Dear Editor,
This letter is based on the conviction that persons interested in Haiti’s outcomes should not stop making comments and offering suggestions in public to those charged in what has been called the transition. I continue this process in this spirit, which is intended as a contribution to a healthy outcome. From all appearances, the presidential council, so-called, has been appointed by CARICOM in consultation with whom I do not know. From what I can see, it is a narrow council and is not supported by a broader body to get responses from a wider cross-section of Haitians as possible. This is a severe weakness in the process that will affect the outcomes.
It appears that the core group has pre-decided some of the most important conditions of the process. In doing this, it took authority that amounted to sovereignty over the people. I refer particularly to the condition that no organization, party, or grouping could be a member of the presidential council unless it first agreed, apparently unconditionally, to the presence of an already chosen multinational force to operate in Haiti. This is an unfortunate precondition because the presence of a multinational armed force goes against the feelings of most Haitians, who have endured far too much armed intervention for one lifetime.
This objection to a large multinational force, which I share with the people of Haiti, is an objection only to the armed forces. While objecting to yet another armed force from outside that will have the potential, as in the past, to leave Haiti in a worse condition than it was on their arrival, I do not object to non-Haitian expertise from social justice groups and in peacekeeping, and with experience in dealing with similar conditions in various parts of the world. There are several experts who can be of great service to all classes of Haitians in their efforts to bring things back to normal, and I believe that such groups should be engaged as consultants.
The core group has remained active in the nation’s affairs for over twenty years. Its accomplishments, attempts, and initiatives should be made known to the public far more than they are made known now. Assuming the best intentions, which is my recommendation that the core group can play an influential role in convincing one of its members, France, to repay the ransom it levied on the new Haitian Republic soon after its independence, a ransom which can be imagined severely crippled aspects of social, human, and economic development for the Haitians.
The centuries-long struggle to recover this ransom can, in the opinion of many, help reunite Haitians and erode many of the artificial factions and barriers that have arisen because of protracted occupation and direct and indirect foreign domination. The core group can convince or negotiate with others at the same time the crisis persists, in accepting refugees from Haiti in all available spaces, avoiding the suggestion from the USA that they wanted to use Guantanamo Bay as a base for refugees from Haiti. The present generation certainly has some memory of what the Haitians had to suffer and endure when they elected a patriotic and humanist government two or three decades ago. These recommendations are offered for public consumption.
Sincerely,
Eusi Kwayana
