20281: Esser: If the US ambassador is right (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: D. Esser: torx@joimail.com

The Jamaica Observer
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com

Friday, March 12, 2004

If the US ambassador is right.
by Geof Brown

As guest commentators on Power 106 radio talk show, Nationwide,
fellow commentator Rickey Singh and myself faced a significant
question from host Cliff Hughes. Singh and I, in commenting on the
strong stand of US Ambassador Sue Cobb, felt that her explanation of
Haiti's President Aristide's sudden departure without undue pressure
from US agents, was hardly plausible or credible. But Hughes'
question was whether it was not conceivable that Aristide did in fact
leave his presidency voluntarily and was too embarrassed to advise
his Caricom colleagues.

My own view was, yes, that scenario is conceivable, but on the face
of it, highly unlikely. However, if that speculation was the case,
then the ambassador would be right while the positions of Caricom
leaders and others like American congressional members of the Black
Caucus would be wrong and unfounded. Leaving aside the less than
diplomatic language of the ambassador, who lambasted Caricom leaders
for "unsophisticated analysis" - a gratuitous insult to their
intelligence - let us examine the possibility that the American envoy
is correct. That would mean that President Aristide pleaded for
American forces to escort him to safety and said not one word to his
Caricom colleagues who were actively assisting him up to the last
minute to resolve his governance problems.

If the ambassador is right, it would mean that the hectic efforts of
the US State Department spending one and a half hours on the phone
trying to find a refuge for Aristide, totally bypassed the Caricom
leadership. One might then ask why in all this hectic phoning, not
one phone call was made to the Caricom leadership - either advising
of developments or requesting asylum for Aristide. Did the US State
Department fear that all the Caricom countries (including Antigua
where the American plane carrying Aristide made an incognito stop)
would refuse asylum to their Haitian colleague? As PM Patterson
observed in answer to whether the US broke faith with Caricom: it was
not what he called partnership.

Why contact, instead, a far-away, relatively insignificant African
country which was at no time involved in the dialogue to resolve
Haiti's political difficulties? Recall that at the time of Aristide's
sudden departure, Caricom leaders had been working actively with the
US, France and Canada as partners to find a way out of the impasse
created by rebel gangs (euphemistically termed "rebel forces" as
against President Aristide's supporting forces termed "gangs" by some
American media). Would it not have been correct for American State
Department officials to advise all the partners working on the
Haitian crisis that Aristide was bowing out and sought American help?

Only one phone call to the Jamaican prime minister as chairman of
Caricom would have put the US State Department in the clear as acting
in concert instead of acting arbitrarily and unilaterally. We know
from the Caricom chairman's revelations, that no such call was made
and therefore Caricom learnt after the fact and through Aristide's
public claim that he was forcibly removed ("kidnapped"). In short,
Caricom leaders did not learn of the American agents' involvement
through diplomatic channels, but through the public media, just like
the rest of us.

It should therefore come as no surprise that in the circumstances,
Caricom leaders, as well as South Africa and many American political
leaders, have called for a high-level inquiry. Removing a
properly-elected constitutional head of a country involuntarily is,
quite clearly, a very serious matter, setting a highly dangerous
precedent indeed. However, Ambassador Cobb declared that such an
investigation would be "a waste of time" and further darkly hinted
that the findings could prove embarrassing to Aristide's friends and
colleagues.

But if the ambassador is right, the inquiry or investigation would be
a major advantage for the US. It would be a vindication of the truth
of the American position in the matter, and the ambassador as well as
her State Department superiors should therefore welcome it. The call
for an inquiry should therefore not be viewed as an attack on the
integrity of Secretary of State Colin Powell - incidentally, a direct
Jamaican descendant with, until now, majority affection from
Jamaicans. And if the ambassador is right, let the truth about
Aristide hang out.

Far better that we should know the truth, than end up backing one who
does not deserve our support. In short, if Aristide is a liar whose
claims against American agents are absolutely false, let him be
exposed! That would not only clear the American State Department and
agents from blame; it would also free the Caricom leadership to back
off from supporting Aristide. If the ambassador's dark hints are
valid, the exposure of Aristide's whatever-unbecoming doings would be
a win for the US position and a silencing of the pro-Aristide critics.

So back to the Cliff Hughes question. Yes, it is conceivable that
what took place is exactly as stated by the US State Department, that
Aristide was too embarrassed by his about-face to speak the truth,
and that therefore the US Ambassador to Jamaica is right in her
assertions. Fine, then; let's prove it through proper inquiry.

browngeof@hotmail.com
.