[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
8692: Ira Kurzban, Esq. (GOH's counsel) responds to Canadian policy , paper (fwd)
From: MKarshan@aol.com
GOH's counsel, Ira Kurzban, addresses the Canadian Foundation for the
Americas regarding the inaccuracies contained in their recent policy paper on
Haiti:
Mr. Jose Zaragoza
Policy Analyst
Canadian Foundation for the Americas
1 Nicholas Street, Suite 720
Ottawa, Ontario
KIN 7B& Canada
Re: Your Analysis Regarding Haiti After the 2000 Elections
Dear Mr. Zaragoza:
For over a decade, I have represented the Republic of Haiti in the
United States. As Counsel for the Government, I have worked closely with
Presidents Aristide and Preval as well as many United States government
officials. In the course of my representation, I have tried to discuss issues
concerning Haiti on a factual basis and to parse truth from fiction.
Unfortunately, truth seems to be a fleeting concept in the reporting or
analysis of Haiti. Misinformation or more appropriately disinformation rules
the day. Sadly, your analysis is simply more of the same. I often wonder,
quite frankly, if people can simply repeat untruths with impunity because
Haiti is a nation of Black people or because it is a nation of poor and on an
international scale powerless people. In any event, I will once again try to
rationally discuss the numerous errors in your article. They are as follows:
1. Your claim that drug trafficking has increased in Haiti is simply false.
The
most recent reports (none of which are particularly sympathetic to Haiti)
from the DEA indicate that drug trafficking has substantially decreased in
Haiti over the past year. The rate of cocaine reaching the US the last year
according to the DEA decreased from 13% to 8%.
.
2. Your claim that 1/3 of the 43% of drugs going through the Caribbean to
North
America goes through Haiti is also false. This would mean that 14+% would go
through Haiti. No organization has ever suggested this number and you do not
cite to any source.
3. You state that President Preval dissolved the Parliament. Although this
statement is often repeated in the press even United States government
officials will candidly acknowledge that the terms of the parliamentarians
ended on January 11, 1999 and that under Haiti's constitution the President
did not have the right to tell them to continue in office. I strongly advise
you to consult the Haitian constitution before making such accusations.
4. You state in your article that the CEP reported that there was over a 60%
voter
turnout in the Presidential election but that "foreign journalists and
diplomats estimated a participation rate of no more than 10%" and
"opposition groups" claim it was between 20% and 5%. It may be one thing for
journalists to repeat these wild claims, but you are putting yourself forth
as an analyst. In your analysis we are never told who these foreign
diplomats, journalists or opposition groups are, what they observed, where
they observed it, whether they were in the countryside or went to two polling
places in Port au Prince. Unfortunately, your analysis ignores three very
important pieces of data. First, there were independent Haitian observers
throughout Haiti that agreed with the CEP. The national peasant organization
KOZEPEP deployed 5,842 observers nationwide on November 26, 2000. They
reported that voter participation was between 60% and 65%. Second, there was
an international team of observers, the International Coalition of
Independent Observers, that wrote a detailed report based on their
observations in all nine departments within Haiti. Their report found that
the average voter turnout was approximately 60%. Third, you ignored the
Gallup Poll data taken by US AID that indicates that three weeks before the
Presidential election over 80% of the voting public in Haiti said they were
likely or very likely to vote in the Presidential election. I am attaching to
this letter some parts of the US AID sponsored Gallup Poll that US officials
have sought to bury because it contradicts many of the notions that they and
you advance here.
5. Your analysis also provides a distorted and highly biased view of the May
21,
2000 elections. Those elections were not about 10 senate seats. You article
fails to mention that there were approximately 30,000 candidates running for
7,500 positions in the May 21, 2000 election. No one (except Convergence)
seriously contests the accuracy and validity of 7,492 of those elections.
Don't you think that your analysis would have been more complete had you
given the reader a better understanding of what occurred in the May elections?
6. Perhaps the greatest disservice your article performs is the inaccurate
way in
which you present the Democratic Convergence. I have known some members of
the Democratic Convergence for many years. Indeed, I represented most of the
leadership of the Convergence in their lawsuit against Prosper Avril for
torturing them. Thus, my comments are not directed toward any Convergence
members because of my personal dislike for them. Your article starts and ends
on the false premise that Democratic Convergence is a serious opposition in
Haiti. To reach this claim you make the following "factual" assertions: (1)
Democractic Convergence "includes 15 of the principal opposition parties in
Haiti;" (2) that it arose because "the lack of flexibility of the Lavalas
Family inspired a number of opposition groups to unite under the banner of
Democratic Convergence;" (3) that it has "new found strength and structure"
and (4) that an end to the political crisis can only come when "these two
forces (Lavalas and Convergence) reach an agreement." The facts are these:
(1) Convergence has virtually no support within Haiti. The Gallup Poll
accurately describes the members of Convergence. When asked the question as
to what leader the Haitian people trust no member of Democratic Convergence
received more than 3.8% of the vote. The Gallup Poll further indicates that
over 75% of the Haitian people support and would join Fanmi Lavalas. The
simple fact is that Democractic Convergence did not arise because of Lavalas
inflexibility. Rather, Democractic Convergence was created through
financial assistance by the United States government given to the
International Republican Institute. The United States Congress during
President Preval's term passed legislation that granted USAID $3,000,000 to
"create" (not simply help) political parties in Haiti. This money was
primarily funneled through IRI which was the major sponsor of Convergence.
The problem with this strategy was that it was a dismal failure. In the May
2000 elections Lavalas sweep into power in all the local, departmental and
national elections that you failed to discuss. Having lost at the ballot box,
Convergence with the assistance of the U.S. and its considerable pressure on
the international community is now trying to force the current government to
"share power" with the "opposition." The violent demonstrations that you
mention in your article are not random. They are the response of people in
Haiti who know that the democratic process is being stolen from them. They
went to the polls. They voted overwhelmingly for Lavalas and now they are
told that a group of people who have virtually no support in the country but
are financially supported by the IRI and others have a veto over the
government and their lives. You recognize that Convergence has held up the
process yet you ignore the terrible human consequences of their actions that
include blocking a $22.5 million dollar health project that should have gone
into effect to lower infant mortality and juvenile deaths in Haiti. You also
fall into the same trap of most journalists by posing Lavalas on one side
and Convergence on the other as if they were the Democrat and Republic
parties in the US or the Liberal and Conservative parties in Canada.
Convergence is the equivalent of the Libertarian Party or the Communist Party
in the U.S. telling the Bush administration that it has to share power and
redo all the elections or they will veto the federal budget. No sane
government would accept such conditions from people who represent such a
small minority. Indeed, no US President has ever agreed to share power with
the opposition that he beat at the polls.
In the end, the current Haitian government may be forced by the
International community, led by the United States, to abandon democratic
elections because the U.S. did not like the result. But as an analyst you
should at least have a clear picture of what is really going on in Haiti. The
Haitian people understand and they are angry.
Sincerely,
Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.
Cc: Gerd Schonwalder
Donald R. Mackey