[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 106 (Tuesday, June 27, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9141-S9143]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                            HAITI'S ELECTION

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last September, the United States sent 
20,000 of its sons and daughters to Haiti. Their ostensible mission was 
defined in the name given to this unopposed invasion of another 
country--Operation Uphold Democracy. Today, we are told by some Haitian 
Government Ministers, by the head of Haiti's Provisional Electoral 
Council, and even by our own Washington Post, that democracy--a form of 
government that we exported to Haiti at the risk of American lives--may 
be, in the end, too much to expect from this poor, troubled, violent 
country.
  Few would disagree that what happened last Sunday at least raised 
questions, serious questions, about whether Haiti's elections were free 
and fair. But, as I just noted, among the few, were some Aristide 
ministers; Mr. Remy, the hopelessly incompetent chairman of Haiti's 
election council; and, again, the Washington Post. In truth, the gross 
irregularities that plagued last Sunday's election, and the polling 
that occurred on Monday purportedly to compensate for a small fraction 
of those irregularities, as well as the mounting evidence of vote 
counting fraud have made it, in the sensible judgment of Representative 
Porter Goss--``impossible to verify the results of this election.''
  Mr. Goss led an accredited election observation team from the 
International Republican Institute [IRI]. I have the honor of serving 
the institute as chairman of its board of directors. I am proud of 
IRI's work generally, and its work in Haiti specifically. I will talk 
some more about the quality of that work a little later in my remarks.
  I want to first talk briefly about the elections and the gross 
irregularities that indeed make it impossible to verify the results. It 
is important to note that no observer of the election--be it OAS 
observers, or observers on the White House delegation, or even one very 
candid Government minister in Haiti, will dispute the evidence of 
irregularities which IRI's observers and these other monitors 
uncovered. IRI observers found that these elections were, in a word, 
chaotic.
  The headline for today's Washington Post story on the elections was 
``Unanimity in Haiti: Elections Were Chaotic.'' Unfortunately, no one 
seems to have told the Washington Post's editorial writers. Or, 
possibly, those writers do not believe that the chaos which, in truth, 
defined these elections seriously undermined their integrity. If that 
is the judgement of the Washington Post's editors it is a faulty one, 
and it cannot withstand the weight of the abundant evidence that the 
election process--from the campaign season through election day to the 
ballot counting--was plagued by very grave problems.
  People can judge for themselves whether these problems have rendered 
the elections completely unfair and unfree. The IRI delegation's 
responsibility as impartial observers was to simply call them as they 
saw them. What they saw was rather discouraging, so discouraging that 
even Aristide's Minister for Culture, Jean-Claude Bajeux, offered an 
apology. ``As a member of the Government,'' he said, ``I am not proud 
of this.'' Minister Bajeux went on to observe that ``instead of 
improving on the 1990 elections, we have done worse.''
  Not surprisingly, the widespread irregularities have prompted 
opposition parties to reject these elections as fraudulent. That charge 
was leveled by the mayor of Port-au-Prince, Evans Paul, as well. You 
will recall, Mr. President, that Mayor Paul's post support for 
President Aristide was often referred to by President Aristide's 
supporters in the United States.
  Mr. President, let me offer a brief sampling of the irregularities 
which the IRI delegation documented. I will first read from the 
executive summary of IRI's pre-election report which evaluated the pre-
electoral process and environment for their comparison to minimal 
standards of acceptability.
  The elections were originally to be held in December, but were 
postponed several times for a variety of reasons.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete executive 
summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S 9142]]


                           Executive Summary


                           electoral process

       The legal foundation for these elections was a Presidential 
     decree that subverted the legislative process.
       The formulation of the Provisional Electoral Council (CEP) 
     itself breached an agreement between the President of the 
     Republic and the political parties to allow the parties to 
     nominate all candidates from which CEP members would be 
     chosen by the three branches of government. Only two of the 
     nine CEP members were chosen from the parties' list.
       The voter registration process, to have been administered 
     by the CEP, was complicated by miscalculations of population 
     size, lack of sufficient materials and registration sites, 
     and one million missing voter registration cards.
       The CEP review of the over 11,000 candidate dossiers for 
     eligibility was a protracted process that occurred under a 
     cloak of secrecy. When the CEP made its decisions known, by 
     radio, no reasons were given for the thousands of candidates 
     rejected. After vehement protests by the parties, some 
     reasons were supplied and supplemental lists were announced 
     through June 14, thirty-one days after the date the final 
     candidate list was to be announced. This stripped the CEP of 
     its credibility with the political parties. There is still 
     not a final list of approved candidates available.
       The sliding scale of registration fees imposed by the CEP--
     whereby political parties with fewer CEP approved candidates 
     pay larger fees--has made it difficult for many parties to 
     compete. As of June 20, five days before the election, 
     protests against this unusual requirement have gone 
     unanswered.
       The ability of the CEP and those under its direction to 
     administer an election is unclear. As of June 20, five days 
     prior to the election, formal instructions for the procedures 
     of election day and the count had yet to be issued; this has 
     prevented the 45,000 persons needed to administer election 
     day from receiving specific training.
       As of June 20, those persons designated by the political 
     parties as pollwatchers had not yet received any training 
     from the CEP which could lead to serious confusion on 
     election day.
       These actions have led to deep misgivings across the 
     Haitian political spectrum about the ability of the CEP to 
     fulfill the mandate and functions normally executed by 
     election commissions. Political parties had no idea to whom 
     to turn with complaints in the process--the CEP, the 
     President of the Republic, the United Nations Electoral 
     Assistance Unit or the United States Government. Three 
     political parties withdrew from the process as a form of 
     protest.


                         electoral environment

       A concern for security is an issue that has permeated every 
     step of the process. The assassination of Mireille Durocher 
     Bertin, a well-known lawyer and leading political opponent of 
     Aristide, only conformed the fears of the parties and 
     candidates. During the crisis, many elected representatives 
     feared returning to their districts, contributing to the 
     decay of political infrastructure. Candidates have curtailed 
     their campaign activities and has given personal security a 
     higher priority.
       The campaign itself began late and has been barely visible 
     until some activities in the last week prior to elections. 
     Given the process and environment surrounding these 
     elections, it is doubtful many of Haiti's recognized 
     political parties could have competed effectively.
       The electorate itself is basically uninformed about this 
     election--what it stands for and who is running. There has 
     been no civic education campaign, with the exception of some 
     limited U.S. and U.N. military efforts, to illuminate the 
     purpose of this election.
       Similarly, there has been no educational campaign on how to 
     vote, which for a largely illiterate population in Haiti 
     could pose serious difficulties on election day.
       Compared to other ``transition elections'' observed by IRI, 
     such as in Russia in 1993, El Salvador in 1994, South Africa 
     in 1994 and even China's Jilan Province village elections in 
     1994, the pre-electoral process and environment in Haiti has 
     seriously challenged the most minimally accepted standards 
     for the holding of a credible election.

  Mr. McCAIN. Those are the problems that undermined the integrity of 
the election before election day. We have all read newspaper accounts 
over the last 2 days which chronicled the abuses and irregularities 
that occurred on Sunday. Mr. Goss accurately reported in a press 
statement yesterday the following serious problems.
  While the international military served well as a deterrent to 
widespread violence, the elections were not free of violence and 
intimidation. Violent incidents closed local polling stations in Port-
au-Prince, Limbe, Port de Paix, Don Don, Ferrier, Jean Rabel, 
Carrefour, and Cite Soleil.
  The election council failed to deliver and distribute voter materials 
to a number of polling stations. This resulted in countless delayed 
voting place openings and postponed the elections in some places. 
Unsurprisingly, these delays and postponements caused widespread voter 
frustration which helps explain why turnout was low.
  There was also widespread disregard for the secrecy of the ballot. 
Many voters had little choice but to mark their ballots in the open.
  The thoroughly arbitrary process of qualifying candidates led to 
serious consequences which we anticipated in our pre-election survey. 
The disqualification of some candidates proved to destabilize the 
electoral environment in certain areas, this was most acutely the case 
in Saint Marc and Jean Rabel.
  The New York Times reports that at least 200,000 voters are still 
waiting to cast their ballots, but election officials still won't say 
when and if they will be allowed to do so.
  Regarding the vote tally, I will quote not from IRI's report but from 
the Organization of American States which had a much larger observation 
team in Haiti. Because of administrative failings in the election it 
remains to be seen how effectively the count will be carried out.
  As anyone who read a newspaper today discovered, allegations of 
widespread abuse and irregularities in the counting process are coming 
in by the dozens. Again and again, we are hearing from all observers 
that unmarked ballots are being marked at the regional counting centers 
to indicate a vote for Lavalas candidates.
  Mr. President, this is, as I said, only a brief sampling of the 
problems which IRI observers and all credible observers witnessed. For 
calling the press' attention to these problems, the IRI mission was 
chastised today in a Washington Post editorial for unconstructive 
political science correctness.
  In response to that charge let me just quote the last two paragraphs 
of Mr. Goss' statement yesterday as chairman of our delegation.

       It was important for Haiti and the international community 
     to hold this election, but holding an election is simply not 
     enough. The purpose of this election was to create layers of 
     government that can serve as checks and balances on each 
     other and decentralize power as envisioned by the 1987 
     Constitution. That is why it was important to have an 
     inclusive process, not one marked by exclusion.
       It has been IRI's intent throughout this process to be 
     thorough, independent, objective and constructive. In this 
     regard, IRI will maintain a presence in Haiti through the 
     final round of elections and will make recommendations for 
     the formation of the permanent electoral council.

  This is hardly inflammatory language, Mr. President. In fact, I think 
most people would consider it as well as all of IRI's reporting to be 
constructive, informed criticism. Indeed, Brian Atwood, Director of 
U.S.A.I.D. and head of the Clinton administration's observation 
delegation in Haiti, said about IRI's reporting: ``they have performed 
a service.''
  The Post's editors are being a little disingenuous, I fear, when they 
raise the obviously bogus charge of political correctness. After all, 
that is not a problem that the Post usually finds distressing.
  What the Post is really saying, as are those hysterical critics of 
IRI's delegation in the Aristide Government and on the Provisional 
Electoral Council; What they are really saying is that Haiti should not 
be expected to adhere to minimally acceptable election process 
standards.
  IRI has observed elections in 48 countries. Some of those countries 
and some of those elections were the subject of disagreements, 
sometimes, but not always, partisan disagreements in the U.S. Congress. 
Elections in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Russia come to mind. Never, 
not once, has there been the slightest intimation that IRI delegations 
were anything other than objective, scrupulously fair, committed, hard 
working professionals. On the contrary, IRI delegations are routinely 
acclaimed for their thorough professionalism.
  But because IRI discovered and reported information which, 
apparently, the Washington Post editorial writers would have preferred 
to have gone unnoticed, the integrity of these observers--not the 
election, but the observers--is now called into question by those 
editorialists and others.
  What the Post editorial writers and others are really saying is that 
whatever standards we hold El Salvador to; whatever standards we hold 
Nicaragua to; whatever standards we hold Croatia to; whatever standards 
we hold Serbia 

[[Page S 9143]]
to; whatever standards we hold Albania to; whatever standards we hold 
Bulgaria to; whatever standards we hold Azerbaijan to; whatever 
standards we hold Russia to; whatever standards to which we hold all 
these countries where IRI observed elections without controversy, no 
matter how minimal those standards are we cannot expect Haiti to meet 
them.
  Mr. President, that is what the Washington Post said today, and it is 
an injustice. It is an injustice to IRI; to Mr. Porter Goss and all the 
good and honorable people on IRI's election observation delegation in 
Haiti.
  Most importantly, Mr. President, it is an injustice to the people of 
Haiti. They are human beings who yearn for freedom like any other 
nation, and who are capable of building and sustaining the institutions 
that will protect that freedom. To expect any less of Haiti is, as I 
said, an injustice. The people who have condescended to Haitians, 
including the Post editorialists, by asking the world's indulgence of 
their election's failings, should apologize to the Haitian people, and 
to those good Americans who they have maligned in the process.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  

                          ____________________