Ira Kurzban letter to New York Times re factual errors by Lydia Polgreen (Jan 2, 2004)

Letter from Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.


January 2, 2004


Ms. Lydia Polgreen
New York Times
New York, New York

Dear Ms. Polgreen:

I write to you and your editors because of numerous factual errors contained in your story on the January 1st celebrations in Haiti marking the 200 anniversary of that country's independence. I assume that the factual errors arose from your lack of familiarity with the political situation in Haiti or because you have been provided a good deal of misinformation. The article that I will address below was published on Friday, January 2, 2004 in the International section of the New York Times.

First, your article states that: "Mr Aristide was re-elected to the presidency in voting that many observers said was flawed" and that as result "the country had been locked in political crisis." You further stated that: "The dispute led international donors to suspend $500 million in aid¶" These statements are inaccurate. Such erroneous statements regarding Haiti often arise from the common confusion between the May 2000 parliamentary elections and the November 2000 presidential election. In May, 2000, there were 30,000 candidates who ran for 7,500 positions ranging from mayors and department representatives to Senators and members of the lower chamber. Of the 7,500 elections, the Organization of American States challenged the methodology used in counting 8 senate seats. While the independent electoral council (called the "CEP" in Haiti) claimed that the methodology used in counting the victors in those elections had been used in previous elections, the OAS observers disagreed. The OAS report is clear that there were no credible allegations of wide spread fraud in the elections.

In any event, no responsible international organization or observers contended that Mr. Aristide's election which occurred in November, 2000 was invalid or tainted in any manner as you suggested in your article. I invite you to review the OAS reports. It was clear in November, 2000 that Mr. Aristide's election was not marred by fraud or allegations of impropriety.

As soon as Mr. Aristide took office in February 2001 he used the power of his Presidency and as the head of his party to encourage the senators from the 8 contested seats to step down and pave the way for a new election. The seven senators from his party, Lavalas, agreed to do so. The eighth senator, who came from an opposition party, declined to do so.

The second error in your article is the claim that the international embargo was the result of Mr. Aristide's election. Again, this is erroneous. The international embargo began toward the end of Mr. Preval's term and had nothing to do with Mr. Aristide's election. Indeed, the United States government has repeatedly taken the position that Mr. Aristide is the democratically elected president of the nation. The embargo was continued under President Aristide's term under the claim that funds would not be released until a settlement was reached with the opposition, notwithstanding the fact that the seven senators had resigned. The embargo, which continues to exist today, and makes it impossible for the government to have any success in alleviating the poverty you address in your article, is therefore not in response to solving the political impasse. That impasse was solved when the senator's stepped down. Nor can the financial embargo be seriously linked to progress in making the country more democratic, because the World Bank, the United States, France and the European Union, who today refuse to provide any direct assistance to the Government of Haiti, provided financial assistance to the Duvaliers during their dictatorship, as well as the military governments that succeeded Duvalier. I leave it to your judgment and good sense as to the true reasons for the embargo. In any event, they are completely unrelated to President Aristide's election.

The third error in your article is simply baffling. I assume you attended the January 1st ceremonies at the National Palace in Port-au-Prince based upon the information contained in your story. The Miami Herald stated that there were "hundreds of thousands" of Haitians at the National Palace. Even the most minimum reasonable estimate of the number of supporters at the National Palace on January 1st, had to range conservatively from 50,000 to 100,000 people. Your description that Aristide spoke to a "small but enthusiastic crowd" simply blinks reality. I have taken the liberty to send photographs to a professional service that will provide me and your editors with a true count as to the number of people who appeared at the National Palace. Although the numbers game can be tricky and I am not assuming you had any bias in writing your article, one would literally have to be blind to say that there was a "small" crowd at the National Palace.

Your article also states that President Mbeki was the only head of state to attend the ceremonies. Your article states: "But it was a measure of Mr. Aristide's political isolation and Haiti's persistent troubles that only one [head of state] showed up." Your own article contradicts this assertion as you state later that the Prime Minister of the Bahamas attended the ceremonies. Indeed, as you were at the National Palace, I am sure you heard Prime Minister Perry Christie state that this was an historic occasion because it was the first time a head of state from the Bahamas had visited the Republic of Haiti. I understand that this may not detract from your general statement, but it certainly is misleading to single out Mr. Mbeki, to ignore Prime Minister Christie, and to ignore the scores of delegations from around the world who attended the celebration.

Finally, there is the question of violence. Your article was remarkably silent on the violence perpetrated by the opposition on January 1st and before that date. Opposition members burnt a police car on January 1st. They blocked all three major roads into the center of Port-au-Prince by setting fires in the road and placing boulders throughout the city. I am sure you witnessed all of these events if you were in Port-au-Prince. Yet your article makes the opposition appear as law abiding democratically-motivated individuals who are subjected to tear-gassing by the police on one hand and violence by Aristide supporters on the other. Had you inquired sufficiently, you would have learned that more supporters of Lavalas have been killed since December 5, 2003 than in the opposition. I am not condoning violence on either side. However, it is misleading to suggest that the violence is simply directed at one side as opposed to the other.

In light of the numerous errors in the article and as the counsel for the Government of Haiti in the United States, I kindly request that these errors be corrected publicly in a manner the New York Times deems appropriate.

As I am certain there was no intention on your part to be biased in the presentation of the facts, I would be honored to have the opportunity to discuss with you any of these or other matters that are of interest to you concerning the Government of Haiti.

Sincerely,



Ira J. Kurzban, Esq.


The New York Times corrects two points in its Bicentennial story



LYDIA POLGREEN and has added these two paragraphs as an addendum to the original article:

"An article on Friday about the bicentennial of Haiti's independence misidentified the election that outside observers called flawed, a finding that led to the suspension of $500 million in foreign aid to Haiti and contributed to the current political crisis there. It was the May 2000 legislative election, in which the Organization of American States disputed the counting method used in eight Senate races, not the November 2000 election of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which the O.A.S. said was not fraudulent."

"Because of an editing error, the article also referred imprecisely to the size of the crowd that attended the bicentennial celebration outside the presidential palace. While the government estimated it in the hundreds of thousands, and outside journalists' estimates ranged as low as 15,000, the crowd was not small.'

Haiti Makes Its Case for Reparations by J. Damu (FinalCall)

Haiti Makes Its Case for Reparations

By J. Damu, guest columnist, Final Call, 10 February 2004

The meter is running at $34 per second

You've got to hand it to Haiti. Not only was it the world's first country of enslaved workers to stand up and demand their freedom and independence; now they are the world's first country to stand up to their former slavery-era master, France, and demand the return of its stolen wealth.

Everyone say "Amen."

Haiti's president and other government officials claim their country was held up at gunpoint in broad daylight in 1825 and now they want the admitted thief, France, to replace the stolen wealth to the tune of $21.7 billion. his, despite massive attempts, well documented elsewhere, by the United States and world lending institutions to destabilize and overthrow the democratically elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Government officials also say, due to forced efforts to hand over its wealth in a timely manner to France, the coerced payments so distorted and stunted the economy, Haiti feels the effects to this day. They also say, due to those efforts, Haiti became saddled with a form of class oppression that resembles racism.

In a soon to be published booklet provided to a U.S. reporter by the foreign press liaison to President Jean Bertrand Aristide, Haitian government officials dissect the 1825 "agreement" that initially forced Haiti to pay to France 150 million francs in exchange for liberty.

The booklet, like Haiti's restitution claim, is based largely on the research of Dr. Francis St. Hubert, a member of the government's Haiti Restitution Commission.

"I did most of my research in New York at the Columbia University Library and the Schomburg Center," Dr. Hubert said by phone from Port-au-Prince.

Press fail to identify key players in Gonaives opposition violence

Press fail to identify key players in Gonaives opposition violence nor do they examine timing of terrorist acts


Michelle Karshan, Foreign Press Liaison - National Palace, Haiti
Tel: (011509) 228-2058 - Fax: (011509) 228-2171 - Email: mkarshan@aol.com

Haiti's Secretary of State for Communications, Mario Dupuy, responded to this week's extreme violence by the opposition in Gonaives explaining that these are "terrorist acts undertaken by the armed wing of the opposition." Indeed, immediately after the attack on the police station in Gonaives (which includes destroying the national prison there, aiding the escape of prisoners, burning of government buildings, homes and stores, murdering police and civilians, setting people on fire) the leaders of the opposition in Port-au-Prince openly praised the terrorist acts in Gonaives.

Journalist Scott Wilson, in his Washington Post article, "Armed Attacks Increase Pressure on Haitian Leader, Groups Extend Reach Into Provincial Areas" published November 18, 2003 (see link at end of this section) described the armed branch of the opposition as follows: "Many of the participants are either former members of Haiti's military, which was dissolved after the 1994 U.S. invasion that restored Aristide to power following a military coup, or they belonged to a paramilitary force that opposed the president's return. The groups have increased the tempo of their attacks in recent months, and are showing signs of coordinating military efforts around the country."

In that same November 2003 article, Prime Minister Yvon Neptune stated, "Our information is that there are links between some elements of these armed groups with the opposition on every level -- financial as well as the political goal of ousting President Aristide," Neptune said. "We're trying to show that this is all a pretext for not wanting to participate in elections."

In reporting on this week's atrocities in Gonaives, the foreign press, so far, has continued to portray the opposition in Gonaives as former Aristide supporters when in fact the former military, macoutes and FRAPH figure prominently amongst them! Today's Associated Press article by Michael Norton does admit the presence of former military in Gonaives but distances their involvement from the high command of the terrorists as follows: "Former soldiers of Haiti's disbanded army carrying heavy weapons patrolled the streets in support of the uprising in Gonaives."