|
Trois mois après: Le
président Martelly
à la croisée des chemins
doit maintenant choisir.
C’est sa dernière chance
Par Gérard Bissainthe
Avant le second tour des
dernières élections
présidentielles, j'avais
d'abord préconisé devant
l'extrême confusion qui
régnait alors, que tout
le monde se mette
d'accord
1.- pour
laisser le président
Préval gouverner le pays
au-delà de la date du 7
février, comme il
estimait en avoir le
droit
2.- pour
mettre sur pied pendant
ce temps une nouvelle
constitution qui tienne
compte des graves
erreurs et lacunes
constatées dans
l'actuelle constitution.
Mes
suggestions qui pourtant
allaient dans le sens de
l'intérêt général ne
furent pas suivies. Tout
en reconnaissant
ouvertement (Madame
Manigat) ou tacitement
(Monsieur Martelly) que
cette élection n'étaient,
en fait, qu'une "sélection"
(par la communauté
internationale), étant
donné le "système" en
cours, chaque parti
préféra tenter sa chance
d'être sélectionné.
Depuis
l'occupation du pays par
des forces étrangères
avec la complicité d'une
partie de
l'Establishment du pays,
j'ai toujours eu quatre
objectifs clairement
exprimés et qui sont les
quatre clés de notre
salut:
1.-
l'acceptation de la
multinationalité qui
doit se réaliser tout de
suite par l'organisation
des élections nationales
dans la Diaspora
haïtienne;
2.- la remise sur pied
inconditionnelle des
FADH
3.- la priorité donnée à
la décentralisation, ce
que j'ai explicité dans
le concept du
Municipalisme.
4.- pour remplacer la "tutelle",
la définition d'un
partenariat-sur-pied-d'égalité
(ce qui rejoint l'épure
d'Equal Partnership" du
président Obama) avec
les principaux
interlocuteurs de la
nation haïtienne, le
principe guide étant ici
l'adage: "Good fences
make good neighbours."
Convaincu que ce que
j'ai appelé "le Camp
Martelly" était, d'après
ses déclarations
formelles, plus proche
de ces objectifs que ce
que j'ai appelé "le Camp
Manigat" dont les
positions me
paraissaient trop floues,
j'ai préconisé l'appui
au Camp Martelly.
Cela va faire maintenant
trois mois que Michel
Martelly est à la barre
du pays et pendant ces
trois mois j'ai toujours
demandé à tout un chacun
de ne pas le combattre,
mais au contraire de
tout faire pour l'aider,
de "faire avec", de lui
donner sa chance. De
mille manières j’ai
exprimé des conseils
basés sur ma longue
expérience. Pendant ce
temps il a pris ses
décisions et assumé ses
responsabilités.
J'ai constaté, et il en
a été de même pour un
très grand nombre de
compatriotes, que
pendant ces trois mois
1.- le pays n'a pas
avancé d'un pas et se
trouve dans une impasse
totale;
2.- le président élu a
fait des déclarations et
posé des actes qui sont
en parfaite
contradiction avec ses
engagements. En
particulier
a.- il n'a rien fait
pour la reconnaissance
de la multinationalité
et même a finalement
bloqué des décisions
parlementaires qui
allaient dans le sens de
la multinationalité.
b.- en
déclarant, comme il
l'a fait
récemment, qu'il espère
que la Minustah
continuera à être "une
force de développement",
il exprime sa volonté de
voir se prolonger la
mission de la Minustah,
jusqu'à
l'institutionnaliser de
manière pérenne. Pas un
mot sur le retour qui
doit être inconditionnel
de l'institution
constitutionnelle des
FADH.
c.- Il ne dit rien et ne
fait rien qui va dans le
sens d'une indispensable
décentralisation.
Personne ne s’attendait
à ce qu’en trois mois il
fasse tout ou même
beaucoup. Mais trois
mois c’est plus que
suffisant pour qu’un
chef d’Etat fasse
connaître ses
orientations majeures,
et, comme on dit,
annonce la couleur. Or,
pour le moment tout est
incolore. En dehors de
quelques mesurettes et
de quelques culbutes
verbales dans l’azur
politique ou stratégique
la présidence Martelly
n'a avancé
rigoureusement aucun
plan précis et rationnel
dans quelque domaine que
ce soit.
Certes, M. Martelly ne
peut pas être expert sur
toutes les questions.
Mais il aurait au moins
pu s'inspirer de
l'exemple d'un de nos
anciens dirigeants, le
président Antoine Simon,
qui n'avait même pas son
bagage scolaire. Mais,
étant donné qu’il avait
avant tout le souci du
bien de l'Etat, le
président Antoine Simon
eut le génie de bien
s'entourer et est passé
à l'histoire comme un de
nos meilleurs chefs
d'Etat.
La première scène de la
pièce du mandat du
président Martelly n'a
satisfait que ceux qui
avaient prédit un échec
spectaculaire. Sweet
Micky n'a pas su
transformer sa fougue et
son efficacité
artistiques en fougue et
efficacité politiques.
Le miracle attendu ne
s'est pas produit. Pas
jusqu'ici en tout cas.
Faut-il siffler
l'artiste, lui envoyer
des tomates ou des œufs
pourris et lui demander
de quitter la scène? Ou
bien être patient avec
l'espoir qu'il peut
faire mieux? Je suis du
second avis. Ayant voulu
être partie prenante de
“l’aventure Sweet Micky”,
je dois tout faire pour
l’amener à bon port.
Mais comme le premier
tour de piste a été
terriblement décevant,
chat échaudé craignant
l'eau froide, je dois
désormais être sur mes
gardes. Une dure
bataille est engagée. Ce
n’est pas le moment de
se faire des mamours et
de se dire des
gentillesses. C’est
l’heure des vérités même
brutales.
Le président Martelly
vient d’annoncer qu’il
va maintenant diriger
par décrets. Cela
ressemble plus à une
bravade qu’à autre
chose. Car pour diriger
il faut un plan de
direction, un PLAN DE
GOUVERNEMENT. Pour le
moment la Présidence
Martelly n’en a aucun.
En dehors de quelques
envolées oratoires au
hasard des interviews
sur des télévisions
étrangères et de
quelques poncifs sur
l’éducation, la rituelle
lutte contre la
corruption, la promotion
du tourisme avec des
impairs de langage
regrettables, rien de
saillant, rien qui fasse
vraiment sérieux. Il ne
s’agit pas d’un
réquisitoire, mais d’une
froide analyse.
Il faut que les choses
changent de manière
dramatique, de manière
radicale. Et vite. Sinon,
il n’y aura probablement
ni tomates ni œufs
pourris. Seulement petit
à petit les spectateurs
vont quitter un à un la
salle et Sweet Micky va
se retrouver sur la
scène devant une salle
vide avec son orchestre
improvisé qui n’a jamais
su que produire une
triste cacophonie. Il y
a pire que la haine:
l’indifférence.
Le président Martelly se
trouve devant deux
options: ou tout changer
ou tout perdre. Et dans
notre histoire parmi nos
chefs d’Etat il sera ou
un des plus nuls ou un
des meilleurs. A lui de
décider.
A quelle
condition peut-il encore
être un des meilleurs? A
la condition sinon qua
non de ne plus se lancer
dans des mesurettes et
d’exécuter le
seul plan de
gouvernement qui peut
nous sauver, qui seul un
jour nous sauvera et que
je répète ici:
1.-
l'acceptation de la
multinationalité qui
doit se réaliser tout de
suite par l'organisation
des élections nationales
dans la Diaspora
haïtienne;
2.- la
remise sur pied
inconditionnelle des
FADH
3.- la
priorité donnée à la
décentralisation, ce que
j'ai explicité dans le
concept du Municipalisme.
4.- pour
remplacer la "tutelle",
la définition d'un
partenariat-sur-pied-d'égalité
(ce qui rejoint l'épure
d'Equal Partnership" du
président Obama) avec
les principaux
interlocuteurs de la
nation haïtienne, le
principe guide étant ici
l'adage: "Good fences
make good neighbours."
Tout le
reste est littérature,
simagrées, jeux de
scène, scandaleuses
visites à l’étranger qui
ne rapportent même pas
de quoi amortir les
frais de voyages de la
caravane présidentielle.
Bébé s’amuse. La
croisière s’amuse. Il
est urgent que cela
cesse.
Le
président Martelly doit
maintenant prouver qu’il
est à la hauteur de la
fonction à laquelle il a
voulu accéder, qu’on lui
a confiée et qui n’est
pas une plaisanterie. Il
lui reste très peu de
temps pour le faire. Il
peut ou continuer à
patauger et à s’enliser
ou s’engager dans la
voie rude et montante
des municipalistes
souverainistes, qui est
la seule voie de sortie
de l’impasse. Avec lui
de préférence, puisque
nous l’invitons, sans
lui, s’il ne veut pas,
de toute façon nous
remporterons la victoire
de la bataille pour le
bonheur d’Haïti. Rien
absolument rien ne peut
arrêter une idée dont
l’heure est arrivée.
Gérard Bissainthe
14 août
2011, jour anniversaire
de la Cérémonie du Bois
Caïman
|
______________________________________
MICHEL MARTELLY:
HAITI’S URIBE?
by Kim
Ives
HAITI
LIBERTE
"Justice.
Verite.
Independance."
*
THIS
WEEK IN
HAITI
*April 6
- 12,
2011
Vol. 4,
No. 38 |
On
a continent which has been moving away
from U.S. imperial
dominance, Colombia’s President Alvaro
Uribe was an exception.
In stark opposition to defiant leaders
like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez,
Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s
Rafael Correa, Uribe emerged as
Washington’s closest ally in Latin
America, making Colombia the main
U.S. beach-head on the continent.
Washington still plans to build
seven new military bases there.
During his eight-year term, Uribe became
an iconic U.S. confederate.
Latin American popular slang began to
call a pro-U.S. leader “a
Uribe.” That is what some are now
calling Haiti’s new likely
President-elect, Michel Martelly.
Martelly’s Apr. 5 press conference, his
first since preliminary
results showed him to be the Mar. 20
second-round winner, seemed to
justify this moniker. “We have the
development plan of Colombia,”
Martelly said. “A week ago, I met with
the Colombian Foreign Minister.
I would say that this meeting was
friendly.”
Uribe stepped down in August 2010, but
only to pass power to a man who
has been described as his “shadow”: Juan
Manuel Santos. The Santos
government’s development plan is
“committed to deepening the
reforms—many of which were put in place
by Mr Uribe—that have made
Colombia one of the most
business-friendly countries in Latin
America,” reports The Economist. In
short, Colombia’s new Development
Plan is familiar, old neo-liberalism.
Judging from his campaign remarks,
Martelly’s regime will look a lot
like Santos’. The Plaid Avenger blogger
sums up Santos as
“conservative right, pro-military,
pro-police, pro-security,” as
“essentially continuing all of the
policies of ... Alvaro Uribe,” as
“pro-US, and trade/aid ties will likely
expand in his tenure,” while
concluding that “Santos does not get
along well with the leftist
leaders of his neighborhood; Venezuela
and Ecuador.”
If Martelly is “a Uribe” or “a Santos,”
it could spell trouble for
various cooperation agreements Haiti has
with Venezuela and Cuba, that
were initiated by the governments of
current President René Préval and
former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
These agreements include the
deployment throughout Haiti of hundreds
of Cuban and Cuban-trained
doctors and other medical personnel,
training of Haitian medical
students at Cuban schools, Cuba’s
modernization and support for a
major sugar mill, and Venezuela’s
building and modernization of power
stations and the Cap Haitien airport.
As if on cue, Haitians began noticing
U.S. soldiers around Haiti in
the days leading up to Apr. 4, when the
results of the U.S.-sponsored
and directed elections were announced.
Then, after the deployment, the
U.S. Embassy announced “the recent
arrival of the first soldiers of
Task Force Bon Voizen, deployed as part
of the humanitarian mission
New Horizons 2011.” (Fittingly, the
Embassy misspelled the Kreyòl
term, Bon Vwazen, meaning “good
neighbor.”)
The Embassy said that “these
humanitarian soldiers... will be in the
area of Cité Soleil and Saint Marc to
make the logistical preparations
before going to their base in Mandrin,
in the Artibonite Department.”
Meanwhile, in his press conference,
Martelly asserted that the UN
military occupation known as MINUSTAH
“will continue to accompany us
in providing security.”
Martelly claimed that “it was us, the
Haitian people, who made this
victory by voting 67.57%” for him. In
reality, no more than 16.7% of
Haiti’s electorate voted for Martelly
because of a grassroots boycott
of the election, combined with
generalized voter disgust and
alienation about the flawed and
non-inclusive polling. Over 75% of
Haitian voters abstained.
Thus, his words rang hollow when
Martelly asserted that “we have been
mandated by the population to do a job.”
And what is that job?
“To change our political practices, our
political choices, and our
social organization,” Martelly said.
Given his record, such pronouncements
are ominous. As Time’s Tim
Padgett noted, “many of Martelly's
supporters are (...) too young to
remember the early 1990s, when he was an
avid supporter of a brutal
military coup that overthrew a
democratically elected President. It
was also a period when Martelly seemed
to have formed the almost
megalomaniacal self-image that has many
wondering if Haiti has picked
a reliable democrat or a reckless
demagogue to oversee the
reconstruction of the western
hemisphere's poorest country.”
Many Haitians would respond that they
did not “pick” Martelly. He is
being installed, they would argue,
through an illegal U.S.-sponsored
“selection.” This is why many expect him
not to be a courageous leader
of the Haitian people, but rather
Washington’s lackey, “a Uribe.”
MARTELLY’S HISTORICALLY WEAK MANDATE
by the Center for Economic and Policy
Research
Preliminary results announced by Haiti’s
Provisional Electoral Council
(CEP) on Apr. 4 showed Michel “Sweet
Micky” Martelly with 67.6% of the
vote, while Mirlande Manigat received
31.5%. While news headlines
focus on the “landslide” victory for
Martelly, he actually received
the support of only 16.7% of registered
voters – far from a strong
mandate – as early reports show Martelly
with just 716,986 votes to
Manigat’s 336,747. Reports indicate that
turnout was even lower than
in the first round, when it was a
historically low 22.8%, and
Martelly’s percentage of votes (as well
as Manigat’s) would have been
even smaller were it not for the use of
new electoral lists which
removed some 400,000 people from the
rolls. [The OAS suspiciously
directed the CEP to reduce the
electorate estimate from 4.71 million
to about 4.29 million three days after
the poorly attended Mar. 20
polling. - HL]
Nevertheless, media reports have largely
ignored the issue of turnout.
AOL’s Emily Troutman reported last night
that “Martelly's 67% of the
vote is nearly unprecedented in Haiti
and a clear mandate for his
leadership.” Not only is the 67% number
misleading in terms of his
overall support, it is also far from
unprecedented (as other
reporters, like Tim Padgett of Time,
have also stated). In 1990,
Aristide was elected with 67% of the
vote, but with significantly
higher turnout. Aristide received over
one million votes in 1990 even
though there were over one million fewer
registered voters at the
time. In 1995, Preval was elected with
over 87% of the vote. In 2000,
Aristide received over 3.5 times as many
votes as Martelly did in the
runoff elections last month. Even
Préval’s most recent term began in
2006 with a greater mandate than
Martelly’s; in 2006, he received
nearly one million votes with 700,000
fewer registered voters.
It is also worth noting that the
electoral process has been deeply
flawed from the beginning. Despite an
aggressive and expensive
get-out-the-vote campaign from the UN
and U.S., the second round
suffered from many of the same problems
as the first: low turnout and
a high number of irregularities. The
legality of the second round
remains in doubt given that a majority
of the CEP’s members appear
never to have verified the first round
results.
There were also widespread
irregularities in the Mar. 20 elections.
Although the US issued an Apr. 4
statement saying that irregularities
“were isolated and reduced”, some 15% of
the tally sheets were
quarantined from preliminary results due
to fraud or other
irregularities. This is a greater
portion excluded than in the first
round, and represents over 100,000
votes.
It is clear that a candidate that won
only 4.6% of the electorate in
the first round and 16.7% in the second
round does not have a strong
mandate to rule. In such a context, one
would hope that Martelly
would seek to work with civil society
and with his political
opponents, especially those that were
arbitrarily excluded from the
elections like former President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s Fanmi
Lavalas, Haiti’s largest party.
Ever since the earthquake, Haitians have
reached across political
lines to join each other in the urgent
tasks of helping their
neighbors to rebuild their communities,
and their nation. The
continued political marginalization of
parties and groups that are
supported by Haiti’s majority can only
detract from the critical tasks
at hand.
HAITI’S
ARMY RE-MOBILIZING
by Isabeau Doucet
Haiti’s President-elect Michel “Sweet
Micky” Martelly campaigned on
the promise to restore the nation’s army
which former President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide “demobilized” in
1995. But even before
Martelly’s inauguration on May 14, the
Haitian Army – known as the
Forces Armées d’Haiti or FAdH – has been
training at camps around
Haiti.
One can see this at FAdH camp, No. 7,
Lambi 12, Grande Saline, on the
southern outskirts of the capital,
Port-au-Prince.
On a hillside by the sea, past crumpled
houses and a graveyard, some
150 former military and young recruits
train three times a week. They
say they are part of a network of camps
all over the country training
Haitians in military salutes, marches,
tactics, swimming and karate.
Their uniforms are hand-painted FAdH
logos on old t-shirts. No weapons
are in sight.
They say they intend to bring security
to Haiti as first responders in
times of crisis and hope to soon be
employed.
The black and red flag instituted as
Haiti’s under the father-to-son
dictatorships of Francois and
Jean-Claude Duvalier (1957-1986) hangs
in their tarpaulin dressing room flanked
by old paintings of founding
fathers Henry Christophe and
Jean-Jacques Dessalines. They all say
they voted for Martelly and claim he
visited the camp. This is quite
possible; Martelly has always been close
to Haiti’s soldiers, having
been a (failed) cadet himself.
The prospect of an army career, with its
training, uniforms, and
stable employment, is surely enticing to
young people frustrated by
the seven-year presence of UN occupation
troops, known as MINUSTAH.
Canada has invested over $555 million in
Haiti between 2006 to 2011,
much of it in training and strengthening
Haiti’s National Police
(PNH). But “the police force does not
receive a military training”
says Aubain Larose, Sergeant
spokesperson for this FAdH camp. “Every
time a policeman stops a criminal,
there’s another criminal that comes
and frees him. The police serve
criminals, and when they don’t, they
get shot. As military men we say we
can’t accept that the country
function like this.”
It’s not clear why Haiti would need an
army. It is neither a threat
nor threatened (if you don’t count the
three U.S. interventions into
the country in 1915, 1994, and 2004).
Haiti Progres director Ben
Dupuy, raised in a military family, is
critical of the FAdH’s past
role. “We have to remember that the
Haitian army was the creation of
the US Army, in fact the Marine corps,”
he said. “The US occupied
Haiti for 19 years” and the army served
as “a kind of a local proxy
army for the US. In fact, they played
more of a political role
creating coups d’états.”
FAdH officers carried out the 1991 coup
against Aristide, and
demobilized soldiers joined with former
death-squad paramilitaries to
constitute the 300 or so “rebels” that
overran Northern Haiti in the
weeks leading up to Aristide’s second
overthrow on Feb. 29, 2004.
Since then, the “rebels” were put out to
pasture, and Haiti has been
militarily occupied by UN troops despite
posing no threat to
international peace.
When asked about the crimes against
humanity of which the FAdH and
Duvalier’s Tonton Macoutes stand
accused, Pierre Jeans Rigaud, a
26-year-old recruit and diplomacy
student, shrugged. He said he is too
young to have proof of that, but
questioned the legal immunity of UN
troops. Last August, “on the military
base in Cap Haitien they
tortured a young Haitian boy, the
MINUSTAH soldiers did, and then the
threw him out dead,” he said. “To this
day, there had been no follow
up investigation on the torture that
caused his death. We don’t have
this in our army.”
The outgoing government of President
René Préval has turned a blind
eye to the camps of former and possibly
future Haitian soldiers. The
PNH Director General, Mario Andrésol,
said he was not aware of the
group and doubted they were part of the
former military, saying they
were probably private security companies
or charlatans tricking young
people into hoping for a job. “Did you
ask to see their military
badge?” he responded. “Anyone can print
FAdH on an old T-shirt, it
doesn’t mean anything.” But he promised
to investigate further.
Likewise, Aramick Louis, the secretary
of state for public security
declined to comment directly when told
about the camps. He said only
that “the army and police are republican
institutions that have
hierarchy and take orders from the head
of state. I don’t know what’s
going on there, but if it’s not in
accordance with the law and the
state, I have no comment.”
It’s not clear where the funding for the
camps is coming from.
Although they claim to all be
volunteers, the military trainers and
trainees have funds for a dentist, a
doctor, a hill, staff and tents
(which they claim were donated by the
Haitian government).
Will the Haitian army be resurrected as
Martelly promised on the
campaign trail? The would-be soldiers at
FAdh Camp No. 7 are certainly
counting on it.
All articles copyrighted Haiti Liberte.
REPRINTS ENCOURAGED.
Please credit Haiti Liberte.
|
|
