Arturo Valenzuela, the co-author of A Nation of Enemies, what may be the most judicious book on Pinochet-era Chile, has an article on Salon (subscription required or you have to watch an ad) addresses and shares some of the concerns I've had about the Bush administration's flaccid response to events in Haiti:
Aristide's divided and weak opposition correctly read the U.S.'s indifference as a sign that Washington was hoping that Aristide would implode, allowing them to fill the political vacuum with Washington's support. Only when brutal and unsavory elements from Haiti's recent past threatened to overrun the political leaders on both sides of the political spectrum by force of arms did Washington respond by tabling a sensible proposal for institutional reform and power sharing between Aristide and opposition party leaders. Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly argued that the solution to the Haitian crisis required a respect for the constitutional order and the legitimacy of its elected president.The administration's proposal, however, was not only late in coming; it lacked a credible support mechanism to restore order. Washington failed to turn immediately to the United Nations Security Council to seek the deployment to Port au Prince of a peacekeeping force that would have guaranteed implementation of the accord by neutralizing the insurgent forces. Inexplicably, U.S. officials also failed to invoke the OAS's democracy clause, which would have brought hemispheric support and legitimacy to its mediation efforts, a procedure that has been utilized in numerous other challenges to the democratic process in the Americas.
As a result, Haiti's opposition was quick to read the administration's lack of real resolve and open hostility toward Aristide for what it was. While giving tacit support to the tactics of the remnants of Haiti's army irregular forces rampaging across the country, opposition leaders refused to accept the terms set down by the State Department, confident that the administration would not press them to sign on to the proposal, even though Aristide fully accepted it.
He's also tough on Aristide stating that "the charismatic leader proved to be an inflexible and authoritarian figure, with little appetite for the politics of accommodation and compromise and a penchant for looking the other way as his associates became involved in the drug trade. Aristide embodied the bitter, confrontational, winner-take-all nature of Haitian politics, rather than the politics of respect for the rights of others, the cornerstone of the democratic ideal." But this point I think really hits home:
But the problems of Haiti go beyond the actions or limitations of one man. A foreign policy based on a form of manichaeism, that sees the world as divided into "good guys" who should be supported and "bad guys" who should be purged, is ill-equipped to deal with the real world of social forces in conflicts, structural and political impediments to change, and the deep asymmetries between the haves and the have-nots. Aristide was only the first president in 200 years since independence to have been elected democratically in a fair contest. It is a truism that democracy does not form overnight and that it faces particularly difficult challenges in societies characterized by deep social divisions, grinding poverty and political conflict. Democracies are forged when opponents finally realize that they need rules for mutual restraint in order to agree to disagree peacefully; that ultimately such rules are the best guarantee of genuine security and progress.In this context, the State Department's belated proposal to address the Haitian crisis was on the mark, not only because it preserved the constitutional order and called on both Aristide and his opponents to make concessions while empowering governmental institutions and the rule of law. It was also on target because it acknowledged that Aristide remained a powerful force and was clearly the most popular figure in the country. He alone exercised authority over armed factions created to support his party and movement, forces that will adamantly resist being displaced by their enemies for fear of being annihilated. Those enemies have now been empowered to seek retribution precisely because Aristide has been forced from office.
By bringing the warring parties into an agreement that they all resisted, the U.S. would have obliged Aristide to accept restraint over his ability to wield arbitrary power and diffuse the armed confrontation between militants. It would have also forced the feckless opposition to think of an effective strategy to advance its own support among the people rather than always looking to Washington to advance its cause. But Secretary of State Powell was overruled and the State Department proposal undermined by the Bush administration itself. [my emphasis]
Therein lies the greatest problem with what I regard this administration's foreign policy: impatience and lack of nuance. It would have been much more challenging to press both sides to come to an agreement. It would have also made for a much more legitimate solution. Now, you have a nation divided amongst even more bitter enemies, horrible human rights abusers wanting to recreate a brutal army and the same weakness of institutions that Haiti had before this crisis. If the Bush administration could devote countless billions to bringing together Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, they could have made a more committed effort on pressing forward with the power-sharing arrangement they proposed.
Comments