Global Policy Forum

By Robert Nolan

Stephen Johnson of the Heritage Foundation called it "An enlightened intervention." Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson said it set "A dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments." California House Representative Maxine Waters dubbed it a U.S "government-led coup de'tat". So what exactly did happen this week in Haiti? Following the advance of anti-government rebels on the nation's capital, Port au Prince, former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled into exile with what most agree was more than a little encouragement from the United States and France -- leaving behind a country in chaos. As pundits and politicos alike point fingers and spout conspiracy theories surrounding Aristide's departure, one thing is certain: The most recent troubles in the unstable Caribbean island nation will require a more sustained commitment if powerbrokers from the United States, France, Haiti and neighboring Caribbean nations wish to avoid a repetition of the devastating mistakes of the past.

"Republic of Port au Prince"

Confirming detractors' charges that the former "left-leaning priest" had increasingly drifted towards the habits of dictatorship, former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide refused, by most accounts, to relinquish his grip on power until forced to do so by events and the eventual intervention of the U.S. and France. The most recent destabilizing event in the former French colonies' tumultuous history began with uprisings in the eastern part of the island. Led by rebels that The Economist describes as "a motley crew, ranging from ex-soldiers to gang members", the violent opposition gradually gained momentum and threatened to overtake the capital, Port au Prince.

"International actors were caught by surprise when the rebel uprising started in earnest last month," according to David Malone, president of the International Peace Academy, writing in the International Herald Tribune. "They had been focusing on the political posturing in the ‘Republic of Port au Prince,' Haiti's self-absorbed capital, rather than on the wretched conditions prevailing in the hinterlands, which fueled the rebellion."

Indeed, early American efforts to resolve the crisis initially focused on integrating the opposition's nonviolent elements into the centralized Aristide government, contrary to the position advocated by France, which demanded the ruler's immediate resignation. According to Malone, however, the nonviolent faction opposed to Aristide failed to negotiate effectively with those seeking to salvage the regime, thereby paving the way for rebels who he says remain "a dark cloud on the horizon."

The gains made by the advancing rebels, Aristide's own inability to fight them off (having previously dismantled the nation's army), and the uncompromising nature of Aristide's political opponents eventually caused the U.S. to come around to the position espoused by France that Aristide must step-down. While some have criticized the American policy shift as abrupt, the U.S. decision to advocate and later facilitate the removal of Aristide and send in peacekeepers was backed soon after in an emergency Security Council meeting at the United Nations.

Conflicting Accounts

While UN support has given the subsequent intervention a degree of legitimacy, the process by which Aristide's departed from power has remained a point of contention throughout most of the past week. According to the U.S. account, Aristide was informed of the U.S. position on Saturday, and was also told that if he wished to receive American assistance in leaving the country, his time was running short. A report in the Washington Post claims that Aristide was approached at his residence early Sunday morning by U.S. diplomat Louis Moreno and six State Department security officers, and willingly escorted by American officials and his own security detail to the airport -- submitting a signed letter of resignation before his departure.

"The Constitution should not drown in the blood of Haitian people," said the letter, originally penned in Creole, according to a White House translation. "That is why, if tonight it is my resignation that can avoid a bloodbath, I agree to leave with the hope that there will be life and not death. Life for everyone. Death for no one."

Following his arrival in exile in the Central African Republic, however, Aristide ignited a storm of accusations by calling the U.S. facilitation of his departure a "kidnapping" in phone conversations with members of the United States Congress. Democratic House Representative Maxine Waters of California was one of the Congressional members who spoke with Aristide. "We talked maybe fifteen minutes and then the phone clicked off," Waters told Democracy Now, an advocacy group. Aristide, she claimed, told her "over and over again that he was kidnapped" and that "the coup was completed by the Americans who forced them out."

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell immediately dismissed accusations by Waters and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which has been traditionally close to Aristide. "I was intimately involved in this situation all through Saturday night," said Powell, speaking from a U.S.-EU Ministerial press conference. "He was not kidnapped. We did not force him onto the airplane. He went on the airplane willingly and that is the truth."

Ken Kurtz, chief executive of the Steele Foundation, a U.S. company that the Post reports provided Aristide's private security force at the expense of the Haitian government, confirmed Powell's account. "President Aristide was not kidnapped. He absolutely was not taken forcibly."

"Enlightened Intervention" vs. "A Dangerous Precedent"

Pundits and politicians following events in Haiti have mostly fallen into two camps: those that view the American and French actions as an "enlightened intervention" that will help provide Haiti with newfound stability, and those who see it as a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments that fall out of favor with Washington. Such divisions, particularly within an election-year United States, have taken on a partisan life of their own.

Supporters of the U.S. and French action, many whom have monitored events in Haiti for years, claim that intervention was the only option for stabilizing a nation corrupted by the Aristide regime. "Aristide made his own mess," writes Rich Lowry in the National Review. "The Organization of American States pronounced his 2000 reelection as fraudulent…Aristide repeatedly refused to follow through on his commitment to reform, working to consolidate his power instead. As the Haitian national police force dissolved under the pressure of its own corruption, Aristide began to rely on gangs to do work his will. Hence, a seed of the current rebellion."

Secretary of State Powell offered similar justification for the U.S. action. "I have watched over the last ten years, through his first administration, through the interim administration which he had a lot to do with controlling, and then his coming back into office," said Powell of Aristide. "And I saw a man who was democratically elected, but he did not democratically govern, or govern well. He has to bear a large burden, if not the major burden, for what has happened."

Others, however, pointed to the United States role as a destabilizing element in the fall of Aristide ever since the 1993 American intervention that restored him to power following a similar uprising. That intervention, which occurred under the Clinton administration, saw the deployment of 20,000 U.S. troops to Haiti and led the newly restored Aristide to dismantle the Haitian army. Critics contend that the impact of the 1993 action and a gradual withdrawal of U.S. support for the increasingly illegitimate regime helped to undermine stability in Haiti, paving the way for the current crisis.

"The U.S. government never liked Aristide. The neo-cons loathed him as a messianic dreamer who believed in redistribution of land and wealth. The ideologues of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank disdained him. The CIA's covert operators viewed him as an ideological adversary. The Haitian elites enlisted lobbyists from both parties to undermine him. The Haitian military, which he disbanded, despised him," claims Jesse Jackson in an op-ed piece published by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "So when the Haitian ‘opposition' led by that same elite, fed the thugs, former death-squad killers, gun-runners and drug dealers that formed an armed rebellion against Aristide, the United States did nothing."

Other charges have been leveled that the Bush administration took action out of self-interest. "While Haitian Americans remain a relatively small voting bloc in the state, the images of black people escaping the chaos of an impoverished Caribbean nation and then being returned by the U.S. Coast Guard could inflame racial tensions," Democratic strategists told the Miami Herald. The paper added that "An election-year refugee crisis in Florida is particularly dangerous for the GOP because it would embroil the president's brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, in touchy decisions over how to treat people entering the state – and whether Haitians fleeing chaos would be entitled to similar special treatment granted Cubans who flee communism."

Finally, some critics have gone so far as to question the legality of the United States intervention under international law. Jamaican Prime Minister P.J. Patterson said that the way in which Aristide's departure was carried out "sets a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments everywhere, as it promotes the removal of a duly elected persons from the office by the power of rebel forces."

What's Next?

Despite disagreement over the methods and motivations for Aristide's departure, most analysts agree that only a long-term commitment to rebuilding the nation's institutions will prevent similar uprisings in the future. Immediate concerns, say democracy and human rights activists, include disarming the rebel forces, whose leaders claimed control of Haiti this week, and bolstering a transitional government based on the constitution.

According to the New York Times, constitutional authority dictates that Haiti's chief justice of the Supreme Court, Bonifice Alexandre, should be appointed as the new president. Such an appointment, however, must be ratified by a legislature that has been dissolved since January. Further complicating the political transition, rebel leader Guy Philippe, who human rights group includes in a long list of rebels known to have committed rights abuses over decades of instability, claimed this week that he was in charge, stating that, "The country is in my hands."

Amnesty International called on the international community to ensure that human rights offenders are brought to justice, that rebel factions be disarmed and protection given to police and judicial officials in order to salvage whatever democratic structures have survived Haiti's most recent round of chaos.

Hundreds of international forces, led by the U.S. and France, currently in Haiti under a UN mandate are a step in the right direction, according to Kenneth Cain, a former UN human rights officer in Haiti. "It is essential that we remind ourselves of one big lesson of 1995: a small but potent American military force can be remarkably effective," he opines in the New York Times. "It would be overly cautious to limit the Marines to unambitious stabilization exercise in the capital, Port au Prince. Relatively few of them could restore order to all major population centers."

Beyond peacekeeping, write many analysts, a binding commitment from the U.S., Haitians themselves and the international community is needed to stay with the America's poorest country for the long haul. "The Haiti case reminds us that post-crisis peace-building and reconstruction is a long-term enterprise, demanding an expensive commitment on the order of 15 to 20 years," writes David Malone of the International Peace Academy. "If Haitian politicians do not try harder in the national interest and if international actors once again fail to show determination, financial commitment and cooperation over Haiti, Port au Prince will be condemned to see the tragedy of Aristide's departure repeated again in a decade or so."