The Bush administration's initial reaction to Haiti's bloody political crisis is sounding alarm bells throughout the hemisphere's foreign affairs community, where many are wondering -- with good reason -- whether we're about to see a de facto abandonment of U.S. support for democracy in the region.
Indeed, the U.S. government's response to the uprising by armed gangs opposed to Haiti's democratically elected authoritarian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has been pretty bland.
EYEBROWS RAISED
On Tuesday, on the fifth day of bloody street fights in various cities in Haiti that killed at least 42 people and left the country dangerously close to total anarchy, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher raised eyebrows among Washington reporters by saying that ``reaching a political settlement [in Haiti] will require some fairly thorough changes in the way Haiti is governed, and how the security situation is maintained.''
Shortly thereafter, a senior State Department official told reporters at a briefing in Washington that a solution to Haiti's crisis ''could indeed involve changes in Aristide's position,'' fueling speculation in diplomatic circles that the Bush administration may be actively trying to push for Aristide's resignation.
If that were the case, it would mark a seeming contradiction in U.S. policy: Only three months ago, when violent gangs of leftist protesters took to the streets in Bolivia to seek the ouster of pro-American President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, the Bush administration came out strongly in support of Sánchez de Lozada. The Bolivian protests ultimately led to Sánchez de Lozada's resignation, which allowed his then-Vice President Carlos Mesa to take over without violating the Constitution.
Is there a double standard here? Shouldn't the international community defend all elected presidents, whether they are rightist or leftist? I asked Organization of American States Secretary General César Gaviria in a telephone interview Wednesday. Yes, but as long as they are legitimate, he answered.
''The international community made a big effort to organize Haiti's 2000 legislative elections, in which there were evident elements of fraud,'' Gaviria said. ``That problem generated a credibility crisis that has never been resolved through elections, and the crisis has worsened. So the problem is not whether to back Aristide or not, but to solve Haiti's legitimacy crisis.''
Other high-level OAS diplomats told me the international community should press Aristide to allow free elections and peaceful opposition demonstrations -- rather than allowing armed pro-Aristide thugs to disrupt the gatherings. And the Haitian opposition should drop its demands that Aristide resign in order to participate in new elections.
PASSING THE BUCK
Problem is, nobody wants to take responsibility for Haiti's crisis. The Bush administration says it relies on the OAS, which in turn is relying on the Caribbean countries' Caricom mediation efforts.
''The general feeling here is that we're fed up with Haiti,'' a Latin American ambassador to the OAS told me Wednesday. ``We have spent so much time and money on Haiti for nothing, that people have come to the conclusion that it's a hopeless place.''
Another senior OAS diplomat told me only half-jokingly, ``The U.S. elephant is hiding behind the OAS mouse, which in turn is hiding behind the Caricom ant.''
Asked whether the Bush administration is not making a major political gaffe by not coming out strongly in defense of Aristide's right to finish his term in 2006, no matter how disastrous his rule has been, a State Department official said that any comparison with the 2003 uprising in Bolivia amounts to mixing apples and oranges.
In Haiti's case, there are legitimacy questions over the legislative 2000 elections, and there is a Caricom mediation effort to which both Aristide and the opposition should abide, he said. On the U.S. position, the official said, ``Aristide was the democratically elected leader of the country, and Haiti's future is for the Haitian people to decide.''
A DISGRACE
My conclusion: The Bush administration is playing with fire by not making stronger statements in support of the preservation of whatever is left of democratic rule in Haiti. Aristide is a disgrace to Haiti, but at a time of growing political effervescence in Latin America's streets, the mere appearance of a double standard on violent protests to topple elected presidents could backfire in a big way against Washington in the not too distant future.
Topic: CAUTION: Extreme photographs
