19315: Lemieux: BBC: Analysis: Haiti's intervention dilemma (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: JD Lemieux <lxhaiti@yahoo.com>

 Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3491220.stm

Published: 2004/02/26 19:25:44 GMT


Analysis: Haiti's intervention dilemma
By James Painter
BBC regional analyst

As rebels in Haiti close on the capital, Port-au-Prince,
fears are growing of a possible bloodbath, a worsening food
crisis and a wave of refugees fleeing the country.
So why does the international community not do more? Why
does the US seem to be dithering? Should not the UN just
step in?


Any intervention is fraught with problems and political
calculation.
Both the French and the US governments are insisting they
want a political agreement between President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide and the political opposition before the dispatch
of any international force.

As President George Bush expressed it, "First things
first".

The reasons are not hard to find. Unless there is an
agreement, foreign police could find themselves with
nothing concrete to monitor or enforce.

Attitudes to Aristide

Some diplomats argue that a few hundred well-armed police
officers from France or Canada, with US support, could
neutralise the rebel forces and stabilise the situation,
and thereby buy time for more political negotiation.


President Bush will not want to be seen to be dithering in
an election year when he is keen to project himself as a
firm leader on international affairs

But it is a risky strategy, as the rebel forces are
disparate groups made up of former army members,
paramilitaries and bandits, who are currently under no sort
of control.

They could easily target foreign police.

There is also a complicated political dilemma: do
Washington and Paris stand by President Aristide and help
him face down the rebels or do they increase the pressure
on him to resign?

If they do the former, then the political opposition is
unlikely to agree to any power-sharing agreement.


They seem to be opting for the latter, but there is no
guarantee any of the political alternatives to President
Aristide will bring more stability to Haiti.

Most analysts agree that Republicans in the USA have never
liked Mr Aristide because of his left-wing background, and
would not do too much to save him.

But nor will Washington want to be seen to be bowing to mob
rule by forcing out a democratically-elected president.

US overstretch

Another major factor in President Bush's considerations is
what solution is most likely to reduce the chances of a
massive influx of Haitian refugees into the US.

One of the main reasons former US President Bill Clinton
took the decision to intervene in Haiti in 1994 and send
20,000 US troops there was the 70,000 Haitians who had fled
the country under military rule.


This time around, President Bush has made it very clear he
wants Haitians "to stay at home".

It is far from certain where large numbers of refugees
would be held if they were not repatriated.

The US military has already said it does not want them in
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, which is where they were held in
1994, as the base is already being used for suspects from
Washington's "war on terrorism".

The US has so far not decided if it would join an
international force, and it is unlikely.

US troops are already very stretched in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

President Bush's critics are already saying the budget
deficit is ballooning, in part due to huge military
spending.

Most observers agree there are no easy solutions to a
situation in Haiti that has already spiralled out of
control.

But President Bush will not want to be seen to be dithering
in an election year when he is keen to project himself as a
firm leader on international affairs.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/3491220.stm

Published: 2004/02/26 19:25:44 GMT

© BBC MMIV


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools