The use of paternalism and condescension in denouncing Haitian feminists The National Coordination for Advocacy on Women?s Rights (CONAP) notes that the situation in Haiti continues to solicit interest in international and regional fora. We can only hope that this will translate into a sustained and informed interest in what is going on in our country and in hearing the voices of women?s organisations in Haiti. We also note that our statement produced in response to the joint declaration signed by a number of Caribbean feminists continues to solicit debate. We regret however that the ongoing debate is so strongly coloured by both bias and paternalism. CONAP recently received a copy of the AWID interview with Peggy Antrobus. Notwithstanding our admiration for Ms. Antrobus? contribution to the development of a feminist position in the Commonwealth Caribbean and her contribution to the development of feminist perspectives in other fora- we feel compelled once again to raise our voice and to denounce what is clearly an attempt to misinform public opinion about the situation in Haiti and undermine the legitimacy of the women?s movement in Haiti. In responding to the positions expressed by Ms. Antrobus, we do not feel that it is necessary to restate our position on recent events in Haiti nor our position vis-à-vis the Lavalas regime. Our statement is clear, concise and unequivocal. Democracy is not served by defending an illegitimate and outlaw regime, actively engaged in corruption and human rights violation. Nor is democracy served by choosing to ignore the right of citizens to hold governments accountable. We also firmly believe that the paternalistic attitude and underlying aggression in her response is due, in part, to the strength of our declaration and its impact within the region and internationally. Therefore, our response will focus more on the analysis put forth by Ms. Antrobus and the allegations made against the women?s movement in Haiti. The politics of race, class and colour- The use of race, class, and colour to justify and maintain non-democratic regimes in power is not new. Ms. Antrobus attempts to justify, less than adroitly we might add, that the political crisis in Haiti was class-based- and divided along colour lines. While justly recognizing that marked disparities have been one of the major characteristics of the Haitian social, economic and political system, she then seeks to argue that the sectors who called for Mr Aristide?s resignation are representative of the light skinned- or mulatto, wealthy, urban-based, French- speaking elites. This argument creates an opportunity to try to do two things. First of all, she attempts to veil the human rights abuses and myriad examples of corruption within the regime by focusing on class or colour-based interests and issues and therefore attempts to absolve the aforementioned violations by placing them within a context of supposed ?legitimate defence? This is most patent in her attempt to justify the creation of parallel gangs by Aristide and his use of armed thugs to protect the regime through violence, and repression. ?? Having disbanded the army and not being able to trust the US trained forces, he turned to his own supporters in the slums? his own militia?.?. In the interests of clarity, it would have been helpful had she stated that the Haitian army was disbanded by Mr. Aristide, that the US trained forces, belonging to the Steele Corporation, were hired by Mr. Artistide to the tune of more than 1.5 million per year (paid in theory by the Haitian taxpayer) and finally that his own ? militia? functioned outside the boundaries of the law, thus constituting a parallel armed force used by Mr Aristide to control urban slum neighbourhoods and carry out campaigns of repression against his adversaries. Finally, we note that she neglected to mention the linkages between the regime, the ?militia? and the drug trade. Is this the profile of a president committed to building democratic process? It would appear that Ms. Antrobus feels that these acts are justified and warranted. Secondly, she attempts to state that these and other reprehensible acts are all justified on the basis of the fact that Mr. Artistide represented the majority.- a majority for whom he did ? ?a number of things to make life better for them, There is probably a deep sense of despair among this group which makes it very serious?..? In the interests of brevity, we would rather not get into a discussion as to what was done to make things better for ?them-?..This statement would suggest first of all that improved living conditions are a favour ?bestowed? on the poor and secondly that in fact there were concrete and sustainable actions undertaken which impacted positively on the lives of the poor. The legacy of the Aristide regime is eloquent; a bankrupt state due to the pillaging of state coffers by regime officials, a dramatic decrease in the level and quality of public services, rampant inflation which has only further increased the vulnerability of the poor and finally the institutionalisation of corruption, drug trafficking, violence and impunity in lieu and in place of democratic principles and practice. Thus, we would take both statements on consideration. Behind this statement again hides the issue of class and colour- whereby she suggests that all those who denounced the regime were traditional elites. We would strongly encourage Ms. Antrobus to inform herself with regard to the broad-based and representative nature of the various coalitions calling for Mr. Aristide?s resignation. We are certain that Mouvman Peyizan Papaye, and other grass roots peasant organizations would take umbrage with this classification. We are also certain that women?s organisations, labour unions, student associations and other groups would also not recognize themselves in her simplistic portrait of politics in Haiti. Yes, Haiti is a complex society in which issues related to socio-economic class, colour and gender have played and continue to play a role. We however would posit that this is also the case in many if not all of the countries of the region- despite Ms. Antrobus? declaration which would have us believe that Barbados or Trinidad are class-less societies in which the issue of colour (or ethnicity for that matter)- do not impact on social, political, and economic processes. In closing, it would appear that for Ms. Antrobus, popularity is more important than principles- and that simplistic analysis is more comfortable than dealing with the complexities of the situation. It would appear that simplicity in the case of Haiti, unlike other countries such as Trinidad or Barbados, is acceptable, because after all – we are a simple society, and the complexities and the requirements of democratic process would appear to be beyond our reach. The practice of paternalism and condescension: As the aforementioned argument forms the basis for the opinion put forward and the stance taken on defending the Artistide presidency, Ms Antrobus feels obliged to criticize those sectors that actively called for his resignation. While brandishing the question of class and colour allow her to neatly categorize and disqualify certain social actors such as the private sector, it does not however allow her to disqualify women?s organisations in general and CONAP in particular. Therefore, the argument put forward is one based on paternalism and a form of condescension that is oddly reminiscent of the discourse used by the ruling class to ignore rumblings from the masses. Basically, once the rhetoric has been stripped away, the argument is the following. While recognizing that women?s organisations exist in Haiti, she begins by stating that they have mainly focused on charity and good works- thereby preserving the status quo and keeping everyone- men and women – in their place. An interesting approach in that it evokes a form of benevolence somewhat akin to the supposed favours granted by Aristide to the people but at the same time creates a distinction between women?s organisations in Haiti and real women?s organisations, such as those in the rest of the region, which are committed to promoting social change. We do not feel that it is necessary to reiterate all of the work undertaken by women?s organisations in Haiti to address the status and position of women rather than focusing exclusively on their basic needs- and their contributions to advancing feminist thought and action regionally and internationally. However it would appear necessary again to highlight some of the actions undertaken by the movement in Haiti. The Haitian women?s movement has played a key role in advancing the women?s agenda in Haiti through the organisation of an international tribunal on gender based violence, successfully lobbying Parliament to ratify Belem Do Para and to move toward judicial reform in conformity with international human rights conventions, developing through a broad consensus building exercise a white book on women?s strategic gender interests, as well as maintaining ongoing awareness-building and organizing efforts at all levels. Regionally and internationally, the women?s movement has built strong partnerships with other like-minded coalitions and institutions. Through active participation in initiatives ranging from the Social Forum to participation in various networks engaged in feminist research and action to mobilisation around specific issues related to strategic gender interests, the Haitian women?s movement has continued to ensure that women?s voices are heard. This paternalistic attitude is further compounded by stating that organisations in Haiti have not yet made the link between violence against women and the structures of oppression and injustice. In other words, in addition to ?charity and good works?, women?s organisations do not have the capacity to analyse the notion of power within Haitian society We would invite Ms. Antrobus to revisit, or rather visit- given that she does not seem to really know these organisations or their work- some of the statements put forward by women? organisations in Haiti over the past years. Not satisfied with discounting the work of women?s organisations in Haiti and dismissing them as incapable of making the most elementary linkages between gender and oppression in all of its forms, the argument then turns to attacking CONAP itself. CONAP is dismissed as a structure that represents the ? privileged few?. vulnerable to political manipulation? and while we are at it- ?right-winged (sic) people. ? Not content with this, she further claims that civil society organisations, and we would assume that she is also including CONAP in this statement, are accepting ?large amounts of money from the US government, USAID, IRI et NDI??. Ms Antrobus seeks to discredit a coalition of feminist organisations- that very obviously she does not know -by evoking class, race, and ideology, all of which is couched in a language of condescension whereby she is the authority and expert- and therefore able to dispense advise to her sisters. We would like to suggest that Ms. Antrobus take the time to inform herself prior to making unfounded and inflammatory accusations. CONAP is a coalition of women?s organisations bringing together organisations from various parts of Haiti and representing the strategic interests of women. Over the past ten years, women?s organisations have been structuring the women?s movement and creating a broad-based consensus on the way to move forward. We have addressed the issues of gender-based violence, of politically motivated rape (which contrary to Ms. Antrobus? statement is not new), of inclusion and fundamental rights, of participation in decision-making, of sovereignty, and finally the issue of linkages with other women?s movement in the region and internationally. Perhaps because we work in Creole, rather than English, our voices go unheard? Ironically, if we work in the language which is ours, our voices are not heard, and if we deign to write in English or Spanish, in the interest of informing sister organisations within the region, we are accused of being elitist, a part of the privileged few ! With regard to our funding – neither CONAP nor any of its member organisations receive funding from the American government. We were however very interested to learn that apparently women? s organisations in the rest of the region do accept money from government. We assume that Ms. Antrobus means USAID. Given Ms. Antrobus? knowledge of the Commonwealth Caribbean, we take this statement at face value. We are sorry that many of the organisations in the region have been ?co-opted ? – unfortunately that is a risk for any organisation- whatever their source of funding- if they are not clear on their vision and their mission. Finally, while thanking Ms Antrobus for her recognition that CONAP is a ?strong organisation ?, we are astonished to read the following ? ?if women?s organizations want to break out of CONAP ? it would be very difficult for them to do so?they would be threatened in all sorts of ways??. In the interests of honesty-, which is high among feminist principles, we would like Ms. Antrobus to provide information that would support her statement. CONAP is a coalition which is based on the most basic of principles- if an organisation supports the vision put forward and wants to contribute through their work to promoting gender equality and a process of social change, then they are more than welcome to become a part of the coalition. CONAP is based on the respect of the individual rights of each of its member organisations- and the collective responsibility to address the structural issues that maintain and perpetuate the oppression of women. CONAP does not provide funding and nor does it dispense favours to its members. Rather CONAP is a space in which diverse women?s organisations can come together to pool their energy and their time to advocate for the rights of women, to advocate for a society in which the rights of all are recognized, and to advocate for a new type of political discourse which is based on feminist principles. It is no more and no less. Engendering political discourse and practice In all due respect to Ms. Antrobus, there is a need to link rhetoric with practice. It is too easy to sit comfortably in Barbados, Trinidad, or New York and attack what you do not know- or what you choose to ignore. Ms Antrobus stated herself that ? I was not really paying attention ?- Given that she was not paying attention to Haiti or to women?s organisations in Haiti and that she did not take the time to develop an informed opinion, what was making her run? As a feminist, over the past years she has advocated for the need to listen to the voices of women and not to make assumptions, take decisions or pass judgement in their place. Yet apparently she feels not only authorized to do so vis-à-vis Haiti and CONAP, but morally compelled to do so. We insist on the notion of morally compelled because of the condescension and paternalism that coloured the entire interview. This is a reflection of a sense of self-righteousness that is rather difficult to accept. We would like to remind Ms. Antrobus of the heritage which she has left to other feminists and women in the Caribbean. The principles of participation, of respect, and of celebrating the voices of diversity are at the heart of this heritage. We find it particularly sad that at this point in time, a feminist is not only contributing to dividing the movement, but also to using tactics and strategies which have been roundly denounced by the same movement. We close in stating that CONAP continues to believe in the importance of regional and international solidarity. We reiterate that solidarity is built on relationships that are grounded in shared information, informed analysis, sustained commitment and most of all, mutual trust and respect. CONAP has created opportunities for this to happen with our sister organisations in the region. We would like to place the emphasis on sister organisations because individually many of us are members of the Caribbean Feminist Research Action Network (CAFRA), members of Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) , and have participated in the regional coordination for various activities over the past years. We note that despite the many fora that would have been open to discuss this issue with other Caribbean feminists, they have chosen once again to ignore us. Finally, we are obliged to ask who is afraid of CONAP and why? CONAP, through the patience and effort of its member organisations, has become an important voice in Haiti. CONAP?s position and actions have amply demonstrated that Haiti and Haitians do not want to settle for the appearance of democracy and or accept the use of demagoguery to justify systematic human rights violations. CONAP has begun to lay the groundwork to show that feminist discourse is central to political processes which are inclusive- and which lay the foundation for democratic practice. CONAP has demonstrated that the women?s movement in Haiti has moved beyond the issues of race, colour and class that have so marked politics in the Caribbean. A feminist or an engendered analysis allows us to analyse and denounce the ways in which discrimination, in all of its forms, plays out. Does this make people uncomfortable? Yes apparently it does -if the issues of race; class, colour and ethnicity are not resolved for them.
CONAP Response to an interview with Peggy Antrobus, noted feminist of Barbardos. The interview is reproduced below this response.
Original article about Peggy Antrobus of Barbados
(The CONAP paper above responds to this article.)
Race, gender and class: Why a group of Caribbean women have spoken out
against the coup in Haiti.
An interview with Peggy Antrobus who lives in Barbados and is the past
General Coordinator of Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era
(DAWN) on her thoughts about the situation in Haiti. She is a signatory to a
statement against U.S. involvement in Haiti and against the removal of
President Aristide. It is entitled, “Caribbean Women Denounce the US-Backed
Coup in Haiti”.
By Janice Duddy
AWID: Northern news agencies have become quiet on the situation in Haiti.
Could you please tell us what is currently happening in Haiti?
PA: It is probably not surprising that there is very little news about
Haiti. It must be a such a great embarrassment to the United States
administration. This is an election year and the President is trying to
project himself as a great defender of democracy and human rights. The
question is: How do you square that with what they did in Haiti, with
Aristide’s kidnapping and continuing violence in Haiti, despite the presence
of U.S.-led so-called peace keepers. I think they want to kill the story.
People were predicting this long ago.
There are two stories about Haiti and now the other story is beginning to
emerge, the story about the attempt to destroy Aristide and all of the hopes
that lie with his presidency and the U.S.’s involvement. It is important for
them to shut down the news on this particular story so people will continue
to believe the mainstream story: that Aristide is a tyrannical, despotic,
corrupt, and incompetent president who had to be removed in order to rescue
the Haitian people. This is very similar to how they ‘rescued’ Iraq. I would
never suggest that Aristide is as bad as Saddam but the principles are the
same, you want to get rid of a president who is not in the interest of the
powers that be. It is always easy to generate unrest, create chaos, and
mobilize civil society for this purpose. It is an embarrassment that this
other story has emerged.
AWID: Has there been increased stability in the country or is there still a
lot of violence?
PA: The violence is continuing. It is more directed against the Aristide
supporters; you don’t hear of any actions against the thugs and criminals,
the so-called ‘rebels’. Aristide did create an army of supporters, his own
militia. He had disbanded his army, which is a contradiction in my mind when
people argue that he is a tyrant. I do not know of any tyrant that would
disband an army and leave himself exposed. Having disbanded the army and not
being able to trust the U.S. trained forces he turned to his own supporters
in the slums. That is one of the areas where there was a lot of abuse and
has contributed to the violence and the escalation of violence. Now that the
Americans are there, their targets are not just the Aristide militias but
all Aristide’s civilian supporters, ordinary people, teachers, women, and
organizers from the slums. The violence is continuing but there is no news
about it.
The last bit of news I saw on BBC TV was when the new President went to
Gonaïves, his home town in the North. He said that the rebels, who everybody
knows are convicted criminals and death squad people, were not criminals but
freedom fighters. This is a clear indication of his intention to re-instate
and re-habilitate the well-armed gangs that have been creating havoc and
taking over the towns in the North. A few weeks later Colin Powell tried to
squash this statement. He said, the American administration does not wish to
see any of these former rebels as part of a government. However, they are
not going to be able to control the rebels because they are very well armed
and they are not going to be willing to put down their arms, especially when
they feel supported by those in control.
I think that there will be a lot of violence ahead. The best chance for the
Americans to hide their involvement is to block the news. But I already see
signs of conflict. The people who were against Aristide, and at least
complicit in America’s coming in (civil society organizations including a
lot of the women’s organizations) are beginning to complain about the
American presence. They did not want to see the Americans as occupiers.
There is a sense of betrayal on the side of these organizations who helped
to create the chaos. America has installed its own government. Just as in
the Iraq situation, they have picked the President and the members of his
government. Some of the people in the Haitian opposition who thought that
they would be rewarded for their anti-Aristide actions have found that they
have been sidelined and are not very happy about this.
AWID: What did the removal of President Aristide mean for the country?
PA: It is important to note that the removal of Aristide has incensed the
people of Haiti. Their sense of dignity, autonomy, and sovereignty has been
completed flouted by the arrival and behaviour of the American forces.
Evidently, the Americans are occupying the presidential palace and are
running the show. People say that the U.S. Ambassador is the de facto head
of the country.
The betrayal that came with the removal of Aristide speaks to a profound
disrespect, for the majority of the people, the betrayal of their hopes for
a better life. The poor people elected Aristide (the first democratically
elected President of Haiti) who stood for their interests. In fact with all
of the problems he has faced with the lack of support and the blocking of
aid and so on, he has done a number of things to make life better for poor
people. There is probably a deep sense of despair among this group which
makes it very serious.
AWID: How has the conflict in Haiti served as another example of outside
interference?
PA: This is not a new story. It has happened many, many times in Haiti. But
it has also happened many times all over the world. The strategy is so
obvious now that it can be predicted. It is a two-pronged strategy. On the
one hand, civil society is mobilized against the elected leader. This is not
to say that many people do/did not have problems with the governments of
Aristide, Chavez, or Allende in Chile. I don’t like putting these people in
the same category, but in any country there is going to be some
dissatisfaction. Where resources are limited you are always going to get a
number of people who feel excluded, sometimes it is the majority of people
and sometimes it is the minority. When you get somebody who comes into
offices who represents the majority, as is the case with Aristide, Allende,
and Chavez, the minority feels very threatened and they organize a
resistance. Putting this into the larger context of global capitalism there
are always going to be elites who are unhappy at the challenge to the status
quo. They are the minority who’s interests are being threatened by the
arrival of a democratically elected official who represent the hopes of the
majority. In this environment it is not difficult for America or its agents
to encourage dissent and ferment it among civil society.
The second part of the strategy is violence. In the case of Venezuela you do
not see it as obviously because the opposition is very well organized,
therefore it is not necessary to bring in thugs. There is also an army.
I believe that this two-pronged strategy, on the one hand resentment and
mobilization against the democratically elected government and on the other
hand the instigation of violence, has happened in Haiti and in many other
countries.
AWID: What has been the role of corporate media in spreading an inaccurate
story of the events in Haiti?
PA: Again, this is not unique. I remember years ago in some of our
discussions within the movement we stressed, “don’t forget that the media is
a multi-national corporation”. We are continually surprised by how the media
works but we would not be as surprised if we remember that it is now owned
by big corporations.
In this context, I would like to highlight the importance of alternative
media and especially the internet. This has been an important source of
information on ‘the other story’, the one that is not being told by the
mainstream media. This has been the case in Haiti. However, it is not just
the internet but people from the grassroots organizations in Haiti. Women
have been leaving the country and speaking out. There were a couple of women
who came from Haiti about a month ago who really opened my eyes to what was
happening. Even though I know the history of Haiti I was not really paying
attention until I heard from these women. We are now trying to get their
voices heard in more spaces, however this is not easy in the Caribbean in
the present climate because of political pressure.
AWID: What roles have race, class, and gender played in the conflict in
Haiti?
PA: You cannot understand what is happening in Haiti without an analysis of
race, class, and gender. But, each of them is different. For instance, what
is happening in Haiti has to first be understood in terms of class. It is
the most polarized country in this region and perhaps one of the most
polarized in the world. It has a very small elite and an enormous gap
between the wealthy elite and the very poor masses, who make up over 80% of
the population. It is not just about a disparity of income, and relative
income but also the cultural identity of the elite. The elite identify
themselves with Europe and the United States. They identify themselves with
the “haves” of the world. What we are seeing now is the emergence of a
global elite, who have more in common with each other, the “winners” of
globalization. This has been happening in Haiti for many years because they
were the first in the region to declare themselves independent. The black
elite have a long history of privilege in the midst of terrible depravation
and have never identified with the masses. I suppose this is a way of making
it possible for them to sleep at night, they have to believe that they are
right and the mass of people are ignorant, lazy, corrupt, violent, and are
not human beings. I believe that these deep divisions of class, combined
with cultural identity in Haiti, lies at the heart of the present conflict.
It is interesting to me, especially in contrast to a place like Barbados.
They are both Caribbean islands, they both have histories of colonialism and
plantation slavery, and there are issues of race in both countries, but one
of the things that is different is you do not have as great a class
polarization in Barbados. The income is much more evenly distributed than it
is Haiti; and Barbadians of all classes have a strong sense of Barbadian
identity. In Haiti, unlike Barbados, cultural identity is split along class
lines.
There is an important thing that must be understood about race in the
Caribbean, race is not just about ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ as in the U.S.
definition. Some of the people that you call black in the United States are
not considered black in the Caribbean. The closer people are, in terms of
skin colour and physical characteristics to a white European the more they
are considered ‘not black’ in the Caribbean. Among the elites in Haiti there
are people who would be considered black in America but in Haiti they are
not considered black. They are mulattos and do not identify with black
people. They may be as black as anybody else, but they do not identify
racially with ‘black’. In the Caribbean black means poor. Race and class
identities come together very closely in the Caribbean.
The gender concept is interesting in Haiti. There is definitely a gender
dimension and I think it has to do with the level of poverty in Haiti. I
believe poverty has enormous gender implications. It is class interests that
create poverty but once you have a class of poor people gender takes over.
The reality of what it means to be poor, lack of food, shelter, healthcare,
education, all of those basic needs, is a reflection of women’s practical
gender interests. In that sense there is feminization of poverty, I like to
think of it as the engendering of poverty.
In this context, it is important to examine the roles of women’s
organizations. It is not surprising in a situation where you have such
poverty that you would have many NGOs working on issues such as housing,
education, health, violence, and gender-based violence, all things that
accompany poverty. While women are the most exploited there is also space
for organizing on their behalf in the sense of charity or good-works. The
work of many organizations focusing on alleviating poverty is not reflected
in their politics. In fact, many of them may be quite conservative and
guided by instincts of charity and good works. It is possible for people to
be very sympathetic to the poor, to do good works, and to raise money for
programs but basically they do not want to change the status quo. In fact,
one of the ways to maintain the status quo is to pay attention to basic
needs so that you keep the lid on the pot and prevent it from erupting. In
that sense, women can be used to preserve the status quo.
AWID: How have women and children been affected by the violence in Haiti?
PA: One of the things that I want to emphasis, it is important to use the
broader definition of violence and link it to the whole concept of human
security, which includes freedom from fear and freedom from want. There are
two parts, one is the violence of poverty and deprivation and the other is
the physical violence. Clearly, women and children are most affected by this
if you are looking at both sides of violence.
I would like to go back to what Aristide symbolizes. To an extent he
symbolized the hope of Haiti’s poor, of which women and children make up the
vast majority of Haiti. I would say they are now more affected of violence.
They are in great jeopardy, in terms of their health, education, and
livelihood, of living in a continuing state of violence. Also, the fact that
grassroots women are some of Aristide’s strongest supporters puts them at
risk of politically motivated violence. This is a new kind of violence, not
just gender-based violence but also politically based violence. People are
now writing about a climate of fear in Haiti.
AWID: Is there a role that women can play in preventing violence in Haiti?
PA: I do not think women can prevent violence in Haiti any more than they
were able to prevent the war in Iraq. We were not able to stop the war so it
is unlikely we would be able to stop the violence. If the powerful forces
are determined to use violence as a weapon then we cannot stop it. In the
short-run I think that we are powerless. In fact I think that it is women’s
powerlessness that makes it possible to have this kind of violence. The
society in which there is no violence will be a society in which women are
very powerful.
However, this is in the short-run and maybe in the medium-run, but this is
where my optimism re-asserts itself, I really believe that in the long-run,
as we learn more about the factors that deprive the majority of people from
basic needs and basic rights we have a chance of preventing violence.
Learning more about those factors means understanding the links between
patriarchy, racism, and capitalism. We must begin to understand the
connections between race, class, and gender and be able to articulate it in
a way middle-class and white women can understand that many of the things
they are unhappy about have everything to do with patriarchy, capitalism,
and racism. In the long run I think that we can organize to oppose those
linked structures of oppression and injustice and reduce violence. Right
now, there is not much sign that this is happening. I think this is partly
because the women’s movement has not paid a lot of attention to these
interconnecting factors that impact violence.
It is important to examine the role women played in the situation in Haiti.
There was a statement that came out from National Coordination for Advocacy
on Women’s Rights (CONAP) in Haiti
[http://www.haitipolicy.org/content/1944.htm], a very strong coalition of
women’s organizations in Haiti. They took a leadership role among civil
society organizations mobilizing against Aristide that created the climate
that made it possible for the Americans to come into Haiti.
AWID: Why did they start organizing against Aristide?
PA: This is a good question. It comes back to class. In my opinion, they
represent the privilege few. This situation highlighted for me how
vulnerable civil society organizations are to political manipulation.
Although I am identified with the women’s movement and with civil society
and I understand civil society is not homogeneous and includes very
right-winged people, I never understood how vulnerable civil society is to
political manipulation until now, as in the case of Haiti.
Many of the NGOs who are involved in the anti-Aristide mobilization have
been getting a lot of US government money through USAID as well as from the
International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute.
USAID funds very legitimate things, such as health projects, reproductive
rights projects, education projects. But you have to understand how USAID is
used for political purposes. (it is not just the Americans that do this.).
This trend is very disconcerting because many of our women’s organizations
depend on funding from government.
There has also been a trend, or a political agenda, focused on downsizing
government. Private sector and civil society are part of the whole political
agenda to undermine the legitimacy of governments. We are being invited to
believe that our states are corrupt, powerless, and we should stop looking
to the state for anything. This leaves the state at the mercy of the private
sector. You can contrast people-friendly states and market-friendly states.
The people-friendly states existed in many places where states were
accountable to people and they pushed through agendas that were pro-people,
pro-poor, and pro-women. There has now been a shift toward the
market-friendly state. One talks of the marketization of governance,
governments are now like corporations and have to function like
corporations, they are concerned with efficiency, etc. We are encouraged to
no longer expect our governments to do any kind of redistributive justice,
to protect people’s rights, or to stand between the interests of their own
people and those of other countries. You are even encouraged to organize
yourself in civil society organizations in order to fulfill functions that
should be the responsibility of the state. I think what is going on in Haiti
is all part of this. In this context it is very problematic that civil
society organizations are taking large amounts of money from the U.S.
government. As women’s organizations we really need to be alert to this. One
thing I want women’s organization to be aware of, in the context of Haiti,
is how easily we can be co-opted.
AWID: How can the global women’s movements support the Haitian people?
PA: This issue of being aware of co-option is where the global women’s
movement can help. The national and even the regional women’s movement may
be tied down at the moment. We can not do very much. If women’s organization
in Haiti want to break out of CONAP because they see the American’s
intentions it would be very difficult for them to do so. They would be
threatened in all sorts of ways. Taking away their money would be the
simplest thing, but their good name could also be taken away, there are all
sorts of ways to destroy people and organizations.
The global women’s movement can help because they can say things and raise
issues. However, it is very tricky because you don’t want to be in a
situation where you split the women’s movement. In fact, that is exactly
what is happening in the Caribbean now. You have CONAP on the one hand and
then the signatories of the statement by Caribbean women outside of Haiti
condemning the U.S.’s actions on the other. This could happen globally too.
That is why it is so important to share information.
Some people make a distinction being made between feminists, who are looking
at a broader agenda for social justice and women’s rights advocates. I do
not consider this a legitimate distinction. Many women working on women’s
issues feel that women, like myself, who are talking about class, race, and
imperialism, are not focused on women’s issues. I want to acknowledge that
there is a tension in the global women’s movement and in women’s movements
everywhere between those who want to stick to a very narrow agenda of
women’s rights and those who feel it is essential to place women in a larger
context and history.
AWID: What impact has the situation in Haiti had on the Caribbean region?
PA: The implications for the Caribbean are really horrendous. In the first
instance the U.S. government has shown disrespect and contempt for the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM). CARICOM governments were trying to, and in
fact had reached an agreement, in which Aristide would share power with the
opposition and Haiti would hold early elections. The next thing you know the
opposition is backing out this agreement. Why did they do that? Why didn’t
the U.S. government say that they were backing CARICOM as they had agreed?
Why did they not put pressure on the Haitian opposition? The Haitian
opposition would not have gone against the agreement if it had been
supported by the U.S. government. This is the kind of back and forth that is
going on. The Americans say one thing and then behind the scenes they
encourage the opposition not to play the game. They have really
disrespected, disregarded, and sidelined CARICOM. Now they are trying to put
pressure on CARICOM in order to get CARICOM to fall in line.
This has terrible implications, there is no reason why what happened in
Haiti could not happen any where else in the Caribbean. This is one of the
ways Caribbean governments are reading the situation in Haiti: if the
Americans want to they could they could oust any other leader from power.
The Americans are now dividing us and it is creating a lot of tensions
between governments who are committed to working together. It is having a
very negative impact political, economically, and socially for the Caribbean
region, just at the point when we were are trying to work more closely with
Haiti (Haiti has just recently become part of CARICOM).
CONAP Response to Ms. Antrobus:
The use of paternalism and condescension in denouncing Haitian feminists
The National Coordination for Advocacy on Women?s Rights (CONAP) notes that the situation in Haiti continues to solicit interest in international and regional fora. We can only hope that this will translate into a sustained and informed interest in what is going on in our country and in hearing the voices of women?s organisations in Haiti. We also note that our statement produced in response to the joint declaration signed by a number of Caribbean feminists continues to solicit debate. We regret however that the ongoing debate is so strongly coloured by both bias and paternalism.
CONAP recently received a copy of the AWID interview with Peggy Antrobus. Notwithstanding our admiration for Ms. Antrobus? contribution to the development of a feminist position in the Commonwealth Caribbean and her contribution to the development of feminist perspectives in other fora- we feel compelled once again to raise our voice and to denounce what is clearly an attempt to misinform public opinion about the situation in Haiti and undermine the legitimacy of the women?s movement in Haiti.
In responding to the positions expressed by Ms. Antrobus, we do not feel that it is necessary to restate our position on recent events in Haiti nor our position vis-à-vis the Lavalas regime. Our statement is clear, concise and unequivocal. Democracy is not served by defending an illegitimate and outlaw regime, actively engaged in corruption and human rights violation. Nor is democracy served by choosing to ignore the right of citizens to hold governments accountable. We also firmly believe that the paternalistic attitude and underlying aggression in her response is due, in part, to the strength of our declaration and its impact within the region and internationally. Therefore, our response will focus more on the analysis put forth by Ms. Antrobus and the allegations made against the women?s movement in Haiti.
The politics of race, class and colour-
The use of race, class, and colour to justify and maintain non-democratic regimes in power is not new. Ms. Antrobus attempts to justify, less than adroitly we might add, that the political crisis in Haiti was class-based- and divided along colour lines. While justly recognizing that marked disparities have been one of the major characteristics of the Haitian social, economic and political system, she then seeks to argue that the sectors who called for Mr Aristide?s resignation are representative of the light skinned- or mulatto, wealthy, urban-based, French- speaking elites. This argument creates an opportunity to try to do two things.
First of all, she attempts to veil the human rights abuses and myriad examples of corruption within the regime by focusing on class or colour-based interests and issues and therefore attempts to absolve the aforementioned violations by placing them within a context of supposed ?legitimate defence? This is most patent in her attempt to justify the creation of parallel gangs by Aristide and his use of armed thugs to protect the regime through violence, and repression. ?? Having disbanded the army and not being able to trust the US trained forces, he turned to his own supporters in the slums? his own militia?.?.
In the interests of clarity, it would have been helpful had she stated that the Haitian army was disbanded by Mr. Aristide, that the US trained forces, belonging to the Steele Corporation, were hired by Mr. Artistide to the tune of more than 1.5 million per year (paid in theory by the Haitian taxpayer) and finally that his own ? militia? functioned outside the boundaries of the law, thus constituting a parallel armed force used by Mr Aristide to control urban slum neighbourhoods and carry out campaigns of repression against his adversaries.
Finally, we note that she neglected to mention the linkages between the regime, the ?militia? and the drug trade. Is this the profile of a president committed to building democratic process? It would appear that Ms. Antrobus feels that these acts are justified and warranted.
Secondly, she attempts to state that these and other reprehensible acts are all justified on the basis of the fact that Mr. Artistide represented the majority.- a majority for whom he did ? ?a number of things to make life better for them, There is probably a deep sense of despair among this group which makes it very serious?..? In the interests of brevity, we would rather not get into a discussion as to what was done to make things better for ?them-?..This statement would suggest first of all that improved living conditions are a favour ?bestowed? on the poor and secondly that in fact there were concrete and sustainable actions undertaken which impacted positively on the lives of the poor.
The legacy of the Aristide regime is eloquent; a bankrupt state due to the pillaging of state coffers by regime officials, a dramatic decrease in the level and quality of public services, rampant inflation which has only further increased the vulnerability of the poor and finally the institutionalisation of corruption, drug trafficking, violence and impunity in lieu and in place of democratic principles and practice. Thus, we would take both statements on consideration.
Behind this statement again hides the issue of class and colour- whereby she suggests that all those who denounced the regime were traditional elites. We would strongly encourage Ms. Antrobus to inform herself with regard to the broad-based and representative nature of the various coalitions calling for Mr. Aristide?s resignation. We are certain that Mouvman Peyizan Papaye, and other grass roots peasant organizations would take umbrage with this classification. We are also certain that women?s organisations, labour unions, student associations and other groups would also not recognize themselves in her simplistic portrait of politics in Haiti.
Yes, Haiti is a complex society in which issues related to socio-economic class, colour and gender have played and continue to play a role. We however would posit that this is also the case in many if not all of the countries of the region- despite Ms. Antrobus? declaration which would have us believe that Barbados or Trinidad are class-less societies in which the issue of colour (or ethnicity for that matter)- do not impact on social, political, and economic processes.
In closing, it would appear that for Ms. Antrobus, popularity is more important than principles- and that simplistic analysis is more comfortable than dealing with the complexities of the situation. It would appear that simplicity in the case of Haiti, unlike other countries such as Trinidad or Barbados, is acceptable, because after all – we are a simple society, and the complexities and the requirements of democratic process would appear to be beyond our reach.
The practice of paternalism and condescension:
As the aforementioned argument forms the basis for the opinion put forward and the stance taken on defending the Artistide presidency, Ms Antrobus feels obliged to criticize those sectors that actively called for his resignation.
While brandishing the question of class and colour allow her to neatly categorize and disqualify certain social actors such as the private sector, it does not however allow her to disqualify women?s organisations in general and CONAP in particular. Therefore, the argument put forward is one based on paternalism and a form of condescension that is oddly reminiscent of the discourse used by the ruling class to ignore rumblings from the masses.
Basically, once the rhetoric has been stripped away, the argument is the following. While recognizing that women?s organisations exist in Haiti, she begins by stating that they have mainly focused on charity and good works- thereby preserving the status quo and keeping everyone- men and women – in their place.
An interesting approach in that it evokes a form of benevolence somewhat akin to the supposed favours granted by Aristide to the people but at the same time creates a distinction between women?s organisations in Haiti and real women?s organisations, such as those in the rest of the region, which are committed to promoting social change.
We do not feel that it is necessary to reiterate all of the work undertaken by women?s organisations in Haiti to address the status and position of women rather than focusing exclusively on their basic needs- and their contributions to advancing feminist thought and action regionally and internationally. However it would appear necessary again to highlight some of the actions undertaken by the movement in Haiti. The Haitian women?s movement has played a key role in advancing the women?s agenda in Haiti through the organisation of an international tribunal on gender based violence, successfully lobbying Parliament to ratify Belem Do Para and to move toward judicial reform in conformity with international human rights conventions, developing through a broad consensus building exercise a white book on women?s strategic gender interests, as well as maintaining ongoing awareness-building and organizing efforts at all levels. Regionally and internationally, the women?s movement has built strong partnerships with other like-minded coalitions and institutions. Through active participation in initiatives ranging from the Social Forum to participation in various networks engaged in feminist research and action to mobilisation around specific issues related to strategic gender interests, the Haitian women?s movement has continued to ensure that women?s voices are heard.
This paternalistic attitude is further compounded by stating that organisations in Haiti have not yet made the link between violence against women and the structures of oppression and injustice. In other words, in addition to ?charity and good works?, women?s organisations do not have the capacity to analyse the notion of power within Haitian society We would invite Ms. Antrobus to revisit, or rather visit- given that she does not seem to really know these organisations or their work- some of the statements put forward by women? organisations in Haiti over the past years.
Not satisfied with discounting the work of women?s organisations in Haiti and dismissing them as incapable of making the most elementary linkages between gender and oppression in all of its forms, the argument then turns to attacking CONAP itself.
CONAP is dismissed as a structure that represents the ? privileged few?. vulnerable to political manipulation? and while we are at it- ?right-winged (sic) people. ? Not content with this, she further claims that civil society organisations, and we would assume that she is also including CONAP in this statement, are accepting ?large amounts of money from the US government, USAID, IRI et NDI??.
Ms Antrobus seeks to discredit a coalition of feminist organisations- that very obviously she does not know -by evoking class, race, and ideology, all of which is couched in a language of condescension whereby she is the authority and expert- and therefore able to dispense advise to her sisters. We would like to suggest that Ms. Antrobus take the time to inform herself prior to making unfounded and inflammatory accusations.
CONAP is a coalition of women?s organisations bringing together organisations from various parts of Haiti and representing the strategic interests of women. Over the past ten years, women?s organisations have been structuring the women?s movement and creating a broad-based consensus on the way to move forward. We have addressed the issues of gender-based violence, of politically motivated rape (which contrary to Ms. Antrobus? statement is not new), of inclusion and fundamental rights, of participation in decision-making, of sovereignty, and finally the issue of linkages with other women?s movement in the region and internationally.
Perhaps because we work in Creole, rather than English, our voices go unheard? Ironically, if we work in the language which is ours, our voices are not heard, and if we deign to write in English or Spanish, in the interest of informing sister organisations within the region, we are accused of being elitist, a part of the privileged few !
With regard to our funding – neither CONAP nor any of its member organisations receive funding from the American government. We were however very interested to learn that apparently women? s organisations in the rest of the region do accept money from government. We assume that Ms. Antrobus means USAID. Given Ms. Antrobus? knowledge of the Commonwealth Caribbean, we take this statement at face value. We are sorry that many of the organisations in the region have been ?co-opted ? – unfortunately that is a risk for any organisation- whatever their source of funding- if they are not clear on their vision and their mission.
Finally, while thanking Ms Antrobus for her recognition that CONAP is a ?strong organisation ?, we are astonished to read the following ? ?if women?s organizations want to break out of CONAP ? it would be very difficult for them to do so?they would be threatened in all sorts of ways??.
In the interests of honesty-, which is high among feminist principles, we would like Ms. Antrobus to provide information that would support her statement. CONAP is a coalition which is based on the most basic of principles- if an organisation supports the vision put forward and wants to contribute through their work to promoting gender equality and a process of social change, then they are more than welcome to become a part of the coalition. CONAP is based on the respect of the individual rights of each of its member organisations- and the collective responsibility to address the structural issues that maintain and perpetuate the oppression of women.
CONAP does not provide funding and nor does it dispense favours to its members. Rather CONAP is a space in which diverse women?s organisations can come together to pool their energy and their time to advocate for the rights of women, to advocate for a society in which the rights of all are recognized, and to advocate for a new type of political discourse which is based on feminist principles. It is no more and no less.
Engendering political discourse and practice
In all due respect to Ms. Antrobus, there is a need to link rhetoric with practice.
It is too easy to sit comfortably in Barbados, Trinidad, or New York and attack what you do not know- or what you choose to ignore. Ms Antrobus stated herself that ? I was not really paying attention ?- Given that she was not paying attention to Haiti or to women?s organisations in Haiti and that she did not take the time to develop an informed opinion, what was making her run?
As a feminist, over the past years she has advocated for the need to listen to the voices of women and not to make assumptions, take decisions or pass judgement in their place. Yet apparently she feels not only authorized to do so vis-à-vis Haiti and CONAP, but morally compelled to do so. We insist on the notion of morally compelled because of the condescension and paternalism that coloured the entire interview. This is a reflection of a sense of self-righteousness that is rather difficult to accept.
We would like to remind Ms. Antrobus of the heritage which she has left to other feminists and women in the Caribbean. The principles of participation, of respect, and of celebrating the voices of diversity are at the heart of this heritage. We find it particularly sad that at this point in time, a feminist is not only contributing to dividing the movement, but also to using tactics and strategies which have been roundly denounced by the same movement.
We close in stating that CONAP continues to believe in the importance of regional and international solidarity. We reiterate that solidarity is built on relationships that are grounded in shared information, informed analysis, sustained commitment and most of all, mutual trust and respect.
CONAP has created opportunities for this to happen with our sister organisations in the region. We would like to place the emphasis on sister organisations because individually many of us are members of the Caribbean Feminist Research Action Network (CAFRA), members of Caribbean Policy Development Centre (CPDC) , and have participated in the regional coordination for various activities over the past years. We note that despite the many fora that would have been open to discuss this issue with other Caribbean feminists, they have chosen once again to ignore us.
Finally, we are obliged to ask who is afraid of CONAP and why?
CONAP, through the patience and effort of its member organisations, has become an important voice in Haiti. CONAP?s position and actions have amply demonstrated that Haiti and Haitians do not want to settle for the appearance of democracy and or accept the use of demagoguery to justify systematic human rights violations. CONAP has begun to lay the groundwork to show that feminist discourse is central to political processes which are inclusive- and which lay the foundation for democratic practice.
CONAP has demonstrated that the women?s movement in Haiti has moved beyond the issues of race, colour and class that have so marked politics in the Caribbean. A feminist or an engendered analysis allows us to analyse and denounce the ways in which discrimination, in all of its forms, plays out.
Does this make people uncomfortable? Yes apparently it does -if the issues of race; class, colour and ethnicity are not resolved for them.