Time for Caribbean Leadership to Speak Up on Haiti

April 11, 2013
NACLA.org

In the most trying of times, it is often said that it becomes much easier to tell real friends from the fake. Since the announcement by United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon, claiming that the U.N. has legal immunity when it comes to their role in introducing cholera to the country, the Haitian people are currently learning that, outside of Cuba, even supportive words are hard to come by within the rest of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).

By now it has become widely accepted that the U.N. was responsible for introducing cholera into Haiti during October 2010 via negligent screening protocols and waste management at their base in Mirebalais. Prior to the arrival of the U.N. troops in Mirebalais, Haiti had not suffered an outbreak of cholera in their recorded history. Numerous independent medical studies have established that Nepalese troops were the source of the outbreak—with this much being admitted by U.N. Special Envoy for Haiti Bill Clinton of all people. Despite the evidence and high-level admissions of guilt, the U.N. is covering itself by invoking Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the U.N.

While CARICOM is far from being the most influential player in global politics, in a situation such as this their words can still have a great deal of power and importance. A statement of solidarity in condemnation of the lack of accountability and respect shown by the U.N. in Haiti would at least make it clear that they do not accept one of their members being treated in such a manner. As it currently stands, it is impossible to tell one way or the other what the 15 member nations of CARICOM think. Without exaggerating, in this case, their silence is indeed deadly.

In an interview with the Guardian, Nicole Phillips of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti put things into a sobering perspective, reminding readers that almost three times as many people had died in the continuing cholera crisis as in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Yet there has been no announcement or official statement on behalf of CARICOM calling on the U.N. to take responsibility and rectify the situation, which has claimed the lives of more than 8,300 people so far.

The most vocal critic within the region has been former Jamaican Prime Minster P.J. Patterson, who remarked that “It is simply appalling, a most reprehensible behavior . . . for the UN to claim such immunity. . . . The more so when scientific evidence substantiates that the cholera epidemic was originally introduced in Haiti at the time by peace-keeping soldiers (from Nepal) under U.N. command.”

Whether it comes from the mouth of Haiti’s Michel Martelly, who is currently acting as the head of CARICOM, Jamaican Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller, or the leaders involved in the anti-imperialist ALBA bloc such as Roosevelt Skerrit, Ralph Gonsalves or Baldwin Spencer—the leadership of the Caribbean must speak up for Haiti.

This is not to say that CARICOM has not taken important stands to speak out against injustice in the past. Indeed, CARICOM has come out before and strongly condemned the 2009 coup in Honduras, denounced the 2004 overthrow of Aristide, and continually denounces the U.S. blockade against Cuba. The question is, why the silence on the U.N.’s role in bringing cholera to Haiti?

It is not as if the U.N. does not have money to fund the proposed initiative to combat cholera. Instead, they are choosing to spend it in incredibly problematic ways. The most prominent example being that the current military operation of the U.N. in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, has an annual budget of nearly $700,000,000. If this money from the U.N. were redirected towards a war on eradicating cholera, it would start to save lives instead of taking them. As such, CARICOM shouldn’t want to be remembered for staying silent during such an important moment.

Capitalism as usual: Why RBC's outsourcing isn't really a surprise

April 9, 2013
Rabble.ca

Sunday's revelation that the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) will be bringing in "temporary guest workers" to replace some of its Canadian employees captured headlines, sparking outrage and surprise, and leading many to threaten a bank boycott and move their accounts elsewhere.

The outrage is certainly understandable -- as one would think that RBC, with its more than $2 billion in first quarter profits, could afford to retain these workers -- but the surprise isn't.

 Without being condescending, I have five words for those who greeted this news with disbelief and shock: this is how capitalism works. Or, as RBC CEO Gord Nixon recently wrote in a more sanitized and politically correct manner, it simply falls in line with the bank’s dedicated commitment to "operational effectiveness."

Before proceeding any further, it is important to inject into this conversation -- which can quickly descend into xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, is that it is not the "temporary guest workers" which are the problem -- it is solely government and corporate policy which is at fault.

It was been recently confirmed that it was the federal government which gave the nod to RBC's plans to shift towards the hiring of guest workers by granting it a "positive labour market opinion."

The statements given by RBC CEO Gord Nixon and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada Minister Diane Finley have both put forward a particular policy loophole which might allow RBC to be let off the hook. On paper, it was not RBC which arranged this change to temporary guest workers; instead, that was done by a U.S. based staffing agency, known as iGate, which, according to its website, specializes in "strategic outsourcing solutions" that help companies reduce costs.

Whether it is called "operational effectiveness" or "strategic outsourcing," what is happening at RBC is not a new phenomenon, it is that the attack on Canadian workers has grown confident enough to begin attacking the jobs of information technology professionals.

With the signing of NAFTA it was blue collar, predominately unionized workers who were met with threats to accept less pay despite being more productive and profitable. Despite the impact that free trade has had on manufacturing it has been spun by the government and the media as the acceptable cost of doing business in the new global economy. There is more to it than that. While the high dollar has been often cited for accelerating the decline in manufacturing, this was not the case when a significant amount of jobs left during the years of the record low Canadian dollar from the mid-1990s well into the 2000s. It has been the ongoing policy of successive Canadian government to produce a flexible (aka non-unionized and cheap) labour force.

Despite having both qualified workers and profitable production in Canada, there has been an alarming erosion of manufacturing jobs -- with federal government statistics revealing that between 2000-2007 there was a loss of 278,000 manufacturing jobs. From October 2008 to October 2009 alone, there was a loss of 218,000 full time manufacturing positions.

The lack of organized public support from the non-unionized sectors for those manufacturing workers who continue to face everyday threats of outsourcing from profitable companies reveals a class bias which has been deeply ingrained into Canadian society and politics that must confronted. The problematic 'right to work' platform of Tim Hudak reveals that the conservatives have calculated (one hopes incorrectly) that a significant portion of Ontarians are in support of anti-union initiatives and putting wages which support a middle class standard of living out of reach.

In many ways, the growth of the "temporary guest worker" program is giving a new face to the exploitation of marginalized groups for the sake of maximizing already staggering corporate profits. In January it was revealed that Canadian corporations are sitting on $500 billion of corporate cash holdings -- but still continue to portray themselves as being victims of discriminatory labour and environmental policies. The recently passed Bill C-38 gutted Canada's environmental regulations, removing or reducing much needed protections for water, air and wildlife in order to boost corporate profits.

The latest jobs report from Statistics Canada highlighted the undeniable success of these regressive polices, revealing that employment within the low wage food service was the fastest growing sector in the Canadian economy. To add to the shedding of high paying manufacturing jobs for low paying service jobs, in April 2012 Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Human Resources Minister Diane Finlay announced the implementation of a two-tier wage system which would extend into the fast food service industries -- with "temporary guest workers" being paid 15 per cent less than Canadian citizens. These government policies have helped to put downward pressure on the wages of Canadian workers across the board.

In a sign of the times, even corporate Canadian donut icon Tim Horton's found itself in hot water, after being hit with a human rights complaints due to the mistreatment and exploitation their temporary guest workers. In the past it was the case that one's race or gender would bring lower wages for doing equal work (and in many cases it still does); now foreign workers are underpaid for doing the exact same work that was once done by Canadians. For years Canada has underpaid farm labourers from Latin America and the Caribbean, who pay into benefit systems they are not entitled to, face dangerous working conditions and often live in substandard housing.

Hopefully the RBC outsourcing has just revealed to the public that the labour flexibility policies pursued by the Canadian government seek to spare no sector -- whether in manufacturing, mining or information technology.

The Harper government is not interested in creating good jobs and strengthening the Canadian middle and working class; it is solely interested in maintaining record high corporate profits by further deregulating labour and environmental policies.

If there is any chance of reversing this trend of attacking workers by undercutting them at home and abroad, the outrage directed at RBC should not be an isolated incident, but instead be replicated at every single CEO and government enabler which seeks to bring about "operational effectiveness" by shedding much needed jobs to further bloat a very profitable bottom line.

If this is not the case, we can only expect more of the same to be on the way once the federal government finalizes and implements the Canada-China and Canada-EU free trade agreements.

Kevin Edmonds is a writer and activist based in Toronto.

From Bad to Worse: Canada’s Development Agenda in the Americas

March 28, 2013

NACLA.org

In the most recent Canadian budget, it was announced that the Canadian International Development Agency was being “modernized.” Going forward, CIDA will no longer function as a separate governmental agency, but instead it will be folded into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Shutting down an ineffective and often interventionist agency like CIDA would often be greeted with goodwill in progressive circles—especially due to its checkered history and limited success. However, one has to hand it to the Canadian government, who managed to shut down a poorly functioning agency only to replace it with something worse. This shift to “modernize” Canada’s development agency will now most certainly make it less transparent, democratic, and accountable. It also sets a regressive example for other governments to follow.
 
The “modernization” of Canada’s development agenda seeks to limit the amount of money spent on development or aid projects—and instead seeks to “promote private sector partnerships in development, in turn spurring business growth, creating jobs, and generating tax revenues that fund basic social services.” In many ways, as outlined in CIDA’s Sustainable Economic Growth Strategy, Canada is seeking to implement the underlying assumptions of trickle-down economics as their main tool in their international development toolbox. Given that Canada’s primary economic interests beyond its borders are related to the extraction of minerals, CIDA’s operations in both Honduras and Haiti highlight the darker side of the agency—and provide a troubling example of what might be expected under a developmental agenda driven by private investment.

The 2009 coup in Honduras was supported by Canada, as two of the key policies implemented by President Manuel Zelaya and the popular movement were to place a moratorium on the granting of new mining concessions and raising the minimum wage by 60%. This past January, the moratorium on mining was lifted with the support of CIDA. The new mining law will allow open pit mining, placing water sources at risk of severe pollution and opening the door to allow foreign mining companies to access international tribunals in order to protect their investments. The implementation of this mining law was crucial to the upcoming Canada-Honduras Free Trade Act.

Similar to Honduras, CIDA backed the overthrow of democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide in February 2004. In 2007, Richard Sanders outlined in great detail how CIDA bankrolled the 2004 coup and ushered in an era of weakened government and foreign occupation in the form of MINUSTAH. CIDA also was engaged in a campaign of misinformation regarding human rights abuses being ordered by Prime Minister Yvon Neptune. While Canada had already frozen the Haitian government out of the distribution of funds in practice, in January it was put into policy as CIDA announced that it would be freezing all new aid to Haiti. Given the shift towards the private sector, it makes much more sense. Given the distribution of gold and copper mining concessions to Canadian firms, there is little need to invest in building the capacity of health and education outside of the mining camps.

It would be one thing if the shift towards aligning development initiatives with larger private sector projects could claim a better record of human rights and environmental protection. Sadly, it cannot. Currently, Canadian mining companies are facing an increasing amount of criticism over their human rights abuses. Currently, HudBay Minerals is being sued in a Toronto court for the role of its security personnel in murdering Adolfo Ich and the gang rape of 11 women at their former mining project in Guatemala. The abuses are not regarded as isolated incidents either, as a 2009 industry report from the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada revealed that Canadian mining companies are implicated in four times the number of human rights and environmental violations than firms based in other countries.

In many ways, the combination of development projects and private investment is a strategy which can whitewash potentially harmful and destructive projects. Mining is notorious for having a low multiplier effect on the local economy, as the workers are paid very little for the minerals they unearth—which later go on to receive high prices internationally. Secondly, there are massive environmental impacts related to resource extraction, which come in the form of stripped and degraded land and the pollution of water through the release of heavy metals. With this shift, mining companies can promise local communities that the Canadian government will provide schools, medical care, or upgraded housing in order to enter areas which would have otherwise been against resource extraction. It is another tool that mining corporations can call upon to pressure communities.

Given the shift in CIDA, it can be assumed that Canada’s relationship with Haiti and Honduras will erode from bad to worse. The Canadian model of development—while highly controversial before—seeks to use development projects as a Trojan horse for mineral extraction throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. It will create a program which is even less transparent, democratic, and accountable. Given the overall priorities of the Canadian government at home, they can at least be credited with being consistent in their policy of undermining people and the environment for corporate profit. 

Confronting Crisis: The Need for Political Innovation in the Caribbean

March 22, 2013

NACLA.org

There is an alarming need for political and institutional innovation in the Caribbean. Across the region there is a familiar narrative whereby economies are in a tailspin, austerity reigns, traditional sources of trade and aid are no longer in effect, opportunities are harder to come by, and the aspiration of many youth is to simply get their hands on a visa to go abroad.

The obstacles to the achievement of genuine, self-directed development are so numerous and varied that Norman Girvan of the University of the West Indies has put forward that the Caribbean is currently facing what he calls “existential threats.” He defines existential threats as “a constellation of economic, social and environmental pressures that threaten the viability of our societies as functional entities in any meaningful sense. And these challenges are too wide in scope and too vast in scale for any one Caribbean country to cope with by itself.”

In a speech to the Barbados Chamber of Commerce, last year St. Lucian Prime Minister Kenny Anthony remarked, “Make no mistake about it. Our region is in the throes of the greatest crisis since independence. The spectre of evolving into failed societies is no longer a subject of imagination. How our societies crawl out of this vicious vortex of persistent low growth, crippling debt, huge fiscal deficits and high unemployment is the single most important question facing us at this time.”

While Prime Minister Anthony is indeed right, the current Westminster system of government in the English speaking Caribbean has done little to bring about any hope of substantive change on the horizon. Whether the party in power hails from the left or right side of the political spectrum in rhetoric, in reality they are just two different flavours of neoliberalism. The Westminster system and neoliberalism are two systems which are extremely effective at limiting any discussion of change or innovation.
In regards to neoliberalism, it is presented by thinkers such as Thomas Friedman as a system which makes politics largely irrelevant. To Friedman, once a country commits to cutting taxes and social spending and a broader agenda of privatization and deregulation, the range of political choice becomes decidedly narrow. He remarks that

Two things tend to happen: your economy grows and your politics shrinks… The Golden Straightjacket narrows the political and economic choices of those in power to relatively tight parameters. That is why it is increasingly difficult to find any real difference between ruling and opposition parties in those countries that have put on the Golden Straightjacket. Once your country puts on the Golden Straightjacket, its political choices get reduced to Pepsi or Coke—to slight nuances of policy… but never any deviation from the core golden rules.

That is indeed what many of the political parties in the two party system of the modern Caribbean represent—Pepsi or Coke. The very nature of the Westminster system limits innovation due to the 18^th Century ideals of “party loyalty”—when the old cliché that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” often rings true. Just because the colonial institutions are in place, there is no need for them to remain there. While it will be a bumpy process to bring about change, outside of the politicians who benefit, one would be hard pressed to argue that such a system benefits the Caribbean as a whole. New Zealand shifted from the Westminster system to a more representative mixed member proportional system in 1994 to better suit their needs. In Canada, and even in the United Kingdom, there are growing calls for a shift towards proportional representation, as the traditional political parties have become so alike there is no space for alternative points of view.

While the Westminster system in the Caribbean was praised in academic circles for bringing stability—during the past 20 years numerous crises have grown increasingly more severe, as crime, hurricanes, debt, and declining opportunities for trade are making life more difficult for all in the region—is stability and the maintenance of the status quo really a good thing? What will it take for the change to occur?

The imposition of the Westminster System of Government upon the English speaking Caribbean did not come about because it was the right or most rational thing to do—it was done because it was the easiest thing to do. While there are indeed deep structural issues related to the Caribbean’s position within the international economy, it does not mean that nothing can be done. During the time of Margaret Thatcher’s “There is no alternative” there emerged a massive uprising to neoliberal policies throughout Latin America which can be witnessed in the institutions emerging there today. There will be calls that the current situation makes it too difficult for anything to be done. It would be important to remember that those very same words were often uttered the same day that people stood up for their rights, demanded change, or simply skipped asking and did it themselves.

While Caribbean-created solutions for uniquely Caribbean problems is undoubtedly the best way to move forward, it does not mean that inspiration cannot be gained from looking towards the current processes of institutional innovation occurring in Latin America. While much of the Caribbean was relatively stable and showing progress in the 1980s, with the period of “Green Gold,” most of Latin America was facing what is known as the Lost Decade—as progress on economic growth, education, health and equality all declined. One could argue that the 2000s are the Caribbean’s Lost Decade—only set on repeat.

One key aspect that should be dealt with on a more concrete level is the idea of regionalism. The political fragmentation of the Caribbean only magnifies issues of trade, governance and development—regionalism is an intriguing proposition. As Tennyson Joseph of the University of the West Indies highlights in his brilliant critique of the current political system in the Caribbean, the lack of a regional party in the Caribbean is a major problem.

In Latin America, we have seen a dramatic increase in the development of political institutions to bring about increased popular participation and deeper regional integration. While certainly not everything has worked as planned, they must be applauded with trying to create and maintain an alternative to the status quo which was deeply dysfunctional and in many cases damaging. Given the calls from voices in academia and government of an imminent crisis on numerous fronts—in addition to the millions of people dealing with it firsthand, what will it take for the Caribbean to try and transcend the legacy of the Westminster System, which stifles innovations to confront neoliberalism? The best way to deal with a problem is to try and prevent it in the first place—political innovation will not solve everything, but given the alternative of continuing to do nothing, is a step in the right direction.

Remembering Hugo Chavez: An Eternal Friend of the Caribbean

March 7, 2012

NACLA.org

 

President Hugo Chavez—perhaps more than any other Latin American politician—sought to build bridges with the Caribbean, to unite two regions which have so much in common, but for far too long remained divided by the entrenched legacies of colonialism. While many other articles have turned to focus on the economic consequences his death might potentially bring to the Caribbean, a remembrance of all that he had done both for and with the region seems more fitting.

Since his election in 1999, Chavez always thought in terms of the Latin and Caribbean region as a whole—instead of divided nation states. While the links between Cuba and Venezuela are more readily apparent and obvious, it was not long before Chavez began to forge deep and meaningful relationships with the English and Kreyol speaking Caribbean. By 2009, the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), which originally consisted of Venezuela and Cuba, had expanded to include the Caribbean islands of Antigua, Dominica, and St. Vincent.

This regional alliance is committed to an agenda of poverty eradication, sustainable development, and social justice founded upon the values of co-operation, equality, and solidarity. Furthermore, the regional integration promoted by ALBA importantly stresses policy flexibility, fair trade, and recognition of the unique circumstances faced by the many small Caribbean economies.


Petro-Caribe—an alliance which allows Caribbean nations to purchase oil from Venezuela in a preferential agreement, has proved to be a lifeline for many cash-strapped governments. It even allowed for the Caribbean nations to pay for their oil purchases with agricultural produce if they chose. The oil can be paid for over a 25-year period, at a 1% interest rate, and at the time of writing 18 Caribbean and Central American nations had signed on to the initiative. David Jessop, the Director of the Caribbean Council stated that “If it were not for the energy lifeline that it [Venezuela] has provided to every Caribbean nation other than Trinidad and Barbados, much of the region would by now be in economic free fall.”

The creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in 2011 signified the reorientation of the region away from North American influence. In what was considered by many to be as radical alternative to the Organization of American States (OAS), Canada, and the United States were not granted membership. This show of solidarity between the 33 independent countries of Latin America and the Caribbean signaled that Chavez's decade long push for deeper regional integration was not in vain. Upon the institution of CELAC Chavez remarked that "Celac is born with a new spirit; it is a platform for people's economic, political and social development, which is very different from OAS."

Like a true friend, when tragedy arrived, Venezuela was always one of the first nations to offer assistance to the Caribbean—such as when they faced the devastating hurricanes like Ivan in 2004, Tomas in 2010, and Sandy in 2012. In addition to the emergency aid, Venezuela has conducted more sustainable projects in partnership with local governments. For example, Venezuela has helped to construct a hospital in Grenada, an airport expansion in St. Vincent, an oil refinery, and public housing works in Dominica, among other projects (A wikileaked U.S. cable titled E. Caribbean and Venezuelan Foreign Aid: Rhetoric or Reality? highlights many of the projects).

In regards to Haiti, Chavez was always conscious of the historical links which bound the two nations together in their struggle against imperialism. When the great liberator of South America, Simon Bolivar was seeking refuge, Haitian President Alexander Petion provided him with a safe haven, in addition to men, money, and arms. It was not lost on Chavez that the tricolor flag of Venezuela was both created and flown for the first time in the Haitian town of Jacmel, resulting in him changing the Venezuela’s Flag Day to March 12 in order to reflect this little known fact.

In support for Haiti’s continuing struggle against foreign imperialism, Chavez consistently opposed the many forms of foreign intervention which relentlessly sought to undermine the nation. In 2004, Chavez stood out as the only South American leader brave enough to openly oppose the overthrow of Haiti’s democratically elected president, Jean Bertrand Aristide. In fact, Reuters remarked that “In the latest insult to U.S. policy, Chavez Tuesday said he would not recognize the new government in Haiti, set up with U.S. involvement, and invited ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to Venezuela.”

While many Latin American nations took part in the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), Chavez argued that a militarized solution was not in the best interest of Haiti, and that any mission seeking to address insecurity should deal with the structural issues which created poverty and insecurity. This was largely based off of his own experience conducting Plan Bolivar, where the Venezuelan army was reoriented and reconfigured to attack a new enemy—that of poverty and hunger. Shortly after Chavez’s election in 1999, an IPS News story on Plan Bolivar reported that “Armed with shovels and other tools, tens of thousands of army troops, civil servants, and volunteers in Venezuela began to repair schools, clear up a backlog of patients awaiting operations, and attend homeless persons and street children as part of a six-month social emergency plan.”

In his visit to Haiti in 2007, Chavez announced plans for a US$80 million oil refinery, a US$56 million electricity plant, a US$4 million liquid gas plant, expansion of the Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haıtien airports for US$57 million, US$3 million for waste collection, and resources for a Cuban health care program in Haiti staffed by 2,000 doctors. After the devastation of the 2010 earthquake, Venezuela quickly cancelled Haiti’s Petro-Caribe debt, with Chavez stating that “Haiti has no debt with Venezuela, just the opposite: Venezuela has a historical debt with that nation, with that people for whom we feel not pity but rather admiration, and we share their faith, their hope.” Venezuela would also go on to pledge $2.4 billion to Haiti’s reconstruction—with $369 million dispersed to projects in 2012.

Perhaps the issue of race also played a significant role in helping to bridge the divide, as Chavez did not see himself as a person apart from the people of African descent in the Caribbean, indeed he openly identified as one of them. In 2005 Chavez spoke on the issue of race in Latin America, stating that "Racism is very characteristic of imperialism and capitalism. Hate against me has a lot to do with racism. Because of my big mouth and curly hair. And I'm so proud to have this mouth and this hair, because it is African."

It is appropriate that the contributions of Hugo Chavez cannot be summed up in any brief manner, as they extend far beyond what is covered here. The Caribbean, which remains on the periphery of the global economy—abandoned by Europe and the United States when trade preferences and security priorities changed—found a friend in Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. He was not just admired in the region for what he gave, but also for what he represented. This can been seen in all of the condolences offered by the Caribbean leaders on behalf of their people. He refused to be bullied by empires who sought to bring him down by violence and economic destabilization. He sought to build a society upon solidarity, social justice, and reciprocity.

Prime Minister Roosevelt Skerrit remarked on the loss of his close friend and ally, echoing the thoughts of many by stating that “What we have done for ourselves alone dies with us; what we have done for others and the world remains and is immortal… Comrade Chávez did all for the people not only of Venezuela, but for Latin America and indeed the world. He will be remembered also for bringing the Caribbean and Latin America together. I have lost a personal friend, a comrade a colleague. I am deeply saddened. The struggle continues.”

Can Guatemala’s Long Struggle for Justice Provide Lessons for Haiti?

February 21, 2013

NACLA.org

While it is too early to tell whether or not Jean Claude Duvalier will appear in court today to face charges for embezzlement and corruption, it is important, whatever the outcome, to highlight that Guatemala’s arduous 14-year struggle to prosecute former military dictator Efrain Rios Montt for crimes against humanity provides an important template for Haiti moving forward.

After Guatemala’s civil war ended in 1996, a National Reconciliation Law (NRL) was enacted which granted amnesty for political crimes committed by both the Guatemalan Armed Forces and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Union. The hasty establishment of the NRL was seen as a crucial component mandating that both sides lay down their arms, but it also threatened to institutionalize impunity in a nation seeking to rebuild itself after 36 years of civil war.

Following the models of nations seeking to move forward from a history of brutal military governments, like Argentina and El Salvador or apartheid in South Africa, Guatemala organized a Truth Commission to spark the process of national reconciliation. However, many Guatemalan and international human rights organizations argued that neither justice nor reconciliation would be achieved, as the NRL remained foggy as to whether or not those who carried out extra-judicial executions would qualify for amnesty. This lead the New York Times to write at the time that “Guatemala's commission will be allowed to report on who died or disappeared and perhaps under what circumstances, but it will not be allowed to investigate who committed this violence.”

In 1999, the Guatemalan Commission for Historical Clarification released a report titled Guatemala, Memory of Silence which stated that “Although many are aware that Guatemala's armed confrontation caused death and destruction, the gravity of the abuses suffered repeatedly by its people has yet to become part of the institutional consciousness… The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages… are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history.” The report found that about 200,000 people—the vast majority of them civilians—were killed or “disappeared” during the war, a number that was much higher than initially thought. Rios Montt’s brief presidency (1982-83) was arguably the most violent period in the civil war, in which thousands of unarmed indigenous civilians were killed.

Despite the initial feelings of helplessness after the passing of the NRL, a law which was looked at as being drafted by and for the military and guerillas, it excluded crimes against humanity which were not subject to any statutes of limitation under international law.

It was with this opening in 1999 that Nobel laureate Rigoberta Menchu and other victims filed a criminal suit in the Spanish National Court against Efraín Ríos Montt and seven other senior Guatemalan officials. Menchu turned to the Spanish National Court on the principle of universal jurisdiction after her efforts in the Guatemalan courts were met with hesitation, delay, and intimidation. Menchu remarked that “The fundamental idea behind justice is to dignify the memory of our deceased. It is to dignify the children, the women, the elders, who were annihilated through genocide, those who were kidnapped, those who were disappeared, those who were tortured.”

Legal motions in Spain staleed progress in the case for several years until 2005, when the Spanish Court ruled to the surprise of many that they would in fact act upon the principles of universal jurisdiction and charge Rios Montt and other senior officials with genocide, terrorism, torture, and illegal detention. The Spanish Court soon after issued arrest warrants in July 2006.

Similar to Duvalier in Haiti, Rios Montt remained connected to the traditional political and economic centers of power in the country—and as such successfully ran for a seat in Congress in 2007, granting him immunity from prosecution until January 14, 2012.

Despite this roadblock—it was a perhaps even blessing in disguise—the organizing by the victims and human rights defenders continued unabated in the face of threats and intimidation. This grassroots effort to prosecute high ranking military officials finally bore fruit in 2011, when General Héctor Mario López Fuentes, the former Minister of Defence was detained for his alleged role in massacres committed in 1982 to 1983.
Once Rios Montt was no longer covered by Congressional immunity in January 2012, he was indicted in a Guatemalan court for committing crimes against humanity. On March 1, 2012, according to the established norms of international law, a Guatemalan judge refused to grant Rios Montt amnesty from the charges of crimes against humanity—leading to the first time that a former head of state would be tried for genocide in their own country. On January 31, 2013, the criminal trial of Rios Montt for crimes against humanity formally began.

Although it is true that the charges against Duvalier are not on the level of genocide—and thus are not comparable in that regard—the Inter American Commission on Human Rights has classified the systematic abuses carried out by Duvalier as crimes against humanity. Through the command of the Ton Ton Macoutes and the Haitian army, Human Rights Watch has reported that Duvalier oversaw the killing and torture of thousands, while hundreds of thousands more fled into exile.

While different in many ways, like Haiti, Guatemala also suffers from a lingering history of deep-rooted racism, significant structural inequality, foreign intervention, deep politicization with limited political participation by the popular classes, and a history of a corrupt judicial system. Despite this, the success of Guatemala in bringing Rios Montt to trial for crimes against humanity highlights that, despite the overwhelming odds at times, justice can prevail.

A Small Step Toward Ending Duvalier’s Impunity in Haiti

February 14, 2013

NACLA.org

In January 2012, Judge Carves Jean triggered a wave of shock and disappointment throughout Haiti and much of the world by ruling that the former dictator of Haiti, Jean Claude Duvalier, would stand trial for the embezzlement of public funds, but not for the much greater charge of committing crimes against humanity. While it is widely acknowledged that Duvalier looted the Haitian treasury to the tune of $800 million, he has also been implicated in carrying out systemic human rights abuses, consisting of the murder, torture, disappearance, and imprisonment of tens of thousands during his rule from 1971 to 1986. Judge Jean’s decision to drop the most serious charges against Duvalier was based upon his reading of the Haitian constitution, which cited that the abuses fell outside of the 10 year period outlined in the statute of limitations.

Contrary to the ruling by Judge Jean, international law states that there is no such limitation when it comes to crimes against humanity. According to Javier Zúñiga, Special Advisor at Amnesty International, "International human rights standards are very clear in cases such as this. Crimes including torture, executions, arbitrary detention, and enforced disappearances are not subject to a statute of limitations and the alleged perpetrators cannot benefit from pardons or amnesties.” It is with this in mind that Duvalier’s victims and their relatives—and the human rights and advocacy organizations representing them—appealed this decision.

On February 7, Duvalier defied a court order to appear before court, instead choosing to provide a letter in his place to explain his absence. The letter noted that the date of the hearing coincided with the 27^th anniversary of his overthrow in 1986, a date which he regards as the day in which one of "the greatest political crimes were committed in this country.”

Without a doubt, such a self-righteous gesture was to reinforce and show the court and the Haitian people that he considers himself to be above the law—and as such can do as he pleases. This fits a similar pattern whereby Duvalier had previously missed an earlier appeals hearing on January 31, regularly and openly disregarded his conditions of house arrest—and was even recently granted the renewal of his diplomatic passport.

However, contrary to letting these troubling turn of events snowball into complete impunity, Judge Jean Joseph Lebrun of Haiti's Court of Appeals accepted the rescheduling of the hearing once again, with the important caveat that Duvalier must attend court on February 21, or he would be risking arrest.

Nicole Phillips, an attorney with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti explained the significance of this decision, remarking that "The hearing on February 21 could be a pivotal moment in the prosecution of Jean-Claude Duvalier. If Duvalier appears as ordered by the appellate court, it will present the first opportunity for the former brutal dictator to speak about his political violence crimes in a courtroom full of his victims and the media. If Duvalier fails to appear, the Haitian government will be under intense pressure to arrest him for violating a court order."

Additionally, Javier Zúñiga has stressed that the importance of this trial cannot be understated, "It is the whole credibility of the Haitian justice system which is at stake. . . . Only by respecting the procedures in the appeal case, including thoroughly examining all evidence and hearing all the victims, will the court be able to demonstrate the professionalism and independence of the Haitian justice system."

The initial dismissal of the charges of crimes against humanity was considered by many to be politically motivated. President Michel Martelly has previously mentioned the possibility of granting Duvalier a pardon in an effort at bringing about national reconciliation on several occasions. In an interview with the Washington Post in January 2012, Martelly remarked “It is part of the past. We need to learn our lessons and move forward. . . . It is time to unite the country, show tolerance, show compassion, show love for everyone . . . [we  need] to reconcile the factions that have been at war.” Martelly’s soft spot for Duvalier is due to his own links with the former dictator.

While Martelly has since retracted these statements, it appears that Duvalier has not forgotten them. His letter addressed to the court goes on to state that if he was to face trial “Too many passions would have been awakened and updated to revive old moments and wounds during this difficult period where the Head of State and current political leaders speak with reason of National Reconciliation [which is] necessary to heal and bandage the wounds of our still recent past.”

Despite Duvalier’s self-serving opinion on the low value of such a trial, it would be significant in regards to Haiti building itself back as a sovereign nation. It would set a precedent that even the most powerful—regardless of their wealth, connections or history—are not immune to the rule of law. The 61-year-old Duvalier would face no more than five years in prison if convicted of embezzling public funds and other financial crimes. On the other hand, a conviction of crimes against humanity could put him away for life. February 21 promises to be a significant day in Haiti’s recent history—for better or worse.