Caracas.- Roger Capella, the Secretary of Health and Social Development, warned that those public servants working for his office who had signed to request the recall referendum against the president will be fired.

In Secretary Capella’s estimation, having signed for the referendum is an act of conspiracy and terrorism, which is unacceptable.

When a journalist asked about the right of individuals to freely epxress their will, the Secretary answered that “to conspire is impossible, anywhere in the world, and if you want to do so anywhere in the world, you’ll see how you get freely fired. I propose for you to go to NASA and sign against the Bush government and state that you’re conspiring against the Bush government, and you will see whether you’ll stay at NASA or not.”

Caracas.- El ministro de Salud y Desarrollo Social, Roger Capella, advirtió que los empleados públicos adscritos a su despacho que hayan firmado para solicitar la realización del referendo revocatorio presidencial serán despedidos.

A juicio del ministro Capella haber firmado para solicitar la realización del referendo es un acto de conspiración y terrorismo, lo cual resulta inaceptable.

Al preguntarle una periodista sobre el derecho de las personas a expresar su voluntad libremente, el ministro respondió que "conspirar en ninguna parte del mundo es posible, y si usted quiere hágalo en cualquier otra parte del mundo y usted verá como queda libremente despedida. Yo le propongo a usted que en la NASA firme contra el Gobierno de Bush y declare que está conspirando contra el gobierno de Bush y usted verá si continúa o no continúa en la NASA".

AL,

It backs up what Francisco Toro said in Caracas Chronicles in the post I linked to above. Unbelievable. Chávez and his minions put the ass in bombastic.

Congratulations to you and your bride, by the way. May life bring the two of you all the joy possible in the world.

There are much wider limits on authoritarian power in a developing nation provided the nation is developing.

Hati is not. Obviously there is a fundamental flaw.

My guess - with out any deep knowledge - is that the educational system is probably not delivering.

The other problem that they may be having is that they speak French. :-) What do I mean by that? French colonies do not seem to have the power to maintain themselves as well as former English colonies.

Now not all English colonies have turned out well (Rhodesia/Zimbabwe). But India and Even South Africa are finally pulling it together.

I put it down to a fundamental flaw in the French world view.

The only way to control inflation is to control the money supply. Your basic Chicago Boys prescription.

Initially it drives up unemployment. However if not controlled increases in the money supply (inflation) will destroy a whole economy. Think Germany 1933.

If you make the money supply grow faster than the real economy in an effort to help the poor you wind up hurting the poor.

There is only one way to help the poor. Get the economy growing. For this to happen the rich must be assured of positive returns on their investments. The greater the returns to the rich the faster the economy grows. Punishing the rich with high taxes or other confiscations is short sighted.

FWIW, I didn't mention anything about raising taxes.

But if you control the money supply so strictly that businesses cannot grow, you cannot grow the economy and you cannot increase employment.

What a truly sharp mind will do is find the balance between controlling the money supply to the point where inflation (which probably impacts the poor far more than the wealthy) is kept at a manageable level and meeting the needs of businesses who need affordable capital to expand.

I'm surprised to see no mention of France's role in Aristide's removal, which I suspect tipped the U.S. in the direction of forcing/getting him out. Aristide's initial exile was arranged by France's longtime ally in Central Africa, Gabonese President Omar Bongo.

More here.

Joel,

Tht's an important point, but unfortunately I've been able to find out very little regarding the French role beyond the fact that the French were the first non-haitians to call for Aristide to resign.

If the Caribbean Community (Caricom) had negotiated a power sharing arrangement, the US had approved it and Aristide had agreed to it, why did the US press for Aristide's departure when the opposition rejected the proposed agreement?

There is a fairly simple answer, though it's truth and wisdom can be disputed, I suppose. First, the opposition that rejected the proposed agreement rejected because they were winning. They were about to overrun the capital anyway-- for that reason they felt no need to accept a ceasefire and power sharing agreement.

Secondly, the rebels stated that they would be willing to accept a ceasefire, but only if Aristide were gone. (And they do indeed have reasons to distrust him, surely.)

If the power sharing agreement was agreed to by Aristide's side, but not the other, it wasn't much of an agreement, was it?

So the choice facing the US was either to throw military might behind sustaining Aristide's rule, and imposing this "agreement" upon the opposition which didn't agree to it, or to tell Aristide that the US would not militarily invade just to save him, and to attempt to negotiate a power sharing agreement that the opposition would agree to, without Aristide.

Note that if the US does nothing, then Aristide is forced out. Inaction causes him to go. Somehow inaction on the part of the US, not intervening, is transformed into forcing Aristide to leave.

This entire incident reminds one that the same people who criticize the US for shoring up and supporting dictators with questionable human rights records will criticize the US for failing to do so as well.

In my mind, Aristide's subsequent fixed election and human rights violations trump any legitimacy he might have hoped to have claimed.

Actually, John, I'm not criticizing the US for failing to support Aristide. I find it peculiar that rather than at least making an effort to continue negotiations, the Bush administration just gave up and walked away. I'm sure Caricom feels that they were sandbagged and I think that that aspect of the matter is troubling.

If the power sharing agreement was agreed to by Aristide's side, but not the other, it wasn't much of an agreement, was it?

Imagine the outcry if the US took that position in the Middle East. I think that you're presenting a false set of choices here. The alternative is to keep negotiating not to walk away. These things involve compromise on both sides.

As for the opposition, I don't see how you can't find this disturbing:

Mr. Latortue has no democratic mandate. Haitians are bitterly split between Aristide supporters and opponents, and both sides are heavily armed. Clearly, he needs to reach out to those on both sides of this divide who want to move their country forward. But Mr. Latortue aided neither national reconciliation nor his own shaky legitimacy by the unseemly ceremony he took part in last Saturday.

Ferried by American military helicopters to the city of Gonaïves, where the anti-Aristide revolt began, he stood on a stage with killers like Jean-Pierre Baptiste. Mr. Baptiste, who escaped from prison in 2002, is a death squad leader convicted of participating in a 1994 massacre of Aristide supporters.

Also welcoming Mr. Latortue to Gonaïves was Guy Philippe, the rebel military chief, who has yet to keep his promise to American commanders to disarm his fighters. While there, the prime minister unwisely paid tribute to Amiot Métayer, the murdered founder of the Cannibal Army, an initially pro-Aristide gang. In 2002, Mr. Métayer was jailed at the behest of the Organization of American States. Freed by his supporters the next month, he turned against President Aristide and was later murdered. Mr. Métayer's followers began the revolt that toppled the elected government.

Sure smells like past becoming prologue to me.