In 1991, Aristide was elected by the people of Haiti as their first President, opening in their minds new hopes about their future. But, unfortunately, Aristide could not last long. The 'moles' who were working under the patronage of their distant godfathers, again became active and Aristide was ousted in a coup d'etat within a couple of months. But in 1994, Aristide was brought back to power, ironically, riding on the waves of invasion launched by US forces, proving once again that America knows well how to enjoy the 'cream' in a troubled situation. And the same America forced Aristide, who was elected by the people for the second term as president in 2000 and was scheduled to complete term in 2006, to resign as president and literally 'kidnapped' him to the Central African Republic Republic, putting him under guard of French forces! But the question remains as to who again fanned the rebellion, led by an ex-police chief, to oust an elected president on charges of corruption, misrule and abuse of human rights?

This reminds us of the sad story of Panamanian President Noriega who was brought to power by America as their most 'beloved blue-eyed boy,' but that lasted as long as he served US interests. Noriega fell from US grace when he started showing arrogance to the US Administration by refusing to allow America's continued presence and authority in the Panama canal. He was then literally kidnapped from his presidential palace by the US commando forces and was brought to America for trial on charges of drug trafficking and the elected president of a sovereign UN member state is still rottening in a US prison.

Big powers' double game
America, however, had rejected the allegations made by Aristide that he had been forced by America to resign and flee the country. Rather a US spokesman in Washington had said that Aristide had made the right decision for the Haitian people by resigning. But staging of such familiar dramas of running with the hare and hunting with the hound by interested big powers is not at all new.

Thus democracy in Haiti has once again been scuttled and put off the track by the bloody armed rebellion against an elected President, engineered by vested quarters, pushing the country once again under a new regime suited to the vested interests, at least for some time to come. Once again it has been proved that the leader of a poor country would remain an 'idol' as long as he serves well the interests of some big powers, but if he shows any sign of reluctance and works against their interests he would soon become a 'fall-guy', like Noriega, Aristide, or even Saddam who was once used by America to wage war against Iran for about a decade.

Such a white-washed benevolent policy of two world powers was more prominent during the cold war period, when the world was divided into two clear-cut parts, one managed by the West headed by America, the other headed by the now defunct Soviet Union. But they were always on the look-out how to outwit the other. In this power game, Africa was the most suitable playground for them. But after the sudden demise of the Soviet Union, America became the overall champion of all that it now surveys.

Humiliation in Somalia: Any lesson?
Now, if we compare the current Haiti episode with that of Somalia in Africa, we would find how closely America has been involved in both countries, when in turmoil, in peace-keeping and humanitarian activities. While in the case of Somalia, George Bush Sr was at the helm of affairs to run the show, in the latest Haiti situation, George Bush Jr who is undoubtedly a 'like father, like son,' has been conducting the peace and humanitarian operation. The question is when papa Bush had miserable failed by his misadventure in Somalia, to lift his sliding and shrinking popularity ratings for throwing his hat in the ring for his second term as presidential against his democrat rival Bill Clinton, although he had earlier become a war hero by raising a big 'Desert Storm' in liberating Kuwait from Iraqi forces, will sonny Bush succeed to rejuvenate his failing political health by his new 'democracy game' in Haiti, when his popularity gained in Afghanistan and Iraq crashed like a mad unpredictable share-market? Only time will show which way the wind blows.

Perhaps the US administration is still being haunted by the nerve-shaking humiliation that US forces had to face in Somalia where one dead US solder was lynched on the streets of Mogadishu by the anti-US demonstrators and the ghastly scene was televised all over the world. America, particularly President Bush, should thank his stars, that the US forces had not so far faced such humiliation in Iraq. US forces had to leave Somalian soil within the time-limit given to them. Perhaps this was the greatest catastrophe for the US Marines after the debacle in Vietnam. But has America, and for that matter, its Republican leadership, learnt any lesson? Perhaps not.

Again on the wrong track?
All indications are there to show that the US forces, along with forces from some US allies, like France and Canada, are going to tread the same old bloody beaten track that they had earlier done in Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq, in the name of ensuring peace and humanitarian operation. Bush Sr, during his Somalia operation, had unequivocally declared that it was "strictly humanitarian" and nothing else. But the US daily Los Angels Times pricked the bubble when it said that the operation was aimed at Somalia's "oil resources," as Bush Jr, following in the foot-steps of his father, has been doing in Iraq and now in Haiti. And what hidden wealth Bush Jr had smelt in Haiti? There must be some laudable, may be hidden, cause that had prompted him to send more then a thousand US marines there, after forcing President Aristide to resign and flee the country. (Aristide alleged that France, the former colonial ruler, "colluded up" with America to oust him in a sort of coup d'etat, adding that he had been a victim of "political kidnapping" and was "forced out of the country at gun-point.")

But why such manoeuvring on the part of saviours of democracy and human rights? Didn't America support a dictator like Saddam in the 1980s to achieve its ends in Iran? Did it not support Said Barre, another dictator in Somalia to reach goal goal? Or, in Afghanistan, did it not spend billions of dollars in promoting the now-hated Taliban to oust the Russian forces from there?

Instead, could have supported the elected President Aristide if they were at all interested in preserving peace and stability in Haiti, thereby putting down the chaos and destruction caused by the rebel forces who, at the behest of somebody else, wanted to re-establish their authority in Haiti, as they had done earlier. By doing it this way, America could have earned the good name of a saviour of democracy and at the same time would have gained a strong foot-hold there as a friend and not as an enemy. But what is happening today is not at all a healthy sign for America. Thousands of pro-Aristide demonstrators had now hit the streets of the capital, Port-au-Prince and some other parts of the country, demanding immediate return of their elected President and departure of "US occupation" forces.

The out-come of the just-concluded elections in Spain in which pro-American conservative Popular Party (PP), led by its out-going PM Aznar, had been badly moulded by the anti-Iraq war Socialist Party, led by its PM-elect Zapatero, should serve as an eye-opener. As they say, 'a word to the wise is enough' Mr Zapatero had already announced that Spanish troops deployed in Iraq by his predecessor would be withdrawn by June 30 next. He also dubbed as 'disaster' the war and occupation of Iraq. It would undoubtedly cause much hiccups in many of the US-led coalition forces now working in Iraq. And, as if to add fuel to the fire, has come the statement by the former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, in a recent press interview in Rome that the war on Iraq waged by US "has not put an end to terrorism in the world," on the countrary, it has given it "a boost." America "violated international principles" and "weakened" the UN. Such adverse events, as occurred in Spanish elections, and damaging comments by Blix might cause many bricks to fall from the US-built coalition and even NATO umbrella.

But everything has its limit. Thus far and no further. You will have to call it a day at a certain point. Otherwise you will have to reap the whirlwind because you had already sown the seeds of wind. The saying that as you sow, so you reap, is not a myth. This is what had happened to America in the past because of political follies, committed by its over-adventurous leadership. So, what had happened in Somalia or Vietnam, and now happening in Iraq, might be repeated in Bush's new peace-adventures in Haiti. The alarm signals are already there. But will Bush look beyond the horizon of his presidential election campaign? Much depends to what extent he wants to stretch unilaterally the new-found empire of the 21st century. Will Kerry be successful in stopping the desperate man to save the world from another catastrophe?

AMM Shahabuddin is a retired UN official.