18941: (Hermantin) Miami-Herald-U.S. slowly reacts to revolt (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: leonie hermantin <lhermantin@hotmail.com>

  Posted on Sat, Feb. 21, 2004

THE WHITE HOUSE

U.S. slowly reacts to revolt

The worsening violence in Haiti has forced the Bush administration to
abandon its reluctance to become involved in a country where previous
intervention has not brought stability.

BY FRANK DAVIES AND NANCY SAN MARTIN

fdavies@herald.com


WASHINGTON - Witnessing a bloody revolt in Haiti, the Bush administration is
starting to shed its deep-seated resistance to getting involved there and is
increasing diplomatic efforts to ease the crisis.

The reasons for the administration's hands-off approach the last three years
are numerous, policy experts say. The reasons include an aversion to
''nation building,'' a preoccupation with Iraq and the war on terrorism,
pessimism over the failure of past initiatives in Haiti and U.S. hostility
to President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

''This administration approaches Haiti with the greatest trepidation and
reluctance, and they have only begun to focus on it now because they realize
that if they don't, it could get a lot worse,'' said Robert Pastor, who was
an advisor on Latin America to President Jimmy Carter.

As an armed revolt against Aristide spread through parts of Haiti this week,
top U.S. officials and leaders of the Organization of American States and
the Caribbean Community began a renewed effort to pressure the president and
Haitian opposition groups to move toward a political settlement.

INTERCESSION

Roger Noriega, the State Department's top diplomat for the hemisphere, is
part of a group of diplomats planning to meet today with Aristide and
opposition leaders to push them toward a settlement.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has said there is ''no enthusiasm'' for a
military intervention such as the 1994 use of force that restored Aristide
to power after a coup.

''The Haitians have to come up with a political solution,'' Powell said this
week.

Many policy experts say a more aggressive U.S. role is essential and may
require the deployment of a multinational peacekeeping force to stabilize
the impoverished country.

''We're the only ones with influence,'' said James Dobbins, President
Clinton's special envoy from 1994 to 1996 and now an analyst for the RAND
Corp. ``The OAS and the Caribbean Community don't have influence.''

U.S. Rep. Mark Foley of Palm Beach, a Republican who criticized the
administration two weeks ago for its lack of involvement, sees progress.

''I was very concerned about a lack of response, but I'm more confident now
-- a real effort is being made,'' Foley said Friday after conferring with
Noriega.

Dobbins and Pastor, while critical of Bush policy, also acknowledge that the
roots of the current indifference go back to the Clinton administration,
which avoided a committed effort to build institutions and stability in
Haiti after the 1994 invasion.

The 20,000 U.S. troops had left by 1996. U.S. aid decreased from about $100
million a year in 1995 to $52 million last year, according to José Fuentes,
a spokesman for USAID.

''Clinton set a narrow goal: restore Aristide, hold elections and then
leave,'' Dobbins said. ``In retrospect, we should have gone down with a
broader set of objectives and stayed longer.''

Bob Shacochis, author of The Immaculate Invasion on the 1994 intervention,
said the ''hands-off'' approach to Haiti continued with Bush.

''We just put a Band-Aid on a mortar wound,'' he said.

Until the recent crisis, Haiti -- 650 miles from Florida -- was barely on
the Bush administration's agenda.

''After Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration did not want to be seen as
getting involved in another messy country, or in nation building,'' said
Robert Fatton, a Haiti expert who heads the department of politics at the
University of Virginia.

FEAR OF FAILURE

Another factor, analysts said, was the perception that past assistance to
Haiti has not made much difference and that U.S. efforts there had little
chance of success.

The Bush administration wanted nothing to do with Aristide and blames him
for much of the current crisis. And many U.S. backers of Aristide have
become disenchanted with him, ''realizing he's no Nelson Mandela,'' Pastor
said.

The lack of appetite for a U.S. military intervention stems from the
disappointments of the 1990s, Dobbins said: ``We tried that once. It didn't
turn out to be brilliantly successful.''

Hanging over the crisis now is a political reality: the threat of a massive
migrant flow by sea in an election year.

''For this administration, this crisis is a huge political headache, and
they probably wish Haiti would just disappear,'' Fatton said.

_________________________________________________________________
Watch high-quality video with fast playback at MSN Video. Free!
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200365ave/direct/01/