19919: Esser: View from Europe - Haiti 'realpolitik' (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser torx@joimail.com

Trinidad and Tobago Express

View from Europe - Haiti "realpolitik"

David Jessop
March 5 2004

Realpolitik: a ruthlessly realistic and opportunist approach to
statesmanship rather than a moralistic one.

Some years ago when I first came to know the Dominican Republic, I
attended a dinner at a smart out-of-town venue. Gathered around me
were some of the most successful individuals in the nation drawn from
politics, business and government.

Over our meal we discussed a number of issues including the domestic
economy and relations with the rest of the Caribbean. I raised the
issue of Haiti, the Dominican Republic’s neighbour on the island of
Hispaniola, separated largely by a range of high mountains.

What emerged from the conversation that followed surprised me. Put
simply there was in some quarters in the Dominican Republic an almost
innate fear that the problems of Haiti would spill over into the
Dominican Republic and the Spanish speaking half of the island would
be swamped by huge numbers of Haitian economic refugees. The reasons
for this fear, it seemed, were various They stemmed from racism
through cultural disjunction to economic concern and a hard to convey
sense that somehow Haiti was the manifestation of Joseph Conrad’s
heart of darkness. It seemed that in the minds of many of those
present, perception and fear had come to matter more than fact or
morality.

It was for me an object lesson. It pointed to the extraordinary
difficulties that can arise when trying to resolve problems that
cross the fault lines of history and culture.

It is these same fault lines - intermingled with the requirement to
assert political power – that enabled the US and France to either
remove or actively encourage the resignation of the Haitian
President, Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Events surrounding the sudden departure of the Haitian President from
Port au Prince have thrown into sharp public relief the differences
that now exist between the principled approach of a relatively
powerless few in the Anglophone Caribbean and the realpolitic of
larger nations prepared to project their power to meet wider
geo-political objectives.

The consequence has been a public clash of culture and perception.
Jamaica’s Prime Minister is clear: “What has happened represents a
very dangerous precedent not only for Haiti but for all
democratically elected leaders and governments throughout the world.
The unconstitutional removal of any leader cannot be condoned”. The
French Foreign Affairs Minister Dominique de Villepin is also direct,
telling French Deputies in the French National Assembly that, faced
with chaos, France mobilised to support a return to democracy and
peace in Haiti while respecting the law. “Chaos…. preceded the
departure of President Aristide, a departure which was merely the
consequence of the deadlocked situation in which Haiti found itself”.

The manner of the departure of Mr Aristide raises many difficult
questions about the role and objectives of France and the willingness
of the United Nations Security Council to rapidly acquiesce to US and
French requests. It also suggests a relationship between the
international response to events in Haiti and the sense that after
the Iraq war there was a need to try to rebalance relationships with
the US.

Although much of the public focus remains on the US approach to
events in Haiti, what has emerged in the past week is the central
role played by France in favour of regime change and its decision to
abruptly abandon the power-sharing line taken by the Caribbean and
the Organisation of American States.

The French media believe that what happened in Haiti was of strategic
importance to France. Editorials in influential French dailies
suggest events in Haiti offered Paris the opportunity to play a
leadership role within the US ‘neighbourhood’ at a time when
Washington’s ability to act was limited for domestic political
reasons. They suggest that central to French thinking was finding a
solution that created a basis for a new US/French alliance, would
enhance Paris’ difficult relationship with Washington and reassert
the role of the UN.

Commenting this latter issue following the recent Heads of Government
meeting in Belize, Jamaica’s Prime Minister, PJ Patterson, noted that
the Caribbean had been astonished at the speed with which the United
Nations Security Council had been able to reach an agreement to send
peacekeeping troops into Haiti following the departure of Mr
Aristide. He noted that three days earlier the Caribbean had urged
the UN body to help diffuse the situation and warned that any
destabilisation of Haiti would have an effect on the neighbouring
Caribbean states. More damningly, the Jamaican Prime Minister said:
“We cannot fail to observe that what was impossible on Thursday could
be accomplished in an emergency meeting on Sunday… without any
involvement or consultation with any Caricom country as to the
departure and the resolution which was eventually passed.”

In the world at large the debate about the legal principle involved
in removing an elected head of Government is probably lost. The
argument that has prevailed is that a lawless and chaotic Haiti had
the potential for a humanitarian disaster or a refugee crisis and
there was a need to act.

Despite this, the circumstances of Mr Aristide's departure remain
disturbing. The former President said he was the victim of a coup
d'etat and was forced to leave. Officials suggest Mr Aristide only
knew of his destination 45 minutes before the plane carrying him
touched down and that he and those with him had been ‘guarded’ by US
marines. However, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has strenuously
denied the allegation, saying said Mr Aristide had gone into exile
"willingly, and that's the truth".

It is a story about which we have not heard the last.

David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be
contacted at david.jessop@caribbean-council.org March 5th, 2004
.