And this seems to be Aristide's gamble. He knows that the agreement he has signed is exactly what the United States wants. But, on the evidence of his declarations in the newspaper Haiti Progrès (March 4-10, 1992), he believes that his return to the national palace will expand the area of liberty, and that the popular movement will be able to progressively transform the relation of forces. Perhaps he also believes that the contradictions of the agreement and the diverse interpretations to which it is open will be the occasion for mobilizations around concrete objectives. It seems then that, for Aristide, the concessions that he has made are complementary to the appeal that he launched some weeks earlier to the Haitian people: "I ask you to hoist the flag of resistance higher, higher and ever higher"
Disorientation and consensus
Is this tactic, whose first effect was the disorientation of numerous partisans of Aristide, realistic? This disorientation may well deepen in the face of a government of "national consensus " directed by Theodore and presided over by Aristide. It might be feared that once more he is overestimating his own capacities of initiative and underestimating the obstacle represented by the army. Aristide has committed the error of polarizing the debate around the question of the fate of Cédras, saying that even if God was the president of Haiti, with Cédras there would be no democracy"
The truth is that, even without Cédras, even with some changes at its head, even if efforts are made to "professionalize" it, as the agreement states, or else divide it, this army of murderers will still remain determined to defend the same interests.
There will be no democracy in Haiti unless this army is opposed by an organized people disposing of the means to defend itself. It is a lesson that the September 30 coup d'état has written in letters of blood. *
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
Aristide's gamble
----- photo credits and running heads -----
9
Capitalism without
International Viewpoint # 225 • March 30, 1992 their clients' interests. Banks can use confidential knowledge about companies to gain ownership through their IPFs, or issue undeclared loans to enterprises where they own shares. Managers of state enterprises can use their enterprises funds to build parallel empires for themselves and their friends. Among the