25478: (analysis) Holmstead: Faking Genocide in Haiti, part 1 (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

FROM: John Holmstead   <cyberkismet5@yahoo.com>

Faking Genocide in Haiti
Canada?s Role in the Persecution of Yvon Neptune,
Part 1
by Kevin Skerrett

June 23, 2005



The unpalatable truth is that Haiti just does not
matter very much.

- editorial, The Guardian, February 17, 2004, 12 days
prior to coup



The US, Canada, and France-backed coup d?état that
overthrew Haiti?s elected President on February 29,
2004 put an end to almost ten years of constitutional
democratic government in that country.  Ostensibly,
the removal of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was an
expression of the ?international community?s? desire
to ?re-establish democracy? in Haiti.  But having seen
similar rationales used to justify support for an
attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002 (as part of a
long-term and continuing destabilization program
there), observers of US, French, and Canadian
intentions in Haiti are well advised to examine what
has happened there ? both prior to and following the
2004 coup ? with an especially critical and skeptical
eye.

Such a critical eye now finds a growing number of very
credible and well-documented human rights reports
revealing that the human rights situation in this
desperately poor country has now completely unraveled.
 The unelected post-coup ?Interim Government of Haiti?
(IGH), backed by Canada, the US, and France, is now
carrying out what many observers have referred to as a
low-grade civil war of repression.  Hundreds of
political killings have been reported, as well as
summary police executions, more than 700 political
prisoners held without charge in Haitian jails, and
court decisions exonerating the convicted
paramilitaries and killers who carried out the first
visible phase of the coup.  All of this has followed
Haiti?s ?coup for human rights?.

In the midst of these countless tragedies, one
particular human rights case has attracted more
attention than any other since the coup ? the case of
Haiti?s most famous political prisoner, the
constitutional (now former) Prime Minister Yvon
Neptune.  Neptune turned himself in to police on June
27, 2004 upon hearing that a warrant had been issued
for his arrest accusing him of responsibility for what
some opponents had referred to as a ?genocide? during
the violence in Haiti preceding the February 29 coup.

> From that day forward, Neptune?s rights have been
seriously violated.  He was not allowed to see a judge
within 48 hours of his detention (as required by the
Haitian constitution), and his life has been
endangered several times.  Now, roughly one year after
his arrest and detention, Neptune is on his second
hunger strike in protest of his illegal incarceration
and the failure of the IGH authorities to provide him
with basic protection.  He currently languishes near
death, recently described by a US Congressional aide
as ?not a skeleton, but close to it.?(1).

Neptune?s case is particularly important because it
reveals so much about the political and organizational
dynamics behind the coup process in Haiti, and it
directly exposes the key role played by the Canadian
government.  As such, the following will examine the
origins of Prime Minister Neptune?s imprisonment, the
nature of the allegations against him, and the
evidence that has been provided for these allegations.
 It is worth noting here that no detailed examination
of this case has yet been published, outside of
Haiti.(2)

Yvon Neptune and the February 29, 2004 Coup d?État

When President Aristide was removed from Haiti on
February 29 2004, Neptune remained Haiti?s Prime
Minister until March 9, at which point he was replaced
by a non-constitutional body ? a ?Council of Sages? ?
established with the direct involvement of the US,
French, and Canadian governments and the UN.  Within
days of the coup, accusations of Prime Minister
Neptune?s responsibility for a major massacre, a
?genocide? of 50 people, were published by a human
rights organization called the National Coalition for
Haitian Rights-Haiti (NCHR-Haiti), a group that enjoys
significant financial support from the Canadian and US
governments.(3)  The particular episode of violence
and political killings for which Neptune was being
blamed took place in the city of St. Marc on February
11 2004, during the three-week "death squad rebellion"
that began February 5 in Gonaives and was then
spreading through the north of Haiti.  The attacks
launched through this ?rebellion? culminated in the
coup of February 29.

Neptune turned himself in to police after hundreds of
other elected officials, activists, and supporters of
the Lavalas movement had already been jailed, killed,
driven underground, or exiled.  In voluntarily turning
himself in to the police, Neptune was trusting that
the justice system in Haiti under the Canada-backed
interim government would treat him promptly and
fairly.  Asserting his innocence, Neptune asked that
evidence of such responsibility be made public, and
that he be properly charged and have the accusations
assessed by a judge.

In fact, Neptune was not brought before a judge ?
despite the constitutional requirement of a 48-hour
detention limit -  until May 25, 2005, some 11 months
after being detained.  Over that period of time,
Neptune?s life was threatened several times, including
once during the prison ?breakout? episode of February
20, 2005 that led to his being temporarily abducted
(and his life threatened), then freed, and having to
turn himself back in.(4)  In hindsight, it is now
obvious how wrong Yvon Neptune was to trust Haiti?s
existing justice system.

NCHR?s Allegations Against Yvon Neptune

In the course of the February 2004 political upheaval
led in part by former military and paramilitary death
squad veterans Jean Tatoune, Louis-Jodel Chamblain,
and former police chief Guy Philippe, there was a
violent tug of war waged between pro- and
anti-government groups in various communities,
including the town of St Marc, a small port city
located north of Port-au-Prince.  Following a serious
episode of violence that led to a number of deaths,
NCHR issued a report dated February 15 that observed
that violent exchanges had taken place in St. Marc on
February 8 and 9, claiming that ?OP Lavalas and
Government officials responded to Monday's events by
setting fire to several homes of Opposition
supporters.?(5)  This report cites no witnesses, and
refers to no specific evidence or on-site visits by
NCHR staff or other observers.

The next reference by NCHR to events in St. Marc was
published more than two weeks later in a dramatic
March 2 press release which reports the arrest of
three individuals associated with a pro-government
group called Balé Wouzé.(6)  It is in this press
release that we first see major accusations leveled
directly at the ?Lavalas regime?, with NCHR alleging
the government?s responsibility for what they refer to
as the ?genocide? of February 11:

The loss of that day, while still only partially
recorded, includes more than fifty (50) people killed
or reported missing and several dozen houses burned.
The bodies of those killed have incinerated inside
burning homes or have been left to animals.(7)

NCHR then claims to have conducted a detailed, on-site
investigation into this ?genocide? only two days
subsequent (on February 13):

A delegation composed of members of the national and
international press, the Platform of Haitian Human
Rights Organisations (POHDH) and the National
Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR) visited the area
on 13 February 2004, two (2) days after the massacre,
observed and denounced the situation. The crimes
committed in Saint-Marc during this period of time are
distinguished by their cruel, horrific, savage and
barbaric nature, and constitute the worst of the worst
committed by the Lavalas regime. The killers had at
their disposition powerful resources from the State
and now are benefiting from official impunity. NCHR
considers these acts as genocide, or better yet, as a
crime against humanity.

The genocide committed at [the St. Marc neighbourhood]
Scierie was carried out less than forty-eight (48)
hours after a visit from Prime Minister Yvon NEPTUNE
to Saint-Marc, during which he reiterated his
government's desire to re-establish "order" in the
city and then [subsequently] gave instructions for a
brutal intervention against the forces of the
Opposition.(8)

This claim that Neptune gave instructions for a
?brutal intervention? is not supported by any
evidence, but it forms the first full allegation of
Neptune?s responsibility for subsequent killings.
There were many international journalists on hand at
the press conference held in St. Marc that day, and
while many reporters mentioned an appeal for calm, and
the restoration of order, not a single reporter
mentioned anything about ?instructions for a brutal
intervention?.  In fact, the Associated Press ? not
known for sympathetic reporting on President Aristide
- did report on the visit by Yvon Neptune to St. Marc
on February 9, during which Neptune is said to have
?called on Haitians to help restore calm.?(9)

This March 2 press release claims that NCHR was
accompanied by ?national and international press?
during their investigation.  In fact, there are no
reports of this delegation or its results in any of
the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the Associated
Press, Reuters, or the Agence France-Presse, these
five being among the most active international press
outlets working in Haiti at the time.  Given the
gravity of the claims being made by NCHR, it would be
very surprising if reporters accompanying such an
organization were to find evidence of such a large
number of killings and choose not to report it, making
this claim difficult to accept.

The initial allegations were then elaborated upon in a
March 30 2004 NCHR press release, titled ?The Scierie
Genocide: NCHR Advocates for the organization of a
model trial.?(10)  In this release,  they announce the
formation of a victims organization and NCHR?s
provision of legal support to this group (later shown
to be Canadian-funded).  After asserting their
?complete neutrality?, they announce that

The la Scierie genocide constitutes the largest
massacre perpetrated against the civilian population
by the Lavalas regime. Numerous violent acts have been
revealed - acts that were evidently carried out with
the complicity of high ranking officials of the
State.(11)

This release is followed by another on April 15 which
directly challenges the IGH to arrest Neptune:

POHDH and NCHR question the reasoning behind the
arrest of Privert only and not former Prime Minister,
Yvon Neptune, when the evidence against Neptune
concerning his participating in orchestrating the La
Scierie (St. Marc) Massacre of 11 February 2004 is
more substantial.(12)

All of this raises two key questions.  First, was the
number of people killed in St. Marc on February 11,
2004 great enough to earn the potent and
emotionally-loaded label ?genocide??  Second, whatever
the actual scale of the violence, has any evidence
been presented to suggest the responsibility of former
Prime Minister Yvon Neptune, who was jailed on such
accusations?  The following will examine these two
questions primarily through a review of the news
coverage published in the widely-distributed
international media.

Question #1 ? How Many People Were Killed on February
11, 2004 in St. Marc?

There is no doubt that a violent clash occurred in St.
Marc on February 11, and in fact in the days and weeks
prior to and subsequent to that date.  But was it a
?genocide?, a ?massacre?, or ?better yet, a crime
against humanity??  Obviously, the very meaning of
these terms remains contested, both in legal
definitions and simple common language
interpretations.  What follows is an attempt to
grapple with this question first by simply attempting
to examine all available published evidence regarding
this case in order to provide a rough estimate of how
many people were actually killed in this episode, and
the circumstances of their deaths.

Two armed groups had been operating in St. Marc for
some time.  One of them, known as Balé Wouzé, were
supporters of the Lavalas Party and defenders of the
elected government.  Another group, known as
Rassemblement des militants consequents de Saint-Marc
(RAMICOS), were opponents of the government, and of
President Aristide in particular.  The Agence
France-Presse reported on February 11 that the
previous evening, battles between Balé Wouzé and
RAMICOS had left two dead.  ?Two victims considered
close to the opposition were burned in their house, by
presumed partisans of Balai Rouzé (sic) in retaliation
for the torching of the health clinic of Doctor Yvetho
Mayette.?(13)

Also on February 11, the Associated Press reported
that after a raid by police (said to have been
accompanied by Balé Wouzé members) on a RAMICOS
headquarters in the Scierie neighbourhood of St. Marc
the day before, reporters had seen the ?charred
remains of one person and the bodies of three people
apparently shot in the back?(14), though this report
does not make it clear who the victims were.  It cites
a witness who indicated that ?pro-Aristide? militants
had ?set ablaze five houses and fired at fleeing
residents.?(15)

Similarly, an Agence France-Presse report filed the
evening of February 11 indicates that two government
opponents had been killed in this exchange, and in
addition to these victims, reporters had seen the
bodies of three young men who had been shot, for a
total of 5 dead - which is consistent with the report
from the Associated Press.(16)  The same report
indicates that in addition to the RAMICOS stronghold,
an opposition radio station and the house of an
opposition activist had been burned down by
pro-government partisans.
The next day, Agence France-Presse filed a report by a
different reporter which cited a spokesperson of the
PNH (Police Nationale Haitienne, the Haitian National
Police), who ?confirmed that a police operation had
been carried out in the city, but said the fatalities
were the result of fighting between the anti- and
pro-Aristide groups, the RAMICOS and the Balai Rouzé
(sic).?(17)

In the course of the week following February 11, the
New York Times? Lydia Polgreen was in Cap Haitien and
St. Marc, and filed several articles.  Polgreen?s only
direct reference to the killings in St Marc cites
?visitors? to the headquarters of RAMICOS, who had
been shown ?bodies?.(18)  While no number of bodies is
given, it is very difficult to believe that it could
have been any significantly large number ? such as
NCHR?s claim of 50.  Polgreen filed a number of other
reports following this, and did not refer again in any
detail to St. Marc specifically, nor did the violence
in St. Marc stand out in her reporting from the chaos
and violence that had erupted throughout the country.
The Haitian newspaper Le Nouvelliste also reported on
this episode, indicating that ?at least three young
people were shot Wednesday [February 11]? and citing
the AFP report above that mentions one body in a
burned-out building, again without identifying it.(19)

Based on these reports, it is clear that the
international media did report on a violent exchange
between the Haitian police, militants of Balé Wouzé,
and members of RAMICOS.  However, in all of the
coverage from these key sources (Miami Herald, AFP,
AP, NYT), the largest number given of those killed in
the incidents of February 11 is five.  Most reports
also include reference to the torching of a number of
buildings, again on both sides.  There are no reports
of a visit to St. Marc in this period by
representatives of NCHR or POHDH, nor any other human
rights organizations conducting investigations into
the incident.  Not a single report in the
international media refer to the presence of either
organization in the city in the period of time that
NCHR claims to have been there accompanied by
?national and international press?.  The NCHR press
release does not name any of the journalists or news
agencies that supposedly accompanied them, nor are any
media reports cited which might corroborate their
claims.
Some context for these events is useful.  The February
11 police raid on the RAMICOS stronghold followed the
eruption of the armed ?rebellion? begun in nearby
Gonaives on February 5.  This Gonaives ?rebellion? was
launched with at least the appearance of significant
coordination and planning, and the ?rebels? were soon
joined by members of RAMICOS in St. Marc (on February
7), and other armed anti-government groups in other
cities, all intent on illegally and violently
challenging the constitutional authority of the
elected government.  In St. Marc, the police station
was attacked and burned out, with the few police
officers fleeing the city, thereby leaving control of
the area temporarily in the hands of the members of
RAMICOS.  According to reports, these attacks left
several dead, apparently including both civilians and
members of armed political groups on both sides of the
conflict.

By February 9, a group of PNH reinforcements had
succeeded in re-taking control of the area ? leaving
several dead in various gun battles.  For those in St.
Marc, the level of fear must have been extremely high,
given the promise of one rebel leader, Winter Etienne,
who was actively threatening to order his ?force? in
St. Marc (clearly a reference to RAMICOS) to attack:

?We already have a force hiding in St. Marc, and we
also have one hiding in Cap-Haitien. They are awaiting
the orders to attack,' promised Winter Etienne to the
Associated Press.(20)

Several days later, Miami Herald reporter Michael
Ottey would refer casually to the ?calculated plan
concocted by armed gangs opposed to President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide to "cleanse" this impoverished
land of his supporters.?(21)  The plan would be
launched following a campaign to terrorize the general
population, as Ottey outlines:
Metayer, Tatoune and Etienne embarked on their
cleansing scheme by first going after members and
sympathizers of Lavalas and torching just about
anything they owned. They then went after police and
government officials.(22)

Ottey?s overview of the recent actions of RAMICOS are
also relevant for understanding the broader picture.

RAMICOS, had allegedly carried out its own reign of
terror on Jan. 15 by setting fire to two local radio
stations and attacking Aristide partisans.(23)

In the context of an open and violent rebellion, and a
promise from rebel leaders to send the orders to
RAMICOS to attack again, the attempts to end this
?reign of terror? are not only unsurprising, it would
seem to be a minimum response to be expected from a
government with a responsibility to protect the
population at large and to defend the rule of law and
its own constitutionality.  This is especially true
given the fact that a significant section of the
population is dependent on international food aid for
survival, and the ?rebellion? that broke out very
clearly disrupted the flow of this vital provision.
Thousands of lives were immediately threatened by this
disruption, as aid agencies urgently pointed out.

With key roads blocked by the antigovernment
militants, international relief agencies that daily
feed more than half a million of Haiti's poorest are
warning of a large-scale humanitarian crisis as fuel
and food grow scarce.(24)

Moreover, these same media sources provide much
evidence that the violence attributable to the
anti-government group RAMICOS and its allies in
Gonaives was especially brutal.  When the
paramilitaries first launched the ?rebellion? in
Gonaives, several reports of horrifying attacks were
recorded, such as the following:

Crowds mutiliated the corpses of three police
officers, AP reporters said.  One body was dragged
through the street as a man swung at it with a
machete, and a woman cut off the officer?s ear.
Another policeman was lynched, and residents dropped
large rocks on his body.(25)

A similarly grim scene, also in Gonaives, is described
in a February 12 report:

Dogs chewed on the charred remains of an alleged
Aristide hit-man who rebels killed by ?necklacing?-
putting a tire doused in gasoline over his head and
setting him aflame.(26)

The Associated Press reported on February 14 that in
St. Marc, ?anti-Aristide militants burned down a
clinic?because officials refused to hand over two
wounded anti-government militants.?(27)  In a separate
incident, a group of ?rebels? shot and wounded a
police officer, then ?dragged away the wounded officer
and stoned him to death, smashing in his head.?(28)

Prior to this incident, the Miami Herald reported that
on February 11, ?anti-Aristide gunmen killed one man
and torched several homes.?(29)  The same source later
reported that the rebels had retaken St. Marc by
February 15, and that in the process, ?the rebels
shot, burned and looted their way through cities and
villages. Paramilitary and former army exiles returned
to the country to join forces with the militants.?(30)
 This latter reference is to the arrival in Gonaives
of former death squad leader and convicted killer
Louis-Jodel Chamblain publicly arrived from the
Dominican Republic to join the ?rebels? in Gonaives
and St. Marc.  They were about to launch a march
alongside the former police chief Guy Philippe toward
Port-au-Prince in what would eventually prove to be a
successful set-up for the coup of February 29 that saw
Aristide removed.

Very few of the serious human rights violations
committed against members of the PNH or defenders of
the elected government are even mentioned in the
February/March 2004 press releases from NCHR, despite
their claims to have actually been in St. Marc at this
time (February 13), investigating what they much later
characterize simply as a one-sided ?genocide?.  Scarce
mention is made of the killing of the wounded police
officer, and completely omitted are the torching of
the health clinic, the killing of the one man by
?anti-Aristide gunmen?, nor the prior torching of two
radio stations by RAMICOS ? all of which were reported
by the ?international media? who were purported to
have been with NCHR in St. Marc at this time.  These
are strange omissions for a supposedly non-partisan
human rights organization.

In fact, NCHR?s March 2 press release was focused
exclusively on condemnations of violence purportedly
carried out by the Haitian police, and supporters of
the Haitian government.  It claims to have conducted
sufficient investigation to conclude that the ?crimes
committed in Saint-Marc during this period of time are
distinguished by their cruel, horrific, savage and
barbaric nature, and constitute the worst of the worst
committed by the Lavalas regime.?(31)  They present no
evidence of any links between the violence they
describe and any direction from the Haitian government
? the ?Lavalas régime? ? nor have they presented any
evidence, or even an investigation report, in the
15-month period since.

Finally, on April 9, 2005, some 13 months after NCHR
first issued its dramatic claims of ?genocide? in St.
Marc, former NCHR Director Anne Fuller, now a
consultant for Human Rights Watch, published a report
in the Haitian newspaper Le Nouvelliste on the events
of February 11.(32)  While obviously not a neutral
party in evaluating the recent work of NCHR, her
report is interesting nonetheless.  Indicating that
she had carried out an investigation of several days
length at the end of March 2004, Fuller provides some
elaboration on the details reported in the several
days of media coverage immediately following February
11.  She reports having interviewed residents of the
neighbourhoods where the violence took place over the
course of several days, and concludes somewhat
tentatively: ?I believe at least 10 people and perhaps
12? were killed in St. Marc that day.

However, Fuller adds that ?some but not all were
RAMICOS members? ? acknowledging that some of the dead
were either members of Balé Wouzé or, in fact, other
victims of armed RAMICOS partisans or even uninvolved
bystanders.  In addition, while clearly the
circumstances of several killings described by
witnesses suggest illegality and even brutality, it is
equally true that some number of those killed could
have died in gun battles with police who were in the
process of attempting to make arrests of armed
individuals involved in an (eventually successful)
armed insurrection.  On this point, it is worth noting
that one member of RAMICOS, Thompson Charlienor,
gained the (unelected) position of ?Deputy Mayor? of
St. Marc following the coup, and leads a ?victims
advocacy? group ? likely the group supported
financially by Canada (via NCHR).  RAMICOS is now
described as a ?powerful presence? in St. Marc.(33)

Fuller concludes by urging NCHR to issue an
investigation report in support of their claims.  As
indicated above, NCHR still has not filed any such
report.

Based on this review of international media coverage
and the press releases issued by NCHR, it is clear
that no evidence has been presented to support the
repeated claims that the killing of some 50
individuals took place on February 11 2004 in St.
Marc.  Further, no evidence has been presented
indicating that those individuals who were killed had
been subject to illegitimate exercise of force by
Haitian police.  Obviously, examining what is reported
in the mainstream western media is hardly a
replacement for a serious and detailed investigation
into this incident.  However, given the apparent
inclination among most western journalists to report
what were often merely allegations of incidents of
violence that were attributed to the (pre-coup)
Haitian government, the police, and supporters of
President Aristide?s Lavalas party, it seems extremely
unlikely that the kind of major massacre claimed by
NCHR was missed or not reported.  This leaves only the
statements of one organization, one which has failed
to provide any supporting evidence or reporting.  In
fact, when reporters have asked NCHR Director Pierre
Espérance about the discrepancy between international
media reports and his claim of up to 50 killed in St.
Marc, he has replied that the other bodies (which he
has not identified) were ?eaten by dogs.?(34)

It is also revealing that all of the above-cited
sources ? the international media, NCHR, and Anne
Fuller ? appear not to have conducted interviews with
representatives of the pro-Lavalas group Balé Wouzé.
This is interesting because another Haitian human
rights organization ? the Comité de Défense des Droits
du Peuple Haïtiens (CDPH) ? has published a detailed
67-page report on this episode, and included among
their sources the relevant NCHR press releases, the
same media reports, and also a written statement by
representatives of Balé Wouzé.  The Balé Wouzé
statement cited is roughly consistent with the the
international media reports in terms of the numbers
killed, and adds other details which completely
contradict NCHR?s version of events:

At roughly 11 o?clock in the morning, [RAMICOS] broke
into the health clinic of Dr. Ivetho Mayette in order
to abduct the victim [Balé Wouzé member Edrice
Thlusmé, shot the day before by members of RAMICOS]
who was receiving treatment.  They demanded of the
doctor that he be turned over, and upon his refusal to
do so, they torched the clinic.  They were then caught
in flagrante delicto by a police patrol; to defend
themselves, they opened fire on the police while
fleeing in the direction of their base in Scierie.
The police followed them.  Seeing the police pursuit,
RAMICOS members sought refuge in the mountains,
shooting into 3 houses they passed on their way.  In
the exchange of fire with police, 5 individuals were
killed according to inhabitants of the region.  At no
moment did members of Bale Wouze gain access to
Scierie, nor was there any massacre.  More than 15
houses were burned down in the area where ex-deputy
Amanus Mayette lived.(35)

The statement cited from Balé Wouzé also includes a
very disturbing report of vicious reprisals against
their group during the 3 days following the February
29 coup that removed President Aristide, listing 19
individuals by name as having been executed (shot) by
RAMICOS members.

Among those killed, two were subjected to atrocities
before dying.  This was the case, for example, with
Jeanty Renonce who was dragged behind a Toyota pick-up
through the streets of St. Marc before being burned in
front of the office of Balé Wouzé on road Neuf, and
also Dieulifaite Fleury, who was hung from a mango
tree then burned, and then also Mitilien Somoza, who
was shot and then mutilated on March 2, 2004.(36)

Obviously, these reports from Balé Wouzé should not be
accepted at face value, and these claims ? essentially
claims of a different massacre altogether ? should be
investigated and evaluated.  However, NCHR does not
refer to these reports, let alone any investigation,
nor are they involved in organizing and financing
?victim?s organizations? related to these killings.
In fact, NCHR does not even refer to the CDPH report,
even subsequent to its June 2004 publication.  In
turn, there is apparently no recognition within the
international media or NCHR?s funders at the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA) that
alternative and much more detailed reports of this
episode even exist.

Question #2 - What Evidence Exists of Prime Minister
Neptune?s Guilt?

In addition to the sweeping conclusions regarding the
responsibility of the ?Lavalas régime? for the
violence in St. Marc, NCHR pointed out that Prime
Minister Neptune had visited the city two days prior
to the outbreak of violence.(37)  Using particularly
extreme language to characterize the outcome, NCHR's
press releases argued that in view of his visit to the
city in the days prior to the outbreak of violence,
Prime Minister Neptune was clearly "complicit" in the
50 killings claimed (a figure NCHR Director Espérance
continues to use, including during radio
interviews).(38)

Following the coup, NCHR Director Pierre Espérance
repeatedly demanded of the IGH that Prime Minister
Neptune be pursued for his ?implication? in the
?genocide? in St. Marc.  When a warrant was issued for
the arrest of Yvon Neptune in June 2004, the Haitian
government referred specifically to the allegations
made by NCHR in their rationale for the arrest.

NCHR?s partisan bias is now especially obvious, given
their tendency to either ignore or minimize the
responsibility of the post-coup Haitian government for
its own abuses, and re-direct blame onto supporters of
Lavalas.  One example of this shift is their
introduction of the concept of  ?collateral damage? to
help explain the continuing violence of the Haitian
police.  Prior to the coup, NCHR had a consistent
practice of directly linking police abuses to the
government ? particularly on those occasions when
civilians were said to have been ?targeted?.
Post-coup, NCHR now refers to killings of civilians by
Haitian police as ?collateral damage?, a phrase
clearly aimed at providing a legitimizing cover for
police attacks as mere unintended ?accidents?.  Worse
still, this concept has been used in a way that
specifically attempts to re-assign the blame for a
horrifying series of police attacks, including the
summary execution of 13 individuals in Fort National
on October 26, 2004, on supporters of Lavalas and
President Aristide.(39)  A search of NCHR?s website
shows not a single instance of the term ?collateral
damage? prior to the February 29 coup.

As awareness of Yvon Neptune?s situation has grown,
particularly since the launch of his second hunger
strike on April 17, various international agencies
have begun to condemn his mistreatment.  Even the UN
has now recognized that NCHR has distorted this story.
 Following an investigation into the violence in St.
Marc carried out in April 2005, UN Human Rights Expert
on Haiti Louis Joinet has ?dismissed accounts of a
massacre?(40) and describes instead a series of
killings in ?confrontations? between two armed groups
(Balé Wouzé and RAMICOS), with casualties on both
sides.  Joinet?s conclusions are echoed by Thierry
Fagart, the chief the UN Mission?s Human Rights
division, who went even further, declaring that

...since the beginning of the procedure until today,
the fundamental rights, according to national and
international standards, have not been respected in
the case of Mr. Neptune and Privert.(41)

In other words, the UN?s two top officials dealing
with human rights in Haiti have now completely
repudiated NCHR?s most significant and reported claim
of the past two years.  And the repudiations do not
end with the UN.  NCHR-Haiti?s defense of Neptune?s
treatment is viewed as so reprehensible that the
parent organization that gave birth to it (NCHR-New
York) actually took the dramatic step of issuing a
press release in early March 2005 in order to distance
itself from its renegade offspring.(42)  Pointing out
that NCHR-Haiti Director Espérance had issued a
statement ?critical of the decision by UN and Haitian
authorities in Haiti to provide emergency medical
treatment to former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune,? the
New York-based NCHR Executive Director stated:

Neither Mr. Espérance, nor any member of the staff of
NCHR-Haiti, speak for or on behalf of the National
Coalition for Haitian Rights (NCHR), its board or its
staff.(43)

For many observers, this statement, along with those
of Joinet and Fagart, have left NCHR-Haiti completely
discredited.  Their recent attempt to evade this
destroyed reputation by changing their name only
contributes to the image of a desperate, failed
organization.  The organization?s failure to present
any evidence implicating Yvon Neptune in any illegal
killings in St. Marc only further confirms this image.
 Moreover, in the process of attempting to establish a
case using only allegation and innuendo, they appear
to have grotesquely exaggerated one particular
incident of violence with a distinctly partisan and
political objective ? the persecution of one of the
Lavalas Party?s most prominent figures.  These
conclusions raise a different question, that of the
ultimate origins of the real motivations and agenda of
NCHR, a subject to which we now turn.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com