Ian Boyne THE LESS the United States officials say about Haiti the better, lest they bring further embarrassment to their administration in the eyes of thinking people.
National Security Advisor Condo-leezza Rice said Jamaica's decision to host former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is 'a bad idea', and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he wished not to see Aristide back in the Western Hemisphere to avoid complicating the situation in Haiti. Other Bush administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, have frowned on Jamaica's decision to have Aristide here even temporarily.
Yet, it was this same Colin Powell who called the Jamaican Foreign Minister early on the morning when Aristide had been escorted out of Haiti to ask whether Jamaica would be prepared to take Aristide. The same man who on February 19 vowed that "thugs or even an Opposition" could not be allowed to "simply rise up and say, 'we want you to leave'," in reference to then President Aristide; yet who a few days later said that Aristide "allowed thugs to take over", and was "governing very poorly" and undemocratically.
Here is this same Secretary of State of the most powerful nation in the world a hydra-power opposing a move which he himself a few days before recommended. If Aristide would not have been a threat to the fragile Haitian democracy on the morning of February 29, why is he a threat in mid-March? The Ides of March?
If anyone naively says that Aristide's defiant statements made in the Central African Republic show that he would be a greater threat a relatively few miles away from Haiti, then U.S. intelligence and assessment has failed pathetically again.
For anyone who knows the man Aristide should have known that he would not go quietly off into the African sunset, gratefully thanking the U.S. for saving his life. Aristide is nothing, if not boundlessly self-confident, even Messia-nic, and stubborn. Any good CIA personality profile should have revealed that before February 29. The U.S., therefore, would be admitting now that it made a colossal error to have even entertained the thought, let alone to express it, to the Jamaican Foreign Minister that Aristide be given asylum here.
Many of the people who are opposed to Aristide's visit to Jamaica, and who are seemingly pro-American, inflict grave harm on America's image implicitly. I would venture that a large proportion of the Jamaican people are strongly and resolutely opposed to the presence of Aristide among us.
This is not a popular decision of P. J. Patterson, our black majority status and the "glory of the Haitian Revolution", notwithstanding. Do you know why many Jamaicans are bitterly opposed to the presence of the Aristides?
Because Jean Bertrand Aristide has offended the Americans, has made serious charges against them and Jamaicans fear that the Americans might maliciously cut off aid or punish us economically, however subtly.
If Aristide had come here with the blessings of the economically powerful Americans, Jamaicans would embrace him warmly and gladly, no matter how repressive a leader he was to black people in Haiti. Our people are vulgar pragmatists and materialists and are largely devoid of principle. Our addiction to materialism which is at the heart of our corruption, political tribalism, drug problems and national decay makes us morally vulnerable.
The United States should not find it flattering that the man in the street when he talks about why Aristide should not come here does not speak primarily about Aristide's alleged aversion to democratic rule, constitutionalism and the rule of law, but rather of his offence to the United States. In other words, the U.S.'s "friends" here see the United States as mean-spirited, vindictive and abusive of its power position.
Former U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, after whom has developed a great American tradition of liberal internationalism, wanted America to be recognised for the value of democracy, freedom, justice, respect for human rights, and the values of western civilization. Wilson and a long line of distinguished American statesmen and thinkers wanted America to be loved, admired and emulated, rather than feared because of its economic and military strength.
The battle between principle and expediency comes up in so many areas, no less in foreign policy. Jamaica, under P.J. Patterson, has chosen the high moral ground and was willing to risk the displeasure of the world's only superpower to stand up for something which it believed in. There are not a great deal of statesmen still holding to the old-fashioned principle of sticking with the courage of convictions and conscience.
Only a people attuned to values, principles, and morality rather than to expediency, Anancyism, and Machiavellianism can take a firm position with their Government when the time comes for a line to be drawn in the sand. If money and economic advancement define our national vision, then the majority of Jamaicans are right:
Let us not take the chance of offending the Americans and causing them to block funds and assistance to us, for some foolish notion of standing up for good neigbourliness. Morality can't eat or go to the supermarket or give us multilateral assistance, the crude pragmatists say. I keep on writing that we fail to see the myriad implications which flow from our hedonistic, nihilistic and post-modernist philosophical views.
HARD VS SMART POWER
There is a major debate going on right now in U.S. foreign policy circles concerning the issues of hard versus soft or smart power (See Walter Russell Mead's essay in the March/April issue of Foreign Policy); unilateralism versus multilateralism; and unipolarity versus liberal internationalism.
We must never make the grave mistake and libel the American people by ascribing to "Americans" as a whole the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Bush administration. The Bush administration does not represent all of America. Indeed, I say boldly that it does not represent the best thinking in America.
The Bush administration is being challenged with the most awesome intellectual force right on its own territory, and by some of its finest sons and daughters, especially those in international politics, development studies and political economics. One of the most hailed books on foreign policy to have emerged in the last decade is Harvard's Joseph Nye's The Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go it Alone. Soft power is defined by Nye as the values, norms and ideas of a country or civilisation rather than raw military power, political muscle, diplomatic strength or economic force. Nye says, "Soft power is the ability to entice and attract".
IDEALS OF DEMOCRACY
American officials in Jamaica would have reason to feel proud that Jamaicans are so attached to the ideals of democracy, free speech and the rule of law that they oppose Aristide's visit on those idealistic grounds, rather than out of fear that a perceived spiteful United States might punish the Patterson administration by cutting aid because of an honest disagreement.
Every member of the Bush administration should read Robert Kagan's essay 'America's Crisis of Legi-timacy' in the March/April 2004 issue of the prestigious journal, Foreign Affairs. Kagan, now the most quoted scholar on U.S.-Europe relations and the author of the oft-quoted book 'Of Paradise and Power' says America is suffering a crisis of legitimacy in the post Cold-War age; a crisis deepened by the unilateralism and arrogance of the Bush administration. (Incidentally, Kagan is an American, not an "anti-American").
"The modern liberal mind is offended by the notion that a single world power may be unfettered except by its own sense of restraint. No matter how diplomatically adept a U.S. President might be, the spirit of liberal democracy recoils at the idea of hegemonic dominance, even when it is exercised benignly", says Kagan in his well-argued piece. Kagan makes it clear that the US can only have moral legitimacy because of a set of values and ideals shared with the international community.
CARICOM ON HAITI
CARICOM should have no fear about the position it has taken on Haiti. It is eminently defensible and intellectually unchallengeable. For every argument that is given to show the weaknesses of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, CARICOM must show that its Plan had provisions to deal with all those concerns. Every single one of them. The only Opposition issue CARICOM did not bow to was the one which called for Aristide's removal -and CARICOM was backed by the U.S., France and the international community on this one.
Remember what Colin Powell said February 19 and never forget it: "Since he (Aristide) is the elected leader we should not be putting forward a plan that would require him to step down. Right now President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti and that what we are standing behind". An unforgettable quote. CARICOM recognised the serious weaknesses of Aristide's rule and implicitly acknowledged his human rights violations. The Plan was to deal with those deficiencies and to provide the democratic means of testing whether the Haitian people wanted him or not. The Plan was frustrated by lack of action by not just the U.S. but the international community.
Now we have an impetuous, irascible and arrogant Haitian Prime Minister, thoroughly unschooled in statecraft, foolishly cutting off relations with CARICOM. If he is an indication of the kind of persons chosen by the so-called Group of Eminent Persons (or the awkwardly termed and redundant "Council of Wise Sages") then God help Haiti!
The Secretary-General of the United Nations issued a statement on Haiti last week noting wisely that, "Haiti must not again be isolated in its own neighborhood as it was in the past. We in the United Nations must work closely with our colleagues in CARICOM. They have played a leading role in the current crisis. And they will have to remain engaged in Haiti as regional partners long after the blue helmets have left".
The United States, unlike the uncouth Latortue, knows that it needs CARICOM. Those unsophisticated in international politics will try to underplay CARICOM's role or believe it has no clout. The U.S. knows better. There will be no great fallout between the U.S. and Jamaica over Haiti.
PJ Paterson is not an ideologue and, importantly, he has the emotional self-control, restraint and statesmanship which will make him ignore the sleights and offenses for the larger good. PJ Patterson's legendary "cool head" is of enormous value to the CARICOM community. My prediction is that much to the consternation and condemnation of people like John Maxwell and other Leftists, Patterson, CARICOM and the U.S. will be working together to provide a framework for solving Haiti's problems.
The U.S. is still hoping that its realpolitix approach will work; that the noise will soon be over, Aristide safely out of the way, the Opposition happy, the Guy Philippe thugs and criminals off the streets, the Lavalas strong-arm people disarmed and CARICOM will be back fully on board. All's well that's ends well, they'll say: Aristide is gone! Only one thing wrong with the picture: if ways are not found to involve Aristide's supporters and some of his former leaders; if a genuine government of national unity is not formed then the "U.S. Haiti problem" will remain and the US assistance would be in vain.
Latortue needs some lessons in diplomacy. "Getting things right this time means doing things differently", Kofi Anan warned last week. Suppressing the free speech of Aristide's supporters, abusing their human rights and alienating them will not bring peace and democracy to Haiti. You don't have to be very bright to see that.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com
