Commementary / PERSPECTIVES ON HAITI : Don’t Bet on This Deal; Even the Parliament Is a Fraud

I have very serious misgivings about the terms of the agreement. On balance, I do not believe it has the best chance of providing the restoration of democracy in Haiti. There are several reasons for that. Under the agreement, the key members of the high command will be allowed to retain their assets. They will receive a general and complete amnesty. And they will be allowed to stay in the country.

In addition, in violation of the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 940, the sanctions will be lifted immediately. Under that resolution, the sanctions were not to be lifted until President Jean-Bertrand Aristide returned home.

Under the terms of this agreement, the Parliament of Haiti is to pass a general amnesty followed by, with a deadline of Oct. 15, the resignation of the members of the high command. First, it is highly unlikely that the Parliament can be convened to pass this amnesty, inasmuch as most of the pro-democracy members of Parliament are in hiding and are likely to believe that no safe environment can be accomplished in Haiti. But even if that were the case, the agreement overlooks the question of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the Parliament.

We should recall that in January, 1993, there were illegal, fraudulent elections held for this Parliament in Haiti, and thus it is recognized nowhere in the world. There are serious questions about the validity of the Parliament and the further realistic and practical problem as to whether the Parliament can be convened before Oct. 15 to pass such an amnesty. It is not a stretch to see that if it is not convened and fails to pass such an amnesty, Cedras will use that as pretext to refuse to step down.

Last October it was one reason; this October it is likely to be another. If past is prologue, why should we believe him any more this year, certainly based on what happened last year, than we have in the year that has passed since he retreated from the Governors’ Island accord?

But the terms of the agreement are what disturb me more than anything else. I don’t have any problem with amnesty, although as a personal, ethical matter it causes me great pain to have to accept such. Let us remember that the very military that the Carter delegation said it responded to with honor and dignity is the military that has killed more than 3,000 Haitians, the same military that has chased more than 50,000 of its people into an ocean exile and another 350,000 into internal hiding, the same military that kills orphans in the streets of Haiti on a daily basis, the same military that rapes women on a nightly basis, the same military that litters the streets of Haiti with bodies virtually every morning as an indication of the kind of terror of which it is capable. These are not honorable people, these are murderous thugs. They do not deserve to be described as honorable people. That notwithstanding, we must still deal with them in discussions of the kind that the delegation undertook.

The real danger is this: It is one thing to say that they can keep their assets, it is quite another thing, constituting a total impractical folly, to allow these people to stay in the country with their assets and with amnesty after they step down. One cannot conceive, after World War II, of Nazi war criminals suggesting that it might be a good idea if they could recover their assets, receive a total amnesty and stay in Germany cheek to jowl with those who would then try to establish democracy in Germany.

That is what the proponents of democracy in Haiti have now been charged with doing by the delegation that struck these terms in this agreement. With these people in the country, there’s almost no realistic probability that a safe environment can be accomplished for Aristide’s return and for the restoration of democracy.