Did Aristide really resign?

FULL STORY

Did Aristide really resign?
Wednesday, May 13th 2009


The Express continues publication of excerpts from the recently published book, An Encounter with Haiti, by former ambassador Reginald Dumas who served as the UN secretary general's special adviser to Haiti for six months in 2004. An Encounter with Haiti is his account of that experience.


Aristide insists that he did not resign as President of Haiti; he merely passed over to the USA a "written note". The USA and France, and now nearly all of the international community, say he did resign. What does the document that everyone, including Aristide, agrees he signed in fact tell us?

The first thing that strikes one is that the document is a neatly typed Creole text on plain paper, without any official letterhead at all. What appears above the text is simply the name "Jean-Bertrand Aristide". It can, and will, of course be argued that a resignation by a person from a post, whether in the public or the private sector, does not have to appear on the relevant organization's stationery to be considered valid. Perhaps, but it is nonetheless odd that a presidential resignation should be so casually given.

Aristide's reference to a "written note" now becomes clear.

More important, however, is the text itself. Aristide is well known for the often deliberate imprecision of his language, and a crucial part of this letter is an excellent example of that honed attribute of his. Having assured us of his continuing respect for the Haitian Constitution, he continues in his second paragraph: "Se pou sa, si aswè a se demisyon m ki pou evite yon beny san, M aksepte ale ak espwa va gen lavi e non lanmò."

The English translation of those words that was presented to the international community was this: "For that reason, tonight I am resigning in order to avoid a bloodbath. I accept to leave, with the hope that there will be life and not death." But this translation is inaccurate, I now believe deliberately so, in one vital aspect.

The literal translation is: "That is why, if this evening it is my resignation that can avoid a bloodbath, I agree to go in the hope that there will be life and not death." It is clear that, contrary to what the international community was told, Aristide never used the words "I am resigning." To arrive at that version, the translator had to split one of Aristide's sentences in two and put in his text words and sentiments he never expressed. There is a term for that kind of creativity.

But here again it will be argued that even if Aristide did not say "I am resigning", his agreement to go was tantamount to a resignation. After all,

the agreement was tied to a possible recognition, however reluctant, that his resignation could - not would - avoid a bloodbath.

That position will be countered by Aristide supporters and Aristide himself: the use of the word "if" limpidly suggests that he was not at all persuaded that his departure would indeed ward off bloodshed. Further, there is an unavoidable indication that this was the thesis being pressed on him to get him out, and that, faced with the absence of viable options, he had no choice but to yield. He was leaving Haiti under duress, he wasn't necessarily leaving the presidency. Did a plain-paper "note" mean he was stepping down? For him, surely not.

There is another possible explanation. Aristide may have conceded he was cornered and had run out of viable options. He may even, as the USA insists, have approached the Americans on his own initiative and asked for their help in leaving. But, master of obfuscation as always, he had left behind a plain-paper document formulated in language capable of more than one interpretation, thus permitting him the political flexibility he enjoys to this day.

Which still leaves the question: why was the international community given a translation of Aristide's parting words which is so patently untrue?

I don't need to answer.

Continues tomorrow


Part proceeds from the sale of An Encounter with Haiti will go to the Medianet Haiti Relief Fund. Direct

contributions to the fund can be made through Republic Bank account

number 180480580401.

Does it really matter now after 5 years?Who cares?No matrer what Aristide says ,the fact remains that he was prepared to leave when the soldiers entered the family's mansion.A President does not leave his country under stress.Aristide must recognize his weakness and bear the responsibility of his lack of courage.

Aristide is not the only haitian President who was receiving threats of assassination from the superpowers.Duvalier also was persecuted by the United States at a certain time,he resisted .Thus, for Aristide to say that they kidnaped him is just an excuse.He wanted to leave.

With this kind of logic Sans Malice, when Hugo Chavez ended up, in 2002, like Aristide, spending 20 hours in the air - in the midst of a coup attempt, we could conclude "to say that they kidnaped him is just an excuse.He wanted to leave".

Remember, just as they did for Aristide in 2004, in 2002 Bush's Aunt Jemima went on TV to claim that the coup was Chavez' fault. He had it coming.

I understand your desire to protray yourself as an independent thinker - since anyone who has not joined the coup apologists are sometimes painted as stooges or employees or brainswashed or fanatik of Aristide. But, there are some things in life that are dead wrong. A bloody coup d'etat is one of them. The fact thatr powerful governments were involved in the coup. The fact that they had enough political, economic and media power to continue to blame the victims (notice the plural) 5 years after the crime, does not mean we need to bend over backwards to pretend to be "objective". wHEN IT COMES TO CRIMES OF MASS DESTRUCTION (coup d'etat etc...) I am not "objective". I stand against the criminals - always. The coup was, is and will always be CRIMINAL. And yes, some of the criminals are named Guy Phillip, Ravix Remissainte, André Apaid. Some are Haitian, some are American. Some are named George Bush, jacques Chirac and some are French.....All of them are criminals!

jaf

I am not condoning the coup d'etat.I am against the interference of one coutry in the internal affairs of another . I said: Arsitide is also responsible for his demise.Fool me once the fault is yours ,fool me twice the fault is mine.Long before the entry of the rebels into the country Aristide knew that Georges Bush was preparing the coup ;what did he do?Bush told him in Mexico :"You have the last chance."Do you think after such an insult Fidel Castro would be in conversation with the U.S. ambassador in Havana while the rebels were entering the suburbs of the capital?

It is not a desire to be an independent thinker ,it is rather the recognition that Arisitde has many good qualities as a human being ,but he doesn't have the maturity and the courage to be President of a country like haiti.On two occasions he is reponsible for the killings of the poors in the slums of port-au-prince because of his lack of courage to confront his adversaries.There is no such thing as a pacific revolution.Changes don't come easy;you have to be able to stand-up to defend your right.Do you remember what Michael Gorbachev told his captors who had asked him to resign:"Go to hell"Where did Allende die?Where was Fidel Castro during the bay of pigs invasion of his country?Where was Daniel Ortega during the contra attacks in Nicaragua?Don't tell me that Aristide and his followers could not arrest Guy Phillipe and his soldiers.