COHA: Analysis of Haiti’s Political Deadlock Dead Wrong by Stanley Lucas

On August 30, the Council on Hemisphere Affairs published a partisan piece on the political deadlock in Haiti see: http://www.coha.org/haitis-chronic-crisis-of-leadership/ .  Their analysis misses the heart of the deadlock.  COHA goes through the ludicrous mental gymnastics of trying to overlay US-style conservative versus liberal politics.  Rather, the issue in Haiti boils down to old, corrupt politics versus Martelly’s change agenda, see:

 http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/07/inites-deadlock-last-ditch-effort-to.html .  There is no need for the mental gymnastics to try to overlay US-style conservative vs. neoliberal politics on Haiti’s situation. 

 Preval’s INITE Party is in Parliament due to rigged elections so they can preserve the old style corrupt system that is in place, and they are blocking anyone they see as a threat.  Rouzier was actually rejected officially on “political” grounds.  That’s a constitutional violation.  He submitted all the necessary documentation required by the Haitian Constitution (see article 157 and 137), so COHA’s point about doubts surrounding Rouzier’s citizenship is baseless.  Gousse also gets smeared in this piece. The Lancet Medical Journal report was widely discredited as a partisan report aimed at rehabiltatings the public image of former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and elements of his political party, Fanmi Lavalas, see: http://www.alterpresse.org/spip.php?article5133  

Haiti’s biggest and most respected human rights watch organization extensively investigated Gousse and cleared him of any human rights abuse allegations.  That’s a fact, see: http://www.hpnhaiti.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3576:gousse-non-coupable-de-violation-des-droits-de-lhomme-plaide-le-rnddh&catid=1:politics&Itemid=1 .  The speculation over Martelly’s strategy for picking Prime Ministers is preposterous.  Martelly is trying to put in place a Prime Minister that is aligned with his vision for Haiti and someone that is a new face.  The Haitian people voted for change and they will accept nothing less.  That is it. 

This analysis then goes on to point out that Martelly has little support among the people based on low voter turnout in the run off election.  It does not mention that the Haitian people had little confidence in the process after the spectacle of corruption that occurred during the first attempt at elections and the significant threats of violence to those who did turnout, see: http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/01/haiti-pre-and-post-electoral-updates-by.html .  But the current poll numbers speak for themselves:  Martelly’s current approval rating stands at 77%; Parliament has a 3% approval rating.  That’s the fact. 

Finally, this report goes on to lament the lack of leadership in Haiti and insinuates that the Haitian people are longing for a return of Aristide.  Actually, there were very few people who turned out at the airport for Aristide’s return.  But the people did manage to loot his house the day he returned.  Taking everything from silverware and mattresses to the bananas and mangoes on his tree.  How’s that for a supportive welcome home?  People suffered under Aristide through violent political campaigns and greed.  According to the Haitian GAO, Aristide made off with $350 million in stolen funds.  That’s the fact, see: http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/03/truth-about-aristide-mob-boss-or.html

Aristide, Preval and INITE have all had their chance to make positive changes in Haiti and failed preferring instead to enrich themselves at the expense of the Haitian people.   This “analysis” seems to be incredibly partisan and biased and unfortunately nothing more than an attempt to undermine the efforts of a popular, new President trying to undo 40 years of corruption.   

COHA Analysis of WikiLeaks: Blame Others for Haiti’s Problems by Stanley Lucas

It seems there is a renewed effort to cast all of Haiti’s problems as those of the horrible West continuing to practice colonialism.  A fresh batch of WikiLeaks cables have been analyzed by the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, See: http://www.coha.org/wikileaks-cables-show-haiti-as-pawn-in-u-s-foreign-policy/ which concludes that US efforts to interfere in the Venezuela oil deal and keep Haitian wages low are merely an extension of exploitative colonialism.  This is beyond absurd particularly when the charges are leveled at President Obama’s Administration. 

First, the article discusses the Petrocaribe deal in which the US, on behalf of Chevron and ExxonMobil, attempted to scuttle an oil deal with Venezuela that would allow Haitians to buy oil at a much-reduced price.  They attempt to cast the US as the bad guy for advocating interests and not presenting a fair deal.  What would be the problem with Preval negotiating a better deal with the US?  Preval had no interest in that.  Yes, the Petrocaribe deal allowed Haiti to buy oil much more cheaply.  Preval then gave the importation monopoly to an elite business cartel, known as the Groupe de Bourdon, which turned around and sold the oil at the same price.  They did not pass on any of the savings.  They claimed that the additional profit would be invested in social programs.  It never was.  President Preval is suspected to have personally benefitted from this deal to the tune of $463 million in pilfered profits and kickbacks.  How did that benefit the Haitian people? 

Second, the article outlines US efforts to undermine Preval’s efforts to raise the minimum wage in Haiti from 24 cents and hour to 61 cents.  They note that Hanes, Fruit of the Loom and other garment manufacturers threatened to pull manufacturing jobs from the country given the high increase.  This is a clearly a much more difficult issue to manage.  Haiti is in a tough situation given the global context.  As China moves up the manufacturing value chain, there is enormous opportunity for developing countries to compete for that capacity.  Bangladesh and Vietnam have equally low wages.  Haiti’s leverage is low cost labor and proximity to the US.  Clearly wages need to rise in Haiti, but Preval went about this with his usual lack of strategy and delivered another loss to the Haitian people.  There is a tripartite commission in place with representatives of the Haitian government, industry and labor unions.  This mechanism was set up to tackle the wage issues and other labor issues, but was never used, and likely could have been a good tool for building consensus before rushing to legislate.  Further, Haiti could do a lot better in its trade agreements.  Preval should have thought about this problem more comprehensively and should have pursued and aggressive trade agenda to reduce barriers and make Haiti a more attractive destination for foreign companies.  He failed to take any action on a trade agenda. 

Finally, the article provides flawed analysis on the corrupt 2010 elections.  They note that donor countries and international organizations knew the elections were flawed but blessed the results in the interest of moving forward.  The article does not mention that the people revolted, which resulted in OAS being invited in to do a recount.  They mention that Martelly was elected with only 23% of the vote and attribute the low turnout to the exclusion of Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas.  What about the 1% turnout in the 2000 elections in which Aristide won 83% of the vote?  Seems that turnout was significantly lower despite the “popular” Lavalas party’s participation?  People did not turnout because of threatened violence and because of the complete and utter fraud in the first elections.  Further, the international community only addressed the Presidential elections allowing the fraudulent Parliamentary elections to stand, which has resulted in political deadlock today, see: http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/07/inites-deadlock-last-ditch-effort-to.html

Surely the partisan Electoral Council (CEP) excluded Lavalas in an effort to secure victory for Preval’s INITE coalition, but for once, they used a legitimate and legal reason.  Aristide refused to certify paperwork allowing his party to participate.  This was not a paperwork snafu as the article leads us to believe.  Further, they excluded several Lavalas candidates directly linked to drug trafficking, corruption and murder.  This is one case in which the CEP acted legally – albeit partisan.

The article concludes with the absurd assertion that, “Based on these cables, we see a disturbing image where U.S. foreign policy is shaped by the interests of the rich and is geared toward underhanded interference in the affairs of other nations.” 

For one, this is an unbelievably absurd accusation to level against the Obama Administration.  The debates over raising taxes in the US right now directly contradict this assertion.  But more importantly, this analysis portrays Haiti as a victim.  All of Haiti’s problems are the fault of evil Western countries.  In reality, Haiti cannot blame other countries for its problems.  The US – and every other country around the world – acts in its self-interest, and, not surprisingly, advocates the interests of its companies.  It is the job of the Haitian Government to defend its interests globally.  But Preval and his cronies were too busy advancing their own interests to bother with advancing their country’s interests.  Haiti is ranked one of the top four more corrupt countries in the world.  Does that not have something to do with the dire poverty?  Duvalier pilfered $600 million from Haiti’s coffers.  Aristide pilfered $350 million, and Preval pilfered $463 million.  Might that not have something to do with Haiti’s problems?  The Haitian people generally blame a predatory, incompetent and corrupt government for its problems.

    Click on pictures to enlarge

COHA's Closet of Dubious Stories by the International Republican Institute

This latest installment about IRI and its Chairman, Senator McCain, is a repackaging of baseless conspiracy theories – some borrowed from others.COHA fails to tell readers that the work of IRI is identical to the work of the National Democratic Institute and both have been funded by Democratic and Republican administrations. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COHA quotes Ghassan Atiyyah as saying he parted ways with IRI over his criticism of the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. If COHA had asked IRI they would have learned that IRI staff in Iraq were also critical of U.S. government efforts. This also fails to explain that after Mr. Atiyyah completed work for the grant, IRI recommended him to the National Endowment for Democracy for further funding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without offering any evidence COHA claims IRI is "skewing public opinion in order to yield a desired outcome." This is a complete fabrication. COHA's infatuation with a former employee of IRI, Stanley Lucas, conveniently overlooks key pieces of the story which would essentially reverse COHA's conclusions: two separate full-scale USAID Inspector General investigations found no evidence that IRI's Haiti programs were responsible for the "overthrow of the country's democratically-elected President."-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the April 2002 Venezuela episode COHA tries to paint a negative picture of IRI's work, all of which is baseless. The only mistake that was made was the statement by Mr. Folsom and IRI has said that for years.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The general assertion that John McCain's foreign policy views are shaped by IRI suggests how little COHA knows about broader global policy-making. The Senator hardly needs IRI to shape and extend his foreign policy knowledge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If COHA wishes to provide serious analysis, it would be preferable to start with real facts – not misleading items from COHA's closet of aging and parochial stories.

Stanley Lucas and the Council of Hemispheric Affairs (COHA)

The Council of Hemispheric Affairs, (COHA) -- or the Larry Birns Group -- has been peddling disinformation for years. This "report" on Senator McCain and IRI is more of the same. The organization can best be described as a fact-free zone. The only thing one can be certain of is its affection for left-wing autocrats and aspiring dictators.