Ruminating on the dilemmas of the post-Cold War era, the editor of
Foreign
Affairs
, William Hyland, observed that “In Haiti it has not been so easy to differentiate among the democrats and the dictators”; the distinction between Aristide, on the one hand, and Duvalier and his latter-day clones, on the other, is too subtle even for the discriminating eye. It should not be thought that Hyland is lacking in human concerns. Our worthy commitment to “pragmatism,” he warned, should be tempered by the recognition that the US “owes a moral debt to the people of Israel”; accordingly, we must not allow policy to succumb to the “virulent antisemitism” that lies “beneath the veneer of support for Israel,” and is “beginning to break through in the debate over Israeli settlements.” In Haiti, in contrast, it is hard to detect anyone who might merit our support.
Commentators who found it possible to distinguish Aristide from Papa Doc and the ruling generals hoped that he would find some way to convince the White House of his good faith. A visit to Washington, Pamela Constable wrote, might “bolster his image as a reasonable leader committed to democracy and thus win him a strong public endorsement by the Bush administration”âwhich, surely, was holding back only because of its reservations on this score.
17
The OAS at once imposed an embargo, which the US joined, suspending trade on October 29. It was denounced by the ruling elite, and cheered by those who suffer most from its effects. In the slums, “news of the O.A.S. embargo was the only thing many people could find to cheer about as hundreds of people squeezed into overloaded buses to the countryside to flee the expected nightly violence by soldiers,” Howard French reported on October 9. Trade should be cut off, “anxious-looking residents” told reporters: “It doesn't matter how much misery we get. We'll die if necessary.” Months later, the mood remained the same. “Keep the Embargo” was the popular refrain among the poor: “Titid [Aristide] gave us dignity and hope... We are ready to suffer if it means Titid will come back.”
The embargo was loosely observed and ineffectual. Europe disregarded it, and members of “civil society” continued to fly to Miami and New York to satisfy their wants, or to trade with the Dominican Republic, a practice that provided alms for the Dominican military as well. Washington, which knows how to twist arms when some serious power or profit interest is at stake, could find no way, in this case, to call upon its allies to save Haitian democracy and stop the terror. One recalls the delicate sensibilities that prevented Bush from lending any support to Kuwaiti democrats after the Gulf war, so profound as to bar mention of the word “democracy” even in private communications to the Emir, because, officials explained, “You can't pick out one country to lean on over another.” Oil tankers, mainly from Europe, arrived faster “than they can unload,” a senior State Department official said in April 1992.
18
The Administration had not carried out such obvious measures as “freezing any U.S. assets of military officers who participated in the coup, and of their wealthy Haitian backers,” or even “temporarily lifting U.S. visas to these people, who travel frequently to the U.S.,”
Wall Street Journal
Washington correspondent Robert Greenberger reported in January 1992. But there is a reason: Aristide's defects. Liberal Democrat Robert Torricelli, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs, took time from his democracy-inspired efforts to tighten the embargo on Cuba to explain that “The democratic process doesn't always produce perfect results”; given “Mr. Aristide's record,” it isn't easy to gain support for stronger action against Haiti. Cuban terrorists pose no such problems. Though “overwhelmingly elected in Haiti's first free election” and “immensely popular with the poor,” Greenberger continues, “his fiery rhetoric sometimes incited class violence,” something that always deeply disturbs the
Journal
whenever their keen eyes discern traces of it in Haiti, Guatemala, Brazil, Indonesia, and elsewhere.
Torricelli called for an end to the Haitian embargo and supported the forcible repatriation of Haitian refugees from Guantanamo, illustrating still more clearly the passion for democracy and human rights that inspires his Cuban initiatives.
19
Many pondered the difficult choices faced by the Bush Administration. Time suggested that Bush might “ease the toll on Haitians by loosening the embargo on plants that assemble goods for U.S. companies, restoring as many as 40,000 jobs”âand, incidentally restoring profits to US investors, though the motive could only be to “ease the toll on Haitians” who are calling on the US to “keep the embargo,” as the same article reports.
We might take note of another standard item of PC usage. The word “jobs” has taken on an entirely new meaning: “profits.” Thus when George Bush takes off to Japan with a bevy of auto executives in tow, he waves the banner “jobs, jobs, jobs,” meaning “profits, profits, profits,” as a look at his social and economic policies demonstrates without equivocation. The press and airwaves resound with impassioned proposals to increase “jobs,” put forth by those who do what is in their power to send them to low-wage, high-repression regions, and to destroy what remains of meaningful work and workers' rights, all in the interest of some unmentionable seven-letter word.
Bush had wasted no time in following
Time
's advice. On February 4, the US lifted the embargo for the assembly plants that use cheap Haitian labor for goods for export to the US, most of them US-owned. A few months later, it was reported in the small print that while “the Administration is tightening rules on ships trading with Haiti” in accord with a May 17 OAS resolution, “it is apparently continuing to relax controls on goods going to Port-au-Prince from the United States,” allowing export of seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides from the US to Haiti. All for “jobs, jobs, jobs.”
The Administration had been “under heavy pressure from American businesses with interests in Haiti,” the
Washington Post
reported. The editors felt that the February 4 decision was wise: the embargo was a “fundamental political miscalculation” that “has caused great suffering, but not among the gunmen. Since it hasn't served its purpose, it is good that it is being relaxed”ânot tightened so as to serve the professed purpose, as those undergoing the great suffering plead. But for the US to repatriate refugees by force, the editors continue, is not in keeping with “its deep commitment to human rights”âwhich they see manifested wherever they turn.
20
Washington's unilateral relaxation of the OAS embargo was condemned by the Secretary General of the OAS, who had urged the State Department against this action. The forcible return of refugees was condemned by the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNCHR), which rarely confronts the US, knowing what that entails. In November 1991, UNCHR had called on the US to admit all refugees “for determination of their refugee status.” UNCHR pointed out that the UN Conventions on refugees proscribe their return “in any manner whatsoever” to territories where their lives or freedom would be endangered, with “no exception.” In May 1992, UNCHR again declared the forced return to be in violation of international agreements; the adjacent column in the
New York Times
quotes a conservative businessman with close ties to the US, who reports “a tremendous increase” in death squad-style killings: “People are being terrorized, and a bunch of people are being killed,” a “spate of violence” that coincided with Washington's decision to “directly repatriate” Haitians trying to reach the us.
21
The relaxation of the embargo “was greeted enthusiastically by assembly plant owners,” Lee Hockstader reported, but not by “many of the workers most directly affected by the sanctions,” who have “applauded them as the best way to promote the return of Aristide.” “All indications are that Aristide's massive popular support among the poor majority...remains intact... It is difficult to find anyone on the street, either in the capital or in the provinces, who does not support the priest-turned-politician.” His associates bitterly condemned the US move. A priest who is a close adviser to Aristide denounced Washington as having “totally” betrayed him “from the beginning.” US policy, he said, is “the most cynical thing you can ever find on earth... I don't think the US wants Aristide back,” because he “is not under their control. He is not their puppet.”
22
The assessment is plausible enough. That the US should have sought to establish “Duvalierism without Duvalier” could surprise only the willfully blind. For similar reasons, the Carter Administration sought desperately to institute “Somocismo without Somoza” after its efforts to salvage the tyrant collapsed, and its successor turned to more violent means to achieve the same end, with the general approval of enlightened opinion, tactical disagreement aside.
23
Superfluously perhaps, the priest's assessment is reinforced by a leaked secret document allegedly authored by a staff member of the US Embassy in Port-au-Prince at the behest of Prime Minister Honorat and other Haitian officials. Its authenticity was questioned by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), and denied by the State Department, but “later research has now validated [it] as being completely reliable,” COHA concluded. The document lays out a plan to allow a symbolic “restoration” of Aristide as a PR ploy, with his complete removal later on, when attention has declined.
By the time the document surfaced in January 1992, most of its applicable recommendations had been implemented, COHA noted. Others were to follow shortly. The embargo was rendered still more toothless on February 4. Three weeks later, Aristide accepted what COHA described as “a near-total defeat for Haitian democracy,” “a tragic sell-out by a desperate man” who was forced to agree to a “government of national unity” in which he would have only a symbolic role. Aristide “was effectively left with no option but to mutilate his own stature by signing away his powers in exchange for the still uncertain prospect of his restoration to what will now be a figurehead presidency,” COHA stated. The “national unity” government brought together two partners: a group headed by René Théodore, who represented 1.5 percent of the electorate, the Haitian military and elite, and the US government; and another led by Aristide, with 67 percent of the electorate but no other assets. Given the balance, the outcome is not obscure; and it is not surprising that Assistant Secretary of State Bernard Aronson declared his satisfaction with the agreement.
COHA raised an obvious question. Suppose that “after a hypothetical coup [in Nicaragua] in which [President Violeta Chamorro] was forced to flee for her life, she had been made to accept a major Sandinista figure as her prime minister who would exercise effective control of the country in order to be allowed back. Would Aronson be pleased with such a formula if the FSLN had overthrown and exiled her, violently had beaten and killed at least 2,000 of those who backed her, and had induced her to give up real powers in order to be restored?” Or to make the analogy more exact, if in addition the FSLN were a party with no popular base and a record of terror in the style of US clients? No one troubled to respond.
The military in Haiti celebrated the agreement, along with “civil society.” One Haitian Senator commented happily that “it would be surrealistic to believe or to print that [Aristide] can return by June 30, or any other specific date for that matter.” “The military thugs down there understand...that they have got a nod and a wink from the US government,” Congressman John Conyers said.
All that was left was to replace Théodore by the original US favorite Marc Bazin. That result was achieved in June 1992, when Bazin was inaugurated as Prime Minister. “The Vatican and the Haitian bishops' conference...walked into the National Palace and blessed Haiti's new army-backed government,” the
National Catholic Reporter
(
NCR
) commented, though the Vatican was alone in extending formal recognition. The Vatican had waited until Aristide was exiled to fill the position of papal nuncio. The formal recognition “shows they're really out to get Aristide and to align themselves with Haiti's traditional powersâthe army and the bourgeoisie,” a Western diplomat told
NCR
. Liberation and human rights were a grand cause in Eastern Europe; in the Caribbean and Central America, they must be crushed, in the service of traditional privilege, and “the preferential option for the poor” is definitely not welcome. Bazin delivered his inauguration address in French to a “stifling official gathering of men in dark suits and perfumed women in white dresses,” Howard French reported; Aristide had given his in Creole, the language of the population, receiving the presidential sash from a peasant woman.
24
Democracy marches on.
An adviser of the Bazin government, echoing Aristide, said that “all it would take is one phone call” from Washington to send the army leadership packing. “Virtually all observers agree” that little more would be necessary, Howard French writes. But “Washington's deep-seated ambivalence about a leftward-tilting nationalist whose style diplomats say has sometimes been disquietingly erratic” precludes any meaningful pressure. “Despite much blood on the army's hands, United States diplomats consider it a vital counterweight to Father Aristide, whose class-struggle rhetoric...threatened or antagonized traditional power centers at home and abroad.” The “counterweight” will therefore hold power with the “erratic” nationalist in exile, and class-struggle rhetoric and terror will continue with the tacit support of traditional power centers.
25