Circulating Letter to OAS' Insulza for Praising Insanely Flawed Senate Elections in Haiti

[magbana]

Dear Friend:

NGOs and academics in the United States are circulating a letter of
protest to OAS Secretary-General Insulza in response to his shocking
comments of praise for the recent Senate elections in Haiti, which
were widely considered flawed by international observers - including
the OAS in the run-up to the election - given that, among other severe
problems, candidates of Fanmi Lavalas - the party of deposed former
President Aristide - were not allowed to participate.

The letter can be found here (and also, in its entirety after this note:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?p=391

To sign the letter, please send a note with subject "sign OAS letter,"
including name, title, organization or name, title, university to
[e-mail], by COB Tuesday, May 19. organizations are circulating this letter, so if you get another
appeal to sign and it has different instructions, feel free to follow
those instructions, and apologies for the duplication.]

Please don't post this on websites that will be picked up by newsfeeds
for now; we want to keep the letter away from press until it is ready.
But please do feel encouraged to pass this along, with this caveat.

Thanks,

--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
[e-mail]

"Letter to OAS on Haiti Elections



—

Dear Secretary-General Insulza,

We, the undersigned, are concerned by your recent statements regarding the April 19 Senate elections in Haiti. Your claim that the elections were “part of an invigorated and persistent democratic exercise … contributing to the institutional consolidation of that country” overlooks the fact that the great majority of eligible Haitian voters seem to have boycotted the election due to the unjustified absence of the largest political party, Fanmi Lavalas (FL), from the ballot. Far from being characterized by mere “indifference,” as you described it, the low turn out was a sign of the widespread support for the boycott. The election was also marked by various disruptions that prevented people from voting. Some current senators and leaders from across Haiti’s political spectrum have called for the April 19 election to be invalidated due to the poor turnout and exclusion of FL. We therefore call on the OAS to revise its line on the April 19, 2009 Senate elections in Haiti, and instead support the holding of new elections.

When the disqualification of FL candidates from the ballot was announced, the international community promptly denounced it as a threat to democracy. The U.S. government<1>, the Canadian government<2>, the UN<3>, and you yourself<4>, all issued statements voicing concern in advance of the election. Although the denounced irregularities were never corrected, the denunciations disappeared as the election approached.

Eliminating the party most likely to win elections – in this case, FL - should not be done except for a very good reason, and through a well-explained, transparent process. Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) gave neither a good reason nor used a transparent process for disqualifying FL. There were a number of aspects of the process that made it seem arbitrary and irregular. First, the CEP imposed a requirement on these elections it did not impose in previous elections. Candidates were allowed to run in 2006 as Fanmi Lavalas without a signature from President Aristide, even though the party had announced that it was not participating in those elections. Second, the CEP did not even follow its own procedures for reviewing candidates: under the rules, the Departmental offices first rule on the candidates, then the CEP rules if there is an appeal. In this case, the CEP ruled directly on all of the candidates’ eligibility. Third, the CEP moved the goalposts, imposing different requirements as the process continued.

The CEP’s requirement that FL obtain the signature of party leader, Jean Bertrand Aristide, was especially unfair, considering Aristide’s unique circumstances. As you know, the United States has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Aristide’s return to Haiti. This was made clear in 2004, when, after flying Aristide to the Central African Republic (a voyage that Aristide says he did not make willingly), the Bush administration stated that it not only did not want Aristide in Haiti, it did not even want him in the Western Hemisphere<5>. When Aristide did return to the Caribbean, to Jamaica, briefly in March 2004, US Ambassador to Haiti James Foley condemned the trip, warning that Jamaica was “taking on a risk” by accepting Aristide, albeit briefly<6>. Foley’s words were understandably perceived as a threat by Jamaica and by Caricom. Then-acting charge d’affaires Timothy Carney reiterated the position following Haiti’s 2006 elections when he stated, “There has never been any doubt about the U.S. position on Aristide’s return since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was here last autumn and said he was a man of the past.”<7>

Since Aristide is half a world away, exiled to another continent under international pressure, FL officials obtained his signature via fax. This also was rejected by the CEP as insufficient.

Other FL leaders have been kept intimidated, especially former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune and Amanus Maette, by the threat of arrest in cases hanging over their heads indefinitely. Neptune’s situation has been particularly outrageous, as the Inter-American Court found the Government of Haiti was violating his rights in regards to the trumped up charges against him, and ordered the government to stop persecuting him last June. The government has refused to comply with this ruling.

It is also worth noting that these arbitrary decisions to keep FL candidates off the ballot were made by a Provisional Electoral Council with no constitutional mandate to oversee these elections. <8>

As the electoral authorities proceeded with the elections, despite the controversy and international statements of concern, FL called for a boycott of the elections. This is an understandable response in light of the facts which you have previously acknowledged, and the resulting poor turnout is proof of the effectiveness of the boycott. It appears that the majority of eligible voters either honored the boycott by not casting ballots, or were prevented from voting due to irregular circumstances.

The April 19 voting was also marred by a number of irregular circumstances. Many polling stations were closed due to protests. As the Associated Press reported, “Voting for one of 12 vacant seats in the rural Central Department was canceled on election day after protesters raided polling places and a poll supervisor was shot.” Some Port-au-Prince voters were unable to reach the polls after authorities halted transportation.
These events have understandably led some in Haiti to question the election’s legitimacy. AP cites Radio Kiskeya reports that “At least four senators have said the election should be invalidated because of the poor turnout and are threatening to vote against seating the winners.” Many candidates of other political parties said the elections had no legitimacy.<9>

The CEP decision not to allow the FL candidates continues a pattern of years of political persecution of FL party leaders, activists, and members which started with the removal of the constitutional government, continued with the killing of thousands, physical and sexual assaults on many others<10>, and the wrongful imprisonment of hundreds, including prominent FL leaders such as former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, former Interior Minister Jocelerme Privert, Annette “So Anne” Auguste, and Father Gerard Jean-Juste (who was prevented from running in the 2006 elections on the FL ticket by the CEP, as he was imprisoned on trumped-up charges at the time<11>). Even since Preval’s election, political persecution against FL has continued, with well known FL leader, Lovinsky Pierre Antoine kidnapped and possibly “disappeared” in 2007, shortly after announcing his intention to run for the Senate (which the government never effectively investigated, according to the UN and Amnesty International<12>) The bogus “La Scierie massacre” case hanging over Neptune’s and Deputy Amanus Maette’s heads (in which opposition groups at first claimed that more than 50 people were killed by Aristide supporters in a February 11, 2004 incident, but investigators and reporters have only been able to confirm that three to five people were killed in a clash between pro- and anti-Aristide groups<13>), and the continued imprisonment of Ronald Dauphin and other FL political prisoners.

These events mark a shameful and dark period in Haiti’s history, and characterized the interim government of Haiti (2004-2006) as a blatant human rights abuser and an anti-democratic regime, in addition to being an unconstitutional and illegal one.<14>

In light of these circumstances, we believe that democracy in Haiti can only proceed when all parties are represented, and can only fail when the largest party, FL, is blocked from the ballot. Rather than endorse runoff elections and the eventual seating of Senate candidates resulting from an irregular and unrepresentative election, the OAS should support free and fair elections with all candidates represented on the ballot – including those from the most popular political party. To this end, we call on the OAS to revise its line on the April 19, 2009 Senate elections in Haiti, and instead support the holding of new elections.

Sincerely,

Brian Concannon Jr., Esq.
Director
Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti

Fritz Gutwein
Haiti Reborn Coordinator
The Quixote Center

Nicole Lee, Esq.
Executive Director
TransAfrica Forum

Mark Schuller
Assistant Professor
York College, City University of New York

Mark Weisbrot
Co-Director
Center for Economic and Policy Research

Robert Naiman
Senior Policy Analyst
Just Foreign Policy"
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/?p=391

[Peace Patriot]

1. The new leftist leadership of South America is so fed up with the OAS that they

formed their own organization, UNASUR, last summer, without the U.S. as a member. The formalization of UNASUR was sandwiched by two events that illustrate the necessity for this all-Latin American organization: The U.S./Bushwhack-Colombian bombing/raid on Ecuador in March, and the U.S./Bushwhack funding and organizing of the fascist rioters and murderers in Bolivia in September. In the first event, the new leadership took the matter to the all-Latin American Rio Group--a dispute resolution group--precisely because the U.S. is not a member, to prevent the war that the U.S. was trying to instigate between Colombia and Ecuador/Venezuela (and were successful in doing so). They deliberately did not rely on the U.S. dominated OAS. The OAS did condemn the U.S./Colombia incursion, but not unanimously. The U.S. (Bushwhacks) abstained or voted no. By September, they had their own formal organization to deal with the Bushwhack evil in Bolivia, which they did by unanimous vote to take strong action in support of the Morales government (which had thrown the U.S. ambassador and the DEA out of Bolivia for their collusion with the fascist, white separatist coupsters).

OAS Sec-Gen Insulza seems to be trying to make the OAS even more irrelevant. I wouldn't call him a "tool" of the U.S. and its global corporate predators, exactly, but that word comes to mind on occasions like this. The overwhelming democratic, leftist trend in South America (and increasingly in Central America) is the new reality. This trend includes and is based upon fair, honest, transparent elections, and goals of social justice and the sovereignty of Latin American countries, particularly with regard to the U.S. and its lethally meddling corporations and agencies. The OAS, at which the bully from the north wields far too much power, is rather a dinosaur, which is why Nicaragua proposed, a couple of years ago, simply mothballing it and creating an international organization sans the U.S. This was discussed for four hours at a closed door, all-Latin American meeting, but I guess they decided on a defacto mothballing rather than an overt one, and formed UNASUR to do the serious work of attending to Latin American interests without U.S. interference. The OAS has certainly served some good purposes. Its election integrity agency has done critically important work over the last decade or so. But when it comes to the protection of Latin American resources such as oil, trade agreements, social policy and many other important matters, Latin American countries are much better off without the U.S. behemoth having a vote and undue influence.