Political Operatives Promote Conspiracies to Undermine the New Government of Haiti by Stanley Lucas

Dr. Henry "Chip" Carey is clearly ill informed.  His assertions http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/10/11/haiti-step-toward-its-dictatorial-past and see http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnQN8YUggWfYAErFp76HdY_XyfWQ?docId=0df24ca8792049de84ae249a1a832f7a lack grounding in facts and appear to advancing a very partisan agenda -- while undermining any progress. In addition the man wanted in Cap-Haïtien court for murder, and later fraudulently elected senator,Moise Jean Charles, is the chief authority quoted by this AP reporter to label the Martelly government Duvalierist, see: http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/08/haiti-profil-de-cinq-senateurs-de-la.html

This is a new approach to politics in Haiti which have traditionally only been accountable to a small few in the Groupe de Bourdon business cartel.  People like Dr. Carey may not even realize they are being used to advance partisan agendas and further divide our country.

While I hesitate to even engage with rumormongers, it is important to ensure that the facts are laid out so I will address a few of the more egregious errors in his analysis.

First, Mr. Conille meets the legally mandated residency requirements for Prime Minister according to the Haitian Senate and the House of Deputies. Mr. Conille is eminently qualified for the position having worked for 20 years in Haitian politics and led the UN Special Envoy’s office post-earthquake.  There is nothing in Mr. Conille’s record that indicates he is a Duvalierist.  I know Mr. Conille well and I can assure you – he is focused on the future – not the past.

Second, Martelly never turned to the “remnants of the Duvalier dictatorship to secretly finance his well-oiled, professional campaign.”  Rather, President Martelly along with thousands of supporters in Haiti and the Diaspora financed his campaign directly because he believed he could make a real difference and represented a new type of Haitian politician.   All campaign contributions were donated according to Haiti’s electoral law.  Dr. Carey has absolutely no foundation to make his accusations on this front.

Third, Dr. Carey asserts that President Martelly reached some super secret agreement with his funders to reinstate the army.  In fact, the new Haitian Defense Force is being launched for four very strong and very public reasons:  
1.  It is a direct request of the Haitian people who are increasingly concerned by the track record UN’s peacekeeping mission in Haiti which has been involved in scandal after scandal, including the introduction of cholera, the murder of a young man in the camps, sex scandals and corruption, as well as most recently the documented rape of a young Haitian man for more see: 
a. http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2010/11/cholera-in-haiti-is-united-nations.html 
b. http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/09/haiti-viol-dun-jeune-haitien-de-19-ans.html 
c. http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/09/minustahs-filthy-record-in-haiti-by.html ; 
2.  Haiti is a sovereign country with real needs to protect its borders from drug trafficking and gangs; 
3.  The police are overwhelmed and need to primarily focus upon domestic issues; and, 
4.  In all countries, the military helps maintain infrastructure and helps with disaster and emergency response.  Haiti suffered a devastating earthquake and had to rely upon the US military for stabilization, rescue and recovery.  Our airports and ports were under the control of the US military.  Should the Haitian government not be able to respond to these types of crisis themselves?  We should have to wait for the US military to arrive?  The people are demanding protection and security.  President Martelly is planning a modern, efficient and professional army that is being developing in concert with international partners. 

Fourth, Dr. Carey goes through considerable efforts to link every single Martelly appointment to Duvalier.  For example, he states, “Constantin Mayard-Paul, the attorney for Claude Raymond and Papa Doc’s godson, has a son, Thierry Mayard-Paul, who is the president’s chief of staff. Another brother, Gregory Mayard-Paul, is a legal adviser.”  What?  He states that another advisor was the Ambassador to the Holy See under Duvalier.  So everyone who worked for Duvalier or Aristide should be shut out of government?  Me. Thierry Mayard Paul 50 years old and Me Gregory Mayard Paul 46 never hold public office in Haiti until now. The two brothers owned a successful private law firm. Thierry served a few months pro bono in a commission hired by Preval to reform the judicial system. Dr. Carey surely does not understand the situation in Haiti given a comment as preposterous as this.  There are very few qualified and experienced government officials in Haiti.  Just because one may have worked under a previous regime does not indict them.  There are reformers within every system.  It seems Dr. Carey is advocating some sort of a witch hunt in Haiti.  We prefer not to go that route and follow his derided path of “cohabitation”.  In fact, many many advanced democracies in this world have competing political groups, including the US, the UK, and Canada.  A democracy incorporates all voices. 

Fifth, Dr. Carey’s reporting on me was lazy and inaccurate.  I never orchestrated an armed rebellion.  I trained all of Haiti’s political parties on how to operate more effectively; observed elections; and worked with civil society groups to help them effectively message their platforms.  I was never “removed” from my position at the International Republican Institute.  After 15 years at the Institute, I resigned and launched my own Washington Democracy Project. 

Sixth, Dr. Carey’s lazy analysis continues when he states that the reasons for Mr. Conille’s acceptance by the Haitian parliament are “not difficult to fathom”.  He goes on to hurl accusations that Mr. Conille wants to reinstate terror at the hand of an army because his father was a minister under Duvalier.  How incredibly ridiculous.  Mr. Conille has broad based support because of his track record in Haiti and because he represents a new future for Haiti.

From rumor-mongering to fear-mongering, Dr. Carey writes baseless accusation after accusation to try to convince people that President Martelly’s efforts to restore Haiti’s sovereignty, protect its borders and bolster emergency readiness by launching a new Haitian Defense Force are somehow part of a grand plan to reinstate (the very sick see: http://solutionshaiti.blogspot.com/2011/01/duvalier-returns-to-haiti-merely-pawn.html ) Duvalier.  Perhaps Dr. Carey prefers to keep Haiti dependent upon other countries, but Haitians prefer to be free and independent rather than continuing to rely upon the generosity of the internationally community.  We are trying to move toward self-reliance and independence through good governance.  Why would you find ways to undermine that?  I will always welcome debate and discussion on the facts, but will always reject partisan rumor-mongering such as this.  Please do better to build a constructive, fact-based debate if you care about the future of Haiti, Dr. Carey.

US Policy Toward Haiti: Stanley Lucas' response to Paul Farmer and Brian Concannon

US policy toward Haiti is important and has not always been perfect. There is much blame to be placed on the US government, but we should also look at the Haitian government's role in that failure. Haitian leaders have missed several important opportunities to engage with the US on their own terms and in a strategic way that supports the goals of the country. Of course, to do that the Haitian government would need to have a clear plan for development which, unbelievably, it still lacks despite being the poorest country in the Western hemisphere made even poor by serious and devastating storms that hit the country over the summer. The Preval Administration has not taken the lead in outlining Haiti's vision for engagement with the US and where the government could use assistance. To my knowledge, they haven't even engaged the new Administration yet. Both Democrats and Republicans have made significant mistakes and the authors Paul Farmer and his associate Brian Concannon should attempt to be more objective rather than being blatantly partisan because there is no role for US partisan politics in this debate.  

While US policy is important, it does not make or break Haiti. It cannot save us and it cannot destroy us. Furthermore, the US is not and should not be our only ally or aid provider. We should be engaging France, Germany, the UK, others. Haitians are a proud, hardworking and dedicated people who have been failed by their leadership for the past forty years...the Duvaliers, military rulers, Aristide, and now, sadly, Preval. Haitians have taken heart in Obama's declaration that his Administration will judge foreign leaders by what they build, not what they destroy. Haitians want accountability and see an opportunity for the US to help them fight one of the country's cancer, rampant corruption. 

Finally, I would also like to point out a few factual errors in this article. We can't of course have a good debate on issues if we aren't grounded in the facts.

First, the sanctions on Haiti were imposed by the Clinton administration in November 2000 not the Bush administration, please refer to the following link http://articles.latimes.com/2000/sep/06/news/mn-16277 Clinton was frustrated that Aristide did not keep his promises to rule Haiti democratically and provide economic opportunities to the people. Aristide, like his predecessors, turned into a dictator. Aristide even said on Haitian radio if Clinton did not do what he wanted, he would black mail him. Until today, nobody understands what he met by that.

Second, some oped writers of the U.S. press like Brian Concannon do not care about Haitian people; rather, they are interested in getting the stipends reinstated that they used to receive from Aristide in exchange for turning a blind eye on the human rights violations. Refer to the following link unfortunately, you will discover the name of one of the authors of this article, Brian Cocannon:  The Wall Street Journal called some of them "the American profiteers" Lucy Komisar a liberal American investigative reporter has documented the corruption in Haiti: Despite the money Aristide spent in Washington to gloss over his killings and corruption, we Haitians know his record well:  

Third, the article mentions people who were killed in 2004. It doesn't mention that those people were killed by gangs organized by Aristide. I invite you to read the reports of the Haitian Platform of Human Rights at:
1. Operation Bagdad http://www.alterpresse.org/spip.php?article5445

2. Operation Bagadad II 

But we need to move forward and identify priorities. I have strongly advocated making remittances up to $1000/mo tax deductible for Haitian Diaspora. We also need to give Haitians TPS -- as has been done for the El Salvadorans -- until immigration reform is finalized. These two steps should be among the top priorities along with examining USAID programs and other aid going to the country. A lot of money is being spent and there is very little to show for it. The Obama Administration will be making a big push into ensuring that money is being spent wisely -- hopefully this will extend to international aid as well.

On a separate note, Paul Farmer has done tremendously valuable work in Haiti on AIDS. He has truly made a contribution to the country and is well respected for that. On the political side, however, there is a popular perception in Haiti that he is using his reputation to promote the political agenda of one man, Aristide.

Change Haiti can believe in by Paul Farmer and Brian Concannon

January 25, 2009 

THE INAUGURATION of a US president committed to reversing "the failed policies of the past" provoked sighs of relief around the world. Few were more relieved than the citizens of Haiti, because few have suffered so much from failed US policies. But Haitians are still waiting to see whether the "past" that is to be reversed extends beyond the illegal and destructive policies of the last eight years to include over two centuries of US policies that have failed both our oldest neighbor and our highest ideals. 

Our treatment of Haiti was bad enough during the Bush administration. We imposed a development assistance embargo in 2001, because we did not like the elected government's economic policies. The embargo stopped urgently needed government programs - a Partners In Health study found that canceling water projects in just one city had a devastating impact on health in the area. In 2004, US officials forced Haiti President Jean-Bertrand Aristide aboard a clandestine flight to Africa and placed a Bush supporter from Florida at the head of Haiti's government. Thousands were killed in the ensuing political violence. Years of hard-won progress toward democracy were erased overnight.

But our mistreatment of Haiti started earlier, as soon as Haiti became independent in 1804, when we refused to even recognize the new republic run by freed slaves. We invaded Haiti in 1915, to ensure repayment of a debt to Citibank. We propped up ruthless dictators in the name of fighting communism. In the 1980's, we decimated Haiti's agricultural base by forcing subsidized US rice on Haitian markets.

These policies failed Haitians terribly. They cost thousands of lives lost in political violence. Millions more suffered because Haiti's governments could not or would not provide clean water and basic healthcare. The policies have also failed the United States, by requiring us to mount expensive military interventions, respond to repeated waves of refugees, and deal with the drugs that transit easily through an unstable Haiti on their way from South America.

Haitians are hoping that America will reverse the failed policies of the past. Their hopes are grounded not just in President Obama's promise, but in their own country's brief, but successful, experiment with democracy from 1994 to 2004, and in America's important contributions to that success.

Haiti's democratic interlude included contested elections, and struggles to provide basic justice, education, and healthcare - the predictable challenges of a poor, emerging democracy. But it also included Haiti's first transfer of power from one elected president to another in February 1996, and its second in February 2001. Democratic progress included extending AIDS retro viral therapy to rural areas that had never before had a simple clinic. It included two historic trials that brought powerful figures from Haiti's former army and current police force to justice.

These successes were due, in part, to US government investments. US troops intervened to restore the constitutional government in 1994. USAID helped craft Haiti's successful application for financing from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. US judges, prosecutors, and police officers trained their Haitian counterparts, and we helped equip Haitian courts with basic legal resources and materials.

We now have a historic opportunity to work with Haiti's current constitutional government to build a stronger, more prosperous Haiti. Seizing this opportunity will require restraint, and faith in democracy: We will need to allow elected Haitian leaders to make their own policy decisions, even if we would have decided otherwise.We will also need to invest in democracy. Three days' spending in Iraq or two weeks' interest on the bank bailout could fund Haiti's entire government for a year. Prudent, de politicized investments in Haiti's democracy will yield dividends of prosperity and stability to Haiti, and will save US taxpayer dollars in the long run by reducing the flow of refugees and drugs to our shores. Perhaps most important, by helping rebuild a better Haiti, we will show the world how, in President Obama's words, "we are ready to lead once more."

Paul Farmer, MD, is Presley professor of social medicine at Harvard Medical School and a co-founder of Partners In Health. Brian Concannon Jr. is director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

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.

Haiti: Letter The New York Times Refused to Print Responding to "Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos"

International Republican Institute
February 2, 2006
In response to the three page, 7,745-word article, "Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos" that appeared in The News York Times, the International Republican Institute submitted a 183-word Letter to the Editor. The Times refused to print the letter as submitted and went so far as to edit the substantive content of the letter. Below we have provided both letters so you, the reader, can see for yourself. --------------------------------------------

First, in working with The New York Times to print the Letter to the Editor, IRI originally included the sentence, "Bogdanich managed to find support for some of Curran's allegations amongst a small number of Haitians, all of whom spent years on former President Aristide's payroll or are accused death squad leaders." In editing that sentence The Times stated, "The News Department disputes the accuracy of 'support for some of Mr. Curran's allegations among a small number of Haitians, all of whom spent years on former President Aristide's payroll or are accused death squad leaders.'" Accuracy notwithstanding, The New York Times does not have the right to edit the substantive content of an individual's Letter to the Editor. ----------------

Second, IRI also included the sentence, "You also neglected to mention that Curran's predecessors and successors in Haiti praised IRI's programs; you even cropped Curran's predecessor (appointed by President Clinton) out of a photo with IRI officials." The Times completely removed any mention of the cropped photo. -------------------------------------

Third, IRI stated, "You neglected to mention that Colin Powell contradicted a basic tenet of your story when he told you he didn't accept your view that he differed with his Assistant Secretaries over Haiti policy." However, The Times changed the sentence so drastically that it no longer conveys that sentiment. The Times version reads, "Contrary to a suggestion in the article of two American policies in Haiti, there was only one policy. Indeed, as you wrote: 'Colin L. Powell, the secretary of state at the time, said that the American policy in Haiti was what Mr. Curran believed it to be, and that the United States stood by Mr. Aristide until the last few days of his presidency.'"

Lorne W. Craner, President, International Republican Institute