18506: (Hermantin) Miami-Herald-U.S. may be playing with fire in Haiti (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: leonie hermantin <lhermantin@hotmail.com>

Posted on Thu, Feb. 12, 2004

ANDRES OPPENHEIMER

THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT


U.S. may be playing with fire in Haiti


The Bush administration's initial reaction to Haiti's bloody political
crisis is sounding alarm bells throughout the hemisphere's foreign affairs
community, where many are wondering -- with good reason -- whether we're
about to see a de facto abandonment of U.S. support for democracy in the
region.

Indeed, the U.S. government's response to the uprising by armed gangs
opposed to Haiti's democratically elected authoritarian President
Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been pretty bland.

EYEBROWS RAISED

On Tuesday, on the fifth day of bloody street fights in various cities in
Haiti that killed at least 42 people and left the country dangerously close
to total anarchy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher raised eyebrows
among Washington reporters by saying that ``reaching a political settlement
[in Haiti] will require some fairly thorough changes in the way Haiti is
governed, and how the security situation is maintained.''

Shortly thereafter, a senior State Department official told reporters at a
briefing in Washington that a solution to Haiti's crisis ''could indeed
involve changes in Aristide's position,'' fueling speculation in diplomatic
circles that the Bush administration may be actively trying to push for
Aristide's resignation.

If that were the case, it would mark a seeming contradiction in U.S. policy:
Only three months ago, when violent gangs of leftist protesters took to the
streets in Bolivia to seek the ouster of pro-American President Gonzalo
Sánchez de Lozada, the Bush administration came out strongly in support of
Sánchez de Lozada. The Bolivian protests ultimately led to Sánchez de
Lozada's resignation, which allowed his then-Vice President Carlos Mesa to
take over without violating the Constitution.

Is there a double standard here? Shouldn't the international community
defend all elected presidents, whether they are rightist or leftist? I asked
Organization of American States Secretary General César Gaviria in a
telephone interview Wednesday. Yes, but as long as they are legitimate, he
answered.

''The international community made a big effort to organize Haiti's 2000
legislative elections, in which there were evident elements of fraud,''
Gaviria said. ``That problem generated a credibility crisis that has never
been resolved through elections, and the crisis has worsened. So the problem
is not whether to back Aristide or not, but to solve Haiti's legitimacy
crisis.''

Other high-level OAS diplomats told me the international community should
press Aristide to allow free elections and peaceful opposition
demonstrations -- rather than allowing armed pro-Aristide thugs to disrupt
the gatherings. And the Haitian opposition should drop its demands that
Aristide resign in order to participate in new elections.

PASSING THE BUCK

Problem is, nobody wants to take responsibility for Haiti's crisis. The Bush
administration says it relies on the OAS, which in turn is relying on the
Caribbean countries' Caricom mediation efforts.

''The general feeling here is that we're fed up with Haiti,'' a Latin
American ambassador to the OAS told me Wednesday. ``We have spent so much
time and money on Haiti for nothing, that people have come to the conclusion
that it's a hopeless place.''

Another senior OAS diplomat told me only half-jokingly, ``The U.S. elephant
is hiding behind the OAS mouse, which in turn is hiding behind the Caricom
ant.''

Asked whether the Bush administration is not making a major political gaffe
by not coming out strongly in defense of Aristide's right to finish his term
in 2006, no matter how disastrous his rule has been, a State Department
official said that any comparison with the 2003 uprising in Bolivia amounts
to mixing apples and oranges.

In Haiti's case, there are legitimacy questions over the legislative 2000
elections, and there is a Caricom mediation effort to which both Aristide
and the opposition should abide, he said. On the U.S. position, the official
said, ``Aristide was the democratically elected leader of the country, and
Haiti's future is for the Haitian people to decide.''

A DISGRACE

My conclusion: The Bush administration is playing with fire by not making
stronger statements in support of the preservation of whatever is left of
democratic rule in Haiti. Aristide is a disgrace to Haiti, but at a time of
growing political effervescence in Latin America's streets, the mere
appearance of a double standard on violent protests to topple elected
presidents could backfire in a big way against Washington in the not too
distant future.

_________________________________________________________________
Let the advanced features & services of MSN Internet Software maximize your
online time. http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200363ave/direct/01/