Disarmament in Haiti
The Taking Note editorial enti-
tied “The ‘Violence’ of
Aristide” [Jan/Feb, 1996] con-
demns the U.S. government for its
“refusal to disarm the right-wing
extremists [in Haiti] when it had
the chance”-that is, during the
on-going military occupation of
the country. The reproach seems a
bit inappropriate, perhaps even
naive. Since Haiti’s second occu-
pation began on September 19, 1994, the U.S. government has
only used its power to protect its
traditional allies: putschists of all
stripes from both the financial and
political establishments, as well as
the paramilitary gangs who were
the principal shock troops of the
three-year coup regime. After 20
months of the U.S. occupation’s
so-called “restoration of democra-
cy,” barely any coup criminals have
been brought to trial or even arrest-
ed. They continue to circulate in
Haiti-and even run for public
office-with complete impunity.
The problem is not that the U.S.
occupation forces have failed to
disarm the paramilitary gangs, but
rather that they have been careful-
ly preserving and bolstering them.
The revolving-door arrests, disap-
pearances from custody, and dis-
appearance of evidence all pointed
in this direction. Recent press
reports, particularly in the Nation
and the Village Voice, confirm that
the U.S. military has worked dili-
gently to ensure that its paramili-
tary allies in Haiti remain well-
armed and well-hidden until they
are again needed, probably in the
not-too-distant future. The issue is
not one of disarmament, but of
armament.
Kim Ives
New York, NY
Lori Berenson
Twas troubled by Deidre
McFadyen’s Taking Note editori-
al “Lori Berenson in Context”
[March/April, 1996]. It struck me
as unfairly placing responsibility
for her plight on Lori herself.
Unlike the editor’s former college-
dropout friends, Lori had two
strikes against her: she went to
Latin America in the wrong era, and erred in “the movement she
chose to ally herself with.” Given
those bad choices, the editorial
seems to suggest, what more could
she expect? Lori is painted as well-
meaning, idealistic, but foolish.
“Her odyssey,” the column con-
cludes, “although misguided, rested
on her passion for social justice.” I
detected no “passion for justice” in
that calculated editorial.
What really drove me to write, however, was NACLA’s decision
not to reply to the letter by Lori
Berenson’s parents published in the
subsequent issue. Rhoda and Mark
Berenson assert that the only infor-
mation known about the allegations
made against Lori was “leaked” by
the Peruvian military. They say that
Lori has repeatedly declared that
she is innocent of the charges of
treason and terrorism. In particular, they point out that Lori has denied
involvement with the Tipac Amaru
Revolutionary Movement (MRTA).
If these statements are true, then the
editor ought to admit that she was
misled. If the statements are false,
she ought to provide substantive
evidence that Lori’s parents are in
error.
George Salzman
Cambridge, MA
(Continued on page 44)
Erratum
In Nina Pacari’s article, “Ecuador:
Taking on the Neoliberal Agenda,” in
the March/April 1996 issue, the wrong
acronym was given for the Evangelical
Federation of Indigenous Ecuadorians.
The organization is FEINE, not EFIE.
The parents of Lori Berenson
were too polite in condemning your
appalling lack of research on the
case of their daughter. You should
have read the numerous articles on
the Internet and the cover story in
New York magazine, and listened to
coverage on Pacifica radio. Then,
you should have followed that up
with interviews with people like
Rhoda and Mark Berenson who
have further information. If you
had done that, you would have got-
ten your facts straight.
Your editorial reeked of con-
tempt for Lori. Its conclusion was
particularly arrogant: “Her odyssey,
although misguided, rested on her
passion for social justice.” What
was so misguided about her
odyssey? Do you support the rich
rather than the poor? Are you
opposed to serious investigative
journalism, which Lori not only
supported but practiced? Where is
your call for a campaign to free
Lori Berenson?
Lee Heller
San Francisco, CA
Deidre McFadyen responds:
T he letter writers take issue with
my presumption of Lori
Berenson’s “guilt.” My intent in the
editorial was not to parse out the
exact nature of her relationship with
the MRTA. I felt, however, that it
was a fair starting point to assume
that Berenson was involved in some
way with the MRTA given her
unequivocal statement in support of
the group during her one appear-
ance before the media-a point also
made by the New York magazine
article. A Village Voice article that
detailed her high-level involvement
with the Farabundo Marti National
Liberation Front (FMLN) lent fur-
ther credence to the idea that she
was an active participant in Latin
American political movements, not
simply an “investigative journalist.”
In a second-and somewhat con-
tradictory-front of attack, the letter
I INJITY
IN LATIN AMERICA
44NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS
writers admonish me for character-
izing Berenson’s odyssey as “mis-
guided.” Lee Heller asks “Do you
support the rich rather than the
poor?” George Salzman charges that
my editorial was “calculated” and
devoid of “passion for justice.” In
fact, I set out precisely to counteract
the disdain that has marked most
media coverage of Lori Berenson
and the indifference with which she
has been greeted in many progres-
sive circles. Lori Berenson is not an
isolated, atypical case. Her actions
can best be understood in the con-
text of the long history of Latin
American peace and solidarity
activists.
I suspect that the letter writers’
unhappiness is rooted in the fact that
I dared to be in any way critical of
Berenson. Although I respect her
motives, I felt it was also important
to scrutinize her strategy. The world
has changed tremendously over the
past 20 years. The quest for social
justice is certainly as urgent a goal
as before. Yet, are the methods used
by U.S. progressives in Latin
America in the early 1980s still
appropriate in 1996? Lori Berenson
decided to pursue social change in
Peru by allying herself with a guer-
rilla organization with little popular
support in an era where violent
forms of struggle have been widely
rejected. In my opinion, those choic-
es were not wise. Does that mean
that she deserves to be rotting away
in a freezing cold prison in the alti-
plano? Of course not. Nothing can
justify the Peruvian government’s
shameful disregard for basic civil
rights.