to the current leader of KONAKOM, a party considered "socialist" ; and by appointing as Minister of Social Affairs a close associate of Théodore, former Secretary General of the former Communist Party.

In his inaugural address, Malval preached "national unity", "forgetting the past", "dialogue between all", before calling "on all exiles without exception to return to the country".

The call was heeded. Generals Namphy and Avril, the two military dictators of the post-Duvalier era, who had been in exile even under Cédras’s military dictatorship, returned to the country. Frank Romain, one of the leading figures of the Duvalier regime, also returned. Simone Duvalier, wife of François and mother of Jean-Claude, is leaving for Haiti. And rumors are circulating about the possibility of Jean-Claude Duvalier himself returning. Thus, it is possible that the former dictator, ousted in 1986, could be back in Haiti even before Aristide, the current president, can set foot there again.
Even behind the scenes, the "democratization" is therefore primarily benefiting the far-right Macouti faction. This was enough, however, for the United States, as soon as Malval was sworn in, to consider democracy underway, lift the embargo, and unfreeze the accounts in American banks of the most notorious figures responsible for the coup.

On the inside, this brand-new Caribbean democracy is a carbon copy of the military dictatorship. Even during the inauguration ceremony of Malval, Aristide’s designated Prime Minister, soldiers beat the few dozen young people who had gathered near the gates of the National Palace to cheer Aristide. And the few Lavalas activists, naive enough to take Malval’s call for the "return of the exiles" at face value, who decided to leave their internal exile to return to their towns or villages, were generally seized upon arrival, beaten, arrested, and sometimes tortured by the official authorities, who were now supposed to be obeying Malval and Aristide.

The American "great democracy" is quite ready to accept these imperfections in the democratic process... There are plenty of other "democracies" of this ilk in this world. However, it may be more troubled by the provocative activism of all those who, Governor’s Island Agreement or not, Cedras Agreement or not, do not want Aristide’s return, any more than they want anyone to touch their privileges, large or small, their positions, or their illicit activities.
The "attachés"—a kind of civilian auxiliary to the army—have twice expressed, in a provocative and undisguised manner, their hostility to the ongoing process. The first time was by assassinating several supporters of Evans Paul, the legitimate mayor of Port-au-Prince, during his attempt to be reinstated in office. The second time, by intervening, armed, against the peaceful commemoration of the massacre at the Saint John Bosco church, perpetrated during the Namphy dictatorship. Isméry, a prominent liberal businessman close to Aristide, was killed by several shots fired at point-blank range, and five other people present were murdered with machetes, before the assassins calmly left. All this happened in front of UN observers who, in fact, witnessed...

These are not isolated reactions from a few far-right thugs. A segment of the privileged class, starting with the military hierarchy, profits too much from smuggling, racketeering, and drug trafficking to even risk being excluded from it.

Will the United States eventually intervene, either directly or under the auspices of the UN or the Organization of American States ?

Will they simply postpone Aristide’s return until the legitimate president, exercising his fictitious prerogatives from emigration, finally reaches the end of his term ?

Faced with the clear refusal of part of the army and the far-right Macoutic to accept Aristide’s return, American leaders are speaking with increasing insistence of a "new police force", overseen by specialists from an international intervention force.

The Haitian army is small in number, poorly disciplined, with a hierarchy corrupt to the core, and largely linked to drug trafficking. But it is the only force facing the impoverished masses—with, it is true, the support of auxiliary troops under the "section leaders," the "attachés," the private militias of the powerful (4), and the far-right Macoutic movement. This is why, despite all the talk of "democratization," the United States is careful with the Haitian army, just as the army protects the far-right Macoutic movement—even though they would like to use the pretext of protecting Aristide to train it, modernize it, and make it somewhat more reliable.

The impoverished masses of Haiti cannot even hope for the right to a few democratic freedoms without the army and its auxiliaries being swept aside. At certain points during the last seven years—in the months following Duvalier’s fall, as well as later, just before Aristide’s rise to the presidency, when a spontaneous and violent mobilization of the poor neighborhoods thwarted an initial coup attempt—these masses clashed with the army and forced it to retreat. But all the institutions they trusted were conspiring to deflect their anger, to prevent them from becoming aware of the situation.

The poor neighborhoods, deceived and betrayed before being bled dry, now seem demoralized, resigned, without any prospects other than hoping, nonetheless, that Aristide will at least return, without expecting much. No one can predict when, how, or at what pace the impoverished masses will regain their self-confidence. It was their awakening that ended Duvalier’s dictatorship and ensured, for a few months, a climate of relative democratic freedom. It is their awakening that could, once again, change the balance of power, and certainly not the "democratization" sponsored by the United States.

(1) Lavalas supporter : a supporter of Aristide. The expression comes from the Creole word "lavalasse," which refers to the sudden flooding of a river, sweeping away everything in its path. One of Aristide’s slogans during his campaign was to call for a "lavalass" of votes in his favor.

(2) Saint-Domingue.

(3) Church near the poor neighborhood of Cité Soleil where Aristide had officiated. Now half-burned by arson, it was the site of several massacres perpetrated by Tonton Macoutes.

(4) Grandon : landowner or powerful notable of the countryside.

Haiti - The Agony of the Aristide Regime - Excerpts from the Voice of Workers, January 22, 2004 :
A wave of protests rises against Aristide

Port-au-Prince, January 22, 2004

The novel aspect of the situation that has developed since the beginning of December 2003 is the scale and frequency of the demonstrations against Aristide. While the opposition had been active since the 2000 elections, it had only very sporadically managed to organize demonstrations of any real significance. This is no longer the case.

A protest movement is taking shape. Demonstrations are multiplying, and the repression—sometimes by the official police, sometimes by the militias, and sometimes both—is not deterring participants from returning the next time in equal or even greater numbers. The movement is not limited to Port-au-Prince or Gonaïves. It is affecting, to varying degrees, cities in the North and Center of the country. It is shaking up the political establishment at home and the diplomacy of the major powers abroad.

What is the scale of the movement ? What is its dynamic ? What is its social composition ? What are its stated objectives... and, behind these, its real objectives ? These are the questions that must be asked before its chances of success and what it might represent from the perspective of workers’ interests can be assessed.
Illusions crystallize and unify disparate grievances .

The violent intervention of the Chimeras at the Faculty of Humanities on December 5, 2003, was the turning point. It gave the protest a broad militant base with the students who have since provided the bulk of the demonstrators.

This was not the first incursion of these fanatics into the university. But it was one intervention too many. Nor was it the beginning of student protest. But it was from this point that it became political, culminating in the sole demand for Aristide’s departure and joining the existing opposition, de facto at first and then, with the publication of a "democratic platform," officially.

For some time now, the student body had been in turmoil, fueled by demands and fears that were primarily self-serving. Aristide’s dismissal of the university administration and the demand for "university autonomy" were the driving forces behind the slow and gradual mobilization of the student movement. In this respect, a comparison is warranted with the student mobilization of 1986, the trigger for the general mobilization that ultimately led to Duvalier’s departure. This comparison does not favor the current student movement—at least, not for the moment.

In 1986, from the outset, students were motivated by aspirations that went beyond their social standing, preserving or consolidating a particular situation, and offering the hope of escaping the widespread poverty of the working class. Their opposition to the Duvalier regime and their demands for greater freedoms and democracy, however vague, resonated with the aspirations of society as a whole. The movement to "go to the people" to "raise their awareness," to combat illiteracy by teaching in villages, had its limitations. It also carried with it a great deal of naiveté—understandable, however, after thirty years of brutal dictatorship and isolation from the outside world. Nevertheless, it carried generous ideals. It addressed the plight of the urban and rural poor, without, admittedly, being able to provide solutions.

The current student movement began with purely academic demands. With the violent intrusion of the "chimères" (a derogatory term for students from disadvantaged backgrounds) into university campuses, real life—the life lived in working-class neighborhoods—has become intertwined with academic concerns. Oh, of course, many of these students come from working-class backgrounds and, as such, they know what life is like in impoverished neighborhoods. But access to university appears to them as a means of escaping it. When they protest against the "violation of academic privileges," they are not simply expressing a legitimate reaction against the terror sown by the "chimères." They are proclaiming their own right to escape it. In its very formulation, it is an attempt to defend their own future privileges. The fact that most students are unaware of this, or that some of them even seek to circumvent the movement’s boundaries, changes nothing. The political forces embodied by Convergence, and especially the self-proclaimed representatives of "civil society," have not been mistaken about this. They offered their services, knowing that the student movement was neither hostile to who they were nor to the perspective they intended to embody. They had little difficulty imposing their political direction on the student movement, in the name of the "democratic platform".

The students themselves experienced firsthand that this leadership is quite happy to see Aristide fall—indeed, that’s the extent of its political program—but not at all to question, even in a literary sense, the role of the privileged class in this country. Even the innocuous banner proclaiming that "the bourgeoisie stole the 1804 revolution from us" was nearly removed, right there in the Faculty of Humanities, at the request of a representative of the Group of 184, in the name of the movement’s unity, of course. The students were also asked to erase the more explicit graffiti or slogan : "Down with corrupt politicians, bourgeois thugs, corrupt state." That this kind of banner bothers the representatives of the Group of 184 and the Convergence speaks volumes about what these people are like. That they demand the banner’s removal speaks volumes about their understanding of democracy. The fact that students agreed to remove the slogan from these banners demonstrates their political pusillanimity. Courage in the face of the police or illusions implies neither political foresight nor courage.

Of course, the student movement can evolve within the struggle itself, move beyond its self-interest, and formulate demands that concern the impoverished masses, the glaring social inequalities, and the exploitation of workers and peasants by a handful of wealthy bourgeois dynasties allied with American or French big business. But limiting themselves to the objective of overthrowing Aristide and nothing else, without going further, without asking themselves why Haiti cannot escape either dictatorship or poverty, limits their own understanding and delivers them, bound hand and foot, to the opposition, whose undemanding foot soldiers they are on the verge of becoming.
The social base and objectives of the opposition

During the contested elections of May 21 and November 26, 2000, the electoral success of Lavalas, and then of Aristide, was not solely the result of cheating or the pressure of empty promises—although both were significant and primarily reflected the Lavalas supporters’ contempt for their own social base. Aristide’s popularity in 2000 bore little resemblance to what it had been before and after his 1990 election. The betrayal of the hopes he had raised, his inability to do anything for the poor, the scandalous enrichment of himself and his inner circle, his return to the American military, his compromises with the worst scoundrels of previous regimes, and his fearful deference to the rich and powerful had all taken their toll. Popular support for him was becoming increasingly passive. But it had not yet disappeared, not to the point that working-class neighborhoods were voting for others.

Despite his subservience to the propertied classes, Aristide did not and could not win over the ruling core of "civil society," that is, the business bourgeoisie. Apart from a few individuals, the bourgeoisie never forgave Aristide for having embodied hope for the poor. They accepted that Aristide did not hinder them in business—quite the contrary—but they did not like him.

But she had no choice. The opposition politicians, a motley crew mixing ex-Macoutes with ex-Maoists, sprinkled with disillusioned Aristide supporters who felt they had been poorly rewarded, lacked credibility, not even in the eyes of this "civil society," this privileged stratum in the broadest sense of the term, that is, the roughly 10% of the population, including both small and large business owners, the intellectual petty bourgeoisie, and generally all those who are, or feel they are not, part of the despised mass of workers, the unemployed, small shopkeepers, or peasants. It is among this stratum that the political opposition has always sought recognition and representation, while utterly disregarding the working classes. By challenging Aristide, they were not only challenging the apprentice dictator - in the eyes of the business bourgeoisie, governing the popular classes in a dictatorial manner has never been a handicap - they were above all challenging the elected representative of the poor population.

It was this inability of Democratic Convergence to gain recognition as a political alternative from the privileged class itself that led to the creation of the Group of 184. The fiction of "representatives of civil society," and their professed apoliticism, were more likely to be accepted by the entire privileged class, including those—teachers, intellectuals, doctors, artists—who had been briefly drawn to Aristide but had since turned away from him. The operation appears to have succeeded.

Apaid is more easily seen as a representative of the protest movement than ex-Macoutes like de Ronceray and Reynold-George ; former military coup plotters like Himler Rébu ; or opportunists like Pierre-Charles and K-Plim. He can even hope to capitalize on not only the aspirations of the large and small business class he directly represents, but also on discontent as diverse as that of small merchants swindled by the cooperative scandal, or even that of the Chimères who joined the opposition against Aristide. For it must not be forgotten that one of the major factors in the political crisis and the destabilization of the regime, besides the students’ anger, is the revolt of the Chimères of Gonaïves, who consider themselves provoked by the assassination of Amiot Métayer.

This contradictory mix doesn’t yet constitute a policy—but do they need one, given that they only seek to preserve the existing social order without Aristide ?—but it shakes the Lavalas regime all the more because it has lost its social base. The last few weeks are telling. Aristide is failing to mobilize working-class neighborhoods against the opposition. While for several years the opposition periodically demonstrated its lack of support among the general population, since students have been fueling the demonstrations called for by the opposition, it is Aristide who is demonstrating his inability to organize convincing counter-demonstrations. He is trying to crush dissent through the police or his armed henchmen. He no longer even appeals to the poor neighborhoods, as he once did ; he seeks to terrorize them.

Working-class neighborhoods no longer seem mobilizable with words or speeches—not even Aristide’s. Oh, perhaps they could be, if instead of words, Aristide were to realize even a small part of the hopes he had raised. But he doesn’t. He is too respectful of the wealthy to touch their privileges, a basic condition for helping the poorest. He, the fickle demagogue of his early days, has clearly become accountable enough to the wealthy and imperialism to accept losing his power rather than taking measures for the benefit of the working classes that could save him.
Aristide and American Imperialism

(Port-au-Prince, January 22, 2004)

(...)

The political climate is deteriorating and appears very unfavorable to Aristide. (...)

But if the bosses who lead the opposition have gained such importance on the political scene, it is thanks to Aristide himself who gave them consideration instead of bringing them to heel for their malfeasance, their organization of price increases, their debts in unpaid taxes for years and in bills for state public services.

He could have pursued a different policy to rectify the country’s overall situation. (...) But Aristide never stopped flitting about with "civil society" and "the elites," forgetting that he owed his position as president to the mobilization of the poor masses.

On the other hand, he was accepted as a privileged interlocutor by the Americans who had brought him back in their vans, considering him as

The best solution to prevent an uncontrollable explosion in Haiti !

And it was because of his influence, his ability to be heard by the poor masses of Haiti, that he had until then been "accepted," even supported, by the Americans. The leaders of American imperialism believed that Aristide was the least bad solution for maintaining order in Haiti. However, they did not consider him entirely reliable ; his past as a popular leader kept them wary of him. They brought him back to Haiti after driving the coup plotters out of the army, and then they allowed him to run for president again, but they always found all sorts of pretexts not to grant him international financial aid (fraudulent legislative elections, lack of democracy).

But while pretending to demand more democracy or more rights for the opposition, the US never granted them its support and never abandoned Aristide. He was always considered their best option for maintaining relative social peace in Haiti, a judgment based on the illusions that Aristide was able to feed Haiti’s poor.

It was thanks to this that he was able to maintain order, but today order is seriously disturbed by demonstrations, by the abuses of the chimeras and Aristide does not seem to be able to count on his own popular base, apart from the armed thugs financed by him who call themselves the "chimeras".

(...)

Even an Aristide weakened by the current protests could be of some use in the eyes of the Americans, more so than the Apaid, Convergence, and other groups that have no real influence over the working and poor population, the very people whose anger is most feared. This means that without someone like Aristide, it would open the door to all sorts of uncontrollable events. Something the Americans obviously don’t want. But they can neither foresee nor control everything.

It’s difficult to say how the current situation will evolve ; it could change from one moment to the next. On Wednesday, January 21, Aristide and his police managed to block and nip in the bud a demonstration that was supposed to start at the university with students and teachers. It was a failure for the organizers because no one was able to leave the university area to march into the city. At the same time, Lavalas parliamentarians marched in Port-au-Prince with a demonstration of several thousand people ! Is this the beginning of the Lavalas camp’s remobilization ? Or is it a last-ditch effort ? Too early to tell !

(...)

Even if Aristide were to emerge from this crisis, he would be considerably weakened, and the Lavalas movement even more so. In other words, his opponents will seize the first opportunity to demonstrate to the Americans that Aristide is incapable of maintaining order !

In any case, for the workers, their hopes cannot be placed in either camp. One is that of a man who has betrayed the hopes that the population had placed in him, the other that of the so-called democrats of the "184," that of the bosses who exploit and exercise a constant dictatorship over the workers in their companies.

If this side prevails, the workers should not consider Aristide’s fall a defeat. They already suffered defeat a few years ago when Aristide abandoned all the objectives he had championed when he was just a militant for TKL. Once president, he immediately focused on cultivating good relations with the wealthy and the army. And that is precisely what led to his overthrow by the very army he thought he had under his control.

Today, ten years later, he is pursuing the same policy based on respecting the interests of the rich at the expense of those of workers and the poor. He has still done nothing to compel employers to pay what they owe to public coffers, to force them to respect a minimum of social obligations, starting with a minimum wage re-evaluated according to the real value of the gourde, at least at the level of US dollar wages of 1986/1987, respect for the basic rights to assemble, to form associations or workers’ unions, and the right to express oneself freely in the workplace.

Whatever the outcome of the current crisis, workers must learn the lesson that they need to empower themselves to influence political life, just as students are managing to do. This is all the more crucial given that workers’ influence and role are infinitely greater than those of students in society. What matters for the future is not aligning themselves with either side, both of which are enemies of workers and the poor. Only they can bring about the changes necessary to improve their lot, and indeed the lot of the entire population, from small market women to small transporters and taxi drivers—all those who depend on their work for a living. Fighting against dictatorship and
illusions, yes ! But not behind Apaid and his ilk, or politicians who are former or future Tonton Macoutes.

(Port-au-Prince, January 22, 2004)

Since the brutal attack by the Chimères on the Faculty of Humanities on December 5th, students have been engaged in a courageous struggle to protest this attack and, more broadly, the increasingly marked slide of the Lavalas regime towards dictatorship. The beatings, the often violent repression of demonstrations, and the shootings have not discouraged them. Demonstrations are multiplying, and the number of protesters is growing. And the regime, despite its efforts, is struggling to mobilize against them, apart from the Chimères themselves. Unlike in other eras, the working-class neighborhoods have no desire whatsoever to come to Aristide’s aid.

And for good reason. The working classes who once brought Aristide to power, who defended him against Lafontant’s coup, who ensured his electoral successes and those of Lavalas for a long time, have every reason to feel deceived and betrayed today.

No one was naive enough to expect miracles from Aristide’s rise to power. But many in the poor had hoped for a little less misery, a little more respect. After so many years of dictatorship under Duvalier, followed by military dictatorships brutal to workers, the unemployed, and small farmers, they hoped for policies somewhat more favorable to the poorest. None of these hopes were fulfilled. Poverty continues to worsen. The most essential public services—drinking water, garbage collection, hospitals—are in disarray. The purchasing power of workers in the industrial zone has been cut by two-thirds. But how many more are without work ? How many working-class families struggle to put food on the table every day ? And in several regions, like the North and the Northwest, famine has taken hold and is beginning to claim lives.

The Lavalas regime is certainly not solely responsible for the catastrophic plight of the working classes. Those who claim otherwise are blatant liars. Workers in both cities and rural areas have never known anything but extreme poverty in this country. They have always suffered the contempt of the privileged classes who, ironically, live off their labor. They have never received anything from the state’s leaders but blows.

The Lavalas regime is no worse than those that preceded it. But it is in no way better either. Therein lies the greatest disappointment for those who believed in Aristide and brought him to power. He is just as contemptuous of the poor, just as corrupt, just as favorable to the rich who continue to grow richer while the poor have nothing left but their tears for their dashed hopes. To the plunderers of public funds have simply been added others, from Lavalas itself. Starting with Aristide himself. The man who fifteen years ago presented himself as the spokesperson for the poor has become the wealthy baron of Tabarre.

And worse still : the regime tramples even the dignity of workers and the poor, by handing over the working-class neighborhoods to the chimeras that are becoming less and less distinguishable from Duvalier’s macoutes.

The students rightly revolted against the violent incursion of the Chimeras into their faculty. But the workers, the poor who live in Cité Soleil, do not suffer the terror of the Chimeras only during an incursion or a demonstration, but constantly. Ending the Chimeras’ dictatorship is in their interest as much as, if not more than, in the students’ interest.

By fighting this dictatorship, the students are setting an example of courage. However, their struggle is not the struggle of the workers.

Firstly, because the students themselves limit their struggle to respecting university privileges (for the more moderate among them) and to demanding Aristide’s departure (for the more radical). They are indifferent to the untenable situation of the working classes, their misery, and the causes of this misery. They are wrong, however, because dictatorship, the reign of illusions, thrives on the fertile ground of extreme poverty and social inequality.

And above all, while the students are at the forefront of the protest, they do not provide political leadership. They leave that leadership to others.

They leave it to the "Democratic Convergence," this association of corrupt politicians who have sold out in the past—some to Duvalier, others to the generals who took turns in power, still others to Aristide himself, and some to all of them successively. This association of politicians is so discredited, however, so lacking in credibility, so useless to the privileged class of this country and to its protectors in the major powers, that some members of the bourgeoisie itself have had to get involved in a task usually left to the political establishment. They have had to form their own political force, directly led by wealthy business owners like Apaid and Becker. Compared to the corrupt politicians of the "Convergence," they have the advantage of not having been ministers under either Duvalier or the generals. They have simply enriched themselves under the protection of both groups.

These people call themselves "representatives of civil society." This very claim reveals that they consider themselves—business owners, the wealthy and the lesser bourgeoisie, Church dignitaries—to be society, and nothing else. Workers, the unemployed, day laborers, small shopkeepers, small farmers—the overwhelming majority of the population simply do not exist for them. These people have always been hostile to Aristide, and still are, not because of what he has become, a protector of the rich and wealthy himself, but because of what he was, even if only in words, even if only for a short time. The wealthy of this country have always been short-sighted, even in their own self-interest, foolish in their greed and fear of the masses of poor people. They have never forgiven their political leaders for siding with the "wretched."

Apaid and his associates, their current political representatives, are using the students and trying to channel discontent to oust Aristide. But the workers, the poor, have nothing good to expect from these people. And those who work in the industrial zone are under no illusions : they know that with Apaid, things will be no better than with Aristide. These people dare to claim to embody freedom in the face of Aristide’s dictatorship, but in their companies, it’s a dictatorship against those who work there. They dare to speak of a "new social contract" and denounce poverty, but they are the main perpetrators and beneficiaries of it.

What prevents Apaid, Becker, and all the other bosses who strut around leading the demonstrations from at least alleviating the misery of their own workers, even if it’s just by restoring the purchasing power of wages from the Duvalier era, when he certainly didn’t claim to be a friend of the workers ? A wage of US$3 is now equivalent to 135 gourdes. What prevents them from recognizing workers’ basic democratic rights, such as the right to assemble and to unionize ? What prevents them from stopping the practice of firing people on the sly ? What prevents them from ensuring working conditions, hygiene, and safety that are worthy of human beings, not a pigsty ?

But no sensible worker in the industrial zone expects any of that from their boss. From AGC, owned by Apaid, to PB Apparel SA, belonging to Becker, and including Michiko, in all the companies run by the leaders of "civil society," exploitation is just as fierce, working conditions just as appalling, and wages just as low as everywhere else. These bosses’ profits come precisely from everything that makes their workers miserable.

So, if workers can find themselves alongside students and alongside these young people from poor neighborhoods drawn into demonstrations to oppose illusions, they must not accept what the students accept : silencing their demands in the name of "unity of the movement" against Aristide.

In the war between Aristide’s camp and the opposition, neither represents the interests of the workers and the poor. On the contrary, both represent the continuation of misery and oppression for the working classes. The form itself will not necessarily change : today’s pro-Aristide fantasies can be transformed into fantasies favorable to the opposition, provided they are paid to do so. Those in Gonaïves have not improved since they began opposing Aristide.

Fighting against dictatorship and illusions, yes. But not behind Apaid and Co. or the ex- or future Tonton Macoutes politicians whose regime will always be a dictatorship against workers and the poor.

Fighting for freedoms is essential, but not just for the freedoms of a small minority who call themselves "the elite" and who despise the poor majority of society. We must demand for workers the freedom to defend their living conditions within their own companies, the right to organize and challenge the power of the boss.

And we must demand the freedom that, for the working classes, is the prerequisite for all others : the freedom not to die of hunger, that is, to find work and, when they have it, to earn a living wage. This means imposing fair wages on Apaid and his ilk. This means requiring them to invest the profits they make from exploiting their workers in Haiti itself, instead of placing their capital in American banks. This means requiring the State itself, instead of handing over public funds to the bourgeoisie, corrupt high-ranking officials, and self-serving politicians, to collect taxes from the wealthy and dedicate the money to creating useful jobs, starting with major public works projects to build water systems in working-class neighborhoods, to ensure garbage collection, to establish a road network, and to build and operate hospitals and clinics.

Rising prices are making even basic necessities unaffordable for a growing number of poor people. The resulting malnutrition and famine threaten a major humanitarian catastrophe. The only way to avert this is through drastic measures : requisitioning food stocks held for speculative purposes and distributing them to the hungry, and using the wealth of the richest to import the necessary food and sell it at cost in state-run stores. Those who are hungry cannot wait, nor can they be satisfied with mere words and promises.

The opposition movement hopes to channel the widespread discontent plaguing society toward its own ends, focusing solely on the demand for Aristide’s departure. The best possible outcome is that the student unrest will resonate with and inspire the working classes, who will not be satisfied with the empty promises presented to them as a platform, but will instead fight for demands whose fulfillment is vital to them and which also reflect the interests of the vast majority of society.

Of the three excerpts from "The Voice of the Workers," written on January 22, 2004, this one is the most outdated by the rapid pace of events that led the United States to oust Aristide. Two weeks earlier, however, the United States was still referring to Aristide’s regime as a "legitimate" government and was exploring various political solutions.

The article’s purpose is to explain why Aristide served the Americans’ interests until recently. Although brought back by American troops under the Clinton administration, the Bush administration never hid its dislike for Aristide and its distrust of his unreliability. It supported him for lack of a better option. When, however, Aristide ceased to be useful, Washington discarded him without the slightest qualm.
THE PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION IN HAITI

Source : The following article is from socialisme.free.fr :

Unanimity was growing against the regime. In early February 1986, new riots shook the country’s main cities. On February 7, Jean-Claude Duvalier was forced to flee to France on a U.S. military plane. Political parties, now legalized, sprang up by the dozens, as did newspapers and radio stations, but it was a National Governing Council (CNG), composed of six Duvalierists, that was tasked with overseeing the transition. The October elections saw a turnout of less than 5% of registered voters. In contrast, the new constitution, adopted in March 1987, was ratified by a very large number of voters. The Tonton Macoutes disrupted the legislative elections, which finally took place in January 1988. A Duvalierist, Leslie Manigat, was elected ; in June, a military coup brought General Namphy to power, only to be ousted in September by General Prosper Avril. He resigned in April 1990. Ms. Ertha Trouillot, chosen by the twelve opposition parties, then presided over a civilian transitional government. In December 1990, regular elections were finally held. Father Jean-Baptiste Aristide (a priest expelled from his order in 1988 for his perceived far-left views) was elected president of the Republic by a large majority. In September 1991, following a bloody coup and violent repression, a military junta led by General Raoul Cédras seized power. Aristide went into exile in the United States. The US imposed an economic blockade on Haiti, further worsening life on the island. Driven by poverty, thousands of Haitians fled or attempted to flee the country. Seeking to buy time, the coup leaders evaded American orders. In September 1994, the United States, with UN approval, finally sent an expeditionary force to the island. President Aristide was reinstated on October 15, 1994. In December 1995, René Préval, a member of Aristide’s governing coalition, was elected President of the Republic and appointed Jacques Edouard Alexis as Prime Minister in 1998. In November 2000, in a country without a Parliament since 1999, Aristide returned to power after elections boycotted by the opposition and marred by irregularities.

JC DUVALLIER HUNTS... THE ARMY IN POWER

The absence of revolutionary leadership was immediately and painfully felt in Haiti. In this small country of 6 million inhabitants, a genuine and profound proletarian revolution was developing. All the exploited and oppressed classes were in motion. Otherwise, Jean-Claude Duvallier could not have been driven from power and forced to flee Haiti on February 7 (after thirty years of dictatorship by the Duvalier family, who relied on 200,000 "Tonton Macoutes"). Otherwise, 18 months after his fall, the powerful general strikes that began on June 22 against the National Governing Council and its leader, General Namphy, who succeeded Duvallier, would not have taken place.

Ousting Duvallier was essential. Everything had to start there. But that wasn’t enough, and it couldn’t be enough. In its core—the army and the officer corps, the police and its special units—the bourgeois state remained in place. Even the praetorians of the Duvalier regime, the "Tonton Macoutes," were not disbanded or eliminated. The National Governing Council, under General Namphy, which succeeded Duvallier, represents the officer corps and the gangs of former "Tonton Macoutes." They rely on them. Like the Duvalier regime, they benefit from the support of American imperialism, which considers Haiti a colony. The government in power must administer the country on its behalf and according to its directives.

Following its fall and the flight of Jean-Claude Duvallier, the National Gendarmerie Committee (CNG) and General Namphy were nonetheless unable to prevent the proliferation of countless political organizations, the formation of trade unions, an extraordinary freedom of expression, and the emergence of numerous newspapers and radio stations. Simultaneously, a powerful yearning for radical change in their economic and political conditions animated the proletariat, the working population, and the youth.

The euphoria following Duvalier’s downfall and flight quickly faded. Disappointment, bitterness, and anger ensued. None of the economic, social, and political demands of the masses were met. Instead, the CNG worsened their economic and social situation and seeks to impose a restrictive political framework that safeguards the interests of American imperialism and the comprador bourgeois oligarchy.

AGAINST THE TERRIBLE MISERY OF EMERGENCY MEASURES

The living conditions of the Haitian people are appalling. Haiti’s economy is not only colonial in nature but has also been subjected to the plundering of the Duvaliers and a few families. This included : the sale of the bodies of deceased Haitians to American universities for their anatomy classes ; the sale of Haitian organs and blood to American laboratories ; and the forced sale of Haitians to the Dominican Republic as sugarcane cutters. Foreign aid was partially diverted into the coffers of the Duvaliers and their associates. Duvallier pocketed $1 on every bag of flour leaving Haiti’s national flour mill and 50 cents on every bag of cement produced by the "Les Ciments d’Haïti" company.

Agriculture and industry were declining : agriculture now only met 60% of the needs of a malnourished population ; annual per capita income (an average that includes the incomes of both the richest and poorest) fell by 9% between 1980 and 1985 ; external debt reached $1 billion for a population of 5.4 million in a country where the average national per capita income was $360 in 1984, the lowest in Latin America. Unemployment affected 60% of the active population. Furthermore, 80% of the population was illiterate.

Only economic, social, and political measures can alleviate the enormous and terrible poverty of the people, reorganize, redirect, and stimulate production. Expropriation of all speculators, embezzlers, and profiteers, past and present. Emergency measures that allow everyone to meet their basic needs through the payment of wages and the allocation of necessary resources, as well as through the distribution of essential goods. No excess, no high incomes, no great private wealth while the working class, the laboring population, and the youth suffer from hunger and are plunged into misery. A job, a work for all who can work.

The mere implementation of these measures requires the organization, intervention, and control of workers at all levels and throughout all mechanisms of the economy and finance, without any profound incursions into the private ownership of the means of production and exchange. The question immediately arises : what political decisions are essential to implement these measures ? First and foremost, although this is not sufficient, all participants, supporters of the dictatorship, and profiteers must be eliminated and punished. Clearly, the bourgeoisie, comprador or otherwise, will not bow to the burning necessity of these emergency measures, indispensable for the immediate reduction of the terrible popular misery. American imperialism will not accept them either.

THE POLICY OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL

The CNG is the instrument of defense of the bourgeoisie and imperialism. "Le Monde Diplomatique" of November 1986 wrote :

"While the extortion of bosses has ended, in a way the key positions are still in the hands of the Duvalierists. And the structures of monopolies, smuggling, and corruption remain firmly entrenched. They could completely negate the timid efforts at reform led by the CNG. These efforts are notoriously insufficient in terms of purging the regime, since so far only two major torturers of the old regime have been brought to justice : Mr. Edouard CLAUL, sentenced to three years in prison, and Mr. Luc DESYE, sentenced to death."

"This weakness towards the henchmen of the dictatorship is perceived by most citizens as a blatant lack of authority and legality to restore order to the country from top to bottom. And everything remains to be done : the administration has no tax records, there is no civil service register, no control of budgetary funds ; in short, two centuries after its independence, the Haitian state remains effectively to be built."

The most significant decisions in this regard do not necessarily appear to be welcome, particularly the plan to halve the number of civil servants while simultaneously increasing the size and power of the armed forces with US assistance. This latter measure, in particular, is interpreted by some as a roundabout way of integrating the unpopular "Tonton Macoutes" into the army. Needless to say, such suspicion is unlikely to calm tempers or ease social tensions.

In what terms are these things said ! The CNG makes no effort, not even a timid one, at reform except for the benefit of capital : privatization and the closure of loss-making state-owned companies are on its agenda. The "citizens" do not believe that the CNG and General Namphy lack "authority." Quite the contrary. As early as March-April 1986, demonstrations and strikes against the CNG took place. On April 26, 1986, in front of the Fort-Dimanche prison, the army opened fire : 7 dead. An attempt at a general strike was sabotaged by the Haitian Communist Party and all the bourgeois political forces for whom, as for the PCH :

"The CNG is a provisional government. We observe that it is relatively paralyzed due to internal contradictions, but at the same time it is responding to pressure from popular movements and is being forced to make concessions. It is fair to speak of learning democracy ; this also applies to the CNG itself. Before considering presidential elections, we believe it would be preferable to elect a Constituent Assembly which could itself become a National Assembly and appoint the executive branch while awaiting normalization."

The National Governing Council (CNG) attempted to establish its own "legality." On June 8, 1986, it announced that the election of a Constituent Assembly would take place on October 19. It decided that of the 61 "constituents," 20 would be appointed by the CNG itself. The election conditions eliminated many voters and parties. The various parties called for a boycott of the elections. 95% of voters did not participate. The CNG concluded that the Haitian people were not ready for democracy. All parties, including the Communist Wind of Haiti and the Church, called for a "yes" vote in the March 29 referendum organized to ratify the "constitution." With blatant electoral fraud, the "yes" vote reached 99.81%, although the percentage of voters who cast ballots is unknown. The "constitution" stipulated the election of a president and a National Assembly. The President of the Republic cannot dissolve Parliament. Parliament cannot dismiss the President of the Republic. The de facto arbiter is the army, which enjoys immunity. It will effectively constitute the real power. The presidential election should take place on November 29, 1987, with the elected president taking office on February 7, 1988.

No sooner had the constitution been "ratified" under these conditions than the CNG dissolved the Autonomous Central of Haitian Workers (CATH) for calling for a general strike starting on June 22. The CATH was calling for the general strike to demand the reopening of state-owned enterprises liquidated due to deficits, subsidies for the price of rice harvested in Haiti, compensation for planters affected by the closure of sugar mills, a doubling of workers’ wages (from $3 to $6 per day), etc. It also prohibited any commemorative demonstrations for the assassination of protesters by the army on April 26, 1986.

THE GENERAL STRIKE SABOTAGED.

The general strike launched by the CATH for the reinstatement of dismissed workers was widely observed. Following the promulgation of an electoral decree regulating the upcoming elections, which relegated the Provisional Electoral Council (CEPI), despite its constitutional mandate, to a secondary role, the general strike rebounded and spread. A "strike committee" comprised of "57 parties and organizations" then issued a call for a general strike beginning June 26. While annulling the decree and releasing arrested union members, the CNG unleashed a crackdown : within days, the army and police killed 20 people and wounded hundreds more. After suspending the general strike on Friday, July 4, the committee of 57 called for a new strike, relaunching a new general strike the following week. This strike would, in the following weeks, be interrupted, then resumed, then interrupted again, and so on. It is a carefully studied technique to break up the general strike.

In the aftermath of the army massacres, the "strike committee" radicalized its position. It demanded the removal of General Namphy from the CNG. One of its spokespeople stated :

"We want to remain within the framework of the constitution and we are looking for an alternative democratic solution."

The "strike committee" was looking for "a patriotic soldier." As for the Unified Communist Party of Haiti, from the very beginning of the movement, it defined its position as follows :

The Unified Party of Haitian Communists (PUCH), for its part, points out that while it recognizes the National Governing Council (CNG), the government must be composed of people other than discredited individuals. The PUCH emphasizes three immediate objectives : the CNG must withdraw the decree dissolving the trade union (CATH) ; it must reverse the unconstitutional decree restricting the rights of the Provisional Electoral Committee (CEP) ; and finally, the PUCH demands that the CEP draft the electoral decree, since it is the only body authorized to organize elections. ("L’Humanité," July 1, 1987)

Since then, most of the parties and organizations that made up the "strike committee" have been seeking a "compromise" through the mediation of the Catholic Church, which preaches calm.

A PROLETARIAN REVOLUTION

The fighting spirit of the proletariat, the youth, and the working population is immeasurable, as is their revolutionary capacity. But everything is being done to disarm them politically. No organization defends the program, the policies, or offers the perspectives they need to win. The masses of this country, constantly crushed under a dictatorship, know the price of democratic freedoms. In opposition to the dictatorial tradition, they advocate for democratic representation and a sovereign National Assembly. However, the use made by General Namphy and the CNG of the slogan "sovereign or constituent National Assembly" certainly jeopardizes it. Against the open dictatorship of the Duvaliers and the CNG, fighting on these slogans and for these objectives is essential.

But democratic freedoms are necessary for the working class, the laboring population, and the youth. Why ? If not to organize themselves and as means and instruments in their class struggle to achieve their class objectives. A democratic representation of all classes of society, a sovereign National Assembly, cannot be maintained for long during a period of revolution, when the antagonisms between classes are exacerbated and become irreconcilable, when, in the near future, one of the fundamental classes is bound to prevail over the other. Who can deny that this is currently the case in Haiti ?

The economic and social measures mentioned above are merely emergency measures. They already require a profound incursion into the private ownership of the means of production and exchange, and only a workers’ and peasants’ government, brought to power by and supported by the proletariat, the working population, can implement them. Satisfying the enormous needs of the people requires reorganizing and reorienting production, driving it according to a plan developed and implemented under the control of the workers. Virtually all the major means of production, the banks, and the insurance companies must be expropriated ; a radical agrarian reform must be carried out ; and the external debt must be cancelled. A workers’ and peasants’ government, and the organization and revolutionary action of the masses, are indispensable.

All the more so since, from both an economic and political point of view, the revolution in Haiti can only be considered and has a future in the perspective of the proletarian revolution in the Caribbean and Latin America which is raising the masses of these countries against American imperialism in particular, and the comprador bourgeoisies, subordinate, or at least closely linked, to the imperialist system.

Democratic slogans, including that of a sovereign National Assembly, are transitional slogans, subordinate to the slogan and struggle for a workers’ and peasants’ government. They must be levers to help the proletariat, the working population, and the youth organize, form their committees, centralize them, and establish their own parliament and executive—as all transitional slogans and demands must contribute. The objective is : the seizure of power by the proletariat, the destruction of the bourgeois state, and the construction of a workers’ state functioning according to the norms of workers’ democracy.

THE ARMAMENT OF WORKERS AND PEASANTS

Regardless of the country where it occurs, in any major class struggle, the proletariat, the working population, and the youth are generally confronted by the police and their special units, if not directly by them. The bourgeoisie has long avoided, as much as possible, deploying the army, especially a conscript army, against the working class in motion : it fears that the soldiers will remember they are proletarians beneath their uniforms. Moreover, the army often appears to have other "missions" besides civil war : the defense of the country. The fundamental function of the army and the officer corps is very often obscured. In reality, in all imperialist countries, the function of the army and the officer corps is always the defense, both within and beyond their borders, of the capitalist interests of their country. In the event of a proletarian revolution in any country, the army and the officer corps have as their essential task the civil war waged on behalf of capital against the working class, the laboring population, and the youth, in order to drown the revolution in blood, if necessary. It should also be noted that the current tendency among the bourgeoisies of various capitalist and especially imperialist countries is to return to a professional army, a much more manageable instrument in the hands of the officer corps than a conscript army.

In most semi-colonial countries, particularly in Latin America, including the Caribbean, the army has one function and one function only, obvious to all : civil war, the maintenance of imperialist and bourgeois "order" in the country. Once again, in Haiti, it fulfills this sole function. There can be no genuine struggle for democratic freedoms, a National Assembly, and of course for the demands of the proletariat, except along the path leading to a workers’ and peasants’ government that includes a policy of liquidating the army, the officer corps, the police, its special detachments, and the "Tonton Macoutes." Never will the bourgeoisie, never will any bourgeois organization or party, commit to this path. They will only speak of it if they have no other choice, and to create the illusion of "purging."

Only the proletariat, the working population, and the youth can commit themselves to this. In Haiti, nothing is more urgent today than developing political agitation, in conjunction with other slogans, in the face of repression and army shootings, for the arming of workers and peasants. Beginning to organize armed workers’ self-defense groups, moving towards worker and peasant militias against the army, the officer corps, the police, and the Tonton Macoutes, is an absolute necessity. Expecting the bourgeois power to liquidate them is futile and dangerous. Hoping that "they" will disintegrate simply because of a general strike or any other movement is no less dangerous. Through a resolute policy, by beginning to organize into militias and arm themselves, only the workers will cause them to disintegrate, shatter, and liquidate.

This clearly defines the nature of the revolution underway in Haiti : a proletarian revolution. It is radically opposed to governments, to power, to the bourgeois state. For the proletariat, there is only one positive outcome : to seize power by relying on the exploited and oppressed classes, to destroy the bourgeois state to its very foundations, and to establish a workers’ state. No organization explains this or implements a policy accordingly. No organization is mobilizing for the arming of workers and peasants or working towards the formation of a workers’ and peasants’ militia. Therein lies one of the weaknesses of the revolution in Haiti.