Blindness in Haiti

To serve one’s government and at the same time try to serve the cause of truth is a necessarily surreptitious activity. And so we have little chance ever to know just who filched and opened up to public notice United States Ambassador to Haiti William Swing’s April 12 cable warning Secretary of State Warren Christopher that exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide “and his supporters in Washington and here consistently manipulate or even fabricate human rights abuses as a propaganda tool.”

This unknown perpetrator had to be someone trusted with official confidences and desperate enough to breach them. He has thus committed a sin against the state; and, if he hadn’t, we could not have been made so compellingly aware of the difference between what our governors say and how they truly feel.

Ambassador Swing’s findings were composed for him by Ellen Cosgrove, his embassy’s human rights officer. Ellen Cosgrove sits with Terror all about her and casts upon it an eye notable for serenity, disciplined incuriosity about troublingly dreadful details, and imperviousness to notions of possible moral distinction, however small, between murderers and murdered.

Her equanimity could indeed be admired as near perfection if it were not unvaryingly thrown out of balance whenever Aristide’s image cankers her mind, as in:

“President Aristide and his lobbying apparatus in Washington have increasing substantiation for charges that the human rights situation here is getting worse—and what they cannot substantiate, they will fabricate”; and, in this malign endeavor, “they are wittingly or unwittingly assisted” by human rights organizations and by the International Civilian Mission to Haiti sponsored by the UN and the OAS.

Ellen Cosgrove’s tone is only occasionally so spiteful and sometimes even takes on notes oddly flippant, as in:

For a range of cultural reasons (not pleasant to contemplate), rape has never been considered or reported as a serious crime here…. We are, frankly suspicious of the sudden high number of reported rapes, particularly in this culture, occurring at the same time that Aristide activists seek to draw a comparison between Haiti and Bosnia.

Ellen Cosgrove’s defining adjective for Aristidian activists is “hardline ideological,” which we may take to mean that any ideology so un-Haitian as to consider rape a “serious crime” has crossed alarmingly into extremes.

“Cédras and the General Staff,” Ellen Cosgrove concedes, “tacitly condone both widespread police criminal activity and the persecution and elimination of Aristide partisans, confident that the international community will be unable to do more than deplore and condemn the violence. Such violence has not been confined to Port-au-Prince slums.”

The least we could ask of a human rights officer genuinely upset by such conditions would be that she buttress her generalization by citing the products of the elimination process whose bodies are so regularly thrown on the streets of Port-au-Prince as cautionary symbols for the discontented. Ellen Cosgrove gives a broad sketch of that process, but she closely examines just two surviving claimants to victimage and dismisses them both.

It cannot be…

This article is available to online subscribers only.
Please choose from one of the options below to access this article:

Print Premium Subscription — $99.95

Purchase a print premium subscription (20 issues per year) and also receive online access to all content on

Online Subscription — $69.00

Purchase an Online Edition subscription and receive full access to all articles published by the Review since 1963.

One-Week Access — $4.99

Purchase a trial Online Edition subscription and receive unlimited access for one week to all the content on

If you already have one of these subscriptions, please be sure you are logged in to your account. If you subscribe to the print edition, you may also need to link your web site account to your print subscription. Click here to link your account services.