Home News Events Grassroots in Haiti Links Feedback Analysis Contact us
Sprague’s Fallacies and Haiti Progrès’ Dirty Campaign against Batay Ouvriye
Sprague’s article, “Supporting a Leftist Opposition to Lavalas:
The AFL-CIO’s Solidarity Center and Batay Ouvriye” (Haiti Progres,
November 23-29, 2005/Volume 23/No. 37), is a deliberate attempt to undermine
Batay Ouvriye as an authentic Autonomous Worker’s Organization.
His reasoning through the article is based on some historical facts used to
persuade the reader to accept conclusions which in fact are false. To begin
with, Sprague judged important to remind us what everyone already knows
in the progressive community: the AFL-CIO historically finances workers
movements in Latin America and the Caribbean and it has links with the US State
Department and even the CIA. Sprague told us that the workers’ movement
in Haiti has been sponsored by the American Institute for Free Labor Development
(AIFLD), “the AFL-CIO’s foreign organizing wing for Latin America
and the Caribbean” since the 1980s and that explains why some Unions
like CATH, the FOS, among others, played a significant role in organizing
marches and strikes during that period, particularly during the post-Duvalier
period.
Again, if Sprague thought it important to inform his American readers on
the realities of the Haitian workers’ movement in the past twenty-five
years, a movement whose existence according to Sprague depended on dubious
foreign money, it is unlikely the Haitian Progressive Community would learn
something new on that matter. Haiti-Progrès itself had developed relations
with CATH in the late 80’s and had tried to recruit Yves Antoine Richard,
himself a CATH leader. Why Sprague in his “research” did not
mention this fact, and if he knew about it, why did he not try to understand
the reason behind Haiti Progrès’ attempt to ally itself
with CATH, even though at that time, it was not a secret to anyone that CATH
was receiving money from the AFL-CIO, as Sprague mentioned in his article?
As Sprague pursued his so-called historical analysis of the Haitian labor
movement in the 80’s, it became clear that his main purpose was to
use his “researcher’s” credentials to attack Batay Ouvriye.
After he stated without any proof that “the Solidarity Center,
by 2004, had restarted operations in [Haiti]” by cooperating with Batay
Ouvriye, he then questioned the true reason an organism such as Solidarity
Center would support Batay Ouvriye which, as Sprague recognized it, has developed
successful Union practices in the free trade zone in Ouanaminthe, Haiti.
Raising this question allowed Sprague to come to the real purpose behind
his article: tarnish Batay Ouvriye’s reputation by showing that it
had supported objectively the opposition movement against Aristide (controlled
mainly by the bourgeoisie) that led to the overthrow of the Lavalas regime.
According to Sprague, by “backing Batay Ouvriye, the Solidarity Center
was able to kill two birds with one stone.” It “was able to claim
the credentials of supporting a legitimate labor struggle”, and at
the same time, “supporting a group that adamantly opposed …”the
largest and most popular political party of the poor” in Haiti, Fanmi
Lavalas…” With that statement, Sprague finally came
to the conclusion that he had maliciously tried to drive the reader to since
the beginning: Batay Ouvriye willingly or not supported the local bourgeoisie
and US imperialism in Haiti. However, Sprague’s allegations against
Batay Ouvriye are based on twisted logic and complete fallacy.
First of all, Batay Ouvriye has stated clearly that it had received
$3,500 from the Solidarity Center and this money had come as a result of a “general
appeal “that it had issued to support the fired workers at the free
trade zone. That does not mean that Batay Ouvriye has developed an organic
link with the Solidarity Center, as Sprague tried to portray it. Batay Ouvriye
has always made clear by its practices that it is an Autonomous Worker’s
Organization whose main struggle is to develop an Autonomous Worker’s
Movement capable to mainly sustain itself ideologically and financially and
able to defend its own interests.
Second of all, Batay Ouvriye did not participate in Aristide’s overthrow.
It had recognized that the struggle to overthrow Aristide was mainly organized
by the bourgeoisie, and this movement’s goal was to get rid of Aristide
who was viewed as too corrupt and incapable to manage the state apparatus
in order to repress the masses. All of this does not mean that the Aristide
government was defending the Haitian People’s interests, a reality
that Sprague seems completely incapable to understand. Aristide used
populist rhetoric in order to manipulate the masses. That was his only strength.
His true goal was to make the local bourgeoisie and the US government accept
his government as a valuable partner. This policy fell short for Aristide:
the US judged the Aristide’s government too volatile, too corrupt,
too unreliable to work with, and thought more prudent to ally itself with
the local bourgeoisie to resolve the crisis. This is not to say that
there weren’t other currents in the US government that wanted to keep
Aristide where he was even though his power was dwindling nationally. All
in all, the Aristide government was therefore a government serving the interests
of the ruling classes and imperialism but rejected by both because of endemic
widespread corruption and incompetence. Sprague should know as a “researcher” that
imperialism for political and strategic reasons sometimes dissociates itself
with governments that it has no objective contradictions with.
Thirdly, Sprague’s erroneous perception of US imperialist domination
on Haiti made him blind to the fact that the Lavalas régime under
Aristide, Préval and Aristide was completely submitted to US imperialism.
The latest neo-liberal plan was accepted and signed by Aristide since 1993,
while he was in exile. Was Aristide, as Sprague seems to imply, forced to
sign it? It would be infantile to debate such a question.
Fourthly,
Sprague seems to take Haiti-Progres’ view on Haitian politics as correct
and unquestionable. However, Haiti-Progres’ practices during the Lavalas
period had been based on continuous shameless opportunism. Haiti-Progrès
had been shamefully flip-flopping, sometimes denouncing Aristide as a traitor,
like in 1994, after Aristide’s return in Haiti on the backs of 25,000
US marines, sometimes portraying him as the Haitian People’s true leader.
Haiti-Progrès’ goal in the Lavalas movement has been to gain political
recognition. Its director Ben Dupuy since the first Aristide’s government
in 1991, continuously sought favors from the Lavalas régime, presenting
himself and his newspaper as “critical supporters” of Lavalas.
The reality is Dupuy’s organization, the so-called “Le Parti Populaire
National” (PPN), is so insignificant, so powerless, so disorganized and
guided by opportunistic principles that the only way for it to exist and to
be recognized is to ally itself with the Lavalas movement. By publishing Sprague’s
article, Haiti-Progres not only orchestrated a dirty campaign against Batay
Ouvriye, it aimed also at jeopardizing Batay Ouvriye’s own existence.
In fact, one wondered why Sprague in his article found important to reveal
what he thinks to be the real names of Batay Ouvriye’s Representatives.
As Sprague should know, developing true Union practices in a country like Haiti
is dangerous and it takes courage and determination to reach even the
smallest compromise. By insisting on revealing the identity of Batay Ouvriye’s
members, doesn’t Sprague serve the class and the instances that he is
supposedly denouncing and attacking in his article: the Haitian bourgeoisie
and US imperialism?
F. Cabral