20047: radtimes: Haiti: Barbara Lee Doesnt Speak for Me (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: radtimes <resist@best.com>

Haiti: Barbara Lee Doesn't Speak for Me

http://antiwar.com/orig/gregory.php?articleid=2099

March 8, 2004
by Anthony Gregory

It wasn't very long ago that Congresswoman Barbara Lee, of my district here
in Berkeley, California, stood up and cast a single dissenting vote against
authorizing the use of military force in response to the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001. She was praised by antiwar voices nationwide–mostly
leftists–who commended her vote against the Afghanistan invasion, and she
was criticized heavily by mainstream groups including conservatives,
moderate Democrats, and the NAACP. Ever since then, I've seen cars and
store windows in Berkeley donning signs that read, "Barbara Lee Speaks for Me."

Her leftist politics never excited me, but neither do those of Jeannette
Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress. Rankin, who among only several
dozen others voted against a Declaration of War in World War I, and who
cast the only vote against going to war in World War II. I disagree with
many of the positions of Lee and Rankin, but I came to consider them both
heroic women for their willingness to vote their conscience on the most
crucial and difficult issue that ever faces America's lawmakers–whether to
go to war.

In the last few weeks, however, Barbara Lee has been far from a principled
voice against U.S. foreign intervention. She has repeatedly urged that Bush
intervene in Haiti, to protect the "democratic" presidency of Aristide
against rebel forces.

The hypocrisy just leaps off her press releases. "If the U.S. doesn't want
a violent overthrow and a coup d'etat," she said on February 25, "the
Administration must forge a ceasefire, insist that both sides lay down
their arms, and ensure that any political decisions made are in accordance
with the rule of law and the Haitian constitution." In solidarity with
other lawmakers who insisted on February 26 that President Bush "must act
now," she trumpeted that "Haitians are dying every day, and in response to
the bloodshed, the United States must do its part to promote stability in a
sovereign nation in our own hemisphere."

If the United States has a positive obligation to "promote stability" in
Haiti, what was wrong in principle with our government "liberating" the
Iraqi people? Perhaps she would say that the death and destruction in Iraq,
waged by the U.S. military, is not what she has in mind. She simply wants
the U.S. government to act as peacemaker in our hemisphere, not go on
imperial and bloody nation building expeditions across the globe. But how
can she trust the Bush Administration to restore order peacefully in Haiti
when she should be well aware of the Orwellian way in which it has
"restored order" and "brought peace" to Iraq? If she could not trust George
Bush to use force in response to an actual terrorist attack against
America, why on earth would she call upon him to "act now" with Haiti?

The reason I'm picking so much on Barbara Lee is that she represents a
strain of imperialism, or "soft Wilsonianism," that many of today's critics
of Bush's war policies embrace–foolish interventionism masked under
humanitarian rhetoric. Even Lee, who is much less a hawk than many in
today's liberal "anyone-but-Bush" movement, supports foreign intervention
if it has the ostensible goal of advancing democracy or restoring peace,
and so long as it is done diplomatically.

In fact, advancing democracy is the project she has in mind as far as Haiti
is concerned. Lee is "outraged that the democratically-elected President of
Haiti, a country where a true democracy has recently emerged after decades
of autocratic rule, has been pushed out by an Administration anxious to get
rid of him." She accuses Bush of "a campaign of misinformation in order to
carry out what is essentially a coup d'etat." She wanted Bush to actively
protect Aristide from rebel opposition, but instead he intervened in the
wrong way, so now she wants answers. That's the precise reason not to "call
upon" the government to act in matters like this: there's no pleasing everyone.

Of course, Lee forgets to mention that the "democratic" regime of Aristide
was maintained by Bill Clinton's deployment of 20,000 troops in 1994 in
what was then called an intervention to stop "a threat to international peace."

If Aristide is such a great leader, he would not have needed the world's
biggest superpower to back him up then, and he would not need such
assistance now.

The fact is, Haiti is like dozens of other countries in the world that have
endured American intervention in recent decades for the purpose of
"restoring order," "protecting democracy," or ensuring "international
peace." It would be very hard to cite many successes among them. Some
humanitarian interventionists would argue that the United States has an
obligation to protect Haiti, because of the errors of its past
interventions. But a similar argument could be made for ousting Saddam: the
United States helped put him in power, and it is now fulfilling its
obligation in cleaning up the mess.

Barbara Lee, like all the do-gooder soft-Wilsonian interventionists, does
not speak for me. The U.S. government has no business going around
attempting to make the world safe for democracy, any more than it should
pursue a policy of regime change against nations that have not threatened
us. In both such interventions, America's freedom, wealth, and honor
decline in pursuit of failed, deadly adventures abroad.

It is a depressing fact that if Bush loses the election in November, we
have no guarantee that the Democrats will in any way temper the excesses,
arrogance, bloodshed, and corruption of the War on Terrorism, but that we
can expect to see more Somalias, Kosovos, and Haitis, in the style of Bill
Clinton and "peace advocates" such as Barbara Lee.

.