WORLD

The bloody struggle continues

to restructure Haitian society

Just when those in General Henri
Namphy’s ruling military council
thought the good old days would con--
tinue with a few changes, the widespread
discontent which toppled the Jean-
Claude Duvalier dictatorship, last Oc-
tober, burst into life once more.

This time it appeared worse. An

intermittent general strike lasting more
than a month, coupled with land seizures
by poor peasants in the rural areas, dem-
onstrated that the Namphy-led section of
the armed forces now in power has put
the brakes on the deepening of the demo-
cratic rights and freedoms won since the
Duvaliers fied to France with most of the
Haitian treasury.
_ Big landowners near the town of
Jean-Rabel, some 220 kilometers north-
west of Port au Prince, were therefore
able to launch a brutal attack on impover-
ished peasants whose only crime was to
want to grow food on the unused land of
large plantations and to demand land
reform.

According to reliable sources at least
100 people died at the hands of planta-
tions owners aided by members of the
Ton Ton Macoute, Duvalier’s former
secret police. A protestant minister told a
Reuters news agency correspondent that
he had counted 300 bodies along several
miles of a mountain road near the town.

Two main principles

In a television speech during the
strike, Namphy called the display of red
flags by Haitian communists and others
during a mass protest in the capital as ‘‘a
sacrilege’. -

Conveniently ignoring the fact that the
United Party of Haitian Communists,
(PUCH), the country’s oldest and main
left organization, was in the front ranks
with progressive sections of the Catholic
church in running Duvalier out of Haiti,

Namphy vowed the country would “‘re-
main free of foreign domination’’.

The Haitian communists seek a new
government that would be based on two
main principles, PUCH General Secret-
ary Rene Theodore explained in a recent
interview with the World Marxist
Review.

“(One is) constant popular control
Over government institutions, and two,
the replaceability of officials and de-
puties acting contrary to the people’s
interests,”’ he said.

**We believe, that among other things,
the national assembly should have full
powers including the right to appoint and
remove the country’s president and
ministers.”

Significantly, a referendum early this
year showed that 99.9 per cent wanted a
new, liberal constitution which outlaws
any president led by the present military
Tulers: A presidential election is due in
November.

Democracy and land reform
On the struggles of the four million

peasants who live in the poorest country

in the Western Hemisphere, Theodore

declared that the PUCH would press for

immediate land reform and that the peas-

ants get direct access to local govern-

ment for the first time in Haiti’ s history.
ses Interview occurred while the
a -

&

Anti-Namphy demonstrators at Haiti’s
National Palace.

From the
Caribbean é-! |

Norman Faria

country’s main sugar factory closed,
throwing 3,000 workers out of a job and
driving some 35,000 small planters into
bankruptcy. Theodore said a minimum
economic program would have to entail
improving the country’s finances
through trade with new partners includ-
ing the socialist countries. He described
the country’s present dependence on the
U.S., Canada, West Germany and Fr-
ance as ‘‘feudal’’.

The PUCH program overlaps with
some of what the Catholic church and
other democratic forces in the country
are putting forward.

‘‘The Catholic church has played an
important role in the struggle against
Duvalier’’, he said. ‘‘It still takes a pro-
gressive stand especially on the land re-
form issue where it’s a point of view simi-
lar to ours.

“The church upholds the principle of
the country’s territorial integrity; de-
mands non-interference in its affairs by
foreign powers, notably the U.S.; (and)
comes out for Haiti’s independent
economic development on the basis of its
own resources ...

‘‘In short, the present position of the
Catholics, based as it is on the theology
of liberation, provides a basis for co-
operation with the communists in de-
fense of democracy and in pressing for a
restructuring of Haitian society in
accordance with the ideals of social
progress.’

First Nations
spurn contact

with Pretoria

TORONTO — The Indian leaders of

Ontario have rejected and will continue
to reject any formal relationship with the
racist government of South Africa.

In a press release issued by the First
Nations of Ontario, the Native leaders
said they rejected all contacts with that
government as long as it continues to
oppress the human rights of the indigen-
ous people of South Africa.

The planning and priorities committee
of the Chiefs of Ontario made it clear
that those Indians who recently visited
South Africa as the guests of the South
African government do not in any way
represent the First Nations of Ontario.

Ontario regional chief Gordon Peters
said that the fundamental goal of the
First Nations in Canada is self-
determination. But it must be clear to the
Canadian public that “those individuals
have never been given any mandate to
represent Ontario First Nations, and cer-
tainly have no right to make any agree-
ments with the South African govern-
ment on our behalf,” he said.

Peters said that while First Nations
will use pressure to force Canadian poli-
ticians to become more sensitive to the
deplorable social, economic and envir-
onmental conditions of Native commun-
ities, “we deplore the efforts of the South
African to exploit the situation of First
Nations in an attempt to justify their
apartheid policies.”

Peters said' he was not surprised that
anti-apartheid activist and Anglican

meet with the Saskatchewan

delegation,
and emphasized that change in both

countries is best achieved by “mutual
both of whom are struggling for the
recognition and implementation of their
rights from oppressive, colonialist gov-
ernments.”

By SERGEI TREPELKOV
Novosti Press Agency

In its official statements the Canadian
government has repeatedly voiced its
concern over the arms race, stressing
the need of reducing conventional and
nuclear arms, and establishing east-

. west confidence in the field of security.
Canada has also expressed its sup-
port for the 1972 Soviet-American
ABM Treaty, and welcomed a joint
agreement by the USSR and the U.S.
declaring their aim was to prevent an
arms race in space and stop it on earth.
To sum up, Canada has adopted what
would seem to be a quite realistic posi-
tion which meets the vital need of na-
tions to ensure the maximum security
for oneself, and the rest of the world in
our alarming time.

I don’t use ‘‘what would seem” by
chance. The reasonable words coming
from Canada are not exactly matched
by its plans of action outlined in the
recently issued White Paper on De-
fence. It is difficult to come to a differ-
ent conclusion since this document,
contary to government statements, sets
forth a vast program of arms buildup for
the next 15 years.

Some people may argue that Cana-
da’s intention to spend $180-billion on

tanks, aircraft, and other combat hard-
ware, or sharply increase the strength

As others see it

of its reserves, is its domestic affair,
and nobody has any right to interfere in
it. This is true — nobody has the right to
tell a sovereign power how it should
strengthen its defences on its own terri-
tory, provided this does not threaten
the security of other countries.

But the White Paper goes much
farther, and this cannot help but alarm
Its neighbour via the pole, the Soviet
Union.

To begin with, Canada is planning to
extend its military presence in West
Germany, that is, in Central Europe, a
highly explosive zone where the armed
forces of the two world socio-political
systems directly confront each other.
I'd like to note in this context that it is
no accident that the initial goal of the
ongoing Geneva talks was to eliminate
medium- and short-range missiles
exactly in Europe. Ottawa’s intention is
a step in the opposite direction.

Secondly, on a par with a general
buildup of war preparations, Canada is
laying all but the main emphasis in its
plans on upgrading its naval forces, for
which it is going to buy from 10 to 12
atomic-powered submarines. The
government says that this is done to
protect the country’s sovereignty in the
Arctic, first of all, against the Ameri-

(Canada embarks on military/nuclear road

cans who do not recognize Canada’s
rights to the North West Passage. This
explanation is somewhat naive. Closer
to the truth are statements from Cana-
dian military figures who say that
atomic-powered submarines will help
the country to fulfill its commitments to
NATO, and become part of its system
in the Maritime sphere, similar to
NORAD. But this means Canada’s in-
corporation in the club of NATO coun-
tries possessing atomic submarine
fleets.
Among other things, by taking sucha
,course, Canada embarks on the road of
using nuclear energy for military pur-
poses which is bound to undermine its
prestige in nuclear weapons non-
proliferation, and, generally, in arms
control.
But this just one aspect of the
problem.
In the opinion of military experts, the
Canadian atomic fleet, being part of
NATO’s potential, may be equipped
with cruise missiles very quickly. In
this context I’m haunted by a ‘‘military
report’’ which had been clearly pre-
pared for quite a time, although it was
.first discussed in the Brussels-based
NATO headquarters late in July, after
the white paper was published.
This document recommends not just
deployment of additional number of

nN

F-111 nuclear-capable fighter-bombers.
It also contains a provision which has a
direct bearing on the subject discussed.
This provision is urging the NATO
countries to seek access to nuclear-
capable sea-based cruise missiles. I'd
like- to stress here that observers in
London qualify this as a measure to be
taken in the event of a potential conclu-
sion of a Soviet-U.S. Agreement to
eliminate medium and _ short-range
missiles, an agreement which Canada
welcomes with such enthusiasm.

Thirdly, Canada has extended the
agreement on testing of American
Cruise missiles over its territory. This
agreement was signed on condition of
the observance of the Soviet-U.S.
ABM and SALT-II treaties whose con-
clusion was approved by Canada. But
by the time the Canada-U.S. agreement
was extended it had already been obvi-
ous that the U.S. had undermined
SALT-II and was steering the course
towards revising the ABM treaty ...

Finally, SDI. Canada has officially
renounced participation in it. But at the
same time it was given the green light to
work on this program in private labs
and firms. I believe that this decision is
half-hearted, to put it mildly.

To sum up, I'd like to stress that the

Archbishop Desmond Tutu would not

said facts give much food for thought.)

Tg, RE ie ee

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, SEPTEMBER 2, 1987 e 7

a a
pa

i dad
OS OPEB 2

hier rarer