Centerfield

I agree that the CBC missed the mark on this issue by equating Haitian democracy with Aristide in power, but their stance earlier this week is not entirely blameworthy. In fact, it holds more truth than falsity.

When the CBC issued their statement, the Bush Administration seemed reluctant to intervene and appeared to be focusing most of its public effort on the continued interception and deportation of Haitian refugees. Foreign policy seemed to be changing daily among top officials, moving from calls for peace and restraint toward calls for government acquiesence to rebel demands. (1)

Therefore, at the time of their meeting with the President, the CBC was faced with apparent American inaction, clear Haitian escalation, and a possible perception that the Bush Administration may have been planning to ignore an emerging tragedy in an overwhelmingly black nation only a few hundred miles from the Florida coast.

They asked for action from America and action is what they got. Members of the CBC may be wrong that the exile of President Aristide is a "black eye" for democracy in Haiti, but they are correct that we are partly to blame for letting this crisis fester and ignoring fledgling democracies in our own backyard.

(1) As a side note, the Bush Administration seems to call murderous mobs that threaten sitting governments "terrorists" an awful lot -- but consciously refrained from any such language in this circumstance. One cannot overlook the unfortunate, but possible, perception -- especially among CBC members and their constituents -- that Americans did not view political violence in a nearby, predominantly black nation using the same standard as we do other parts of the world. And the "democracy card" doesn't play here, because we decry terrorists seeking to destabilize Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other nations that make Haiti look like ancient Athens.

Posted by: Militant Moderate at March 1, 2004 01:05 PM

OK, everyone here who has ever actually been to Haiti, raise your hands! (Is mine the only hand up?) Now listen to the following, and take it to heart. A stable democracy will not be possible in Haiti until at least one full generation of Haitians grows up both well-educated and safe from their own government.

The CBC's idea of a "democratically elected" government of Haiti cancelled the 2002 elections, and showed no sign of ever having elections again. Aristide showed every sign of the perpetual pattern of Haitian heads-of-state simply staying seated forever, and violently suppressing any attempts to oust them. True, Haiti still has a constitution--but it's been ignored most of the last few years. Indeed, Aristide's successor, Chief Justice of the Haitian Supreme Court, will have to hold elections just to be confirmed as Interim President, as the constitution calls for him to be confirmed by the National Assembly, most of whose terms have expired due to the cancellation of the 2002 elections.

The CBC can blame whomever they wish for the tragedy that is (and has always been) Haiti, but if they're going to point fingers they should point them at the Clinton admin first. It wasn't the Bush admin that installed Aristide in 1994, or helped return him to power in 2000. It wasn't the Bush admin that pulled out peace-keeping troops after the ouster of Baby Doc Duvalier, leaving the Haitian people essentially on their own, praying some new dictator wouldn't seize the reins of power.

Was the Bush admin planning to ignore the Haitian situation? I doubt it very much. But I also doubt that they were going to move one damn inch into Haiti without the unanimous and whole-hearted approval of the U.N. Security Council and enthusiastic multi-lateral support, both in troops and material and political cover. If you have to ask why this is so, you haven't been reading the news the last three years.

And what the CBC was calling for the Bush admin to do was exactly what they've spent the last two years condemning the Bush admin for doing in Iraq--acting unilaterally--with the sole difference that they wanted the U.S. to support the dictator, instead of remove him. And now they're mad that we waited for U.N approval and multi-lateral support before sending in the Marines. Oi.

Posted by: Tully at March 1, 2004 03:32 PM

"A stable democracy will not be possible in Haiti until at least one full generation of Haitians grows up both well-educated and safe from their own government."

Gosh, Tully. With that approach how will we ever maintain the global supply of cheap labor?!

Posted by: Erasmus at March 1, 2004 04:05 PM

Tully makes a great point that deserves greater exploration when writing:

And what the CBC was calling for the Bush admin to do was exactly what they've spent the last two years condemning the Bush admin for doing in Iraq--acting unilaterally--with the sole difference that they wanted the U.S. to support the dictator, instead of remove him. And now they're mad that we waited for U.N approval and multi-lateral support before sending in the Marines. Oi.

Senator Kerry, apparently, also deserves blame for advocating unilateral action in Haiti and criticizing the Bush Administration for not going it alone quick enough. Clearly, the Haitian crisis (or, as Tully wold be quick to say, this Haitian crisis) shows the cracks in the Democratic establishment's religiously multilateral party line.

However, President Bush's supporters shouldn't be so quick to use this case to prove unilateralism is always a tool of first resort. What is happening in Haiti can't possibly be a retroactive endorsement of what happened in Iraq.

As usual, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Posted by: Militant Moderate at March 1, 2004 05:02 PM