Feb 20
I shall begin by explaining the reason why I do not support the idea of a petition demanding France to repay the indemnity ($21 billion at current prices) it extorted from Haiti in the 19th century as the price of French recognition of Haitiian independence. Firstly, such a petition is not at all new….
Hi Mervyn:
An interesting contribution to this discussion.
Thanks
Very good piece, Mr Claxton. Your views move us away from what has become an instinctive blame-game and take us into the arena of being more responsible for ourselves as Caribbean people. My latest blog entry looks at the issue from the perspective of the continued irrelevance of the Caricom process which is increasingly finding succour in the notion of some kind of historical entitlement –
http://www.wesleygibbings.blogspot.com
Dear Mervyn et al
Mervyn’s email is such a breath of fresh air. I feel exactly the same way as he does. I do not agree with the prioritising of the French indemnity issue either but just like Mervyn I didn’t want to pour cold water on this rare expression of concern about Haiti. There are many things to say about this campaign and indeed the cancel the debt campaign but I will only say this – the problems that the poor majority in Haiti face will not be resolved by money. If France repays the 19th century indemnity and if the IFIs cancel the debt, then all well and good but ultimately all this will mean is that the government of the day will have more money to play with. Again we will have top-down solutions to problems that can only be resolved by the base, by the people organising themselves and changing the whole structure of the country. It is only the painstaking and difficult work of mobilising the people to take control of their destiny that will produce real possibilities for change. Only by supporting grassroots initiatives to empower the poor majority in Haiti can those of us outside Haiti make any real difference.
Charles
Dear Mervyn, Wesley and Charles,
Why are agriculturally driven development, taking responsibility and empowering the population alternatives to restitution? Why can”™t they all go together? I don”™t know anyone who is proposing that Caricom should simply support the restitution claim and forget about everything else. Nor that it should be given priority over other acts of solidarity. Our letter to PJ Patterson shortly after the earthquake contained detailed proposals for empowering Haitian themselves to undertake the tasks of relief and reconstruction. Restitution was not even mentioned. Is this prioritising restitution? Several of us who signed the petition initiated by Rickey Singh are simultaneously involved in delivering needed supplies to people in Haiti, in fund raising and publicity for organisations in Haiti that aim to empower the population, and in lobbying Caricom governments to support the needs that Haitians themselves identify.
Mervyn has made some additional suggestions which I think deserve serious consideration. Where I differ from him is that I don’t see these proposals, valuable as they are, as an alternative to restitution. The historical evidence to support the claim is simply too overwhelming to ignore. And yes, I believe that Haitians do have an entitlement to the resources that they need to rebuild and embark on sustainable development; for they and their ancestors have paid for them many times over.
On the matter of whether it is Haitians or outsiders who are driving this claim, let is remember that it originated with the Haitian government itself, back in 2003; when then President Aristide set up a Restitution Commission and presented the claim to France. It went so far as the French Government setting up commission under Regis Debray, which, predictably, reported that the claim was without merit. Media reports indicate that Sarcozy was confronted with the demand by demonstrators on his visit to Haiti just a few days ago (February 18). He was even asked about it at the Press Conference. Media reports also quote Camille Chalmers, coordinator of PAPDA, as supporting restitution during the visit of Sarcozy. Chalmers is a leading campaigner for agriculturally driven development and popular empowerment; and he has been a leading critic of Aristide in the past. So this is not about pursuing one at the expense of the other; or about whether we support Aristide or not.
Finally, no one expects that France will give in to this demand without a struggle. But the same argument could be used against many of the things that we have been campaigning for. You have to start somewhere.
Regards, Norman
Yes I agree with Norman’s position the issues are not mutually exclusive nor will they ever be until full restitution has been made and we may have moved on to a new world order whereby we are able to pursue the activities for a higher level of human development in peace and free from hunger, war and strife.
We must remember that powerful people have a prototype for a new world order which does not really include us, the relative powerless. So we must refine and use the power that we have to carve out a future for ourselves and not continue to be influenced and contained by the defined prescriptions of the powerful, their gradualist approach to change and development, advocated by their funding of NGO’s and other piece-meal strategies.
For what it was worth look how “quickly” Sarkozy et al were in Haiti promising to forgive existing debt; build a new office for the government – of course, look how much cheaper this is than dealing with the real issue and did they not take Aristide from his home at gunpoint over this before?
Mervyn Claxton’s point however shows up the futility of signed petitions, commissions of enquiry and other strategies once there is no continual follow-up and agitation to bring the issues to prominence and closure. We must take a page out of the Jewish political manual, identify the culprits and those in charge and expose them. Nazi officers from the holocaust were found and so I suppose it was easier to prosecute them personally and also based upon evidence to go to Switzerland and elsewhere to reclaim their money. Columbus, Ferdinand, Isabella and queen Elizabeth I may have died long ago but their heirs and successors are alive and well, so well, that we still swear allegiance to them in many cases rather than pursuing restitution.
The American Indian is almost extinct but today the young Indian lawyers are reclaiming their heritage and wealth through the courts and the congress – with success.
My view is that the fundamental issue of restitution/reclamation/reparations/repatriation for the world’s victims has already become a major issue, just like world poverty, hunger, crime and economic distortion and they are all related. We can’t move away from this reality, what kind of future would there be, if any, if we do?
The movement needs cohesion and linkages to become more meaningful and current. To even hesitate on this is to slide back to the bottom of the hill and perhaps not have the energy to climb up again.
Secondly, the issue of Haiti and of slave reparations be taken ( appropriately not necessarily all together) to the International Court of Justice and/or a special sitting of the UN and wherever necessary to draw world attention, again and again.
Thirdly, the pressure must be continually put on political & institutional leaders that are placed in a position to deal with these issues – Sarkozy, Obama, Brown, Caricom, Canada, Patterson, Golding, Preval, in the current case of Haiti. The French may very well be what they are but what they are also are a group of ruthless imperialists as you all know, who supply weapons and poison to world leaders to kill their own people if necessary in the interest of french economic advancement.
For Caribbean people now Haiti is the shining star in a display of political and economic backwardness largely brought on by some of the worst type of politics and political leaders to be found anywhere – corrupt and incompetent to the core. We are to be blamed because we have sat here and allowed this rot to set in. We can’t change Haiti nor France nor Jamaica with the same ol same ol strategy. Luckily I see the doors opening as we approach the point of no return from the problems in Jamaica & Caricom , let’s use thje opening.
Lastly Norman, you need to read the editorial in the Daily Observer of Thursday February 18. its all part of the story.
Mervyn, I agree with you almost completely. As a naturalist, however, I would suggest caution in promoting the planting of non-native, potentially invasive species of plants such as neem that have acquired almost mythical status as “miracle” plants. Neem is an invasive species that has been banned in many tropical countries due to its impact on native vegetation. Haiti has / had a rich and varied flora and fauna, which ought to be considered in the formulation of natural resource management strategies for the days ahead.
Wendy
The argument for restitution is morally strong but I agree with Mervyn’s position for several reasons.
1 It distracts attention away from the key point which is the need to listen to the Haitian people and their articulation of their priorities. The call for restitution is not being heard now as a strong call from Haitian people themselves.
1. Because of the urban devastation, the rural voices have gained greater leverage and their bargaining position is strengthened.
2. A massive infusion of money or commensurate resources pumped into Haiti by the French is likely to give the French and the external agencies even greater political leverage and reinforce the dominant external power dynamic.
3. It is also likely to restore the power and credibility of the existing present elite who will once again define the agenda with their external allies.
4. This is different from complete debt forgiveness which will remove the present onerous burden of debt repayment. Politically and practically I feel that this is the call which should be married with Mervyn’s propositions.