Haiti Relief & Reconstruction Watch

Haiti Relief & Reconstruction Watch

Haiti: Relief and Reconstruction Watch is a blog that tracks multinational aid efforts in Haiti with an eye towards ensuring they are oriented towards the needs of the Haitian people, and that aid is not used to undermine Haitians' right to self-determination.

During a meeting yesterday at the Hotel Karibe Convention Center, the CEP presented a draft electoral calendar to political parties present. The proposal would have the first round of legislative elections on August 9, the second round of legislative elections and first round of presidential elections on October 25 and finally the second round of presidential elections and local elections on December 27. The electoral decree, which provides the legal basis for the election, was approved by the president on March 2.

A key date in the electoral process will be March 23, when the CEP will publish the list of registered political parties. Registration will open on March 16 and parties will have 5 days to register. This will be looked at as a key indicator of the inclusiveness of elections, as in past elections key political parties have been excluded from participation.  Some opposition political movements were not present at yesterday’s meeting, including MOPOD, RDNP and Petit Dessalines, according to Alterpresse. For his part former Senator Moise Jean Charles of Petit Dessaline explained they would not attend, “…because conditions have not been met. The electoral environment is part of the context of the crisis.”

INITE, which joined the Martelly government as part of a political deal in January, was supportive of the proposed calendar. Paul Denis expressed his party’s support for the holding of three elections, while adding that some continue to not want elections at all. “No one should come with pretexts for not organizing elections so as to generate trouble in the country,” he said. In an interview with Le Nouvelliste, former INITE Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive indicated his intention to run, at some level, in the elections.

Fanmi Lavalas and Fusion both expressed concern with the calendar, preferring to have the election in two-rounds as opposed to three. Le Nouvelliste reported that according to Dr. Louis Gérald Gilles of Lavalas, “neither political parties nor the country will have the necessary economic resources to participate in an electoral process that stretches from March 16 to December 27 2015.” Lavalas was excluded from participating in the 2010 elections. In an interview earlier this week with the Haiti Press Network, Prime Minister Evans Paul stated that, “an important sum will be made available to the various political organizations to run in the presidential elections.”

While there are concerns over the proposed timetable, the bigger issue appears to be in the formation of the Bureaux electoraux départementaux (BED) and Bureaux electoraux communaux (BEC). These institutions play a key oversight role as their members are responsible for communal and departmental dispute resolution. According to Le Nouvelliste, “Most political parties considered that the CEP should have first resolved the issue of the members of the BEC and BED before focusing on the electoral calendar.”  Gilles of Lavalas added that, “the BED and BEC constitute the basis for credible elections in the country.”

In response to the questions raised about the BED and BEC, Nehemy Joseph, a member of the CEP, stated they lacked control over financial resources and were unable to travel the country and ensure that the local institutions are being formed properly. In an interview with Le Nouvelliste, the head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Sophie de Caen, announced that the electoral fund had over $38 million at its disposal. But, while the Haitian government is the largest single contributor, control of those funds rest with the international community and the UNDP in particular. Le Nouvelliste reported that, “certain political party leaders have roundly denounced the fact that the UNDP controls more than $38 million for the country’s elections, while the relevant body for the organization of elections, the CEP, functions with very limited economic resources.”

A final decision on the electoral calendar will be made in the coming days. 

During a meeting yesterday at the Hotel Karibe Convention Center, the CEP presented a draft electoral calendar to political parties present. The proposal would have the first round of legislative elections on August 9, the second round of legislative elections and first round of presidential elections on October 25 and finally the second round of presidential elections and local elections on December 27. The electoral decree, which provides the legal basis for the election, was approved by the president on March 2.

A key date in the electoral process will be March 23, when the CEP will publish the list of registered political parties. Registration will open on March 16 and parties will have 5 days to register. This will be looked at as a key indicator of the inclusiveness of elections, as in past elections key political parties have been excluded from participation.  Some opposition political movements were not present at yesterday’s meeting, including MOPOD, RDNP and Petit Dessalines, according to Alterpresse. For his part former Senator Moise Jean Charles of Petit Dessaline explained they would not attend, “…because conditions have not been met. The electoral environment is part of the context of the crisis.”

INITE, which joined the Martelly government as part of a political deal in January, was supportive of the proposed calendar. Paul Denis expressed his party’s support for the holding of three elections, while adding that some continue to not want elections at all. “No one should come with pretexts for not organizing elections so as to generate trouble in the country,” he said. In an interview with Le Nouvelliste, former INITE Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive indicated his intention to run, at some level, in the elections.

Fanmi Lavalas and Fusion both expressed concern with the calendar, preferring to have the election in two-rounds as opposed to three. Le Nouvelliste reported that according to Dr. Louis Gérald Gilles of Lavalas, “neither political parties nor the country will have the necessary economic resources to participate in an electoral process that stretches from March 16 to December 27 2015.” Lavalas was excluded from participating in the 2010 elections. In an interview earlier this week with the Haiti Press Network, Prime Minister Evans Paul stated that, “an important sum will be made available to the various political organizations to run in the presidential elections.”

While there are concerns over the proposed timetable, the bigger issue appears to be in the formation of the Bureaux electoraux départementaux (BED) and Bureaux electoraux communaux (BEC). These institutions play a key oversight role as their members are responsible for communal and departmental dispute resolution. According to Le Nouvelliste, “Most political parties considered that the CEP should have first resolved the issue of the members of the BEC and BED before focusing on the electoral calendar.”  Gilles of Lavalas added that, “the BED and BEC constitute the basis for credible elections in the country.”

In response to the questions raised about the BED and BEC, Nehemy Joseph, a member of the CEP, stated they lacked control over financial resources and were unable to travel the country and ensure that the local institutions are being formed properly. In an interview with Le Nouvelliste, the head of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Sophie de Caen, announced that the electoral fund had over $38 million at its disposal. But, while the Haitian government is the largest single contributor, control of those funds rest with the international community and the UNDP in particular. Le Nouvelliste reported that, “certain political party leaders have roundly denounced the fact that the UNDP controls more than $38 million for the country’s elections, while the relevant body for the organization of elections, the CEP, functions with very limited economic resources.”

A final decision on the electoral calendar will be made in the coming days. 

CEPR Research Associate and lead HRRW blogger, Jake Johnston, published the following piece on VICE news today:

After the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in January 2010, the US government responded with an ambitious plan to build 15,000 new houses in the country. But the ensuing program to put roofs over the heads of displaced Haitians has included a boondoggle of epic proportions at one $35 millionhousing development, where shoddy construction practices and faulty sewage systems are currently the subject of an ongoing investigation.

On February 3, the US-based company Thor Construction was suspended from receiving government contracts because of its work in Haiti. Another contractor with close ties to the Haitian president has so far escaped punishment.

As the relief effort’s flagship housing project comes under increased scrutiny, interviews with involved parties and an analysis of contract documents, independent reports, and congressional testimony reveals that the problem is far from a simple case of contractor malfeasance. Rather, USAID, the government agency responsible for administering foreign civilian aid, simply failed to provide meaningful oversight of its contractors and ensure adequate results for US-taxpayer financed projects.

In April 2012, Thor received $18.4 million to build 750 houses at a site on Haiti’s northern coast called Caracol-EKAM, part of the international community’s high-profile reconstruction project at the Caracol Industrial Park. At a star-studded inauguration of the park in October 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured the new buildings and spoke of “affordable homes with clean running water, flush toilets, and reliable electricity… built to resist hurricanes and earthquakes.”

In June 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the initial target of 15,000 total houses in Haiti had been reduced to just 2,600 while at the same time costs increased from $53 million to more than $90 million. USAID Assistant Administrator Beth Hogan explained to Congress that the high costs were “because of the requirements” that the contractor “meet international building codes, that it comply with federal building standards,” and “that these materials would be disaster- and hurricane-proof.” Hogan added that she was “very happy with the quality” of the houses.

But a year and a half later, Hogan’s story is coming apart at the seams. In November, USAID awarded a $5 million no-bid contract to US-based Tetra Tech to provide remediation services for the Caracol houses. An independent assessment conducted in August 2014 “revealed numerous deficiencies,” with the houses, including roofs not being fastened, use of “sub-specification” materials, and “other structural and drainage issues,” according to a contract document. Given the location’s susceptibility to hurricanes and other extreme weather events, the document noted repairs must be “carried out immediately in order to prevent possible harm to residents.”

Read the rest here. For more background, see here, here and here.

CEPR Research Associate and lead HRRW blogger, Jake Johnston, published the following piece on VICE news today:

After the devastating earthquake that hit Haiti in January 2010, the US government responded with an ambitious plan to build 15,000 new houses in the country. But the ensuing program to put roofs over the heads of displaced Haitians has included a boondoggle of epic proportions at one $35 millionhousing development, where shoddy construction practices and faulty sewage systems are currently the subject of an ongoing investigation.

On February 3, the US-based company Thor Construction was suspended from receiving government contracts because of its work in Haiti. Another contractor with close ties to the Haitian president has so far escaped punishment.

As the relief effort’s flagship housing project comes under increased scrutiny, interviews with involved parties and an analysis of contract documents, independent reports, and congressional testimony reveals that the problem is far from a simple case of contractor malfeasance. Rather, USAID, the government agency responsible for administering foreign civilian aid, simply failed to provide meaningful oversight of its contractors and ensure adequate results for US-taxpayer financed projects.

In April 2012, Thor received $18.4 million to build 750 houses at a site on Haiti’s northern coast called Caracol-EKAM, part of the international community’s high-profile reconstruction project at the Caracol Industrial Park. At a star-studded inauguration of the park in October 2012, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton toured the new buildings and spoke of “affordable homes with clean running water, flush toilets, and reliable electricity… built to resist hurricanes and earthquakes.”

In June 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the initial target of 15,000 total houses in Haiti had been reduced to just 2,600 while at the same time costs increased from $53 million to more than $90 million. USAID Assistant Administrator Beth Hogan explained to Congress that the high costs were “because of the requirements” that the contractor “meet international building codes, that it comply with federal building standards,” and “that these materials would be disaster- and hurricane-proof.” Hogan added that she was “very happy with the quality” of the houses.

But a year and a half later, Hogan’s story is coming apart at the seams. In November, USAID awarded a $5 million no-bid contract to US-based Tetra Tech to provide remediation services for the Caracol houses. An independent assessment conducted in August 2014 “revealed numerous deficiencies,” with the houses, including roofs not being fastened, use of “sub-specification” materials, and “other structural and drainage issues,” according to a contract document. Given the location’s susceptibility to hurricanes and other extreme weather events, the document noted repairs must be “carried out immediately in order to prevent possible harm to residents.”

Read the rest here. For more background, see here, here and here.

In December, Rep. John Conyers and 76 other members of congress wrote to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, urging the U.N. to provide a settlement mechanism for cholera victims and their families and lays out the reasons why the UN should be legally obliged to provide such a mechanism.  The members of Congress add that, “while we applaud the UN’s efforts to secure more funding for cholera treatment….we wish to respectfully remind you that these efforts do not absolve the UN of its obligation to receive legal claims from victims of the epidemic and provide remediation for the affected communities.” 2 months later, Ban Ki-moon has finally sent the members of Congress a lengthy response which the defenders of Haiti’s cholera victims have characterized as “untenable as a matter of law and logic.”

In a letter, dated February 19, 2015, Ban Ki-moon responds to the 76 members of congress. Most of the letter is dedicated to outlining all the work the U.N. has done to combat cholera in Haiti.  The U.N. has indeed issued calls for cholera funding, but the Haitian government’s 10-year cholera eradication plan remains woefully underfunded. Just 18 percent of the $2.2 billion required has thus far been pledged, with less than 13 percent actually disbursed, according to the most recent data [PDF]. A donor conference in October failed to secure significant additional pledges of support.

Only at the end of the letter does Ban actually respond to the members of Congress’ request for a settlement mechanism for the victims of cholera.  After initially rejecting the claims of the victims in a terse statement with little explanation, Ban provides perhaps the most thorough explanation to date for why the U.N. will not hear the claims:

Claimants invoked Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 1946 (the “General Convention”) and paragraph 55 of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Government of Haiti, which implements Section 29(a) of the General Convention in the agreement with Haiti.

Section 29(a) is limited by its terms to the consideration of private law claims.  In the practice of the Organization, disputes of a private law character have been understood to be disputes of the type that arise between private parties, such as, claims arising under contracts, claims relating to the use of private  property in peacekeeping contexts or claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Organization has regularly received and provided compensation for such claims arising out of acts attributable to its peacekeeping missions and personnel.

I wish to assure you that, in the present case, the claims were thoroughly and carefully considered. After a review of the claims and the history and implementation of Section 29(a) of the General Convention, the claimants were informed that the claims were not receivable pursuant to Section 29 of the General Convention. As the claims in question raised broad issues of policy that arose out of the functions of the United Nations as an international organization, they could not form the basis of a claim of a private law character and, consequently, the claims did not fall within the scope of Section 29(a) of the General Convention. For the same reason, it was determined that these claims were not of the type for which a claims commission is provided under the SOFA, since the relevant provision of the SOFA also relates to claims of a private law character.

To read Ban’s full response, click here. Unfortunately, while this may be the most words a U.N. official has said about the legal case, it leaves much to be desired. Bruce Rashkow, a former high-ranking official in the U.N.’s Office of Legal Affairs wrote last year that the U.N. stance that cholera claims were “not receivable” was unprecedented. “Indeed, as the head of the UN legal office that routinely handled claims against the Organization for some ten years, I did not recall any previous instance where such a formulation was utilized in regard to such claims,” Rashkow wrote.

The Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, which is representing Haitian cholera victims in their legal battle, provided the following response to Ban’s letter:

The Secretary-General’s assertion that the claims of Haiti’s cholera victims are an exception to the UN’s legal obligation to compensate people harmed by its negligence is untenable as a matter of law and of logic.  The Secretary-General fails to cite a single authority supporting the view that the cholera claims are not “disputes of a private law character.”  To the contrary, dozens of the world’s leading experts in international law — including many who have held positions in the UN — have reviewed the cholera victims’ claims against the UN in conjunction with the UN’s legal obligations. These experts agree that the cholera claims are private law claims, and that the UN had an obligation to settle them. The experts’ findings have been presented in a vast number of legal blogs, court briefs, and media articles, and are as applicable today as they were when the UN first dismissed the claims.

The cholera claims allege that the UN was a reckless and negligent manager of its property by discharging untreated, contaminated human waste from its toilets into the Meille Tributary. This conduct is unrelated to the UN’s peacekeeping mandate or any of the unique “functions of the United Nations as an international organization.” The challenge of properly disposing of the wastes our bodies produce is one that every single organization, and every single human, faces several times every single day. If the UN’s response to this most common activity “raise[s] broad issues of policy that arose out of the functions of the United Nations as an international organization”, then anything else the UN does can also raise similarly broad issues.  Even car accidents– the single category of personal injury claim that the Secretary-General’s letter conceded was a private law matter– could be described as involving broad issues of policy of how drivers are trained and supervised, or brakes maintained.

The case of cholera in Haiti is wholly different from a situation where a lawsuit is challenging a UN policy decision to deploy, or not to deploy a peacekeeping force. Such conduct may go to the core of the UN’s functions as an international organization.  But the proper disposal of waste that gave rise to the cholera claims does not. In this case, the UN owed the same duty of care to prevent contamination of the waterways around its base as any property owner —whether private or public — would have. In violating those duties, the UN committed a private law tort that is recognized as compensable under the UN framework.

The only difference between the cholera claims and the motor vehicle accident claims that the UN does settle is the sheer magnitude of the harm, which includes over 700,000 people sickened and almost 8,000 killed, and growing every day.  But there is no principled reason why the UN’s obligation to compensate should apply only when it injures a few people.

It is also important to note that the cholera claims are not about creating burdens, but allocating them. The burdens are created every time someone in Haiti gets sick, every time a child loses the parent who was providing for his or her school fees and food. The UN’s assertion of non-receivability is not just a technical legal assertion, it is a declaration that this burden should remain on the people least able to bear it in the hemisphere- Haitians who were desperately poor before cholera ravaged their communities—no matter how much fault the UN bears.

In January Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District Federal Court in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit brought by cholera victims. “The U.N. is immune from suit unless it expressly waives its immunity,” Judge Oetken wrote. The plaintiffs are currently appealing the ruling. While avenues towards accountability are being closed, Fran Quigley, professor at Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law, writes that:

A global movement ignited by Haitian human rights activists now includes passionate demonstrations in the streets of Port-au-Prince and Manhattan, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures, award-winning films, and the support of members of Congress and global leaders, including current and former UN officials. All call on the UN to take responsibility for cholera’s devastation, and to make things right.

Quigley concludes, “[t]he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. It will for the Haitian victims of the UN as well…”

In December, Rep. John Conyers and 76 other members of congress wrote to United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, urging the U.N. to provide a settlement mechanism for cholera victims and their families and lays out the reasons why the UN should be legally obliged to provide such a mechanism.  The members of Congress add that, “while we applaud the UN’s efforts to secure more funding for cholera treatment….we wish to respectfully remind you that these efforts do not absolve the UN of its obligation to receive legal claims from victims of the epidemic and provide remediation for the affected communities.” 2 months later, Ban Ki-moon has finally sent the members of Congress a lengthy response which the defenders of Haiti’s cholera victims have characterized as “untenable as a matter of law and logic.”

In a letter, dated February 19, 2015, Ban Ki-moon responds to the 76 members of congress. Most of the letter is dedicated to outlining all the work the U.N. has done to combat cholera in Haiti.  The U.N. has indeed issued calls for cholera funding, but the Haitian government’s 10-year cholera eradication plan remains woefully underfunded. Just 18 percent of the $2.2 billion required has thus far been pledged, with less than 13 percent actually disbursed, according to the most recent data [PDF]. A donor conference in October failed to secure significant additional pledges of support.

Only at the end of the letter does Ban actually respond to the members of Congress’ request for a settlement mechanism for the victims of cholera.  After initially rejecting the claims of the victims in a terse statement with little explanation, Ban provides perhaps the most thorough explanation to date for why the U.N. will not hear the claims:

Claimants invoked Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations of 1946 (the “General Convention”) and paragraph 55 of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Government of Haiti, which implements Section 29(a) of the General Convention in the agreement with Haiti.

Section 29(a) is limited by its terms to the consideration of private law claims.  In the practice of the Organization, disputes of a private law character have been understood to be disputes of the type that arise between private parties, such as, claims arising under contracts, claims relating to the use of private  property in peacekeeping contexts or claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. The Organization has regularly received and provided compensation for such claims arising out of acts attributable to its peacekeeping missions and personnel.

I wish to assure you that, in the present case, the claims were thoroughly and carefully considered. After a review of the claims and the history and implementation of Section 29(a) of the General Convention, the claimants were informed that the claims were not receivable pursuant to Section 29 of the General Convention. As the claims in question raised broad issues of policy that arose out of the functions of the United Nations as an international organization, they could not form the basis of a claim of a private law character and, consequently, the claims did not fall within the scope of Section 29(a) of the General Convention. For the same reason, it was determined that these claims were not of the type for which a claims commission is provided under the SOFA, since the relevant provision of the SOFA also relates to claims of a private law character.

To read Ban’s full response, click here. Unfortunately, while this may be the most words a U.N. official has said about the legal case, it leaves much to be desired. Bruce Rashkow, a former high-ranking official in the U.N.’s Office of Legal Affairs wrote last year that the U.N. stance that cholera claims were “not receivable” was unprecedented. “Indeed, as the head of the UN legal office that routinely handled claims against the Organization for some ten years, I did not recall any previous instance where such a formulation was utilized in regard to such claims,” Rashkow wrote.

The Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, which is representing Haitian cholera victims in their legal battle, provided the following response to Ban’s letter:

The Secretary-General’s assertion that the claims of Haiti’s cholera victims are an exception to the UN’s legal obligation to compensate people harmed by its negligence is untenable as a matter of law and of logic.  The Secretary-General fails to cite a single authority supporting the view that the cholera claims are not “disputes of a private law character.”  To the contrary, dozens of the world’s leading experts in international law — including many who have held positions in the UN — have reviewed the cholera victims’ claims against the UN in conjunction with the UN’s legal obligations. These experts agree that the cholera claims are private law claims, and that the UN had an obligation to settle them. The experts’ findings have been presented in a vast number of legal blogs, court briefs, and media articles, and are as applicable today as they were when the UN first dismissed the claims.

The cholera claims allege that the UN was a reckless and negligent manager of its property by discharging untreated, contaminated human waste from its toilets into the Meille Tributary. This conduct is unrelated to the UN’s peacekeeping mandate or any of the unique “functions of the United Nations as an international organization.” The challenge of properly disposing of the wastes our bodies produce is one that every single organization, and every single human, faces several times every single day. If the UN’s response to this most common activity “raise[s] broad issues of policy that arose out of the functions of the United Nations as an international organization”, then anything else the UN does can also raise similarly broad issues.  Even car accidents– the single category of personal injury claim that the Secretary-General’s letter conceded was a private law matter– could be described as involving broad issues of policy of how drivers are trained and supervised, or brakes maintained.

The case of cholera in Haiti is wholly different from a situation where a lawsuit is challenging a UN policy decision to deploy, or not to deploy a peacekeeping force. Such conduct may go to the core of the UN’s functions as an international organization.  But the proper disposal of waste that gave rise to the cholera claims does not. In this case, the UN owed the same duty of care to prevent contamination of the waterways around its base as any property owner —whether private or public — would have. In violating those duties, the UN committed a private law tort that is recognized as compensable under the UN framework.

The only difference between the cholera claims and the motor vehicle accident claims that the UN does settle is the sheer magnitude of the harm, which includes over 700,000 people sickened and almost 8,000 killed, and growing every day.  But there is no principled reason why the UN’s obligation to compensate should apply only when it injures a few people.

It is also important to note that the cholera claims are not about creating burdens, but allocating them. The burdens are created every time someone in Haiti gets sick, every time a child loses the parent who was providing for his or her school fees and food. The UN’s assertion of non-receivability is not just a technical legal assertion, it is a declaration that this burden should remain on the people least able to bear it in the hemisphere- Haitians who were desperately poor before cholera ravaged their communities—no matter how much fault the UN bears.

In January Judge Paul Oetken of the Southern District Federal Court in Manhattan dismissed a lawsuit brought by cholera victims. “The U.N. is immune from suit unless it expressly waives its immunity,” Judge Oetken wrote. The plaintiffs are currently appealing the ruling. While avenues towards accountability are being closed, Fran Quigley, professor at Indiana University’s McKinney School of Law, writes that:

A global movement ignited by Haitian human rights activists now includes passionate demonstrations in the streets of Port-au-Prince and Manhattan, petitions with tens of thousands of signatures, award-winning films, and the support of members of Congress and global leaders, including current and former UN officials. All call on the UN to take responsibility for cholera’s devastation, and to make things right.

Quigley concludes, “[t]he arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. It will for the Haitian victims of the UN as well…”

A complaint from Haitian communities and supported by New York University’s Global Justice Clinic and Accountability Counsel has been rejected by the World Bank on technical grounds. The groups had asked for the Bank’s Inspection Panel to review whether assistance the Bank is providing to the Haitian government follows Bank guidelines relating to transparency and environmental safety.

Since 2013, the World Bank has provided technical assistance to the Haitian government in rewriting its mining laws, leading to a new mining law being drafted in 2014. Though Haiti has not seen large-scale commercial mining for decades, the government awarded multiple concessions in 2012 over opposition protests. In 2013, following a forum on mining sponsored by the World Bank, then Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe declared that to advance Haiti’s development, “we are counting heavily on the contribution of the mining sector.”

The Haitian communities’ complaint [PDF] states:

Complainants fear that, due to the government’s weak capacity and the law’s inadequacies, this increased investment in the mining sector will result in serious social and environmental harms, including contamination of vital waterways, impacts on the agriculture sector, and involuntary displacement of communities. Complainants are also concerned about the exclusion of Haitian people from the law reform process, particularly when contrasted with the reported regular participation of the private sector in drafting the new law. Further, Complainants fear that the government of Haiti lacks the capacity to regulate and monitor mining company activity.

In its response, the World Bank’s Inspection Panel says that it “has decided not to register the case.” The Panel acknowledged that the issues raised were “serious and legitimate,” and agreed that the new mining law could “have significant and considerable adverse environmental and social consequences.” However, because the World Bank support was provided through a technical assistance mechanism, “policies and procedures applicable to design, appraisal and implementation of a project, including the safeguard policies, were not applied to the Haiti Mining Dialogue.” The mechanism is not subject to the World Bank’s safeguard policies and therefore the Inspection Panel refused to hear the complaint.

“The Bank should not have discretion to avoid community complaints regarding a project that poses such clear human rights and environmental risks,” said Sarah Singh of Accountability Counsel.

The Inspection Panel seemed to agree, stating that World Bank management’s decision to provide this type of financing “automatically excludes it from the application of the Bank’s policies, even though this decision does not seem to be proportional to the level of environmental and social risks involved in” the technical assistance. The World Bank committed to reform this policy by the next fiscal year, though that may do little to assuage the concerns of those impacted by mining policies in Haiti.

“For the Panel to recognize that our concerns are legitimate and yet refuse to register the case, it is as if the lives of Haitian people do not matter to the World Bank,” said Peterson Derolus, Co-Coordinator of the Justice in Mining Collective.

The role of the World Bank in Haiti’s mining sector, especially in writing the mining law, is complicated by the fact that, through its International Finance Corporation arm, the World Bank is an active investor in Haiti mining operations. Though initialized before the earthquake, in January 2010 the World Bank made a $10.3 million equity investment in a joint-venture mining project in Haiti. 

A complaint from Haitian communities and supported by New York University’s Global Justice Clinic and Accountability Counsel has been rejected by the World Bank on technical grounds. The groups had asked for the Bank’s Inspection Panel to review whether assistance the Bank is providing to the Haitian government follows Bank guidelines relating to transparency and environmental safety.

Since 2013, the World Bank has provided technical assistance to the Haitian government in rewriting its mining laws, leading to a new mining law being drafted in 2014. Though Haiti has not seen large-scale commercial mining for decades, the government awarded multiple concessions in 2012 over opposition protests. In 2013, following a forum on mining sponsored by the World Bank, then Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe declared that to advance Haiti’s development, “we are counting heavily on the contribution of the mining sector.”

The Haitian communities’ complaint [PDF] states:

Complainants fear that, due to the government’s weak capacity and the law’s inadequacies, this increased investment in the mining sector will result in serious social and environmental harms, including contamination of vital waterways, impacts on the agriculture sector, and involuntary displacement of communities. Complainants are also concerned about the exclusion of Haitian people from the law reform process, particularly when contrasted with the reported regular participation of the private sector in drafting the new law. Further, Complainants fear that the government of Haiti lacks the capacity to regulate and monitor mining company activity.

In its response, the World Bank’s Inspection Panel says that it “has decided not to register the case.” The Panel acknowledged that the issues raised were “serious and legitimate,” and agreed that the new mining law could “have significant and considerable adverse environmental and social consequences.” However, because the World Bank support was provided through a technical assistance mechanism, “policies and procedures applicable to design, appraisal and implementation of a project, including the safeguard policies, were not applied to the Haiti Mining Dialogue.” The mechanism is not subject to the World Bank’s safeguard policies and therefore the Inspection Panel refused to hear the complaint.

“The Bank should not have discretion to avoid community complaints regarding a project that poses such clear human rights and environmental risks,” said Sarah Singh of Accountability Counsel.

The Inspection Panel seemed to agree, stating that World Bank management’s decision to provide this type of financing “automatically excludes it from the application of the Bank’s policies, even though this decision does not seem to be proportional to the level of environmental and social risks involved in” the technical assistance. The World Bank committed to reform this policy by the next fiscal year, though that may do little to assuage the concerns of those impacted by mining policies in Haiti.

“For the Panel to recognize that our concerns are legitimate and yet refuse to register the case, it is as if the lives of Haitian people do not matter to the World Bank,” said Peterson Derolus, Co-Coordinator of the Justice in Mining Collective.

The role of the World Bank in Haiti’s mining sector, especially in writing the mining law, is complicated by the fact that, through its International Finance Corporation arm, the World Bank is an active investor in Haiti mining operations. Though initialized before the earthquake, in January 2010 the World Bank made a $10.3 million equity investment in a joint-venture mining project in Haiti. 

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, members of the CEP put forth their proposal for an electoral calendar leading up to presidential elections by the end of 2015. CEP president Pierre Louis Opont said they were considering holding legislative elections, including 20 of 30 Senate seats and the entire 99-member Chamber of Deputies, in July. The second round of the legislative elections would be held alongside Presidential elections on October 25, 2015 with the second round of the presidential race and local elections taking place sometime in January.

In a press release on February 9, the CEP said they had circulated a draft electoral decree to political parties for comment and would send it on to the executive by Friday, February 13 to be officially published (Laurette Backer posted a version of the draft electoral decree here).  Political parties, civil society and other stakeholders were given until 4 PM Wednesday to submit their comments to the CEP, however many political groupings have stated they were not consulted prior to the CEP’s announcement.  

Announcement Gets Mixed Reaction from Political Parties 

The Fusion political party, which supports the government, denounced the CEP’s announcement. “I think the CEP was misguided to take such a decision without consultation. It’s a clumsy move, which could plunge the country into more difficulties,” a Fusion representative told Alterpresse. Fusion stated they had sent a letter to the government about their concerns with the CEP’s actions and reiterated their proposal of holding a single election in 2015 for all positions. Rosemand Pradel of Fusion told Le Nouvelliste that “Political parties are important actors in the electoral process, the CEP cannot define an electoral calendar on its own.”

Sauveur Pierre-Etienne, coordinator of OPL, stated that the CEP had yet to make contact with political parties and that he saw “shenanigans” in the announcement from the CEP. “The proposed electoral calendar is completely absurd,” Pierre-Etienne told Le Nouvelliste, “How do you organize elections spread out over a six-month period?“ According to Le Nouvelliste, he suggested that this could be a strategy aimed at “ruining” the opposition defined by the CEP and those in power.

John Henry Ceant of Renmen Ayiti pointed to the political agreement signed January 11 at the Kinam hotel, which stated that the CEP would find consensus between the presidency and political parties around the formation of the electoral law and timetable. “The CEP has put the cart before the horse,” Ceant told Le Nouvelliste.

Responses were relatively muted from opposition groups. MOPOD coordinator Jean André Victor told Alterpresse, “No, we have not yet considered the issue. We remain, for the moment [focused on] demonstrations supporting the departure of Michel Martelly from power.” Fanmi Lavalas, which was prevented from participating in the previous election, said in a statement to Alterpresse that the executive committee was “studying the situation.” In comments to Le Nouvelliste, Dr. Maryse Narcisse of Fanmi Lavalas said the organization had yet to receive the draft electoral decree that the CEP said was sent to political parties last week. No political party can handle “the social and material costs of several elections in one year,” she added.  

Role of International Community

In January, President Martelly called for legislative elections to be held by May, according to Haiti Libre, noting that, “According to some experts…we should wait at least 5-6 months to have the elections, which brings us to July-August. When we think to two rounds, each time, we must wait for the results, challenges, that brings us to October. So I feel that at this point, those proposing elections in six months are talking about one turn.” Among those that have advocated for legislative elections in July is U.S. Ambassador Pamela White, who reportedly relayed this preference to some of the remaining 10 Senators still in office at a meeting last week. In private meetings in Washington D.C., U.S. officials have continually stated a preference for one single election to take place in 2015, given the problems with logistics and funding.

As the primary funders of any electoral process, the international community will play a large role in determining the final timetable for 2015. In the 2010 electoral process, the international community intervened to change the first round results of presidential elections, without any statistical basis. The Haitian government’s eventual acceptance of the changes came only after significant pressure from the U.S. and other actors, including a visit of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The role of the international community in the 2010 elections was discussed at a recent roundtable held at Quisqueya University.

During a recent conversation in Port-au-Prince with HRRW, Ginette Cherubin, a member of the previous CEP and participant in the Quisqueya roundtable, explained that, “it is difficult to avoid the intervention of the international community when they finance the elections.” At yesterday’s press conference, Opont, who was the director general of the CEP in 2010, addressed these concerns. Le Nouvelliste reports:

Regarding a potential manipulation of the election results by foreign actors, Pierre Louis Opont wants to appear realistic: “I was there and today I’m still here. On behalf of my colleagues, I have to say that the reality has not changed.” The President of the Electoral Council nevertheless promises that this Council will itself change this reality through the manner in which it acts and behaves. In the manner in which it looks upon and applies the law. “We will respect the law and we will not let anyone trample on us,” he said.

Speaking at a press conference on Tuesday, members of the CEP put forth their proposal for an electoral calendar leading up to presidential elections by the end of 2015. CEP president Pierre Louis Opont said they were considering holding legislative elections, including 20 of 30 Senate seats and the entire 99-member Chamber of Deputies, in July. The second round of the legislative elections would be held alongside Presidential elections on October 25, 2015 with the second round of the presidential race and local elections taking place sometime in January.

In a press release on February 9, the CEP said they had circulated a draft electoral decree to political parties for comment and would send it on to the executive by Friday, February 13 to be officially published (Laurette Backer posted a version of the draft electoral decree here).  Political parties, civil society and other stakeholders were given until 4 PM Wednesday to submit their comments to the CEP, however many political groupings have stated they were not consulted prior to the CEP’s announcement.  

Announcement Gets Mixed Reaction from Political Parties 

The Fusion political party, which supports the government, denounced the CEP’s announcement. “I think the CEP was misguided to take such a decision without consultation. It’s a clumsy move, which could plunge the country into more difficulties,” a Fusion representative told Alterpresse. Fusion stated they had sent a letter to the government about their concerns with the CEP’s actions and reiterated their proposal of holding a single election in 2015 for all positions. Rosemand Pradel of Fusion told Le Nouvelliste that “Political parties are important actors in the electoral process, the CEP cannot define an electoral calendar on its own.”

Sauveur Pierre-Etienne, coordinator of OPL, stated that the CEP had yet to make contact with political parties and that he saw “shenanigans” in the announcement from the CEP. “The proposed electoral calendar is completely absurd,” Pierre-Etienne told Le Nouvelliste, “How do you organize elections spread out over a six-month period?“ According to Le Nouvelliste, he suggested that this could be a strategy aimed at “ruining” the opposition defined by the CEP and those in power.

John Henry Ceant of Renmen Ayiti pointed to the political agreement signed January 11 at the Kinam hotel, which stated that the CEP would find consensus between the presidency and political parties around the formation of the electoral law and timetable. “The CEP has put the cart before the horse,” Ceant told Le Nouvelliste.

Responses were relatively muted from opposition groups. MOPOD coordinator Jean André Victor told Alterpresse, “No, we have not yet considered the issue. We remain, for the moment [focused on] demonstrations supporting the departure of Michel Martelly from power.” Fanmi Lavalas, which was prevented from participating in the previous election, said in a statement to Alterpresse that the executive committee was “studying the situation.” In comments to Le Nouvelliste, Dr. Maryse Narcisse of Fanmi Lavalas said the organization had yet to receive the draft electoral decree that the CEP said was sent to political parties last week. No political party can handle “the social and material costs of several elections in one year,” she added.  

Role of International Community

In January, President Martelly called for legislative elections to be held by May, according to Haiti Libre, noting that, “According to some experts…we should wait at least 5-6 months to have the elections, which brings us to July-August. When we think to two rounds, each time, we must wait for the results, challenges, that brings us to October. So I feel that at this point, those proposing elections in six months are talking about one turn.” Among those that have advocated for legislative elections in July is U.S. Ambassador Pamela White, who reportedly relayed this preference to some of the remaining 10 Senators still in office at a meeting last week. In private meetings in Washington D.C., U.S. officials have continually stated a preference for one single election to take place in 2015, given the problems with logistics and funding.

As the primary funders of any electoral process, the international community will play a large role in determining the final timetable for 2015. In the 2010 electoral process, the international community intervened to change the first round results of presidential elections, without any statistical basis. The Haitian government’s eventual acceptance of the changes came only after significant pressure from the U.S. and other actors, including a visit of then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The role of the international community in the 2010 elections was discussed at a recent roundtable held at Quisqueya University.

During a recent conversation in Port-au-Prince with HRRW, Ginette Cherubin, a member of the previous CEP and participant in the Quisqueya roundtable, explained that, “it is difficult to avoid the intervention of the international community when they finance the elections.” At yesterday’s press conference, Opont, who was the director general of the CEP in 2010, addressed these concerns. Le Nouvelliste reports:

Regarding a potential manipulation of the election results by foreign actors, Pierre Louis Opont wants to appear realistic: “I was there and today I’m still here. On behalf of my colleagues, I have to say that the reality has not changed.” The President of the Electoral Council nevertheless promises that this Council will itself change this reality through the manner in which it acts and behaves. In the manner in which it looks upon and applies the law. “We will respect the law and we will not let anyone trample on us,” he said.

A Look at the New Provisional Electoral Council

Haiti’s current Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), formed in late January, is the fourth incarnation of an electoral council since Martelly’s ascension to the presidency in 2011. With elections delayed over three years, parliament ceasing to function and the country run by a de facto government, the current CEP will have a large role in leading the country to elections and a restoration of constitutional rule. “Fair elections will require an impartial, independent and constitutional CEP to facilitate the free participation of all political parties,” wrote the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) last month.

While the formation of previous electoral councils did not follow Article 289 of the Haitian constitution (Martelly originally wanted to form a permanent electoral council that is subject to different provisions, for background on this, see here), the current one hews more closely to what is outlined there. Nine representatives from various sectors of civil society nominated representatives to the CEP, which were then ratified by the President. However, as IJDH points out, the process “deviated from the relevant constitutional provisions in several respects, including the participation of new civil society groups, and prohibiting the participation of government agents and political parties.” Further, the political accord outlining this new process never received parliamentary approval. Another aspect that differs from what is outlined in Article 289 is that Martelly requested each of the nine sectors to submit two names for the CEP. The executive branch would then be able to choose one of them for the post. While not called for in the constitution, this is a similar process as was used to form the previous CEP under Preval, which oversaw the flawed 2010 elections.

The electoral council is tasked with drafting the electoral law, which will govern the upcoming and as yet unscheduled elections. One of the key questions the CEP must address is whether one or two elections will be held in 2015. President Martelly has called for a first election in May, to elect a new legislature, followed by presidential elections toward the end of the year.  In a meeting Wednesday with some of the remaining 10 senators in Haiti’s parliament, U.S. Ambassador White reportedly stated her belief that partial elections could be held as early as July. There is also the question of inclusiveness; during the last election, political parties were arbitrarily excluded from the balloting and previous electoral councils under Martelly had been criticized for also blocking full participation in elections.

The international community will also play a key role in the functioning of the CEP, as foreign donors will be paying nearly the entire cost of elections. After a visit from the United Nations Security Council, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power briefed the Security Council, stating, “The provisional council is charged with developing a framework for the elections crucial to Haiti’s stability. We were impressed with the electoral council’s seriousness of purpose and commitment to independence, and we offered its members our full support.”

For the first time since the CEP’s formation two weeks ago, some news on its work emerged today from an exclusive interview from an anonymous member of the CEP with Haitian newspaper Le Nouvelliste. A press conference next Tuesday, February 10, is also expected, according to Le Nouvelliste (UPDATE: the CEP issued a press release today announcing a press conference for February 10. The release states that they will outline the electoral calendar among other announcements). The member told the paper that a draft electoral law was nearly complete and would soon be sent to Martelly for publication in Le Moniteur, the official gazette laws are published. Normally an electoral law would have to be passed by parliament, thus calling into question its legal viability. Since at least early November, the U.S. government has considered the expiration of parliamentarians’ terms to be a foregone conclusion; however they have consistently stated their belief that Martelly would only use his executive powers to hold an election and not to push through other, unpopular measures.

The anonymous council member told Le Nouvelliste that it was as yet undecided if the electoral law would provide for two elections this year or just one. Haiti’s National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH) released a statement earlier this week acknowledging the key role of the CEP in leading the country out of the current crisis, but warning that it should not simply move the crisis from pre-election to post-election. “The current political situation can never justify the implementation of rushed elections whose results will not necessarily resolve the pre-electoral crisis plaguing the country,” RNDDH said. An election for election’s sake will not solve the problem.

Further, some 20 human rights organizations issued a statement last week declaring that the current government is unconstitutional, but also that elections must be held as soon as possible. The organizations added, “But much is left to be done. Because the elections must be free and without violence, honest and without fraudulence, democratic and without harmful influences, and above all they must be independent and free of foreign meddling during the results.” Some sectors of civil society have also raised concerns with their representatives to the council. Vodou and peasant groups were tasked with naming one representative, but the Vodou groups have stated they do not agree with the council member chosen in the process. The Council of the State University of Haiti, one of two education groups tasked with naming a representative, and Haitian Women’s Solidarity, one of two women’s groups responsible, have also expressed their disagreement with their respective choices. Nevertheless, opposition political parties have expressed measured optimism that the new CEP will allow for credible elections. 

A previous version of the CEP had given political parties one week to register for elections, in June of 2014, however many parties did not register as they did not recognize the institution’s legitimacy. Though many hope the new CEP will provide for an inclusive election, Le Nouvelliste reports, “Our source was not able to say whether the new CEP would consider the 100 political parties that already registered under Emmanuel Ménard and Fritzo Canton, the two former presidents of the CEP, or whether the registrations would be open to all political organizations.” Any electoral law that does not reopen party registration is sure to be seen as illegitimate.

An interesting development with the current CEP is that the president, Pierre Louis Opont, served as Director General of the CEP during the 2010 election. In her insider account of the election and the intervention of the international community, Ginette Cherubin, a member of that CEP, had a generally favorable view of Opont. As opposed to much of the CEP, which she saw as beholden to President Preval, Opont appeared more independent. Cherubin recounts a conversation between Opont and then-head of MINUSTAH, Edmond Mulet, on the day of the election. According to Cherubin, Mulet told Opont that the international community would not accept Jude Célestin moving to the second round of the election, while Opont countered that the CEP had not received all the votes yet, and refused to comply with Mulet’s orders. Eventually Martelly would replace Célestin in the second round after a mission from the Organization of American States visited the country. (for more on this aspect of the 2010 election, see here).

However, some questions have been raised about Opont’s independence in the current CEP. Opont was nominated by the business sector, which was coordinated by the Private Sector Economic Forum. Sitting on the board of directors at the business grouping is Reginald Boulos. Boulos was also the coordinator for the Presidential Advisory Commission which recommended the resignation of Prime Minister Lamothe and the formation of a new CEP in December 2014. Boulos has remained a close advisor to President Martelly since.  Another member of that advisory commission, Evans Paul, is the current Prime Minister. According to a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, Opont previously was “Finance Director for the Centers for Health Development (a private network of health clinics run by the Boulos family), and was Finance and Administrative Director for the Canape Vert Hospital, also in the private sector.” Interestingly, the two nominations from the private sector were Opont, and Leopold Berlanger, who was parliament’s representative to a previous CEP and has been critical of Martelly in the past. It is therefore no surprise that Martelly would choose Opont over Berlanger.

Two weeks after its formation, there remain more questions than answers about the current CEP and its ability to lead free, fair and inclusive elections. Today, a round table discussion took place at Quisqeya University with featured speakers (the previously mentioned) Ginette Cherubin; Ricardo Seitenfus, the OAS representative in Haiti who blew the whistle on electoral interference in 2010; and current CEP President Opont. According to journalist Amelie Baron, while discussing electoral problems in Haiti, Opont stated, “The Provisional Electoral Council is judge and jury.”

Haiti’s current Provisional Electoral Council (CEP), formed in late January, is the fourth incarnation of an electoral council since Martelly’s ascension to the presidency in 2011. With elections delayed over three years, parliament ceasing to function and the country run by a de facto government, the current CEP will have a large role in leading the country to elections and a restoration of constitutional rule. “Fair elections will require an impartial, independent and constitutional CEP to facilitate the free participation of all political parties,” wrote the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) last month.

While the formation of previous electoral councils did not follow Article 289 of the Haitian constitution (Martelly originally wanted to form a permanent electoral council that is subject to different provisions, for background on this, see here), the current one hews more closely to what is outlined there. Nine representatives from various sectors of civil society nominated representatives to the CEP, which were then ratified by the President. However, as IJDH points out, the process “deviated from the relevant constitutional provisions in several respects, including the participation of new civil society groups, and prohibiting the participation of government agents and political parties.” Further, the political accord outlining this new process never received parliamentary approval. Another aspect that differs from what is outlined in Article 289 is that Martelly requested each of the nine sectors to submit two names for the CEP. The executive branch would then be able to choose one of them for the post. While not called for in the constitution, this is a similar process as was used to form the previous CEP under Preval, which oversaw the flawed 2010 elections.

The electoral council is tasked with drafting the electoral law, which will govern the upcoming and as yet unscheduled elections. One of the key questions the CEP must address is whether one or two elections will be held in 2015. President Martelly has called for a first election in May, to elect a new legislature, followed by presidential elections toward the end of the year.  In a meeting Wednesday with some of the remaining 10 senators in Haiti’s parliament, U.S. Ambassador White reportedly stated her belief that partial elections could be held as early as July. There is also the question of inclusiveness; during the last election, political parties were arbitrarily excluded from the balloting and previous electoral councils under Martelly had been criticized for also blocking full participation in elections.

The international community will also play a key role in the functioning of the CEP, as foreign donors will be paying nearly the entire cost of elections. After a visit from the United Nations Security Council, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power briefed the Security Council, stating, “The provisional council is charged with developing a framework for the elections crucial to Haiti’s stability. We were impressed with the electoral council’s seriousness of purpose and commitment to independence, and we offered its members our full support.”

For the first time since the CEP’s formation two weeks ago, some news on its work emerged today from an exclusive interview from an anonymous member of the CEP with Haitian newspaper Le Nouvelliste. A press conference next Tuesday, February 10, is also expected, according to Le Nouvelliste (UPDATE: the CEP issued a press release today announcing a press conference for February 10. The release states that they will outline the electoral calendar among other announcements). The member told the paper that a draft electoral law was nearly complete and would soon be sent to Martelly for publication in Le Moniteur, the official gazette laws are published. Normally an electoral law would have to be passed by parliament, thus calling into question its legal viability. Since at least early November, the U.S. government has considered the expiration of parliamentarians’ terms to be a foregone conclusion; however they have consistently stated their belief that Martelly would only use his executive powers to hold an election and not to push through other, unpopular measures.

The anonymous council member told Le Nouvelliste that it was as yet undecided if the electoral law would provide for two elections this year or just one. Haiti’s National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH) released a statement earlier this week acknowledging the key role of the CEP in leading the country out of the current crisis, but warning that it should not simply move the crisis from pre-election to post-election. “The current political situation can never justify the implementation of rushed elections whose results will not necessarily resolve the pre-electoral crisis plaguing the country,” RNDDH said. An election for election’s sake will not solve the problem.

Further, some 20 human rights organizations issued a statement last week declaring that the current government is unconstitutional, but also that elections must be held as soon as possible. The organizations added, “But much is left to be done. Because the elections must be free and without violence, honest and without fraudulence, democratic and without harmful influences, and above all they must be independent and free of foreign meddling during the results.” Some sectors of civil society have also raised concerns with their representatives to the council. Vodou and peasant groups were tasked with naming one representative, but the Vodou groups have stated they do not agree with the council member chosen in the process. The Council of the State University of Haiti, one of two education groups tasked with naming a representative, and Haitian Women’s Solidarity, one of two women’s groups responsible, have also expressed their disagreement with their respective choices. Nevertheless, opposition political parties have expressed measured optimism that the new CEP will allow for credible elections. 

A previous version of the CEP had given political parties one week to register for elections, in June of 2014, however many parties did not register as they did not recognize the institution’s legitimacy. Though many hope the new CEP will provide for an inclusive election, Le Nouvelliste reports, “Our source was not able to say whether the new CEP would consider the 100 political parties that already registered under Emmanuel Ménard and Fritzo Canton, the two former presidents of the CEP, or whether the registrations would be open to all political organizations.” Any electoral law that does not reopen party registration is sure to be seen as illegitimate.

An interesting development with the current CEP is that the president, Pierre Louis Opont, served as Director General of the CEP during the 2010 election. In her insider account of the election and the intervention of the international community, Ginette Cherubin, a member of that CEP, had a generally favorable view of Opont. As opposed to much of the CEP, which she saw as beholden to President Preval, Opont appeared more independent. Cherubin recounts a conversation between Opont and then-head of MINUSTAH, Edmond Mulet, on the day of the election. According to Cherubin, Mulet told Opont that the international community would not accept Jude Célestin moving to the second round of the election, while Opont countered that the CEP had not received all the votes yet, and refused to comply with Mulet’s orders. Eventually Martelly would replace Célestin in the second round after a mission from the Organization of American States visited the country. (for more on this aspect of the 2010 election, see here).

However, some questions have been raised about Opont’s independence in the current CEP. Opont was nominated by the business sector, which was coordinated by the Private Sector Economic Forum. Sitting on the board of directors at the business grouping is Reginald Boulos. Boulos was also the coordinator for the Presidential Advisory Commission which recommended the resignation of Prime Minister Lamothe and the formation of a new CEP in December 2014. Boulos has remained a close advisor to President Martelly since.  Another member of that advisory commission, Evans Paul, is the current Prime Minister. According to a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks, Opont previously was “Finance Director for the Centers for Health Development (a private network of health clinics run by the Boulos family), and was Finance and Administrative Director for the Canape Vert Hospital, also in the private sector.” Interestingly, the two nominations from the private sector were Opont, and Leopold Berlanger, who was parliament’s representative to a previous CEP and has been critical of Martelly in the past. It is therefore no surprise that Martelly would choose Opont over Berlanger.

Two weeks after its formation, there remain more questions than answers about the current CEP and its ability to lead free, fair and inclusive elections. Today, a round table discussion took place at Quisqeya University with featured speakers (the previously mentioned) Ginette Cherubin; Ricardo Seitenfus, the OAS representative in Haiti who blew the whistle on electoral interference in 2010; and current CEP President Opont. According to journalist Amelie Baron, while discussing electoral problems in Haiti, Opont stated, “The Provisional Electoral Council is judge and jury.”

In July of 2014, Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald reported on then Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe’s “Hillary Clinton”–style campaigning:

But Lamothe’s schedule reflects a Hillary Clinton-like method of raising a future candidate’s profile without officially announcing for office. And that is prompting concern and panic in Haiti where observers say the presidential posturing is intensifying a crisis prompted by legislative and local elections that are three years behind schedule.

In order to run, Lamothe would need certification that he has not misused government funds. But the opposition-controlled Senate is unlikely to support giving him the décharge, leaving opponents and some supporters of President Michel Martelly to see delaying the Oct. 26 elections until next year as key. Martelly will rule by decree, practically guaranteeing that Lamothe will get the needed clearance. Opponents believe the delay would lead to Martelly’s downfall.

Six months later and indeed the long overdue elections remain unscheduled, and the entire lower chamber and an additional one-third of the Senate’s terms expired earlier this month. That has left Martelly to rule by decree until elections are held. As for Lamothe’s presidential candidacy, after his resignation in December, he told Charles:

“We wanted to show people what progress was happening in the country and of course that led to a misperception that I am trying to run for president…I always said it, I told that to the president, I told that to the press, I was always clear I was not a presidential candidate.”

Today, the Nouvelliste reports that one of the ten remaining senators, seen as close to Martelly, Andris Riche, has made a request to the relevant authorities to obtain the décharge for Lamothe.

In July of 2014, Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald reported on then Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe’s “Hillary Clinton”–style campaigning:

But Lamothe’s schedule reflects a Hillary Clinton-like method of raising a future candidate’s profile without officially announcing for office. And that is prompting concern and panic in Haiti where observers say the presidential posturing is intensifying a crisis prompted by legislative and local elections that are three years behind schedule.

In order to run, Lamothe would need certification that he has not misused government funds. But the opposition-controlled Senate is unlikely to support giving him the décharge, leaving opponents and some supporters of President Michel Martelly to see delaying the Oct. 26 elections until next year as key. Martelly will rule by decree, practically guaranteeing that Lamothe will get the needed clearance. Opponents believe the delay would lead to Martelly’s downfall.

Six months later and indeed the long overdue elections remain unscheduled, and the entire lower chamber and an additional one-third of the Senate’s terms expired earlier this month. That has left Martelly to rule by decree until elections are held. As for Lamothe’s presidential candidacy, after his resignation in December, he told Charles:

“We wanted to show people what progress was happening in the country and of course that led to a misperception that I am trying to run for president…I always said it, I told that to the president, I told that to the press, I was always clear I was not a presidential candidate.”

Today, the Nouvelliste reports that one of the ten remaining senators, seen as close to Martelly, Andris Riche, has made a request to the relevant authorities to obtain the décharge for Lamothe.

Yesterday, Radio Kiskeya made public a letter from leaders of the station to Lucien Jura, spokesperson of the presidency, alleging that President Martelly had personally given cash to journalists at a meeting in December. The letter begins:

Radio Tele Kiskeya hereby wishes to protest – to the president of the Republic and to you [presidential spokesperson Lucien Jura] in particular – the ignoble act of corruption that you were both responsible for last December 23 when, following a reception which you invited journalists with National Palace accreditation to, you delivered envelopes to them containing fifty thousand gourdes (50,000.00 Gdes) and forty thousand gourdes (40,000.00 Gdes). 

According to the information received from the concerned parties, the president of the Republic, Michel Joseph Martelly, personally offered them “a little gift that’s so modest that it’s not worth mentioning.” Subsequently, he referred them to his spokesperson, Lucien JURA, and to Esther FATAL, head of the communication office of the Presidency, who personally delivered to each one of them the ignoble seal [envelope with presidential seal] beneath the glare of the palace cameras.

The letter reports that 3 Radio Kiskeya journalists received the payment and have been “severely sanctioned.” The letter continues, writing that the actions at the National Palace reflect “the general level of deterioration of moral values at both the state level and within all of society, including the press unfortunately.”

Today, Shearon Roberts, an assistant professor of Mass Communication at Xavier University of Louisiana, writes about the situation facing Haitian journalists, five years after the earthquake:

Haiti’s media landscape had been divided before the earthquake along political lines. The disaster brought media factions together as news organizations faced limited resources, ongoing political-socio-economic crises and a strong adversary in the government of President Michel Martelly.

“The Haitian state does not want freedom of the press that is not in their interest,” said Liliane Pierre-Paul, president of the Association National de Médias Haïtiens (ANMH), Haiti’s largest media organization. “They do no wish to respect transparency. They do no want to have awareness among the population, and they do not approve of our reporting that denounces their behavior in government.”

The government often takes weeks to get back to Haitian journalists, while in the meantime granting interviews to international journalists, Roberts reports. In some cases critical journalists have been barred from press conferences and are obstructed in efforts to obtain information. While less brutal than under Duvalier, Roberts writes that “the current tactics employed by the Haitian state and its supporters have served to dissuade journalists from critical, advocacy, and investigative journalism that could change the current conditions of ordinary Haitians or the existing political status quo.”

In addition to the State, NGOs have also played a detrimental role according to Roberts’ report:

Haitian news organizations now face a strong competitor in non-governmental agencies who would like to hire journalists with talents, said Max Chauvet, the owner of Le Nouvelliste, Haiti’s oldest newspaper and current paper of record.

The millions of international aid that flows to non-governmental organizations mean that radio stations receive more advertisements from NGOs and that NGOs, in turn, seek out Haitian journalists as employees, Chauvet said.

Haitian news organizations are outnumbered 10 to 1 by NGOs who seek to communicate their agenda across the airwaves, in print and in broadcast ads that read like news articles.

“They have the means that we don’t have, so it is gonna be a tough fight. We can only influence the government,” Chauvet said.

Roberts’ article, which was based on interviews with Haitian journalists conducted since 2013, also takes a look at the impact of Ayiti Kale Je, “a consortium of alternative and community news networks,” that produced over 30 investigative reports. The reports influenced mainstream coverage and were distributed widely through radio broadcasts as well. A full list of Ayiti Kale Je investigations can be found here.

Yesterday, Radio Kiskeya made public a letter from leaders of the station to Lucien Jura, spokesperson of the presidency, alleging that President Martelly had personally given cash to journalists at a meeting in December. The letter begins:

Radio Tele Kiskeya hereby wishes to protest – to the president of the Republic and to you [presidential spokesperson Lucien Jura] in particular – the ignoble act of corruption that you were both responsible for last December 23 when, following a reception which you invited journalists with National Palace accreditation to, you delivered envelopes to them containing fifty thousand gourdes (50,000.00 Gdes) and forty thousand gourdes (40,000.00 Gdes). 

According to the information received from the concerned parties, the president of the Republic, Michel Joseph Martelly, personally offered them “a little gift that’s so modest that it’s not worth mentioning.” Subsequently, he referred them to his spokesperson, Lucien JURA, and to Esther FATAL, head of the communication office of the Presidency, who personally delivered to each one of them the ignoble seal [envelope with presidential seal] beneath the glare of the palace cameras.

The letter reports that 3 Radio Kiskeya journalists received the payment and have been “severely sanctioned.” The letter continues, writing that the actions at the National Palace reflect “the general level of deterioration of moral values at both the state level and within all of society, including the press unfortunately.”

Today, Shearon Roberts, an assistant professor of Mass Communication at Xavier University of Louisiana, writes about the situation facing Haitian journalists, five years after the earthquake:

Haiti’s media landscape had been divided before the earthquake along political lines. The disaster brought media factions together as news organizations faced limited resources, ongoing political-socio-economic crises and a strong adversary in the government of President Michel Martelly.

“The Haitian state does not want freedom of the press that is not in their interest,” said Liliane Pierre-Paul, president of the Association National de Médias Haïtiens (ANMH), Haiti’s largest media organization. “They do no wish to respect transparency. They do no want to have awareness among the population, and they do not approve of our reporting that denounces their behavior in government.”

The government often takes weeks to get back to Haitian journalists, while in the meantime granting interviews to international journalists, Roberts reports. In some cases critical journalists have been barred from press conferences and are obstructed in efforts to obtain information. While less brutal than under Duvalier, Roberts writes that “the current tactics employed by the Haitian state and its supporters have served to dissuade journalists from critical, advocacy, and investigative journalism that could change the current conditions of ordinary Haitians or the existing political status quo.”

In addition to the State, NGOs have also played a detrimental role according to Roberts’ report:

Haitian news organizations now face a strong competitor in non-governmental agencies who would like to hire journalists with talents, said Max Chauvet, the owner of Le Nouvelliste, Haiti’s oldest newspaper and current paper of record.

The millions of international aid that flows to non-governmental organizations mean that radio stations receive more advertisements from NGOs and that NGOs, in turn, seek out Haitian journalists as employees, Chauvet said.

Haitian news organizations are outnumbered 10 to 1 by NGOs who seek to communicate their agenda across the airwaves, in print and in broadcast ads that read like news articles.

“They have the means that we don’t have, so it is gonna be a tough fight. We can only influence the government,” Chauvet said.

Roberts’ article, which was based on interviews with Haitian journalists conducted since 2013, also takes a look at the impact of Ayiti Kale Je, “a consortium of alternative and community news networks,” that produced over 30 investigative reports. The reports influenced mainstream coverage and were distributed widely through radio broadcasts as well. A full list of Ayiti Kale Je investigations can be found here.

Last July, in a stirring and rare demonstration of bipartisanship, the U.S. House and the Senate passed a bill dedicated to increasing transparency and accountability around the billions of dollars of U.S. government funds allocated to assistance to Haiti since the January 2010 earthquake.  On August 8, President Obama signed the Assessing Progress in Haiti Act and the clock began ticking down for the State Department to produce the first of several comprehensive reports detailing the government’s assistance efforts, as mandated by the new law.

Assessing Progress instructed the State Department to complete a first report by the end of 2014.  While it’s not clear that that deadline was met, the Department’s Office of the Haiti Special Coordinator posted their report on their web page by the time the fifth anniversary of Haiti’s earthquake rolled around on January 12.

The reporting requirements outlined in Assessing Progress are far-reaching and fairly concrete.  It’s therefore not surprising that the report is truly massive in size, consisting of a general report on the results of U.S. assistance to Haiti and 17 attachments, many of which are PDFs of spreadsheets containing detailed quantitative and qualitative information about U.S. aid programs.

The question is: Is all of this information useful to those seeking an answer to the oft-repeated question, “Where did the money go?”  The answer is undoubtedly yes, but it doesn’t take more than a rapid survey of the report to see that the information provided is, in many cases, incomplete.  Furthermore, there are instances where State’s reporting may formally comply with the letter of the law, but not with its clear intent of providing lawmakers and the public with a better idea of the concrete results of U.S. Haiti assistance.

We’re not going to attempt a thorough analysis of this report at this time.  A rigorous and complete assessment requires considerable input from stakeholders, in particular those on the ground in Haiti.  For now we’ll share a few general observations regarding the report’s contents, highlighting what we see as the good, the bad and the murky.

Let’s start with one of the good things. For years now, CEPR and other groups have been trying to uncover where U.S. assistance funds have been going [PDF] after they are channeled to USAID’s primary implementing partners.  To begin answering that question one needs to know who are the “subprime” agents, – i.e., what companies and organizations these primary partners are contracting with – but despite innumerable direct queries to USAID and Freedom of Information Act requests, it was previously impossible to access this information. 

Attachment B of the State Department’s report contains a long-concealed treasure trove of data that includes the names of hundreds of subprime level partners involved in executing USAID projects, along with the exact amounts disbursed to these partners.  While further digging is still required in order to extract useful information – for instance, regarding the nationalities and specific operations of the subprime partners – the Attachment provides a lot of key information for researchers to work with.

So, what exactly is covered in Attachment B? It lists 217 prime awardees, broken down by sector (Health & Disabilities, Health, Food Security, Multi-Sector, Governance & Rule of Law, Economic Security, Energy, Education, Shelter, Ports) and by specific project. Each entry also includes a brief description of the project. Overall, the report shows that USAID, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and State/Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs have committed $2,078,594,265, obligated $1,574,840,952 and that contractors and grantees have actually disbursed $1,243,119,413. The total reported amount that has gone to subcontractors is $252,828,953. The State Department earlier reported that $84 million went to local subcontractors, though there is no way to confirm that with the data provided.

It’s important to emphasize that the data provided in Attachment B allows for only a partial assessment of USAID’s current and recent programs in Haiti. There is no information on benchmarks or results of specific programs, making an assessment of their respective successes or failures impossible without considerable follow-up on the ground. Furthermore, with no specific contract or grant numbers provided, comparing this list with other publically available data, such as on USASpending.gov, remains a highly complex task.

Still, Attachment B of the report is a milestone in the fight for accountability and transparency around U.S. assistance, not just assistance to Haiti but U.S. assistance more generally.  For many years, USAID and State would only provide subprime data on a piecemeal basis.  Now – and for the next three years – USAID is legally obliged to provide this information for their work in Haiti.  As a result, the U.S. government is now offering an example of aid transparency, one that it can hopefully be persuaded to implement for all of its foreign assistance programs. 

But there is much more in this report that is worth commenting on, even if only briefly.  So, stay posted for more analysis of the first Assessing Progress report in the Haiti Relief and Reconstruction Watch blog. 

Last July, in a stirring and rare demonstration of bipartisanship, the U.S. House and the Senate passed a bill dedicated to increasing transparency and accountability around the billions of dollars of U.S. government funds allocated to assistance to Haiti since the January 2010 earthquake.  On August 8, President Obama signed the Assessing Progress in Haiti Act and the clock began ticking down for the State Department to produce the first of several comprehensive reports detailing the government’s assistance efforts, as mandated by the new law.

Assessing Progress instructed the State Department to complete a first report by the end of 2014.  While it’s not clear that that deadline was met, the Department’s Office of the Haiti Special Coordinator posted their report on their web page by the time the fifth anniversary of Haiti’s earthquake rolled around on January 12.

The reporting requirements outlined in Assessing Progress are far-reaching and fairly concrete.  It’s therefore not surprising that the report is truly massive in size, consisting of a general report on the results of U.S. assistance to Haiti and 17 attachments, many of which are PDFs of spreadsheets containing detailed quantitative and qualitative information about U.S. aid programs.

The question is: Is all of this information useful to those seeking an answer to the oft-repeated question, “Where did the money go?”  The answer is undoubtedly yes, but it doesn’t take more than a rapid survey of the report to see that the information provided is, in many cases, incomplete.  Furthermore, there are instances where State’s reporting may formally comply with the letter of the law, but not with its clear intent of providing lawmakers and the public with a better idea of the concrete results of U.S. Haiti assistance.

We’re not going to attempt a thorough analysis of this report at this time.  A rigorous and complete assessment requires considerable input from stakeholders, in particular those on the ground in Haiti.  For now we’ll share a few general observations regarding the report’s contents, highlighting what we see as the good, the bad and the murky.

Let’s start with one of the good things. For years now, CEPR and other groups have been trying to uncover where U.S. assistance funds have been going [PDF] after they are channeled to USAID’s primary implementing partners.  To begin answering that question one needs to know who are the “subprime” agents, – i.e., what companies and organizations these primary partners are contracting with – but despite innumerable direct queries to USAID and Freedom of Information Act requests, it was previously impossible to access this information. 

Attachment B of the State Department’s report contains a long-concealed treasure trove of data that includes the names of hundreds of subprime level partners involved in executing USAID projects, along with the exact amounts disbursed to these partners.  While further digging is still required in order to extract useful information – for instance, regarding the nationalities and specific operations of the subprime partners – the Attachment provides a lot of key information for researchers to work with.

So, what exactly is covered in Attachment B? It lists 217 prime awardees, broken down by sector (Health & Disabilities, Health, Food Security, Multi-Sector, Governance & Rule of Law, Economic Security, Energy, Education, Shelter, Ports) and by specific project. Each entry also includes a brief description of the project. Overall, the report shows that USAID, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and State/Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs have committed $2,078,594,265, obligated $1,574,840,952 and that contractors and grantees have actually disbursed $1,243,119,413. The total reported amount that has gone to subcontractors is $252,828,953. The State Department earlier reported that $84 million went to local subcontractors, though there is no way to confirm that with the data provided.

It’s important to emphasize that the data provided in Attachment B allows for only a partial assessment of USAID’s current and recent programs in Haiti. There is no information on benchmarks or results of specific programs, making an assessment of their respective successes or failures impossible without considerable follow-up on the ground. Furthermore, with no specific contract or grant numbers provided, comparing this list with other publically available data, such as on USASpending.gov, remains a highly complex task.

Still, Attachment B of the report is a milestone in the fight for accountability and transparency around U.S. assistance, not just assistance to Haiti but U.S. assistance more generally.  For many years, USAID and State would only provide subprime data on a piecemeal basis.  Now – and for the next three years – USAID is legally obliged to provide this information for their work in Haiti.  As a result, the U.S. government is now offering an example of aid transparency, one that it can hopefully be persuaded to implement for all of its foreign assistance programs. 

But there is much more in this report that is worth commenting on, even if only briefly.  So, stay posted for more analysis of the first Assessing Progress report in the Haiti Relief and Reconstruction Watch blog. 

A United Nations Security Council delegation is set to arrive in Haiti beginning a three-day visit to discuss the ongoing political crisis in the country. Thousands of protesters, who have taken to the streets of the capital to call for the president’s resignation, planned to go to the airport to greet the visiting members.  On Monday, Haiti’s Foreign Minister, Duly Brutus addressed the Security Council in New York, asking for “the Security Council as well as all of our partners in the international community to continue to back the government” of President Martelly.

But the international community’s overt support for Martelly has already had a negative impact on the political crisis, as Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald reported earlier this week:  

The U.S. had hoped a last-minute deal brokered between Martelly and several opposition political parties would have allowed for lawmakers’ terms to be extended for up to four months, and an electoral law to be passed. But parliament dissolved before either measures could be voted after pro and anti-Martelly senators failed to show up to provide the necessary 16 member quorum.

Biden commended Martelly’s “efforts to reach a negotiated agreement,” while recognizing that he had “made several important concessions in order to reach consensus, and expressed disappointment that Haiti’s Parliament did not pass an electoral law before lapsing on January 12,” said the statement from the White House.

Hours before the signing of the deal, the U.S. Embassy issued a press release stating U.S. support for Martelly should he have to rule by decree. Many believed that statement, and later U.S. Ambassador Pamela White’s appearance in the parliament chambers on the night of the aborted vote, were deal changers that helped encourage senators not to show up. Both were widely condemned as un-welcomed interference in Haitian domestic politics.

In an op-ed in the Miami Herald, Nicole Phillips and Morenike Fajanaand of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti and the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, respectively, offer up some context for the current political impasse:

Stalled elections have put Haiti’s democracy in jeopardy. As a result of elections delays, some for more than three years, Parliament is no longer operational. All of Parliament except for 10 Senate seats are vacant, and all elected municipal officials have been replaced with executive branch appointees, allowing President Martelly to run the country without any checks or balances.

The causes of this impasse are complex. Although blame has been cast widely, in Haiti, more often than not the fingers are pointed at the president. Over the past four years, President Martelly has proposed a series of electoral councils to run the voting, each of which fell short of constitutional requirements and gave the president significant leverage over the supposedly independent council. His government has also arrested many political opponents and protestors on flimsy evidence.

The international community, by contrast, has publicly supported President Martelly’s electoral councils and blamed members of Parliament for using legislative procedures to block the unconstitutional councils.

Given that backdrop, the authors write:

If the U.N. Security Council and the rest of the international community want to contribute to a sustainable solution to Haiti’s political crisis, they will encourage all sides to respect the rules of the democratic game, not act as cheerleaders for one player.

Respecting the rules means installing an electoral council that complies as much as is now possible with the Constitution and runs fair elections that allow the free participation of all political parties.

Also today, members of the new Provisional Electoral Council will be sworn in. The nine members were set to be inaugurated last night, but “technical issues beyond the control of the Government and the CEP,” resulted in a delay until today. There were reports that certain sectors had disagreed over nominations, but it appears the CEP, as named yesterday, will indeed be installed today. Yet to be seen is if the CEP will be seen as a neutral and impartial actor in scheduling elections. Or if the Security Council is willing to truly act as an independent mediator in the current crisis. 

A United Nations Security Council delegation is set to arrive in Haiti beginning a three-day visit to discuss the ongoing political crisis in the country. Thousands of protesters, who have taken to the streets of the capital to call for the president’s resignation, planned to go to the airport to greet the visiting members.  On Monday, Haiti’s Foreign Minister, Duly Brutus addressed the Security Council in New York, asking for “the Security Council as well as all of our partners in the international community to continue to back the government” of President Martelly.

But the international community’s overt support for Martelly has already had a negative impact on the political crisis, as Jacqueline Charles of the Miami Herald reported earlier this week:  

The U.S. had hoped a last-minute deal brokered between Martelly and several opposition political parties would have allowed for lawmakers’ terms to be extended for up to four months, and an electoral law to be passed. But parliament dissolved before either measures could be voted after pro and anti-Martelly senators failed to show up to provide the necessary 16 member quorum.

Biden commended Martelly’s “efforts to reach a negotiated agreement,” while recognizing that he had “made several important concessions in order to reach consensus, and expressed disappointment that Haiti’s Parliament did not pass an electoral law before lapsing on January 12,” said the statement from the White House.

Hours before the signing of the deal, the U.S. Embassy issued a press release stating U.S. support for Martelly should he have to rule by decree. Many believed that statement, and later U.S. Ambassador Pamela White’s appearance in the parliament chambers on the night of the aborted vote, were deal changers that helped encourage senators not to show up. Both were widely condemned as un-welcomed interference in Haitian domestic politics.

In an op-ed in the Miami Herald, Nicole Phillips and Morenike Fajanaand of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti and the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, respectively, offer up some context for the current political impasse:

Stalled elections have put Haiti’s democracy in jeopardy. As a result of elections delays, some for more than three years, Parliament is no longer operational. All of Parliament except for 10 Senate seats are vacant, and all elected municipal officials have been replaced with executive branch appointees, allowing President Martelly to run the country without any checks or balances.

The causes of this impasse are complex. Although blame has been cast widely, in Haiti, more often than not the fingers are pointed at the president. Over the past four years, President Martelly has proposed a series of electoral councils to run the voting, each of which fell short of constitutional requirements and gave the president significant leverage over the supposedly independent council. His government has also arrested many political opponents and protestors on flimsy evidence.

The international community, by contrast, has publicly supported President Martelly’s electoral councils and blamed members of Parliament for using legislative procedures to block the unconstitutional councils.

Given that backdrop, the authors write:

If the U.N. Security Council and the rest of the international community want to contribute to a sustainable solution to Haiti’s political crisis, they will encourage all sides to respect the rules of the democratic game, not act as cheerleaders for one player.

Respecting the rules means installing an electoral council that complies as much as is now possible with the Constitution and runs fair elections that allow the free participation of all political parties.

Also today, members of the new Provisional Electoral Council will be sworn in. The nine members were set to be inaugurated last night, but “technical issues beyond the control of the Government and the CEP,” resulted in a delay until today. There were reports that certain sectors had disagreed over nominations, but it appears the CEP, as named yesterday, will indeed be installed today. Yet to be seen is if the CEP will be seen as a neutral and impartial actor in scheduling elections. Or if the Security Council is willing to truly act as an independent mediator in the current crisis. 

Want to search in the archives?

¿Quieres buscar en los archivos?

Click Here Haga clic aquí