Media coverage of the story about Baby Doc Duvalier’s family fortune, which took a turn for the worse today, has me shaking my head yet again at international reporting on Switzerland. Quite simply, too few editors – who are not in Switzerland – do their homework, and the result is headlines and stories that are inaccurate.

A Swiss court ruled in January that frozen assets which the Duvalier family has been trying to claim for 23 years cannot simply be handed back to the Haitian people, as the Justice Office decreed in February 2009. Sounds terrible, right? Those awful Swiss again, always protecting the rich and getting fat off the interest of their wealth, stashed away in such piles that the Alps are probably growing, not shrinking.

Right? Wrong. No matter how badly they want to do Swiss-bashing, responsible media still have a responsibility to get basic facts right, which means taking a little more time. But the pressure to be the first on the block with the story doesn’t encourage this, particularly when the extra work means trying to make sense of the slow machinations of a small nation that believes in precision, including in its legal system.

Here are some of the headlines: AP – Haitian despot’s family to get ‘stolen’ millions, CBC, Exiled Haiti ruler can reclaim $4.6M: Swiss court, Guardian – ‘Baby Doc’ Duvalier’s family can reclaim £2.9m in Swiss bank, court rules

And from there, thanks to the Internet, the incorrect stories become web fact and take on a life of their own.

Unfortunately, the headlines are inaccurate.

Funds are not being freed, much less given to the Duvaliers

The Swiss government was technically “invited” by the court to unfreeze the funds, but no one -  not the court, not the government and if they have any sense, not the Duvaliers – believed this would happen. The reason is that this was all quite predictable, and was predicted: in early 2009 the federal government announced that it would need a new law to cover cases such as the Duvalier one and a similar saga with dirty Mobutu family money. It said the law should be ready by 2010 and a Foreign Affairs Department told GenevaLunch today that the draft is expected to be completed by the end of February, at which point it wends its way through the consultation and parliamentary process. Clearly, the decision was not taken by the Federal Council today, as has been widely reported, to create a new law because of the court decision. Drafting laws takes months.

In February 2009, with the statute of limitations reaching its final limits, but a new law not yet  in place, the federal Justice Office stepped into the breach and said the money should go to the Haitian government. There was plenty of discussion in Swiss media at the time about how this was likely to be contested by the Duvaliers, but the move bought the Swiss government time and allowed the funds to remain blocked.

A key line published by AP was picked up by other media today en masse. Member newspapers can opt to run the news agency’s stories, far cheaper than writing their own, but it means that an error is rapidly amplified: “In an embarrassment to Switzerland’s government, the country’s top court said Wednesday that at least $4.6 million in Swiss bank accounts previously awarded to charities must be returned to the family of Haiti’s ex-dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier.”

It’s not an embarrassment to Switzerland, quite the opposite, but the mistaken information quickly leads to a wrong conclusion. Switzerland is the only country that has given back to countries money stolen by their dictators, some CHF1.66 billion in the past 20 years. The US has not done this nor has the UK. And Switzerland is determined to find a way to do it with Haiti.

The Swiss are no saints, but let’s get the story straight.

Maybe some of the money stolen by what the Swiss court called the “criminal” Duvalier clan is part of the $58 million in aid that was given to Baby Doc’s regime by the US government until 1986.

I haven’t seen that mentioned in any of the stories.

Here is the 12 January court decision, if you want to get it from the horse’s (aka Swiss supreme court) mouth.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.