[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
25343: (reply) Chamberlain: 25323: Saint-Vil: RE: 25297 (fwd)
From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>
A question for Chamberlain.
You wrote: "Aristide elections. Apart from the OAS initial approval
realised the counting fraud in the 2000 elections, those observers
were overwhelming pro-Aristide solidarity groups"
Thus, implying that President Aristide stole the elections. Bush has been
accused of stealing the 2000 elections from Al Gore. Can you please tell us
Aristide stole the 2000 elections from?
I did not say Aristide stole the elections, as Bush did from Gore. I
Esser also repeats the tired old myth about
"outside observers" certifying the credibility of
Aristide elections. Apart from the OAS initial
approval before it realised the counting fraud in
the 2000 elections, those observers were
overwhelming pro-Aristide solidarity groups --
hardly impartial -- gagging to rubber-stamp an
imaginary "popular revolution" in line with their
"laboratory" games at the expense of the Haitian
I was referring to the mid-2000 parliamentary elections, for which the
government spent several months in 1999 forcing changes in the electoral
law in its favour and then counted the votes in the Senate election in such
a way as to exaggerate the FL vote and effectively discard 1.5 million
votes for other parties. When the electoral council president sided with
OAS criticism of this fraud, the regime staged violent protests in
Port-au-Prince (which suspiciously began before his position became
publicly known) and he fled the country, disclosing that both Preval and
Aristide had personally threatened him if he did not endorse the fraudulent
The FL would've won anyway, so why did it commit the fraud? You tell me.
But such regimes always do -- they have to have it all. Plenty of examples
in Haiti and other countries.
In the November 2000 presidential vote, Aristide stood against six unknown
and insignificant candidates and not surprisingly got 92 per cent of the
vote. The regime claimed the turnout was 60 percent (oddly exactly the
same as it claimed for the parliamentary vote), which solidarity and
pro-government "observers" naturally did not question. More impartial
observers put it at nearer 10 percent. The atmosphere at the time, filled
with violence (and the threat of it) against Aristide/Lavalas critics
(opposition premises were burned down, prominent journalist Jean Dominique
had been murdered earlier in the year) saw to it that no significant
candidates risked their lives standing.
None of this can seriously be described as "democratic." The rent-a-revos
are simply gambling on Jane and Johnny Public not worrying their pretty
little heads about digging out the above details, which were all reported
at the time.