CommonDreams. Entretien avec Ricardo Seitenfus, envoyé spécial de l'OAS en Haïti autour de la manufacture des élections de 2011

Publié par siel sur 28 Février 2014, 14:02pm

Seitenfus, vous vous en souvenez, c'est l'homme par qui le scandale était arrivé. Il avait osé critiquer la manière dont l'aide internationale passait en grande partie au-dessus de la tête des Haïtiens pour aterrir dans les salaires des ongistes et revenir dans ls pays donneurs via leurs entreprises; à la suite de quoi le mandat de Seitenfus avait été écourté;

Ricardo Seitenfus a écrit un livre qui va sortir bientôt au Brésil dont le titre est

:Haïti Dilemnas et Fracassos Internacionals" (Haïti : Dilemnes et échecs de l'international)

Dans ce livre il narre, ce que j'ai appelé les élections fantasmagoriques, c'est-à-dire en gros la sélection de Martelly à partir d'une quantité d'arrangements et de méthodes de comptage totalement fantaisistes pour arriver à le placer en seconde position et virer Jude Célestin de la course.

il mentionne entre autres :

"Many of those displaced by the earthquake were not allowed to vote, and in the end less than 23 percent of registered voters had their vote counted."

"De nombreuses personnes déplacées suite au séisme n'ont pas eu l'autorisation de voter, et à la fin du processus, moins de 23 pour cent des gens qui ont voté ont eu leurs votes comptés"

Bien évidemment, la machine de propagande, en charge de discréditer le peuple haïtien, a fait connaïtre partout que le peuple haîtien stupide et fatigué d'être dirigé par des intellectuels avait voté en masse pour Martelly; et jusqu'à présent vous avez des "journalistes " sans éthique profesionnelle, comme les 2 de Vision 2000 qui s'amusent à batir des théories à partir de fausses prémisses pour expliquer pourquoi le peuple avait choisi Martelly, alors même que n'importe quel quidam un peu évolué sait parfaitement qu'il s'agissait d'un montage orchestré.

Et le chef d'orchestrre dit Seitenfus était Mulet- ce que dit également Mme Ginette Chérubin dans son livre.

Aussi, ne vous étonnez pas que Mulet ait été décoré par Martelly. Il méritati bien ça pour avoir fait ce miracle qui l'a propulsé à une place à laquelle il n'avait aucune chance d'accéder, si les élections n'avaient pas été une risible et ubuesque magouille.

A lire l'entretien de Seitenfus , on comprend que Martelly n'est pas le président des Haïtiens mais celui de la communauté internationale. D'où le fait qu'elle le soutienne per fas et néfas.

Notez aussi que ce M. Mulet (ex-homme de gauche comme Blair)) est celui qui jusqu'à aujourd'hui où j'écris ces lignes, nie la responsabilité des soldats népalais de la Minustah dans la propagation de l'épidémie de choléra.

Un livre donc à lire pour mesurer le poids et le rôle infernal joué par la communauté internationale en Haïti.

En espérant qu'il sera traduit en français.

voir aussi OAS Insider Details Proposed Coup Against Haiti's Preval and Cholera's 'Genocide by Negligence'

Published on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 by Dissent

Haiti’s Doctored Elections, Seen from the Inside

An Interview with Ricardo Seitenfus, special representative of the OAS in Haiti

by Georgianne Nienaber and Dan Beeton

Election day rallies, Port au Prince, Haiti, November 28, 2010. (mediahacker/Flickr)National elections were held in Haiti less than one year after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in January 2010 had killed 220,000 or more, left 1.5 million people homeless, and ravaged the country’s infrastructure. Accusations were rampant that the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) had introduced cholera into Haiti’s river system; the resulting epidemic would kill over 8,500 and sicken hundreds of thousands. The November 28 election was contested under crisis conditions. Hundreds of thousands of voters were either shut out of the electoral process or boycotted the vote after the most popular party in the country—Fanmi Lavalas—was banned from competing, as it had been numerous times since being overthrown in a coup in 2004. Many of those displaced by the earthquake were not allowed to vote, and in the end less than 23 percent of registered voters had their vote counted.

Eyewitness testimony on election day reported numerous electoral violations: ballot stuffing, tearing up of ballots, intimidation, and fraud. Haiti’s Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), responsible for overseeing elections, announced that former first lady Mirlande Manigat had won but lacked the margin of victory needed to avoid a runoff. The Organization of American States (OAS) dispatched a mission of “experts” to examine the results. As a result, candidate and pop musician Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly was selected to compete in the runoff instead of the governing party’s candidate Jude Célestin.

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) subsequently released a report showing that there were so many problems with the election tallies that the OAS’s conclusions represented a political decision rather than an electoral one. CEPR reported that the CEP either didn’t receive or quarantined tally sheets for some 1,326 voting booths; as a result, about 12.7 percent of the vote was not included in the final totals released by the CEP on December 7, 2010. When the OAS mission stepped in to review the tally sheets, it chose to examine only 8 percent of them, and those it discarded were from disproportionately pro-Célestin areas, as CEPR also noted. Nor did the OAS mission use any statistical inference to estimate what might have resulted had it examined the other 92 percent.

The runoff was finally scheduled for March 20, 2011, and Martelly was declared the winner with 67.6 percent of the vote versus Manigat’s 31.5. Turnout was so low that Martelly was declared president-elect after receiving the votes of less than 17 percent of the electorate in the second round.

Into the fray stepped Ricardo Seitenfus, a respected Brazilian professor of international relations, who had been working as a special representative of the OAS in Haiti since 2008. After observing the electoral process, Seitenfus made statements to Swiss newspaper Le Temps criticizing international meddling in Haiti in general, and by MINUSTAH and NGOs in particular. He was abruptly ousted on Christmas Day. (The press was equivocal on whether Seitenfus was fired or forced to take a two-month “vacation” before his tenure as special representative ended in March 2011.)

In his new book, Haiti: Dilemas e Fracassos Internacionais (“International Crossroads and Failures in Haiti,” to be published in Brazil later this year by Editora Unijui), Seitenfus takes a long view of the electoral crisis that he witnessed in 2010. In his account, Haiti’s tragedy began over two centuries ago in 1804, when the country committed what Seitenfus terms its “original sin,” an unpardonable act of lèse-majesté: it became the first (and only) independent nation to emerge from a slave rebellion. “The Haitian revolutionary model scared the colonialist and racist Great Powers,” Seitenfus writes. France demanded heavy financial compensation from the new republic as a condition of its honoring Haiti’s nationhood, and the United States only recognized Haiti’s independence in 1862, just before abolishing its own system of slavery. Haiti has been isolated and manipulated on the international scene ever since, its people “prisoners on their own island.”

Was Seitenfus let go for calling the relationship between the government of Haiti and NGOs “evil or perverse”? For his accusations about the cholera cover-up? Or, more troubling, because of his knowledge of how a secret “Core Group” was quietly orchestrating the elections against then-President Rene Préval? In this interview, Seitenfus shares his view of international plans for a “silent coup d’etat,” electoral interference, and more.

Q: Before getting to the 2010 election, let’s start with the cholera epidemic we now know was caused by MINUSTAH in October 2010. You write about the “shameless” attitude of the UN and ambassadors of the so-called “friends of Haiti”—countries that refused to take responsibility after MINUSTAH introduced cholera to Haiti. You say that this “transforms this peace mission into one of the worst in the history of the United Nations.” Would you be willing to testify in the current class action lawsuit, filed in a U.S. federal court, accusing the UN of gross negligence and misconduct on behalf of cholera victims in Haiti?

RS: There is no doubt that the UN—especially former MINUSTAH head Edmond Mulet and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon—systematically denied its direct and scientifically verified responsibility for the introduction of Vibrio cholera into Haiti, projecting a lasting shadow over that peace operation. What is shocking is not MINUSTAH’s carelessness, but the lie, turned into strategy, by the international community, including the “Group of Friends of Haiti.” It constitutes an embarrassment that will forever mark the relations of these countries with Haiti.

Even former U.S. President Bill Clinton, serving as the UN’s special envoy to Haiti, publicly admitted in 2012 that it was UN employees who brought cholera to the country. Yet the UN is hiding behind the immunity clause conferred by the July 9, 2004 agreement signed with Haiti legalizing MINUSTAH’s existence. This despite the fact that this agreement was signed not by the acting president of Haiti (as stipulated by the Haitian constitution), Boniface Alexandre, but by Prime Minister Gerard Latortue. According to the 1969 and 1986 Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties, any treaty signed by someone who lacks jus tractum—that is, treaty making power—is null.

With its contempt for Haitian constitutional rights and international law, the UN demonstrated once again the levity with which it treats Haitian matters. Responsible for establishing the rule of law in the country, according to its own mission, the U.N. does not follow even its own fundamental provisions, thus making the text that it supports and that should legalize its actions in Haiti void and ineffective. Because MINUSTAH’s very existence is plagued with illegalities, the UN’s attempt to deny its responsibility for introducing cholera in Haiti can be easily circumvented. I am and will always be available to any judicial power that deals with this case, including federal courts in the United States.

Q: In your book, you write about international collusion in plans for a “silent coup.” Why wait until now to name the perpetrators?

RS: No. It is not true that I kept quiet. I gave interviews to the Brazilian and international press, in late December 2010 and early January 2011, mentioning this and other episodes. (See, for example, my interviews with the BBC [Portuguese] and Al Jazeera.) The problem is that the international press was manipulated during the electoral crisis and never had an interest in doing investigative journalism. In the interviews that I gave, and especially in my book (International Crossroads and Failures in Haiti), soon to be published in Brazil and other countries, I describe the electoral coup in great detail.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the elements I reveal, I discovered in a scientific research project over the past three years. Many questions were hanging in the air, without adequate answers. I believe I managed to connect the different views and actors, providing the reader a logical and consistent interpretation about what happened. We are dealing with a work that is required by the historical memory, without any shadow of revenge or settling of scores.