12035: Who did cause these sanctions to be imposed? by James R. Morrell (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Robert Benodin <r.benodin@worldnet.att.net>

Who did cause these sanctions to be imposed?
Am attaching my latest commentary posted on the Haiti project web page:
http://www.haitipolicy.org
Commentary by James R. Morrell:

Who did cause these sanctions to be imposed? Aristide himself. The Clinton
administration and European Union cut off the Haitian government (while
continuing programs through nongovernmental organizations) after Aristide
had his representatives on the electoral commission throw out more than a
million votes for non-Aristide senatorial candidates in the May 2000
elections (see OAS election report). When the electoral commissioner refused
to validate this procedure, he was threatened by both Aristide and
then-President Preval and fled to the United States. The OAS electoral
mission withdrew in protest. In December 2000 Aristide agreed with Clinton
envoy Anthony Lake to speedy rectification of these elections, but to date
nothing has been done.

In its first year and a half in office, the Bush administration has done no
more than to maintain the Clinton sanctions. But mere sanctions, unsupported
by more proactive measures, is a sterile policy. Without wishing to prejudge
the current OAS mission, experience indicates that the administration will
have to do much more in the way of nation-building if it wishes to contain
the situation in Haiti. The administration is also
extremely simplistic in the way in all its public announcement it lays the
blame on Haitian politicians and history. After an invasion of twenty-two
thousand American troops to restore a president, preceded by a punishing
embargo, it is clear that the outcome is a composite of Haitian and American
decisions. Restoring a president with troops and leaving parliament,
judiciary, and elections to unprotected aid programs skewed the balance in a
country that was already steeped in traditions of patronage
and clientship.

In its April 18 resolution the Congressional Black Caucus calls for an end
to the loan cutoff, citing the economic suffering of the Haitians. The
caucus says nothing about the rights of the Haitians to have their votes
counted, although voting rights were key in the civil-rights struggles of
the United States. The caucus has not explained why Haitians deserve these
rights less than Americans.

In the United States, some people's votes didn't count because of skin
color; in Haiti, because of choosing the wrong candidates. In both cases the
result was illegitimate government. In the United States it was widely
recognized that it would take more than mere economic amelioration of the
South to solve this problem. A racist power structure had to be confronted,
and some Americans gave their lives in confronting it.

Rather, the Congressional Black Caucus appears to have taken Aristide's
personal cause as its own, thus exacerbating the divisions that are tearing
Haiti apart. The main significance of resumption of loans to the government
would not be in the economic realm but rather in the political; they would
be a means for Aristide to trump the opposition.

Part of the explanation for the caucus's partisanship may lie in judicious
spending by the Aristide government. During 2001 former congressman Ronald
Dellums received $210,000 from the Aristide government to promote its
version of events. Lavish support has continued into 2002. Other PR firms
and entities are also receiving hundreds of thousands from this poorest
country in the hemisphere. Earlier this year Dellums led a Congressional
Black Caucus delegation to Haiti.

James Morrell is the head of the Haiti Democracy Project, which is a
continuation of the Center for International Policy's Haiti Project. He was
an adviser to President Aristide at Governors Island and an OAS observer of
the May 2000 elections. In 1964 he was a volunteer in a voting-rights
campaign in Sunflower County, Mississippi led by the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee.