|
. |
April 2010 No to the Imperialist
Occupation – U.S./U.N. Forces Out!
What
are
these
U.N.
(left,
blue
helmets) and U.S. (right, in truck) troops
doing in Cité Soleil, the largest
slum area in Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince? “Keeping the peace” and distributing humanitarian aid? Photo: Sophia Paris/Haïti Liberté The Haitian earthquake of January 12 and the
harrowing
scenes of death and destruction led to an outpouring of sympathy and
solidarity
the world over for the people of this devastated land. A star-studded
telethon, Hope for Haiti Now, raised $57
million in the United States. The ten biggest French “non-governmental
organizations” gathered €64 million. Residents of Gaza, martyred by an
Israeli
invasion a year ago and still under siege by the Zionist army,
identified with
the Haitians’ anguish and scraped together donations. Professional
rescue teams
grabbed their equipment and scrambled to find flights to the hard-hit
Caribbean
island nation. Hundreds of medical professionals rounded up tons of
medicines
and equipment and took off for Port-au-Prince. Aid organizations booked
space
on charter planes for field hospitals, medical supplies, food and
water.
Governments tried to outdo each other with relief missions. The administration of Barack Obama saw this
as a golden
opportunity to repair the U.S.’ image, badly tarnished by the ongoing
imperialist war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The Democrats
in power
in Washington would pose as leaders of a people-friendly empire,
motivated by
compassion, in contrast to the Darth Vader-like Republican
administration of
George Bush II. But behind all the talk of “helping” Haiti, what they
actually did is no different from what the Yankee
imperialists always do. The U.S. dispatched paratroops to occupy the
Haitian
capital, backed up by a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group in the
Windward
Strait between Haiti and Cuba. Their mission: “secure” the country
against
unrest, and make sure no rickety boats filled with Haitian refugees set
sail
for Florida. Any actual aid dispensed would be purely incidental, to
provide a
“humanitarian” cover for a military mission. Longer term, the U.S. wants to tighten
imperialist
control of the strategically located country, occupied since 2004 at
Washington’s behest by a United Nations Mission for the Stabilization
of Haiti
(MINUSTAH) force. We noted in a January 20 statement that “Washington
is
gearing up to declare Haiti a ‘failed state,’ like Somalia, and to call
for
some sort of international protectorate, perhaps under United Nations
auspices.”
This plan is now taking concrete shape. At a March 31 “International
Donors
Conference for a New Future for Haiti” at U.N. headquarters, the
donors,
principally the United States, formally put Haiti in receivership. A
Haiti
Interim Reconstruction Committee (HIRC) was set up with two
co-chairmen: the
Haitian prime minister and the real power, “an eminent foreign figure
involved in
the reconstruction effort.” Who that eminent foreign figure is was
never in
doubt. This HIRC will be in charge of rebuilding the country,
displacing the
Haitian government. And former U.S. president William Jefferson Clinton
will be
the neocolonial gouverneur of Haiti
on behalf of Washington and Wall Street. U.S.
Blocks Aid to Haiti The day after the quake hit, early on January
13, a
U.S. military force moved in to assert its control in Haiti, taking
over air
traffic control at the Port-au-Prince airport and from that position
actively blocking aid from reaching the Haitian
people. Although the Pentagon later claimed this was at the request
of the
Haitian government of President René Préval, in reality
the U.S. simply seized
the airfield – a “memorandum of understanding” formalizing this was not
signed
until several days later. For 72 hours, the U.S. Southern Command
(SOUTHCOM)
and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration closed the airport to all but
U.S.
military flights while American troops poured in. Even after reopening
the
airport, for the first week very few humanitarian relief and rescue
flights
were permitted. With tens of thousands of Haitians trapped in the
rubble, this criminal
U.S. blockade of aid likely cost thousands of lives.1 This led to angry denunciations from Europe
to Latin
America. When a French military plane carrying a field hospital was
told it
couldn’t land, the French minister in charge of humanitarian relief,
Alain
Joyandet, demanded the U.N. investigate, saying: “This is about helping
Haiti,
not occupying Haiti.” Médecins sans Frontières (MSF –
Doctors Without Borders)
said that five of its flights carrying 85 tons of medical supplies
including an
inflatable hospital facility, were diverted, and declared: “Priority
must be
given immediately to planes carrying life-saving equipment and medical
personnel.” French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner commented
acerbically that
the airport had become “an annex of Washington.” Even Brazil, which
commands
the MINUSTAH occupation force, complained bitterly that its flights
were being
turned away. Argentine, Spanish and Peruvian planes with vital supplies
were also
turned back. On January 16, all air traffic was shut down
for three
hours while U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton staged a photo op
visit.
The next day Bill Clinton and daughter Chelsea made a show of unloading
bottled
water. Meanwhile, two Mexican Hercules aircraft carrying 45 rescuers
(the
famous Topos Mexicanos), several of them veterans of the 1985 Mexico
City
earthquake, were denied landing rights. An emergency aid mission from
the
Caribbean Community was refused permission to land. “We are all going
crazy,”
said a spokesman for the American Red Cross, whose flights were also
blocked. “US
Accused of Annexing Airport as Squabbling Hinders Aid Effort in Haiti,”
reported the London Guardian (18
January). “America Imposes Its Leadership,” wrote the Paris Le
Figaro
(18 Janury). The London Telegraph (19
January) headlined: “US
Accused of ‘Occupying’ Haiti as Troops Flood In.” While the “free but
responsible” bourgeois press in the U.S. gushed about Washington’s
“humanitarian” intervention, even the New
York Times (17 January) reported: “[S]ome
aid officials were describing misplaced priorities, accusing United
States
officials of focusing their efforts on getting their people and troops
installed and lifting their citizens out.... “The
World Food Program finally was able to land flights of food, medicine
and water
on Saturday, after failing on Thursday and Friday, an official with the
agency
said. Those flights had been diverted so that the United States could
land
troops and equipment, and lift Americans and other foreigners to safety. “‘There
are 200 flights going in and out every day, which is an incredible
amount for a
country like Haiti,’ said Jarry Emmanuel, the air logistics officer for
the
agency’s Haiti effort. ‘But most of those flights are for the United
States
military’.”
Even after a few relief flights began
arriving, U.S.
military authorities refused to let aid leave the airport. The Telegraph reported: “As
the rest of the city struggles to catch a glimpse of either aid or its
American
deliverers, the answer is that both are here at the airport, the
supplies
stacking up next to the runway as they are disgorged from the vast
bowels of
C-17 transport planes. “Pallets
of tinned sardines from Venezuela, blue shirts from Bolivia, tents from
Italy,
grain, milk powder, tartan blankets and enough bottled water to float
the US
aircraft carrier lying offshore, all lie waiting for a truck to collect
them.” Behind many of the complaints of blockage of
aid there
were certainly imperialist rivalries, particularly between France, the
former
colonial master, and the United States, which going back to the 1823
Monroe
Doctrine has proclaimed “America for the (North) Americans.” Today the
U.S. considers
itself the sole, and indeed “indispensable” superpower, with the right
to
dictate terms to its rivals and semi-colonial subjects. But sour grapes
from
Paris does not negate the well-documented fact of U.S.
blockage of relief flights and aid shipments to Haiti. In
response, the Internationalist Group put out a statement, “Haiti:
Workers
Solidarity, Yes! Imperialist Occupation, No!” (20 January). We
demanded, “Stop
Blocking Aid to Haitian People – U.S./U.N. Forces Get Out!” While many
reformist leftists – including the (social-democratic) International
Socialist
Organization, the (Stalinoid) Workers World Party and (Maoist)
Revolutionary
Communist Party – and liberals called on the U.S. to aid the Haitian
people, we
warned, “It is not only U.S. military forces who are involved in
imposing
imperialist tutelage. Financial ‘aid’ from the U.S./U.N./IMF, etc ...
always
comes with numerous strings attached.” We demanded that “the U.S. stop
blocking the entry of Haitian refugees at the same time as we
fight for full
citizenship rights for all immigrants,” and called to “oppose
all measures subjugating Haiti to imperialist economic domination.” Imperialists
Sideline Haitian Government In
the following days, calls in the bourgeois press for the U.S. and U.N.
to
formally take the reins from the Haitian government multiplied. An
article in
the Christian Science Monitor (27
January), titled “Envisioning a new Haiti,” reported: “Robert
Pastor, who was a senior adviser to the US mission to restore the
democratically elected and overthrown Jean-Bertrand Aristide to
presidential
power in 1994, believes international donors should take advantage of
this
goodwill and ask Haitians – through a referendum – to allow their
country to
become a 10-year UN trusteeship or to approve some other form of strong
international control.... “Dr.
Pastor suggests that schools could swallow hard and drop Creole
instruction in
favor of French and English to better prepare Haitian students for the
global
economy. “‘I
spent my career advocating the democratic process and believe in it.
But Haiti
is an exception’.” The next day at hearings of the U.S. Senate’s
Foreign
Relations Committee, Sen. Christopher Dodd (Dem., Conn.) asked: “Is it
too wild
a suggestion to be talking about at least temporarily some sort of
receivership?” Sen. Bob Corker (Rep., Tenn.) chimed in: “I think
something far
more draconian than just us working behind the scenes to prod reforms
and those
kinds of things is going to be necessary” (New
York Times, 31 January). Prior to the recent U.N. conference on
Haiti, Dodd
was again calling to “Place Haiti Under ‘Trusteeship’” (Miami
Herald, 29 March). These
are no crackpots but influential shapers of the policies of U.S.
imperialism.
Dodd accepts that since Haiti is “an independent sovereign nation and a
United
Nations member,” it cannot be literally placed in trusteeship like
Palestine
and the former German colonies in Africa were under the League of
Nations and
then the U.N. Instead, a “form of trusteeship” could be used, he said,
like in
Bosnia and Kosovo (after U.S. and NATO forces occupied those Yugoslav
republics).
That is exactly what was put forward in the “Action Plan for National
Recovery
and Development of Haiti,” presented to the March 31 U.N. conference.
Although
the cover page bears the seal of the Government of the Republic of
Haiti, the
plan was essentially dictated to it by the U.S. The Miami Nuevo
Herald (11 February) reported: “The
plan, conceived by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s staff and
presented a
few days ago [during a visit by Bill Clinton] to Haiti’s president,
René
Préval, urges the creation of a Haiti Interim Recovery
Commission (HIRC) to
supervise the ‘urgent and quick recovery’ in the coming 18 months.
Among the
main priorities of the commission: to establish a Haitian Development
Authority...for the next ten years or more.” The terminology is virtually identical to
that
presented by Haiti to the March 31 U.N. conference. The Bill
and Hillary Show at the United Nations, March 31. Between the Clintons,
U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon (left) and Haitian president
René Préval. In
exchange for promises of $9.9 billion in aid, the Haitian government
signed
over control of its funds to this committee responsible to the
imperialist
governments and financial agencies like the International Monetary Fund
and
World Bank. While press reports stressed the size of the commitments,
the cost
of rebuilding Haiti’s capital city from scratch will far outstrip those
amounts. Besides, only a small fraction of the millions in aid pledged
after
the 2008 hurricanes was ever paid. The role of the HIRC recalls the
Municipal
Assistance Corporation (MAC) in New York City set up in the wake of
1975
bank-engineered “fiscal crisis,” which took de facto control of NYC
finances in
order to impose massive cutbacks and layoffs. Felix Rohatyn of the
Lazard
Frères investment bank played the role in the MAC that Bill
Clinton does now in
the HIRC. The “new future” promised to Haiti will be shaped by the
imperialist
“donors,” who just to make sure have a beefed-up MINUSTAH (increased
from 9,000
to 13,500 troops) and a U.S. contingent at their disposal to maintain
“security” and suppress any protests. For as the New York
Times (1 April) noted, “anger mounts among Haitians who
hear about billions in aid while hundreds of thousands of them still
struggle
for earthquake relief.” Such
a detailed plan, filled with specific budgetary targets, could hardly
be worked
up in the space of a few weeks in the midst of a crisis dominated by
the
aftermath of the earthquake and the dispatch of U.S. troops to take
control of
“security” in Haiti. In reality, the “new” plan is a reiteration (with
some
amendments) of the plan the U.S. has been pushing in Haiti since
overthrowing
the government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide in March 2004. Already by July
2004, a
detailed (110-page) “Interim Cooperation Framework 2004-2006” was
presented by
the Haitian “government” installed by the U.N. after the
U.S./Canada/French
invasion, along with the United Nations, World Bank, European
Commission and
Inter-American Development Bank. This, in turn, was a rehash of a 1995
“Policy
Framework Paper” of the IMF, World Bank and Haitian government, which
was itself
a continuation of the policies laid out in the 1993 Emergency Economic
Recovery
Program, which the government of Bill Clinton insisted that the exiled
Aristide
agree to in order to get U.S. support to return him to power in a U.S.
invasion
in 1994. And
they all go back to a 1982 World Bank “Economic Memorandum on Haiti.”
That memo
put forward an “export-led development strategy, under which the Bank
and USAID
designed a plan to develop the export potential of both agro-industry
and the
country’s assembly industry” (Lisa
McGowan, “Democracy Undermined, Economic Justice Denied: Structural
Adjustment
and the Aid Juggernaut in Haiti,” Development Group for Alternative
Policies,
January 1997). The productive lands on Haiti’s plains would be
converted from
food production to crops for sale in the United States, while assembly
industries like garments, toys and baseballs would be attracted by
low-wage
industrial labor. A key part of this “development model” was a strong
state to
keep down peasant and labor agitation: the dictatorship of Jean-Claude
(“Baby
Doc”) Duvalier. When he was toppled by popular protests in 1986, a
generals’ junta
took the reins of power. In 1990, swelling discontent led to the
election of
Aristide with almost three-quarters of the votes, but when he sought to
introduce price controls and raise the minimum wage, the populist
president was
overthrown by a military coup in September 1991. Ever
since, succeeding administrations in Washington have responded to every
crisis
in Haiti by seeking to impose the same “model” of low-wage industry.
Frequently
it is not Republican reactionaries but Democratic liberals and
high-flying
academic “experts” who push this program. In January 2009, following
the four
devastating hurricanes of 2008, Paul Collier of Oxford University in
Britain
wrote a report to the Secretary General of the United Nations, “Haiti:
From
Natural Catastrophe to Economic Security,” advocating the creation of
export
zones for garment manufacturing and production of mangoes (for a new
soft drink): “[T]he
fundamentals are propitious. In garments the largest single component
of costs
is labour. Due to its poverty and relatively unregulated labour market,
Haiti
has labour costs that are fully competitive with China, which is the
global
benchmark.” After the earthquake, the execrable Nicholas
Kristof, ever
seeking U.S. imperialist intervention in the name of “human rights,”
took up Collier’s
plan in the New York Times (21
January): “That
idea (sweatshops!) may sound horrific to Americans. But it’s a strategy
that
has worked for other countries, such as Bangladesh, and Haitians in the
slums
would tell you that their most fervent wish is for jobs. A few dozen
major
shirt factories could be transformational for Haiti.” The third leg of this “development” plan is
tourism,
pushed in particular by the Clintons, who keep talking about how they
spent
their honeymoon in Haiti. So there you
have the imperialists’ “new Haiti”: sweatshops for Levis, mangoes for
Coca-Cola
and beaches for the Royal Caribbean Lines. Actually,
Mr. Kristof, Haiti had more than “a few dozen” major garment factories
before,
in the 1980s. The result was a steady drop in real wages, which fell by
9
percent from 1980 to 1985, and an even greater decline in minimum
wages, which
plummeted by 45 percent from 1985 to 1990. Haiti’s gross national
product per
capita also declined, because wages were so low that workers could
hardly
increase consumption. Rice farming collapsed as peasants, unable to
sell their
harvest in the face of lower-cost imports subsidized by the U.S.
abandoned
their fields and migrated to the swollen metropolis of Port-au-Prince.
(Bill
Clinton admitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee recently
that his
policies benefited rice farmers in Arkansas rather than those in
Haiti.) And
actually, Mr. Kristof, the standard of living of workers in free trade
zone
plants is lower than in many of
Haiti’s rural areas. No one would work for such starvation wages if the
alternative in the vast shantytowns were not, literally, starvation.
And if the
main attraction for such industries is low wages, this creates
tremendous
pressure to keep workers mired in poverty (see “Haiti: Battle Over
Starvation
Wages and Neocolonial Occupation,” The
Internationalist No. 30, November-December 2009). Two
changes from past imperialist “development” plans for Haiti are that
now lip
service is paid to agriculture and “food security,” and calls are made
to decentralize
the country, so that it is not simply the “Republic of Port-au-Prince.”
As the
2008 hunger riots showed, a situation in which 80 percent of Haiti’s
export
earnings go to pay for food imports is unviable. But even as planners
now
budget tiny amounts for agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilizer), many
of
Haiti’s peasants have fled the countryside, so financial incentives
alone will
not solve food shortages. And while the latest plan talks of five sites
where
100,000 quake survivors could be relocated, more than 1.2
million are now living in 460 camps around the capital, a
number of them in acute danger of being wiped out in the hurricane
season about
to begin. Now private landowners (including schools run by Catholic
clergy) are
beginning to push out camps on “their” property (such as by cutting off
waste
removal), and on the other hand camp residents are refusing to let the
government exile them to South African apartheid-style townships far
from the
city. So
as torrential rains threaten a new catastrophe in which thousands more
could
die, a battle is brewing between the impoverished homeless population
and the
government of the bourgeoisie backed up by the imperialists. Over
the past quarter century, there has been a seemingly endless stream of
plans calling
for export-led growth in Haiti, yet except for the period before 1990
there has
been no growth. Why? Right-wing zealots like evangelist preacher Pat
Robertson
blame the supposed sins of the Haitian people, while more mainstream
conservatives and not a few liberals point to Aristide and
Préval personally.
But imperialist spokesmen are virtually unanimous in writing off the
Haitian
government as a “failed state,” or more circumspectly as a “fragile
state.” Naturally
they don’t mention how the U.S. brought the Haitian state to its
present
condition, refusing to channel aid through the government, eliminating
import
duties and forcing the sale of government-owned industry. Virtually
every
source of government income was cut off, and whole swaths of normal
government
activities have been privatized or (like garbage collection) no longer
exist. As a result, there is a near consensus among
the U.S.
imperialist bourgeoisie to dispense with, or at least sideline, the
present
Haitian government. Within 24 hours of the earthquake, the conservative
Heritage
Foundation in Washington issued a statement that “the U.S. response to
the
tragic earthquake in Haiti offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti's
long-dysfunctional government and economy....” James Dobbins, a former
special
envoy to Haiti under Clinton, now a senior official at the RAND
Corporation
think tank, argued that “This disaster is an opportunity to accelerate
oft-delayed reforms,” such as privatizing the government telephone
company and
reorganizing the ports, two of the last remaining government
enterprises in
Haiti (New York Times, 17 January). In
Haiti, a group of right-wing coup financiers headed by Senator Rudolph
Henri
Boulos put forward a “Strategic Plan of National Salvation” in early
February
whose centerpiece is to “reconstitute the Armed Forces the assure
national
security.” There may not be consensus on every aspect of
plans to
make use of the “opportunity” to “refound” the Haitian state. Not
everyone
wants to resuscitate the armed forces, especially since the present
Haitian
National Police (PNH) was recruited from the death squads that appeared
after
Aristide dissolved the army in 1995. The plan presented to the March 31
donors
conference includes as much money for police as for agriculture,
calling to
expand the PNH from 9,500 officers at present to 16,000. Other
government
functions would be privatized, or administered by the HIRC under
Clinton, with
Préval as his powerless sidekick. Meanwhile, the Haitian
president is calling
on the legislature to renew the present “state of exception” for
another 18
months, providing for rule by decree and cancellation of what civil
liberties
exist on paper. What Pastor, Dodd and other called for in advocating “a
kind of
trusteeship” for Haiti under imperialist auspices is what is now
happening. Not
a “Savior” But a Revolutionary Leadership The Boulos “national salvation plan” paints
the
“catastrophic image of a drowned country and a collapsed government” to
justify
its plans for the “refoundation” of Haiti with a militarized
government. So here
we have the right wing of the Haitian bourgeoisie adopting the language
of
nationalist-populist regimes like Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and
Rafael Correa
who talk of “refounding” Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Certainly the
physical
destruction of virtually every ministry (as well as the national
palace) and
decimation of the state apparatus means that there is little left to
“reconstruct.” But Haitian working people have no interest in
“refounding” a capitalist
state that represents the interests of an infinitesimal ruling class,
lording
it over a vast mass of brutally exploited urban and rural poor. Workers
and
peasants should respond to this emergency by beginning to
organize their own class power against the rapacious
capitalist rulers. And that requires above all a struggle to forge
the nucleus of a revolutionary workers party. In Haiti today there is a proliferation of
more than
1,000 “non-governmental organizations”; Bill Clinton speaks of 10,000
if you
include the smaller operations. It’s the largest concentration of NGOs
on the
planet, many financed directly or indirectly by governments,
foundations and
international (imperialist) agencies, or various churches. The politics
of most
reflect their role as privatized social support agencies in the
framework of “free
market” capitalist policies. But there is a fringe of supposed
“progressive”
NGOs around the Platform to Advocate Alternative Development Policies
(PAPDA) which
has been calling for a new “model” of development, involving
“participatory
democracy,” an “end to economic dependency,” a “break with exclusion,”
and
similar nostrums. PAPDA, whose slogan is “another Haiti is possible,”
is a
darling of the “anti-globalization” movement such as Alternatives in
Canada,
who call for an end to “neo-liberalism.” But the devastation of Haiti
over the
last two centuries is due to capitalism,
not simply to the particular economic policies of the last two decades. Garment workers
in
AM
Inudstries plant in Haiti,
2006. In fact,
neither “another Haiti” nor “another world” are possible so long as the
capitalist-imperialist system remains.
“Neo-liberal” measures of rampant privatization and brutal slashing of
social
services are not due to a choice of budget priorities, which a
different set of
rulers could reverse if they wished and had enough popular support.
Previous
“Keynesian” economics were abandoned in the late 1970s economic crisis
because
capitalists no longer found it profitable to invest, due to what Karl
Marx long
ago analyzed as a declining rate of profit and overproduction of
capital. In
the U.S. this intensified as government expenditures on “guns and
butter,” on
the Vietnam War and “Great Society” social programs led to a
bank-engineered
debt crisis and “stagflation” which spread to the major capitalist
powers. Today,
even bourgeois nationalist governments with great oil wealth, allowing
them a
limited degree of autonomy which Haiti lacks, have carried out at most
minimal
nationalizations combined with welfare programs compatible with
“neo-liberalism” (Venezuela) or have been aggressively privatizing
(Iran). Much of the opposition to the U.N. occupation
of Haiti
has come from supporters of Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his Lavalas
(Landslide)
party, which since his ouster in 2004 has fragmented. The Brazilian
newspaper Folha de S. Paulo (31 January) visited
Lavalas strongholds such as Cité Soleil and Bel-Air reporting
that “Anti-Brazil
Mobilization Reverberates Since the Earthquake.” “We haven’t stopped
closely
following, with concern, the actions of Aristide’s supporters, despite
their
weakened position,” said a spokesman for the Brazilian command of the
MINUSTAH
occupation troops. On February 5, thousands demonstrated outside the
offices of
the mayor of Pétion-ville, shouting “We’re hungry, down with
Péval.” A Lavalas
leader of the protest declared, “Aristide can help us. He must come
back to
save us” (Haïti-Liberté, 10
February). Today, in the face of the arrogant U.S.
takeover, many
Haitians look to Aristide to guarantee “Haitian sovereignty.” Certainly
all
opponents of imperialism support demands that the occupation forces
lift their
ban on Haiti’s democratically elected president who was kidnapped and
spirited
out of the country by U.S. forces in 2004. At the same time, we warn
against
illusions in Aristide, who in his South African exile has done nothing
for the
Haitian masses. In office (with Préval as his prime minister and
later successor
as president), Aristide dutifully carried out the dictates of
Washington, which
put him back in office with U.S. troops, and of the imperialist banks.
Aristide
sold off state-owned companies, suppressed wages, repressed unions and
maintained
the “free trade” that spelled ruin for Haitian peasants. Haiti doesn’t
need a
condescending savior, in the words of the workers anthem, the Internationale – not another capitalist
ruler, but rather a hard struggle to forge a revolutionary
working-class
leadership fighting to establish the class rule of Haiti’s working
people. In the workers movement, the syndicalist
organization Batay
Ouvriye (Workers Struggle) has been active for a number of years
organizing
workers in free trade zone plants. Batay Ouvriye has led important
struggles of
workers in the CODEVI industrial park in Ouanaminthe, who were
repressed by
Aristide when he was in power, and then by both the Dominican military
and
Haitian right-wing coup plotters while the U.S. was engineering the
ouster of
Aristide in 2004 (see “The Struggle for Workers Revolution in the
Caribbean,” The Internationalist No. 18, May-June
2004). But while B.O. represents perhaps the most left-wing sector of
the small
workers movement in Haiti, and although it is quite hostile to Aristide
and the
Lavalas milieu, its political statements are couched in the same
populist
language that is the common idiom of petty-bourgeois and bourgeois
“progressives” in Haiti. Thus a position statement of Batay Ouvriye,
“After the
January 12, 2010 Earthquake” (7 February) says that there can be no
confidence
in the present Haitian state: “It is not our state; it is not a
worker’s
state.
On the contrary, it is the state of the bourgeoisie, it is against
working
people, and it is against the popular masses! ... If we want to realize
our own
interests, we have no other choice, we need another state. We need our
own
state.” But what kind of state, and
how to get it? B.O. writes that “we must work to reinforce the
progressive camp
both inside and abroad (in the belly of the beast). We must reinforce
the
people’s camp.” Like the popular-front left that chants “The people
united will
never be defeated,” B.O.’s talk of a “progressive camp” and “people’s
camp”
amounts to calling to unite with bourgeois sectors. Marxists do not
orient to a
mythical “progressive camp” as opposed to a “reactionary camp” – we
seek to
mobilize the working class, leading
all the exploited and
oppressed, against the bourgeoisie. This conception led Batay Ouvriye to make
common cause
with the rightist-led mobilization against Aristide in late 2003, even
as it
declared “Lavalas and the bourgeois opposition are two rotten legs of
the same
torn pair of pants.” A B.O. statement argued that it was necessary to
“thwart
the bourgeois orientation within the
anti-Lavalas mobilization” (our emphasis). Rather than posing a class struggle against both wings of the
Haitian bourgeoisie, it called upon workers, poor peasants, students
and
“consistent progressives” to “build their autonomy” as the “camp of the
people”
representing the popular masses “within the general movement of
struggle.” But
that “general movement of struggle” was a reactionary pro-imperialist
mobilization, led by factory owner (and Duvalier supporter)
André Apaid and his
Group of 184. Class-conscious workers had to oppose
this “movement” at the same time as they opposed Aristide
and has Lavalas supporters who were implementing the plans of U.S.
imperialism.
Two years later, guided by the same program, B.O. declared in a January
2006
statement that the election campaign had led to the “formation of two
poles. We
must take up position against the fascists, block the reactionaries.”
This
amounted to backhanded support to Préval. B.O. has recently joined an alliance of
left-wing
trade-unionists set up by the Conlutas federation in Brazil, led by
followers
of the late Argentine pseudo-Trotskyist Nahuel Moreno.2
Conlutas
has raised considerable sums for Batay Ouvriye. Previously, a scandal
was
unleashed when B.O. accepted a grant of almost $100,000 from the U.S.
National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which funneled the money through the
AFL-CIO’s
“American Center for International Labor Solidarity” (ACILS).3
We
wrote that – even though this was pounced on by Aristide supporters,
who are
only jealous that they didn’t get the Yankee dollars – receiving U.S.
imperialist funds from the NED/ACILS was a “betrayal of the Haitian
workers” (see
“Batay Ouvriye and the ACILS,” The
Internationalist No. 28, March-April 2009). As a result of the
uproar, B.O.
has stated that it no longer receives money and “does not have any
relationship
with the Solidarity Center,” but this “doesn’t convince us that this is
best
for the Haitian working class, in its extreme needs and abandon.”
Repeatedly, Batay
Ouvriye has let its financial needs determine its decisions. A
Program for Class Struggle By pretending that the imperialists would
tolerate a
more “inclusive” program to “refound” Haitian capitalism,
anti-neoliberal
groups like PAPDA and its allies are spreading dangerous democratic
illusions
that serve to divert struggle and lead to defeat. The only
way to stop the privatizations and dismantling of social
services, and to cancel the imperialist debt – in fact, and not as an
empty
slogan – is by fighting for international socialist revolution. That
will not
happen overnight, and such a revolution, even if it should break out in
Haiti
with an impoverished population and a tiny working class, can only be
completed
on an international scale. But proletarian revolutionaries in Haiti can
begin
to fight by building a workers party guided by the perspective of permanent revolution, put forward by
Leon Trotsky in summing up the experience of three Russian Revolutions
of 1905
and 1917. In our initial (20 January) article, we
pointed to the
experience of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake that led to organizing
efforts in
the working-class districts that were independent of and against the
capitalist
PRI-government. In Haiti today, many if not most of the hundreds of
camps and
many heavily damaged neighborhoods (such as Delmas 36 and the huge camp
of
70,000 people in Delmas 40) have formed committees to obtain and
distribute aid
(see “A Neighborhood Tries to Take Matters in Hand,” Los
Angeles Times, 21 January). It is necessary to give political
orientation to such efforts, if they are not to turn into mere vehicles
for a
resuscitated government, the NGOs and imperialist agencies. Camp
committees in
alliance with workers organizations should undertake a census of the available food and
supplies, and demand that all aid be
turned over to them
to distribute. For the safety of the residents, they should
demand that Haitian
National Police, MINUSTAH and U.S. occupation forces keep out.
In
industrial districts, defense guards linking
the urban poor to
workers in the factories should be formed. The emergency conditions in Haiti have not
made the
class struggle go away. Some bosses saw their factories destroyed (and
hundreds
of workers killed as they were doing forced overtime on January 12) and
are now
asking for subsidies from aid funds. Others restarted production within
a week,
raising production quotas to make up for the hundreds of workers who
were
injured, dead or left for the countryside. Class-struggle unionists
would renew
the struggle for a massive increase in the minimum wage, indexed to the
rate of
inflation, and call for new
workers to be hired instead of speed-up. In
garment plants, most of which are intact, militant workers could join
with
community residents in this emergency to demand
that
production
be
reoriented
to
producing
tents, thousands of which are needed, and which such
factories (accustomed to switching designs) are quite capable of
producing. The example of Haitian workers producing
shelter for their people would inspire the survivors and workers
worldwide. Neighborhood committees could work together
with
peasant organizations to ensure food supplies, rather than depending on the U.N.
functionaries who
refused to distribute tons of stockpiled food and still refuse to enter
“red
zones” such as Bel Air and Cité Soleil because of whipped-up
hysteria over
“riots” and “violence.” Rather than wait for the government to restart
education in the 4,000 schools that were
destroyed or irremediably damaged in the Port-au-Prince area, teachers,
parents, students and workers could begin organizing schools on
their
own, demanding that the authorities provide financing and build
facilities. In
the face of the impending catastrophe due to hurricanes, which will
sweep away
tents and precarious dwellings, workers and community organizations
could demand
and begin constructing large buildings that could provide shelter
to hundreds
during the storms and later serve as community centers or schools. Rather than submit to forced relocation by
the
government or MINUSTAH, worker and community
organizations advised
by geologists and architects could occupy areas appropriate for
residential
housing that would not be so vulnerable to earthquakes and
flooding.
Haitian working people and workers everywhere should organize to drive
the MINUSTAH and U.S. imperialist occupation forces out of Haiti,
as
well
as Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere.
And
they
should
join with the over 800 Cuban doctors and other medical
personal who
have been in Haiti throughout to defend Cuba
against imperialism and
counterrevolution, demanding that the U.S.’
torture
prison
and
naval
base
in
Guantánamo be returned to Cuba. Calls on
international agencies
and imperialist countries cancel Haiti’s debt
would have broad
resonance, but bankers rightly fear the example could be contagious.
Thus this
demand must be part of a program to expropriate
the
banks,
factories
and
the
whole
of the bourgeoisie by a workers and peasants government as
part
of
an international revolution. Haitian women march on MINUSTAH February 5 during visit by Bill Clinton, chanting “tents not guns!” (Brian Jackson/Millenials Project) These are some of the measures that
working-class
revolutionaries could raise and fight for in Haiti today in the midst
of the
ongoing emergency. And calls for mobilization of the working people and
the
poor against the rulers are not illusory. On February 5, during the
visit of
Bill Clinton to Haiti, some 500 women marched more than seven miles
from the
Carrefour district to the airport, then to Préval’s office at
the building of
the judicial police and on to MINUSTAH headquarters
and
the
U.S.
embassy,
chanting “tents not
guns!” in Kreyol
(Haïti Liberté, 17 February). On
February 17, another big protest demonstration was held at the time of
French
president Nicolas Sarkozy’s visit, when several hundred demanded that
France
pay back the 90 million gold francs that it extorted from Haiti in
exchange for
recognizing the country’s independence in 1825 (worth US$22 billion in
today’s
currency). This debt later passed into the hands of U.S. bankers, and
served as
one of the pretext for Washington’s occupation of the country from 1915
to 1934.
Haiti was unable to pay it off until 1947. To achieve victory, the Haitian working
class, which
despite its small size demonstrated its capacity for struggle last
year, must champion
the interests of all the oppressed. It can undertake sharp class
struggle
against the imperialists and their Haitian flunkeys. But, like the
Haitian
Revolution of 1791-1804 against slavery and French colonialism, a
successful
struggle to overthrow U.S. imperialist domination can only be carried
out in
conjunction with the working class internationally. This means allying
with
workers next door in the Dominican Republic, as well as fighting for
full
citizenship rights for the estimated one million Dominican residents of
Haitian
ancestry who are today denied legal rights, denied schooling and
subject to
repeated racist massacres. No less crucial is the need to mobilize the
hundreds
of thousands of Haitian working people in the diaspora, from New York
City to
Montréal, Quebec. This population can be a human bridge to the
imperialist
center, where in the past tens of thousands have marched to protest
attacks on
Haitians, in the U.S. and on the impoverished island. And
Haitian-Dominican workers
unity in New York can begin the effort to build revolutionary workers
parties
that can unite the island of Quisqueya (Hispaniola) and make it once
again,
“the pearl of the Antilles.” ■ 1 On what basis do we draw this conclusion? First, in spite of all the media coverage, the total number of lives saved by international rescue teams in Haiti was 121. The reason for this shockingly low number is that the teams were unable to get into the country for the crucial first 48 hours because U.S. authorities shut down the Port-au-Prince airport to non-U.S. military flights. Second, Partners in Health, the medical aid group co-founded by Dr. Paul Farmer, the deputy U.N. envoy to Haiti, which has been active in the country for the last quarter century warned emphatically on January 19: “TENS OF THOUSANDS OF EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS NEED EMERGENCY SURGICAL CARE NOW!!!!!” Alarmed by the continuing delays holding up aid, the statement continued: “Our medical director has estimated that 20,000 people are dying each day who could be saved by surgery.” 2 Moreno was a political quick change artist whose trademark was to present his current in the clothing of whatever movement was in vogue at the moment (often literally, as when the Morenoites donned olive green uniforms posing as Sandinista guerrillas in Nicaragua). At different points in his career, Moreno appeared as a Peronist, briefly as a crypto-Maoist, as a Castro-Guevarist and finally settling down as a left-wing social-democrat, which is what his followers are today. 3 The NED replaced the CIA’s covert funding of union and opposition groups after the U.S. spy agency’s cover was blown, while the ACILS replaced the notorious American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) as the vehicle for U.S. imperialist-financed anti-communist labor subversion in Latin America. The NED/AIFLD has been particularly active financing right-wing “union” opposition to the nationalist Chávez government in Venezuela. To contact the Internationalist Group and the League for the Fourth International, send e-mail to: internationalistgroup@msn.com |