Letter to the Editor re: Death Threats against Lancet's Haiti Human Rights Investigator

In the article, “Death Threats against Lancet’s Haiti Human Rights Investigator” by Jeb Sprague and Joe Emersberger (September 11, 2006), in CounterPunch, it was said, “Also affiliated with the Haiti Support Group, the Batay Ouvriye (BO) who called for Aristide to "leave the country" is the recent recipient of $450000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).”

http://counterpunch.org/sprague09112006.html

In only one sentence, the duo “journalists” misled the readers with three blatant lies:

1)     Batay Ouvriye is “affiliated” with the Haiti Support Group

2)     Batay Ouvriye called for Aristide to “leave the country”

3)     Batay Ouvriye is the recent recipient of $450,000 USD in NED and State Department programs through the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS).

I)                   The relationship between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group is a relation of Solidarity and not “affiliation”. It is clear that Sprague and Emesberger are unable to decipher the difference between those two concepts. Solidarity is a process of showing support through concrete practices and actions politically, socially, ideologically and/or materially. Affiliation is a totally different concept depicting an organic association between two or more entities. It suggests an internal structure for decision-making for practices and actions. This does not exist between Batay Ouvriye and the Haiti Support Group. By using this term so loosely in the article, Jeb and Emesberger knowingly and consciously misled your readers.

II)                Batay Ouvriye explained in how many ways already that, yes, it criticized the Aristide government because this government was truly a reactionary, pro-imperialist, and anti-worker government (http://www.batayouvriye.org/). As a working-class movement, Batay Ouvriye knew the ground very well and also knew the practices of lavalas against the working-class. In Haiti, the mass media did not make any noise about what lavalas was doing to organized independent and combative workers throughout the country from 1994 to 2004. CIMO, the police SWAT Team, under Aristide’s control, was often called by the bosses to crack down on workers in factories. Bosses also often called on Aristide’s chimeres to crack down on workers in factories. The media only gave news about the struggles within the ruling classes for power. The downfall of Aristide and his Fanmi Lavalas Party government was part and parcel of these struggles within the reactionary and pro-imperialist Haitian Ruling Classes. This suggests clearly that Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas was reactionary and pro-imperialist. U.S. progressives only remember Aristide as this slum priest, a leader of the poor Haitians who used to blast imperialism. They don’t know about Aristide’s transformation over the years into a pro-imperialist bourgeois.  Both camps in the ruling classes, the Aristide camp and the Apaid/Group 184 camp, in 2003 and 2004, called for the imperialist occupation of Haiti. Therefore, Batay Ouvriye in its analysis of the situation, at different moments, let it be known that it didn’t make a difference for the workers whether Aristide left power or not.  The workers would still have to deal with the same reactionaries. Further, Batay Ouvriye has affirmed that both reactionary camps are two sides of the same coin. Omitting all the facts in this context is also very misleading for your readers.

III)              Although in many instances, Batay Ouvriye always affirmed that it will accept any financial support regardless of where it comes from, it did not receive the alleged $450,000 USD from the NED/US State Department/Solidarity Center. It is not true. It is clearly false. Sprague and Emesberger would have to prove that.

  In their article, they insinuated that Batay Ouvriye is on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center. Such an accusation is gratuitous and absolutely unnecessary. There is a major difference/contrast between an organization or movement that accepts financial contributions from any sources and an organization or movement that is on the payroll of a given government or governments. To confuse the two is unconscionable, parasitic, opportunistic, and misleading. Batay Ouvriye had already said what amounts it accepted long ago. Batay Ouvriye is not, cannot be, and has absolutely no interest in being on the payroll of the NED/State Department/Solidarity Center or any other reactionary and imperialist institution or government. The facts on the ground are proving the assumptions of Jeb Sprague wrong. Jeb Sprague is exploiting people’s limited knowledge of the workers’ struggles to spread disinformation. Batay Ouvriye is the only independent and combative workers’ movement in Haiti. Again, Jeb Sprague and Joe Emesberger use, in an opportunistic way, an occurrence to deface and smear the only genuine independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. In this instance, Sprague and Emesberger’s practices are also very misleading.

 To continue to attack Batay Ouvriye in an article that has nothing to do with the Workers’ Movement proves to me that Jeb Sprague is part of a reactionary propaganda machine whose goal is to target the workers’ movement in the interest of the reactionary Haitian ruling classes and imperialism. These are the forces that will benefit wholly in the event that the Workers’ Movement is tarnished in the eyes of the progressive international solidarity movement. And this is key. The perpetrators are cleverly playing on progressives’ feelings in a carefully-crafted and very sophisticated seemingly international pro-Aristide campaign to absolve and uplift the reactionary Fanmi Lavalas Party and Aristide and silence the Workers’ Movement at the same time. One of the objectives of this campaign which is an effort to try to isolate Batay Ouvriye is not to be taken lightly. We really need to ask ourselves the very critical question: ‘Why is Jeb Sprague and co doing this? What forces does this controversy Jeb Sprague is feeding benefit? It is not the Haitian Workers, absolutely! It would be really interesting to find out who’s really behind these imposters.

 Personally, I do not have a problem if Batay Ouvriye grabs a tool or money from the enemy to advance its struggles. It is controversial in the sense that other progressives would not be comfortable with that because, it seems, their only criterion to distinguish the good from the bad is “not to take anything from the enemy”. This logic is too simplistic. Jeb Sprague is exploiting this soft area as much as possible. However, the reality is more complex and hard core. Instead, in that complexity, the only criterion that truly serves the interests of the workers’ movement is really the concrete independent and combative practices and actions in the struggles of the movement on the ground that can be documented and proven. The Haitian Workers Solidarity Movement does not have adequate means to put the word out quickly enough. We need international support to do this. With that in mind, I am sure and certain that genuine progressives would quickly realize that, yes, Batay Ouvriye remains the only genuine, independent and combative Workers’ Movement in Haiti. And this one, and only one criterion, is the only cure that will protect them from Jeb Sprague’s (and co) pro-Aristide, pro-imperialist, misleading and anti-worker venom.

Please publish this letter in close proximity with Jeb Sprague’s and Joe Emesberger’s article of September 11, 2006. Thank you in advance.

 Mario Pierre

September 13, 2006