The leader of armed rebels who have overrun half of Haiti said Wednesday he wants to "give a chance to peace" and indicated his troops would hold off attacking the capital to see if President Jean-Bertrand Aristide will resign.The fact that Port-au-Prince is showing hundreds of die-hard, armed Aristide supporters had nothing to do with that decision, of course. Meanwhile,
A U.N. Security Council meeting on Haiti was scheduled for Thursday. President Bush said the United States is encouraging the international community to provide a strong "security presence," and France said a peace force should be established immediately for deployment once a political agreement is reached. ...I admit I'd expected the endgame chorus of "it's all Aristide's fault" to start with the US, but apparently France is ready to bat leadoff. Maybe they're still trying to make kissy-face after the, uh, "misunderstanding" over Iraq in the Security Council. What's particularly notable about de Villepin's comments is that if there had been a commitment to "long term" engagement, this situation well might never have arisen.
"As far as President Aristide is concerned, he bears grave responsibility for the current situation," [French Foreign Minister Dominique] de Villepin said. "It's his decision, it's his responsibility. Every one sees that this is about opening a new page in the history of Haiti."
France also said it wants human rights observers sent to its former colony and a "long term" engagement of international aid aimed at reconstructing its economy.
Look, let's be blunt about this. Jean-Bertrand Aristide has proven, as I noted previously, to be a lackluster administrator. He has, it's clear, also turned something of a blind eye to violence committed by his supporters against his opponents (although he has not completely ignored it, contrary to some accounts). In 2000, he did use his party's domination of the committee in charge of running the election to ram through victories in seven disputed Senatorial races where the victors won by pluralities rather than by majorities, as required by law. (I previously said there were 10 such elections; seven is correct.) He was, in his overwhelming popularity, too dismissive of opponents. There is no question but that there is anger against him and his support has waned.
But - using the dispute over the 2000 elections as an excuse, the Bush administration blocked the release of $512 million in Interamerican Development Bank loans which had been already approved for Haiti while pressuring the World Bank, the IMF and the European Union to reduce other planned assistance. In the meantime, in the period 1994-2002 the US "funneled some $70 million to create, fund and organize an opposition to President Aristide." An outfit called the International Republican Institute, supposedly nonpartisan, assisted and advised opposition political groups.
The result was deepening poverty and a continuing crisis. Yes, Bill Clinton did use 20,000 US troops to restore Aristide to power in 1994 after the coup in 1991, but as I said on February 9, that was only after Aristide had many so many compromises that once reinstated he could not possibly deliver on his promises to uplift the poor. Even a 1994 attempt to raise the minimum wage enough give it the same buying power it had before Aristide was elected - the new figure would be the lap-of-luxury amount of $3.00 a day - was opposed by USAID. (Even such minimum wage laws as do exist are routinely ignored. Among the most notorious sweatshop owners is Andy Apaid - one of the leaders of the supposedly nonviolent opposition to Aristide.)
Overall, this is the same pattern pursued in Chile after the election of Salvador Allende, when the US blocked all economic aid and tripled military aid. That simultaneously undermined the economy and strengthened the hand of the generals, eventually leading to the monstrosity of Augusto Pinochet. Here, again, a popular (and populist) leader is elected, and here again the US sets out to economically undermine that government while aiding its opponents.
The same pattern may well lead to the same results. I find it increasingly difficult to believe that the political opposition forces do not have some sort of connection or at minimum communication with the violent opposition forces. First, there is, of course, the wink-and-a-nudge "rejection" of violent insurrection by the politicos as a merely matter of tactics, not goals. Furthermore, all of them know about people like Philippe and Louis-Jodel Chamblain, they all know who they are, they all know what they did when they were in charge. Yet they not only don't reject them, they seem astonishingly unconcerned as the armed rebels move ever-closer to the capital, seemingly unruffled by the prospect of Philippe's forces overrunning the country, trusting, apparently, in their own security. That would explain why as the crisis has worsened, their demands have stiffened: Their side is winning. As AP reported,
[t]he opposition coalition rejected an international peace plan that diplomats had billed as a last chance for peace. Aristide on Saturday accepted the plan, under which he would remain as president but with diminished powers, sharing the government with his political rivals.It's wise to recall that in the parliamentary elections in 2000,
"It is absolutely necessary for the international community to accompany the country in its quest for a mechanism that will allow for a timely and orderly departure of Jean-Bertrand Aristide," said a statement from the opposition Democratic Platform coalition.
the 27 opposition parties, including the 15 parties in the Convergence, received only about 12 percent of the vote. One Haitian opposition leader who did not want his name revealed, admitted at the time, "Aristide cannot be beaten in democratic elections."Despite all that's happened in the interim, it's likely - probable - that remains true and if elections were held now, Aristide's Lavalas party would still emerge on top. That's why the elites who dominate the "opposition coalition" are demanding Aristide step down: They are taking advantage of the chaos - chaos which they have tacitly endorsed even if they had no hand in initiating - to demand they be handed on a silver platter what they know they could not achieve at the ballot box: control of the government.
Based on France's remarks, it now appears that the international community is ready to capitulate in that demand rather than actually doing anything in support of an elected government. "Doing something" need not involve armed intervention. (Although Jamaica has suggested that a small force placed astride the two roads from the north to Port-au-Prince could effectively separate Aristide's supporters from the reborn army.) What it could involve is telling the opposition that what they are demanding amounts to a coup and that if they pursue it, any government that arises from it will be considered illegitimate, that their foreign assets - not Haiti's assets, their assets (rest assured, they have them) - will be seized, and that if they set one foot out side Haiti they will be arrested. It would mean telling Philippe and the rest of his murderous goons the same while pointedly telling the Dominican Republic, which has sealed the border, that it is to stay sealed.
Whether that would do any good, at this point I just don't know. I have already said that I believe Aristide should step down as part of a settlement involving an orderly transition and guarantees of arrangements for elections, elections, I add here, which should take place under international supervision. I still believe that, even though I said it before the emergence some of the perpetrators of the cruelty of the 1991-94 military dictatorship as leaders of the "rebels," a change which requires the international community to take a vigourously active role if disaster is to be averted.
The elites have made some motions in regard to the first half of that but, I think tellingly, have been very coy about the second part. Lacking such enforceable guarantees, I fear the time for elections will not prove to be "ripe" until the outcome can be as pre-ordained as it was in Iran, with all the show and none of the substance of democracy, with the rich back in their mansions and the army in control of the poor in their hope-drained hovels.
That may indeed be Haiti's future. But it doesn't mean we have to like it. Or accept it as permanent. Or accept our own government's role in destroying whatever hope Haiti might have had.
Compassionate Conservatism Dept.: The AP says
Bush reiterated that the U.S. Coast Guard will turn back any Haitian refugees trying to reach American shores.Translation: "We really don't give a flying f-word what happens to Haiti as long as it doesn't bother us."
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment