* * * HAITI INFO * * * News direct from the people and organizations of Haiti's democratic and popular movement 29 October 1995, Vol. 4, #1 Contents: Stories: NEW PARLIAMENT, NEW PRIME MINISTER - What Can Be Expected? ANTI-NEOLIBERAL STRUGGLE UNREST IN NORTH - Massive Student Demonstrations FRAPH DOSSIER SCANDAL STATE EMPLOYEES ANGRY Common Ground: UNITED NATIONS: THE WEIGHT OF THE U.S. Stories: NEW PARLIAMENT, NEW PRIME MINISTER - What Can Be Expected? PORT-AU-PRINCE, Oct. 28 - The new parliamentarians have taken their places, a new prime minister should be ratified soon, and presidential elections appear to be in the offing (despite the president's continuing to entertain ambiguity on the question). The newspapers and airwaves are full of speculation, plans and promises. Several steps toward privatization - like the opening of bids for the flour and cement plants, and the signing of an agreement with the International Monetary Fund - have been put off. But will the change in government bring about a change in policies? Will the population's demands for lower cost of living, justice and jobs be satisfied because of a change of personnel? Positive Signs There are a few positive signs in the 46th Legislature. A number of those elected under the Lavalas platform banner (B Tab La) have backgrounds in the democratic movement. Some began their careers last week by attacking the U.S. government [see page 2], criticizing scofflaws and sanctioning two infamous putschist Senators. The Senate decided to punish absentee Senators Thomas Eddy Dupiton and Bernard Sansaricq - vehement supporters of the coup d'etat, of the illegal elections of Jan. 18, 1993, of the "parallel Senate" and of the de facto prime ministers and presidents, including ex- Judge Emile Jonassaint (who died this week) - by cutting off their paychecks. (They have reportedly been collecting salaries for 13 months.) "There is nothing that can justify the way Senator Sansaricq carried himself," said Senator Jean-Robert Sabalat. "Someone who dishonors his family, the Senate of the Republic and the Haitian nation... He has been eating off of this country for one year!" In a reply, on page 1 of the ultra-rightist Le Matin newspaper, Sansaricq, reportedly in the U.S. (he has a Green Card), said he would never associate himself with the "bunch of Lavalassiens who indecently occupy the parliament." Senator Paul Denis said he wants to go after those "who act as though they are above the law" by not paying taxes, even though they collect sales taxes from consumers, and also after the state employees who are part of the corruption. He read off a list of companies to target on the radio. Prime Minister-designate (current Minister of Foreign Affairs) Claudette Werleigh also brings a change. She was Aristide's first choice for prime minister last October (quickly tabled, undoubtedly due to pressure from the U.S.), and has a background in non-governmental work. Other ministerial replacements are also expected. More Promises In the meantime, despite popular protests [see other stories], Aristide is still very popular and continues to wield influence. On Oct. 19, over 5,000 Bel-Air residents showed up to hear him speak. He promised the crowd he will consider their demands for "three years," saying "if I respect you, I have to accept to see what you ask for, listen to what you ask for." He also talked about four "miracles" that need to be accomplished: conquering hunger and delivering justice, housing, and schools and announced that the government was giving Bel-Air residents the Engineer Corps building. (Due, in part, to an apparent lack of pre- planning, however, many families immediately tried to squat there, and two days later, it was attacked and burned down by arsonists.) Aristide's popularity is due, in part, to the fact that until now he has been able to hint that unpopular programs or lack of progress were the fault of his ministers. The challenge now facing him and the Lavalas platform, if indeed the elections are going to be held, is to maintain that popularity under the "new" government so he can hand-off the presidency to the as-yet-unnamed successor. The sooner the races, the better for Lavalas. The Harsh Reality The U.S. might just agree. Coincidence or no, this week Sen. Jesse Helms announced the "frozen" money for the presidential elections is now unblocked. The race will supposedly happen in time to inaugurate the new president on Feb. 7. All of this took place very quickly, and within days of Werleigh's meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher. Since then, U.S. and U.N. officials have endorsed her candidacy, but Christopher, immediately and publicly, stressed the need for Haiti to return to the IMF table and to continue economic reforms. The way the elements are shaping up, Werleigh and the new lawmakers might continue in the direction indicated by the aforementioned Senators, in spite of the fact that, thus far, the Lavalas platform and the president have not been quick to directly question to U.S.-dominated status quo. If they prove they have the mettle to stand up to the U.S. and the banks, they should be prepared to go all the way. To really bring about positive and profound changes, they will have to openly break with U.S. plans and programs here: neoliberalism, the occupation and the U.S. tutelage over government policy. If not, their criticisms will amount to little more than caprices, perhaps resulting in a few slight reforms, like one or two less enterprises privatized, and while that may fool the Haitian people, it will not fundamentally put into question the overall U.S. project. ANTI-NEOLIBERAL STRUGGLE PORT-AU-PRINCE, Oct. 26 - Despite the distractions of the resignation of the prime minister and preparations for presidential elections, popular organizations are continuing their mobilization and struggle against neoliberal plans for Haiti. On Oct. 23, about 40 people from a dozen groups - including Assemblee Populaire Nationale (APN) and Kolektif Mobilizasyon Kont FMI - held a sit-in in front of parliament to demand that the new Senators and Deputies vote against neoliberal policies. The protestors chanted slogans like "Down with Those Selling the Country!" and held signs which said: "The Occupation Force = World Bank Policy," "Privatization = More hunger and more unemployment" and "Agrarian Reform without demagogy is the only solution." In their statement, the groups pointed out that, in the past, many of the country's politicians have fallen because they supported neoliberalism, and said the new parliamentarians should investigate the details of "The Paris Plan" before voting on any legislation. They also demanded the nationalization of state enterprises as well as some private ones, protection for national production, and for the state to fix prices and to force the elite to reinvest their profits locally. The Miami-based U.S. Hands off the Haitian People Coalition recently issued a press release noting the mobilizations this summer and fall in the capital and Cap-Haitien, as well as several strikes, and attacked the neoliberal agenda as well as President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's hidden support of it. "While Aristide has been trying to distance himself from implementation of IMF policies, the contradictions within his government clearly demonstrate the IMF policy is the price paid for his return," the coalition wrote. The group went further to denounce those who, in the past, were cynical about U.S. policy but today, "have betrayed the Haitian peoples' struggle by overtly or covertly collaborating with the occupation and the process of establishing Haiti as a U.S./U.N. protectorate." Today, they are looking for jobs in the government or as U.N. observers, the coalition said, and "helping to legitimize an already bankrupt electoral process." The coalition urged people to support "the peoples' struggles: students, workers, displaced workers and day laborers" and ominously noted that "although the U.S. is still relying on Aristide's populism to stem the tide of popular unrest, the tendency is towards organizing an even more repressive state" as in Peru, Venezuela and Brazil. The relatively new coalition, Komisyon Anti-Privatizasyon (KAP), comprised of state enterprise unions and popular groups, announced they are organizing themselves. Jean Luckner Pierre, of the Minotrie d'Haiti workers' union, told journalists that KAP recently held a two-day congress which resulted in a dozen resolutions demanding that all criminals of the coup d'etat era, including those who pillaged state coffers, be punished, that those who owe the state money be tracked down and prosecuted, that workers and popular organizations participate in managing state enterprises, for agrarian reform and that President Jean Bertrand Aristide stay in office three more years. KAP leaders also denounced the Ministry of Education's 90,000- scholarship plan, saying the money is not enough and is not going to those who need it, and also said they believe members of the government are deliberately undermining Electricite d'Haiti. "It's so they can privatize it, but it's not going to work! The cat knows. The rat knows. Everybody knows," one worker said. Earlier this month, in Washington, D.C., a Haitian delegation participated in a demonstration in front of the World Bank, as well as in a number of workshops with representatives of some 50 other countries organized by U.S.-based groups like "50 Years is Enough." UNREST IN NORTH Massive Student Demonstrations CAP-HAlTIEN, Oct. 28 - Law and high school students in Cap-Haitien are mobilizing to demand their rights through press conferences, marches and demonstrations which have, on occasion, ended into confrontations. Although the law school is tentatively open, all primary and secondary schools are closed down. High School Students Demonstrate Thousands of students from the public high school, which did not open when the rest of the country's schools did earlier this month, have taken to the streets repeatedly this week to demand funding and benches for their school, which is very underequipped; the construction of a second high school, as President Jean Bertrand Aristide promised during his July 28 whistle-stop here (the government reportedly gave grants to several church-related schools during that visit, which further enrages the students); back salaries for 120 professors have not been paid for months, and to protest that private schools have raised their fees so much. The students, from the Lycee Philippe Guerrier, some members of Asosyasyon Elev N, have several times been violently confronted by Haitian police and U.N. soldiers. During demonstrations on Oct. 23 and 26, students engaged in rock battles with U.N. soldiers. Some students were beaten. Others were arrested and later released. Because of the movement, all of the private schools in the city have closed, some willingly, in solidarity with the students. Law School, Students Attacked Last June, after a long struggle - between students and professors demanding that its status be formalized and allowed into the state university, and a group of professors and administrators who insisted on running the school as a profit-making business - officials from the Universite d'tat d'Haiti finally agreed to incorporate the Cap-Haitien Law School into the state system. [See Haiti Info v.3, #10 & #15] The school still has many opponents. On Oct. 9, while students and professors were holding a general assembly, a group of people came to the faculty and threatened them, reportedly threw rocks, seized the keys, broke windows, chairs and stole the students' inscription fees. Student leaders later said the attackers are allied with former Dean Charles Manigat, who fought, tooth and nail, the "public"-ization of the school. "They were acting the way FRAPH used to act during the coup d'etat," said student Serge Angrand at a press conference the next day. "The students and professors had to run away so they would not be massacred." Angrand explained that Manigat and his supporters, including former professors, want to "control the justice system" in the North by placing people in important positions and also running the law school. One of the men the students have been accusing decided to sue the students for character defamation. The law school is tentatively open. Minister of Education Emmanuel Buteau and university authorities have not commented. FRAPH DOSSIER SCANDAL PORT-AU-PRINCE, Oct. 20 - Rights advocates, journalists and politicians have been expressing their outrage over the fact that the U.S. government refuses to release 60,000 pages of documents confiscated by U.S. troops from headquarters of FRAPH (Front Haitien pour le Progres et l'Avancement Haitien) in the early days following the Sept. 19, 1994, invasion. FRAPH, involved in hundreds of murders and rapes during the coup d'etat, was founded by U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) employee Emmanuel Constant with advice and probably more substantial support from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. As part of its opening deliberations yesterday, members of the 46th Legislature debated what action to take. "I propose that the parliament send a letter to the State Department to show its indignation with this attitude and to demand that they return the ensemble of documents to the Haitian justice system," said Senator Paul Denis. But Senator Clark Parent disagreed: "We are the Senate of the Republic, and we are not naive... This is an important question that the state, and we, as part of the government, should discuss secretly first, before we render it public, despite the fact that we see it written in the newspaper. We do not want to get out of control over a newspaper article... Newspapers write all kinds of things! You can't have an extract of a newspaper be the object of a meeting!" Parent perhaps did not want to confront the U.S., which is currently in charge of the occupation, is heavily involved in Haiti's negotiations for "aid," and also in a series of "support" efforts for the legislators with equipment, seminars, programs and so on. "If you get into that question... Do you see what problematic I am getting into?... Now, the Senate should ask itself the question, under what kind of regime are we working? Is it a regime of occupation? If you don't deal with that question first, soon you will get into a series of dossiers... Holy cow!" Aristide Attorney Ira Kurzban's reflection to Reuters the next day illustrated why the 60,000 pages are a "hot" topic: "There are certain elements within the intelligence community in the U.S. that were supportive of FRAPH... I imagine that these documents would potentially reveal those links." Despite Clark's reserve, a subcommittee approved Denis' suggestion and it is scheduled to be considered on Oct. 30. Others were stronger to condemn the U.S. The Platform of Haitian Human Rights Organizations protested the U.S.'s seizure of the documents of a group responsible for "political assassinations, torture, disappearances," and said it was a "flagrant violation of the sovereignty of the country" that could hinder the cause of justice. "The obstinate refusal to restitute the archives... will have no other effect than to... enlarge the profound misgivings different sectors of civil society have concerning the true objectives of the U.S. presence (one of which could be to prevent the exposure of the connections and ramifications of the military-macoute system of repression)," the platform said. STATE EMPLOYEES ANGRY PORT-AU-PRINCE, Oct. 28 - Government employees have embarked on a wave of protests and strikes. Ministry of Interior workers yesterday occupied the ministry to protest corruption, low salaries and deplorable conditions. The 75 workers also said that a fellow employee, Luc St. Fleur, was shot four times this week because he belongs to the movement. They said they will not leave until they see President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. It is their third attempt to get someone to pay attention to their denunciations of massive corruption, including "zombi paychecks," stolen vehicles and illicit arms deals. "We are serious militants that are doing a clean action, to clean out the ministry that will be able to work for a clean president!" one leader said. The employees want to see Aristide because in the ministry "there are maneuvers and delaying tactics" and because some higher-level employees are implicated in the corruption and they say they fear for their lives. Also this week, employees of the National Archives went on strike to protest low salaries (university graduates make as little as 1500 gourdes [about US$100] a month) and the deplorable conditions like falling-in ceilings. Postal workers announced a strike for the same reasons: terrible conditions and low salaries. [See also NORTH.] Common Ground: UNITED NATIONS: THE WEIGHT OF THE U.S. The United Nations, conceived of as an instrument to promote peace and economic and social progress for "we, the peoples" of the world's nations, is in reality nothing more than a representation of the world's power-relations. Here, we will treat exclusively its mission to "maintain peace and international security," essentially a political function, which is totally assumed by the U.N. The economic, financial, commercial and other genres of organization of the world are left to specialized institutions very independent from the U.N. like the International Monetary Fund [IMF], the World Bank and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs [GATT]. Origins: "To impose our own terms" The U.N.'s founding was fundamentally linked to the reordering of the world's powers at the close of World War II. Planning started in 1939, before the U.S. even got into the war, with a State Department effort called the War and Peace Studies Project which brought together about 100 economists, financiers, professors and corporate heads, all members of the influential East Coast policy group, the Council on Foreign Relations. Over the next five years, they made a number of recommendations which resulted not only in the U.N. but also the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Court. The planners insisted that the U.S. had to get into the war and assume a leadership position so it could achieve the sine qua non for capitalist growth: expansion of its markets. General George V. Strong summed it up when he said in 1942 that the U.S. "must cultivate a mental view toward world settlement after this war which will enable us to impose our own terms, amounting perhaps to a Pax Americana." In the context of the largely U.S.-dominated new world order after World War II, where it dominated economically with 80 percent of the planet's gold reserves and over 50 percent of the world's production, and militarily as the only nuclear power, the U.S. needed an institution to guarantee and enforce its interests. Power and Control In keeping with its chief purpose - to serve the security interests of the main powers, especially the U.S. - the mechanism of control of the U.N. was designed carefully. The U.N. General Assembly, first attended in 1946 by 51 nations (the U.S., other Western, imperial powers [except for Germany] and the Latin American countries, with only ten countries from all of Asia and Africa) was a "one country-one vote" body, but Article 24 of the U.N. Charter reads: "In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the U.N., its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security." The Security Council has five permanent members - the U.S., Taiwan (until 1971-1972, thereafter mainland China), U.S.S.R., France and the U.K. - all with the right of veto, and it can authorize invasions, embargoes, and other sanctions. Non- permanent members (now ten) rotate. They are elected for two years. The General Assembly actually serves as little more than a democratic facade for the very undemocratic power structure upon which the U.S. had vehemently insisted. The principle of "sovereign equality" of all members written into the charter gives a democratic appearance because, while the General Assembly makes simple "recommendations" on important matters, but with no obligatory character, the Security Council, which is a political organ and which has the principal responsibility of "peace- keeping," can vote on resolutions with obligatory effects for all members. Republican Sen. Arthur Vandenburg gleefully noted the charter, based "on a four-power alliance," was "anything but a wild-eyed internationalist dream of a world State... I am deeply impressed (and surprised) to find... so carefully guard[ed] our American veto." 1946 -1960s: Multilateralism During this first period, the U.S. clearly dominated the institution, whose home was in New York and which depended on Washington for one-third of its budget. (Whatever the institution, the amount of contribution always determines the political relations, between states or groups of states.) The U.S. could clearly count on the support of the General Assembly, since most members were U.S. client states. At the Security Council level, the U.S.S.R. exercised its right of veto frequently (77 times between 1945 and 1955). During this period, great tension between the two blocks (the Berlin blockade, etc.) would unleash a wave of anti-communism in the U.S. (McCarthyism, the trials and executions of the Rosenbergs, investigations of over 6 million government employees, the Committee on un-American Activities, etc.) which did not spare the U.N. With the active complicity of Secretary General Trygve Lie, everyone suspected of sympathizing with the communists were fired. Lie later tried to justify the purge by saying the U.S. had threatened to cease paying its one-third share, which might have resulted in the destruction of the fledgling body. The U.S. domination was exercised in a global context of equilibrium, where the U.S.S.R. could and did exercise its right to veto, but the U.S. found ways around it when necessary. For instance, in 1950, taking advantage of a Soviet provisional boycott (protesting the fact that Taiwan was given the China seat), the U.S. got a resolution passed that enabled an invasion of Korea. The Soviets returned to the council to veto it, but the Americans then maneuvered to get a new rule passed at the General Assembly, called the Acheson Resolution (after then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson) which it virtually controlled, which stipulated that, in the case of blockage at the Security Council, a resolution could be considered by the assembly. In November, the assembly approved the "Union for Peace" and the first multinational force, under firm U.S. control, was born, setting a precedent for more recent invasions. Other operations during the period included "peace-keeping" missions to Cyprus, the Sinai peninsula and Congo (Zaire). The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency was involved in the latter, particularly in the assassination of Patrice Lumumba (See Interim Report: Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, U.S. Senate, 1975). The U.N. commander there died under suspicious circumstances. 1970s - 1988: Unilateralism The U.S. margin of maneuver at the U.N. was not to last. The 1960s saw a wave of liberation struggles, and as Asian and African countries freed themselves from their colonial masters and the complexion of the U.N. changed, its ranks swelling from 51 to 185 (today), the U.S. appreciation and utilization of it waned. In 1964, during the first U.N. Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the Group of 77, 77 countries openly opposed to colonialism and imperialism, was formed and in 1967, prior to the second conference, adopted the Charter of Algiers which stressed the sovereignty of nations and their right to control their natural resources. During this era, countries like Chile, Algeria and Jamaica were nationalizing foreign-owned companies. In 1974, the "Non-Aligned" Movement (NAM), a grouping of dependent countries founded in Bandung in 1955, demanded a "New World Economic Order." The NAM and G-77 (which today has over 100 members) were close in their visions and many nations participated in both. The governments basically targeted U.S. imperialism without really questioning the system overall. Rather, they insisted on a better division of the planet's riches. Those demands, which were in their interest as the dominant groups in their countries, were contradictory to U.S. interests. As demands for reforms grew, and sensing it would have a harder time pushing through thinly veiled imperial policy, the U.S. turned away from the U.N. and even stopped paying its bills. President Richard Nixon called the demand for a "new world order," "the tyranny of the majority." A later call for a "New World Information Order" caused the U.S., faithfully followed by the U.K. and Singapore, to drop out of UNESCO (U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). During this period, the U.S. fought the Vietnam War, helped create and then funded the "Contras," and organized massive aggression in El Salvador and other countries. It tried to justify the invasion of Panama with U.N. Charter articles, but the attempt failed, and the General Assembly condemned the act. In 1983, after the U.N. condemned "Operation Urgent Fury" (the U.S. invasion of Grenada), Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick shrugged that it was "an outdated institution." When the General Assembly voted on resolutions the U.S. did not appreciate - condemnations of U.S. imperialism, denunciation of unwarranted Israeli aggression, etc. - they were ignored. When the World Court condemned U.S. aggression against Nicaragua, it was shrugged off. The U.S. did not even show up for the hearing. (The U.S. had already demonstrated its contempt for international agreements when, in 1971, Nixon unilaterally announced the U.S. would no longer honor the gold standard, thus breaking one of the main tenets of the Bretton Woods accords.) During this entire period, although it could not efficiently utilize the Security Council, the U.S. blocked every move it did not agree with by exercising its veto power hundreds of times. >From glorious promoter of world peace, the U.N. was relegated to a "talking shop" by U.S. politicians and the obsequious mainstream press. 1989 - Today: Multilateralism Redux Following Panama, which coincided with the break-up of the U.S.S.R. and the rush of the Eastern bloc countries to the IMF troughs, the U.S. became the only military "super-power," and even though the NAM had grown, there was now East-West struggle for it to play, no real check to U.S. power. The NAM countries were more dependent than ever on the U.S. and institutions like the IMF. At the Security Council level, the U.S. could now get its way as never before: its old rival there (Russia) was openly and willingly tied to its coattails, and the other formerly contesting voice (China) was hankering for U.S. and other rich country investment, as well as to be allowed into such realms of U.S. domination as the IMF. But if the Cold War has ended and capitalism has become "la pensee unique," the U.S. does not have such an incontestable political, military and economic hegemony today that it can enact all of its obviously imperialist foreign policy alone. It needs "multilateralism": a U.N. cover for invasions, embargoes and sanctions. As U.S. press coverage has indicated, from dismissable "talking shop," in the eyes of policy-makers, the U.N. has suddenly evolved (back) into a civilized institution that would ensure the "new world order." The most obvious misuse of the U.N. was after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, when the U.S. got a U.N. mandate to carry out its imperial policy: the ejection of Iraqis from Kuwait but, more essential, the invasion of Iraq resulting in the immediate deaths of some 150,000 to 300,000 people and the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure which was "relegated to a pre-industrial age." [See Haiti Info, v.2 #23] Following "Operation Desert Storm," the U.S., supported by its traditional trainbearers, succeeded in getting an embargo placed on Libya, and on obtaining U.N. mandates for basically unilateral, imperialist moves like "Operation Restore Hope," the brutal embargo in Iraq, "Operation Uphold Democracy" and other efforts behind the smoke screen of the so-called "international community." They are not "peace-keeping" missions, to which the U.S. contributes cash but refuses to give soldiers (since they answer to the U.N. and not the Pentagon). Instead, when the U.S. wants to invade it repeats the Korea scenario, obtaining a mandate for a "multilateral" invasion force, perhaps staffed by several nations but completely controlled by the U.S. Once its objectives have been achieved, like the destruction of Iraq or the mise en place of control structures in Haiti, a blue helmet mission follows, to clean up or, in the case of Somalia, to take the blame. Both types of missions are paid for by the U.S. but also, increasingly, by others. (U.S. support for "peace-keeping" and other operations has been cut back in recent years to 20 percent and may drop to less, depending on the outcome of Republican- Democrat sparring.) The change in the U.N.'s usefulness, a body where the U.S.'s power is today virtually unchecked, has been hailed in the U.S. In 1990, the Washington Post wrote: "During the long Cold War years, the Soviet veto and the hostility of many Third World nations made the U.N. an object of scorn to many American politicians and citizens. But in today's altered environment, it has proved to be an effective instrument of world leadership, and, potentially, an agency that can effect both peace and the rule of law in troubled regions." Calls for Reform But such unconditional praise for the U.N. is fairly limited to U.S. borders. There is a mounting foreign, especially "Third World," criticism of the body's power structure. "The status quo has become totally unacceptable," said Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe at the 11th NAM meeting last week in New York. "It is one of the biggest paradoxes of our era that, while the great powers preach to us obedience to democratic rules, they themselves are reticent to respect them at the international level." In 1994, Malaysian Deputy Premier Anwar Ibrahim noted the Security Council's eagerness to invade Iraq and reluctance to deal with ex- Yugoslavia and said: "Many of us will not be willing to accept that these powers should continue to be Charter-privileged to intervene wherever and only when their own interpretations of peace and security warrants intervention." Castro last week demanded the democratization of the Security Council, with two permanent seats each for the Latin American, Asian and African regions, "where 60% of humanity lives." If changes were made to the Security Council, by adding seats or curbing the veto powers, would the U.N. be less of a tool of U.S. and its imperialist allies? With the threat of financial blackmail ever present, the U.S. will only be required to change its tactics to get the votes it needs. (In 1990, when Yemen voted against the invasion of Iraq, it was told: "That was the most expensive negative vote your country has ever cast." The next day, all aid was cut off. India was later bribed, with IMF credits, to vote for the Gulf Cease-Fire resolution.) Another problem is the U.N.'s financial dependence on the U.S. Despite cuts over the years, the U.S. is still a major funder and the largest single debtor, owing US$1.4 billion. It paid some of its bills in exchange for the Iraq effort, and said it will pay some more in exchange for U.N. promises of belt-tightening. (Altogether, some 70 countries owe a total of US$3.7 million. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali has announced that the U.N. will "begin the process of closing doors" if funds are not received.) In order to preserve the mask of multilateralism it is nurturing and capitalizing upon, the U.S. will have to yield to criticism and accept reforms that take into account the demands for democratization, which it will accept all the more easily because they will not really put into question its hegemonic position, and will actually permit it to improve its public image. But even the resolution of that matter will depend on the relation of forces between the Republicans and Democrats. Once again, the hegemonic role of the U.S. shows through clearly. Yet another international process is hanging in the balance, waiting on an American domestic political question. SOURCES: Achar, Gilbert, "Les Nations unies au fil des objectifs americains," Le Monde diplomatique, octobre, 1995; Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy, New York: 1991; Shoup, Laurence H. and William Minter, "Shaping a New World Order: The CFR's Blueprint for World Hegemony, 1939-1945," in Trilateralism, Holly Sklar, ed., Boston: 1980, and articles in Third World Resurgence #51 and #56. ABOUT HAITI INFO: * Haiti Info is published every two weeks in Haiti by the Haitian Information Bureau, an alternative news agency, and is edited by a group of committed individuals from democratic and popular sectors. * All articles Copyright HIB. REPRINTS ENCOURAGED. Please cite Haiti Info and send copies of usage. * Haiti Info is available by mail, by fax, and also electronically via computer. Subscription rates range from U.S. $20 to $100, depending on location and method of reception. For subscriptions, other correspondence and help for journalists: Haitian Information Bureau, c/o Lynx Air, Box 407139, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, 33340, USA. For electronic mail: hib@igc.apc.org.