(I found this in the "Drafts" section of this blog from years ago. Apparently I never got around the publishing it. Reviewing it now, I think I was far too kind to Weisbrot, a thoroughly dishonest man. Here it is, for the record. MD)
Back in December 2005 I stumbled across one of the most poorly
informed articles about Haiti that I had ever read in the form of the
piece "Undermining Haiti" by Center for Economic and Policy Research co
-director Mark Weisbrot, a man with virtually no experience at all in
the country and even less grasp of its complicated recent history. I
responded
with a letter to the publication saying, among other things, that
"articles like this, hatched in a cocoon of ideology where rude reality
never intrudes, do little to help that long-suffering country." Weisbrot
then responded with a libelous tirade against me that one Haiti
observer wrote was "pretty pathetic" and which "confirms exactly what
you are accusing him of." When I approached then-Nation editor
Karen Rothmyer
about correcting such libel, I received a pouting response that "if you
feel strongly, I'll get our lawyers involved." So much for informing
the public, I guess.
Still, I
think it might be useful to dismantle some of Weisbrot's more egregious
dishonesty in public view, so I include the below letter (expanded from
what I had intended to send The Nation) for readers' edification.
Perhaps some day Mr. Weisbrot will get out from behind his desk and
experience the places he opines about at ground level. I certainly
encourage it.
MD
Michael Deibert's response to Mark Weisbrot's letter to The Nation magazine
While
Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot's
inaccuracies might pass without notice in Washington, (see Mr.Weisbrot's
article "Undermining Haiti" in The Nation, Dec. 12), to those of us who
have been on the ground in Haiti, it is clear that Weisbrot might
benefit in his analysis by a quick review of Haiti's recent history. For
journalists who have been privileged with the trust of Haiti's poor
majority to tell their stories, it is our duty to reiterate the facts
that individuals such as Weisbrot, perhaps unwittingly, do their best to
muddy, first in his article, and now in his letter to The Nation
responding to my critique of said article (that full exchange follows
this email).
In his letter responding to my critique of
his article, Weisbrot writes: "Most of the Fanmi Lavalas leadership and
activists are in jail, hiding or exile. Nothing approaching this
magnitude of state-sponsored violence or repression existed under
Aristide."
False, in several aspects.
Despite the continuation of brutality and impunity under the interim
government that was one of the hallmarks of the Aristide years, many
Lavalas leaders, such as cabinet minister Leslie Voltaire, former Senate
president Yvon Feuillé, former Chamber of Deputies presidents
Rudy Herivaux and Yves Christallin, former Milot mayor Moise
Jean-Charles, Aristide's first prime minister during his second term
Jean-Marie Cherestal and others still operate with freedom throughout
Haiti and, indeed, are still actively involved in politics. As someone
who was in Haiti from December 2003 until June 2004 (one of many
periods spent living in the country), I can truly say I have rarely seen
greater state-sponsored violence or terror than those of us in Haiti
witnessed during the final months of the Aristide government. Please
refer to my book,
Notes from the Last Testament (Seven Stories Press) or reports filed by National Public Radio's Gerry Hadden
here and
here, to cite but two examples), the Haitian organization
AlterPresse, or a myriad of other
sources, for elaboration.
Weisbrot
writes: "There is little evidence that the Aristide government
"actively thwarted" the investigation of the murder of journalist Jean
Léopold Dominique."
False. On March 3rd,
2002, on her daily broadcast on Radio Haiti-Inter, Michele Montas, Mr.
Dominique's widow and 2002 winner of the Maria Moors Cabot Prize for
excellence in journalism from Columbia University, said the
following, referring explicitly to the Aristide government's undermining of the investigation, and investigating judge, Claudy Gassant:
On
this same date last year, March 3, 2001, President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide came to Radio Haiti to express his support publicly for the
judicial inquiry and pledge that the executive branch of government
would make available to justice the resources needed to investigate the
April 3, 2000 assassinations at Radio Haiti. Today, twenty-three
months later, facts are speaking louder than words: Fact: The Chief of
State, who has the direct and exclusive authority to renew Judge
Gassant's mandate, has still not done so although that judge diligently
and systematically conducted the investigation for sixteen months
with courage and competence. . . . Facts: All the resources, i.e.,
logistical, technical and financial made available in this judicial case
by the preceding government have been cancelled. The special and
relatively modest funds which had helped in the success of the trials
of Raboteau and Carrefour Feuilles, as well as the funds allocated,
among other resources, to the work of the first two investigating judges
assigned to the murder cases of Jean Dominique and Jean-Claude
Louissaint, allowing them to follow the leads of a difficult
investigation in several
areas of the countries, were cancelled.
The
fact that the Aristide government directly stonewalled the Dominique
murder investigation has since been re-confirmed to me, both by Ms.
Montas herself and by numerous other sources in Haiti. At a press
conference held by the Radio Haiti-Inter staff on April 3, 2002 (which I
attended), Radio Haiti Inter reporter Sony Esteus
said that:
Manoeuvre
after manoeuvre has been made by the justice minister, by the dean of
the civil court, by the 21 May Senate and by the police in order to
block the investigation. The person who believes he can deliver the coup
de grace is President Aristide. We say the coup de grace because
President Aristide, as head of state, has blocked the investigations
for four months...President Aristide is chief of a political party that
controls the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government
and he has blocked this investigation at every turn. We demand the
president renew the mandate and ensure the security of Judge Gassant.
Weisbrot
writes: "(Deibert) claims that thugs acted in December with "visible
collusion with police," but that is simply an allegation."
False. During
the attack on the university on December 5, 2003, employees of the
nearby Fondation Connaissance et Liberté (FOKAL) run by Michèle
Pierre-Louis, the former sister-in-law of a well-known slain priest,
Jean Pierre- Louis and a pair of visiting French diplomats watched the
violence from the organization's headquarters on Avenue Christophe and
later released a scathing
press release in which they recounted the scene, which read, in part, as follows:
We
saw groups of pro-governmental militia . . . regroup in front of our
building, visibly preparing to attack the student demonstration
scheduled for that day. We saw their arms displayed, ranging from
firearms, wooden and iron sticks, rocks and other objects capable of
hurting and killing. We saw their chiefs, men and women, also armed,
equipped with walkie-talkies and cellular phones, organize and give
orders to the commandos that were to attack the students. We saw the
police, not neutral as has been reported, but acting as accomplices to
the militia. On several occasions, during that day of horror and shame,
the police opened the way for the chimere attack and also covered their
backs. We saw children aged between twelve and fifteen, some in school
uniforms, used by the Lavalas militia to throw rocks and attack the
students with fire arms.
Those present during the
attack, and footage in the filmmaker Arnold Antonin's documentary about
the Aristide government's bloody denouement,
GNB Kont Attila, have since confirmed this version of events.
Weisbrot
writes: "Aristide made concerted efforts to reform the justice system
and to address the root causes of the country's violence."
False. After
driving two judges - Jean Sénat Fleury, and Claudy Gassant - off of the
Jean Dominique case, in mid-April 2002, the Aristide government
succeeded in
pressing
Henry Kesner Noel, magistrate of the city of Saint Marc, into signing
an arrest warrant charging former dictator Prosper Avril with
orchestrating the 1990 massacre of peasant farmers in the village of
Piatre, in central Haiti, even though the massacre occurred after the
dictator had been ousted from power. Following the signing of Avril's
arrest warrant, Justice Noel fled Haiti for Florida, saying that
Aristide officials - Noel mentioned Secretary of State for Public
Security Gérard Dubreuil by name - had forced him to sign the warrant
and he feared for his life should he remain in Haiti. The Aristide
government's actions in this event were a blatant violation of Article
60 of Haiti's constitution, which delegated firmly the independence of the executive and judicial branches of government. In January 2003, when
Judge Marcel Jean,
the investigating judge in charge of Aristide-loyalist Amiot Metayer's
case in the city of Gonaives, attempted to board a plane to the United
States on, he discovered that his name was on a list of those banned
from leaving the country by Interior Minister Jocelerme Privert. Jean's
passport was seized, and he was denied the right to leave the country.
Many viewed the move as an attempt to force Jean to "legalize" Metayer's
jailbreak of August 2 the previous year. Eventually, Jean slipped out
of the country and went into exile. Rosemond Jean, who helped form and
became the spokesman for the Coordination Nationale des Societaires
Victimes (CONASOVIC) on behalf of the victims of the co-operative
scandal, was
held from September 2002 until March 2003 without trial.
The
list goes on and on. Another example of Aristide's commitment to the
rule of law was the speech he gave gave while visiting Haiti's police
headquarters in June 2001, Referring to *zenglendos*?the
Kreyol
term for common criminals that had become an all-purpose catch phrase
for referring to people that those in a position of power in Haiti
wanted to eliminate, Aristide
said that "If a zenglendo stops a car out on the street, takes the car keys, forces the driver to get out and drives away with
the vehicle, then that person is guilty. You do not need to take him to
court to answer to the judge, because the car does not belong to him.
If a criminal carries out physical violence against somebody out in the
street with intent to kill that person, you do not need to wait for that
criminal to appear before the judge, you can prevent that
murderer from taking action. When it has to do with criminals it is zero
tolerance. Period and full stop." So much for due process.
Following
the murder of journalist Brignol Lindor in December 2001, his killers -
members of a pro-government gang called Domi Nan Bwa in the provincial
city of Petit Goave who readily confessed to their crime -
announced that they had meted out "zero tolerance" to Lindor.
Weisbrot
writes: "Since all governments commit mistakes and abuses, this
argument can always be constructed; it is perhaps easier to do so for a
very poor country where the rule of law is not well established.
Deibert's efforts fall squarely within that dishonorable tradition."
As
Mao's defenders in the West such as the journalists Felix Greene, Anna
Louise Strong, Edgar Snow and the economist Gilbert Etienne, attempted
to deny the terrible reality of the suffering inflicted on the Chinese
people during The Great Leap Forward, when tens of millions of people
died needlessly, most of starvation, on the alter of Mao's vanity,
so Mr. Weisbrot would appear to be dancing perilously close to his own
"dishonorable tradition," that of the Western observer who believes that
the lives of the world's poor are some how more expendable to bring
about a desired political reality than their own sheltered, pampered existence.
As
the noted Haitian filmmaker Raoul Peck has written about Haiti and the
serial defenders of the Aristide government's excesses: "It became a
habit among the tyrant's "friends," in particular among his American
friends in the pseudo-left sector, to downplay these trends, or to hold
his entourage
responsible. Is this to say that there are crimes
condemnable in a western country but acceptable in Haiti? Are
journalists' assassinations, threats, the dismissal of judges who are
honest or not "flexible" enough, the forced exile of bothersome
adversarie, ?are these "acceptable?" Do we only deserve a dime store version of democracy? A patronizing conceit that "low-end" democracy is good enough for "poor" Haitians?"
Whether
Mr. Weisbrot is deliberately spreading misinformation, or is simply
ill-informed in opining about things he has little first-hand knowledge
of, is a matter for him to explain. But I think, given the evidence of
his deception, he owes Haiti's poor majority greater intellectual and
historical rigor when commenting on their struggle than he has thus far
displayed.
Michael Deibert
New York City