Dig a Little Deeper Next Time

I agree with Michael Totten about some things, I disagree with him about others, but this post just reeks of a weak attempt to bash John Kerry and doesn't take into account a number of other facts.

He links to a comment by a Brazilian General, Augusto Heleno who is in charge of peace-keeping for the UN in Haiti who claims that Kerry's comments regarding former president Jean Bertrand Aristide "created the expectation that instability and a change in American policy would contribute to Aristide's return." Here's what Kerry said on March 5, 2004:

Look, Aristide was no picnic, and did a lot of things wrong. And there was a lot of reason to dislike much of what Aristide did. But we had understandings in the region about the right of a democratic regime to ask for help. And we contravened all of that. I think it's a terrible message to the region, democracies, and it's shortsighted. And that's not - again, Aristide had a lot of problems, and I don't gloss over any of them. But I don't think it's the right way to assert America's and the region's and the hemisphere's interests. I would have been prepared to send troops immediately. Period. I would have done the work long ago that was necessary. If I'd been president, I would not have allowed it to arrive at where it was.

I would have worked with Canada, I would have worked with countries of interest, I would have worked with the hemisphere. Long ago, I would have had an assistant secretary, and or a special envoy, who would have done the work necessary to avoid that, hopefully avoid that crisis.

The understandings that Kerry is referring to are incorporated in the Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC), which was adopted by the member nations of the Organization of American States on September 11, 2001, which is probably why it receives scant attention. So essentially what Kerry is saying is that allowing for the forced removal of a leader who was elected (yes, I know that there were allegations about the legitimacy of that election) sends the wrong message to the rest of the hemisphere. There's more to it than that, however.

Here's Colin Powell less than two weeks before Aristide's departure:

Mr. Powell called on Mr. Aristide to help defuse the situation by putting in place a political agreement, brokered with other Caribbean nations, to disarm his loyalists, reform the police and welcome political opponents into a new governing council.

Mr. Powell said the United States would not support Mr. Aristide's removal in a coup.

"We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs," the secretary said. [my emphasis]

Read the first paragraph of that quote again. Five days later Aristide agreed to that plan. The opposition rejected it two days later.

So let's examine the sequence of events:

1.) The Bush administration through its Secretary of State - the highest ranking diplomat in the government - proposes a solution for power-sharing developed with representatives of the OAS, Canada, France and Caricom.

2.) Aristide accepts the proposal.

3.) The opposition rejects the proposal.

So what would be the next logical step? One would think that either someone from the the group proposing the power-sharing proposal pressures the opposition or asks for a counter-proposal from them. That doesn't happen. The opposition remains firm and says Aristide must resign.

Five days later, after being told he would not be protected, Aristide resigns and leaves. Flip-flop number one by the Bush administration.

Let's turn briefly to General Heleno. Four days ago here's what he said about the origins of the violence in Haiti:

[Reporter] We have a news agency report here from Washington, USA, which says that the United States accuse supporters of the deposed president of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, of using violence to destabilize the government and obstruct the work of the international troops to restore order in the country. At the moment, are the Brazilian troops redoubling their efforts in relation to this security issue?

[Gen Heleno] That is correct, we have established some strongholds in strategic locations throughout the city, with small-scale patrols and light patrols who are able to take rapid action. It is not possible to define whether these groups are Chimeres, who are the supporters of ex-President Aristide, who were armed at that time. It is difficult to say who is a Chimere and who is a bandit, but the actions of these small groups end up causing the population to live in fear.

Haiti has a panic syndrome, it is a country where rumours spread like wildfire. Sometimes, two or three shots fired in the air in the city centre are enough for the radio stations, which are the major means of communication here, to report that the city is in chaos just a few minutes later. And we are also experiencing a situation of psychological warfare, manufactured by someone who is in command of these groups. And psychological warfare has an immediate effect here. [my emphasis]

So his accusation against Senator Kerry is flip flop number two. If this keeps up there'll be more flip flops than a Havainas factory!

Let's employ some critical thinking, instead of just looking for a way to bash Senator Kerry here. Kerry made the comment that he would abide by the IADC - to which this administration's top diplomat affixed his signature - and that it was important to respect democracy in a region where democracy has all too often been threatened. He also said that we would have sent in troops earlier (something that may very well have saved lives on both sides). That's all he said, while simultaneously acknowledging Aristide's numerous shortcomings. It also occurred more than seven months ago. Are we believe that the Chimeres marked down Kerry's words and have followed the US elections closely, noting the polls in a nation with an incredibly poor communications infrastructure, waiting anxiously and committing their horrific acts in the hopes that John Kerry, if elected will ignore the beheadings and other atrocities that the followers of Aristide have done? Assuming the Aristide supporters are behind the violence the general cited - and even he isn't sure - are we to believe that they would have done nothing if John Kerry had not said what he said more than seven months ago? It simply defies logic, but this year logic is one of the earliest casualties in the political season.

Back in March I linked to this article on Salon by Arturo Valenzuela, the head of the Latin American Studies program at Georgetown University. The paragraphs from the article in my post are worth reading again, but I especially want to mention this section:

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]

What's the result of the opposition having emerged victorious? Selective prosecutions of Aristide thugs, sham trials of FRAPHist rebel thugs, sincere efforts to disarm Aristide supporters and half-assed efforts to disarm the violent rebels who ousted Aristide. I suppose this is Senator Kerry's fault, too.

Let me be clear and unequivocal. I have no brief for Aristide. The pro-Aristide thugs deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I also believe that they have forfeited any right to participate in any government in Haiti, as frankly Aristide has, especially if there is anything to link him to this violence. But to blame this on John Kerry is patently absurd. All Kerry did was suggest that the US invoke the IADC, an action which Arturo Valenzuela also felt was appropriate to the circumstances. All Kerry did was to call for respecting democracy in a region which all too often has suffered from a lack of democracy. The only ones making flip flops here were General Heleno and the Bush administration. If one digs a little deeper it becomes clear.

Comments

[James R MacLean]

Great post, really. It was a profound relief to hear that said.

Let me be clear and unequivocal. I have no brief for Aristide.

I can act as a character reference for this

The pro-Aristide thugs deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I also believe that they have forfeited any right to participate in any government in Haiti, as frankly Aristide has, especially if there is anything to link him to this violence.

I remain dubious that there really were "pro-Aristide" thugs. I do think some groups associated with Lavalas for a time because of the force of logic. In view of the extreme acrimony of Haitian politics, it seems inevitable that Aristide--who was virtually unarmed--would have to manuever among militia, much the way the UN Secretary General cannot tell the US President to pipe down and hand over the nukes before someone gets hurt. In theory, the President of Haiti is supposed to be able to do exactly that, but in practice neither he nor the US/UN peacekeepers deployed in Haiti (1993-'96) could do that. In that case, just as we expect Annan to pose for journalists, shaking hands with Bush or Hu Jintao, so Aristide was obligated to ingratiate himself with sundry gunmen.

[Randy Paul]

James,

If it's wrong for the FRAPH to have their enforcers, it's wrong for Aristide to do that as well.

Read this article by Amy Wilentz who has written extensively on Haiti. Haiti has often relied on the "big man" concept to get things done. Aristide, instead of rejecting that tendency as he originally did when he said in 1990 that the most important election was not his, but the next one, bought into it later and became much like those who railed against when he was a priest.

If you haven't seen The Agronomist, you should.

[Basharov]

I suggest that you Aristide bashers tune into Dennis Bernstein's Pacifica show "Flashpoints" or Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" before you start talking about Aristide's "thugs." Listen to an interview with Kevin Pena, who is the Pacifica correspondent in Haiti, or with several of the pro-Democracy organizers in Haiti who are running for their lives from the U.S. supported death squads and rethink your mistaken notions of what is going on in Haiti and what went on prior to the U.S. kidnapping and removal of the duly-elected President of Haiti and his replacement by a bunch of killers. The coverage of the grotesque slaughter of the pro-Democracy movement in Haiti by the mainstream media has been a disgrace -- and Amy Wilentz is no exception.

[Randy Paul]

Basharov,

I've written extensively about my distaste, contempt and revulsion for Gerard Latortue, Louis-Jodel Chamblain, Toto Constant the FRAPHists and their sympathizers among others. Their brutality doesn't give Aristide's supporters the right to do the same. I condemn them both and see no inconsistency in that, quite the opposite.

[Rikki]

There was never any question of the legitimacy of Aristide's election. The dispute was in regards to legislative elections that were held 6 months prior and were resolved by the time of Aristide's election.