Not
so long ago, most everyone
on the Left agreed
that U.S. military
intervention
in the
internal affairs of another country should a priori be opposed. The case of Haiti has
shattered that consensus. The issue has divided the Lavalas alliance which voted Aris-
tide into office, and it has divided the U.S. Left. At one end of the spectrum are those
who oppose intervention in Haiti in any form, whether by U.S. troops or U.N. and OAS human
rights monitors. On the other end are those who think only the United States has the clout-not to
mention a moral responsibility-to restore Aristide to office.
A related debate concerns whether the answer to Haiti’s crisis lies in the diplomatic suites of
Washington or in the Haitian streets and mountains. Many in the popular movement and some
sectors of the U.S. Left believe that only armed struggle or other forms of popular mobilization
within Haiti can oust the putschists from office. Others place their faith in U.S.-brokered negotia-
tions.
Easy answers are elusive. Haitian-and Latin American-history teaches us not to expect the
United States to ride in on a white horse and altruistically save the day for democracy. Indeed, the
United States has rarely aided a government with a progressive agenda at odds with U.S. business
interests. Confusing matters further, U.S. policymakers seem at war with themselves. On the one
hand, the United States says it supports Aristide’s return, and has been a driving force in negotia-
tions to end military rule. Yet, on the other, the U.S. government has systematically subverted
Aristide from the very beginning. Suspicions of U.S. involvement in the coup range from the
deliberate turning of a blind eye, to the active encouragement and abetting of Aristide’s ouster.
Even the New York Times has reported on U.S. support for Haiti’s corrupt military rulers over the
years. Throughout the negotiating process, the U.S. government has forced Aristide into deeper
and deeper compromises-essentially eviscerating his power-while demanding little of of the
military. As of this writing in mid-December, U.S. displeasure with Aristide’s “intransigence” has
become so overt that some speculate the United States might simply opt to “dump” him, lift the
embargo, and accept the status quo.
U.S. policymakers are driven by conflicting, often irreconcilable interests. The Adminis-
tration’s most pressing concern clearly is “stability,” not social justice. Clinton seems
U S. policyrnakers are driven by conflicting, often irreconcilable interests. The Adminis-
largely motivated by the fear that if he fails to act, the United States will once again be
flooded by a deluge of boat people fleeing economic misery and political repression.
Further, Charles Kernaghan and Barbara Briggs’ article makes clear that the United States’ under-
lying agenda in Haiti, as elsewhere in the Americas, is economic. If it had its druthers, the United
States would like Haiti to become a stable light-assembly industry enclave for U.S. factories seek-
ing a docile, economically desperate labor force.
This report, “Haiti: Dangerous Crossroads,” explains why the recent attempts to “restore
democracy” in Haiti may have been doomed to failure. The popular movement likens the revolu-
tionary process in Haiti to Dechoukaj and rache manybk-both phrases that refer to the uprooting
of plants. As Michel-Rolph Trouillot elucidates, the roots of the Haitian crisis run deep, and are
not so easily wrested from the soil. The decision to lift the embargo before the return of the presi-
dent presaged the breakdown of the Governors Island accord. But regardless of the problems with that particular accord, the reasons why a “quick-fix” solution is not in the offing lie in Haiti’s cen-
turies-old “semi-feudal” class structure, and the militarization of a divided society.
Much blame, however, rests squarely on the shoulders of the United States. The U.S. response
to the coup—the inhumane refugee policy, a leaky embargo, ineffectual weak-kneed diplomacy, and a sustained CIA campaign to paint Aristide as demagogic and mentally instable-lays bare
the United States’ contempt for democratic and legal processes. In the end, Haitian democracy has
been grievously betrayed.
Menu
