View from Europe - Haiti "realpolitik"

Some years ago when I first came to know the Dominican Republic, I attended a dinner at a smart out-of-town venue. Gathered around me were some of the most successful individuals in the nation drawn from politics, business and government.

Over our meal we discussed a number of issues including the domestic economy and relations with the rest of the Caribbean. I raised the issue of Haiti, the Dominican Republic’s neighbour on the island of Hispaniola, separated largely by a range of high mountains.

What emerged from the conversation that followed surprised me. Put simply there was in some quarters in the Dominican Republic an almost innate fear that the problems of Haiti would spill over into the Dominican Republic and the Spanish speaking half of the island would be swamped by huge numbers of Haitian economic refugees. The reasons for this fear, it seemed, were various They stemmed from racism through cultural disjunction to economic concern and a hard to convey sense that somehow Haiti was the manifestation of Joseph Conrad’s heart of darkness. It seemed that in the minds of many of those present, perception and fear had come to matter more than fact or morality.

It was for me an object lesson. It pointed to the extraordinary difficulties that can arise when trying to resolve problems that cross the fault lines of history and culture.

It is these same fault lines - intermingled with the requirement to assert political power – that enabled the US and France to either remove or actively encourage the resignation of the Haitian President, Jean Bertrand Aristide.

Events surrounding the sudden departure of the Haitian President from Port au Prince have thrown into sharp public relief the differences that now exist between the principled approach of a relatively powerless few in the Anglophone Caribbean and the realpolitic of larger nations prepared to project their power to meet wider geo-political objectives.

The consequence has been a public clash of culture and perception. Jamaica’s Prime Minister is clear: “What has happened represents a very dangerous precedent not only for Haiti but for all democratically elected leaders and governments throughout the world. The unconstitutional removal of any leader cannot be condoned”. The French Foreign Affairs Minister Dominique de Villepin is also direct, telling French Deputies in the French National Assembly that, faced with chaos, France mobilised to support a return to democracy and peace in Haiti while respecting the law. “Chaos…. preceded the departure of President Aristide, a departure which was merely the consequence of the deadlocked situation in which Haiti found itself”.

The manner of the departure of Mr Aristide raises many difficult questions about the role and objectives of France and the willingness of the United Nations Security Council to rapidly acquiesce to US and French requests. It also suggests a relationship between the international response to events in Haiti and the sense that after the Iraq war there was a need to try to rebalance relationships with the US.

Although much of the public focus remains on the US approach to events in Haiti, what has emerged in the past week is the central role played by France in favour of regime change and its decision to abruptly abandon the power-sharing line taken by the Caribbean and the Organisation of American States.

The French media believe that what happened in Haiti was of strategic importance to France. Editorials in influential French dailies suggest events in Haiti offered Paris the opportunity to play a leadership role within the US ‘neighbourhood’ at a time when Washington’s ability to act was limited for domestic political reasons. They suggest that central to French thinking was finding a solution that created a basis for a new US/French alliance, would enhance Paris’ difficult relationship with Washington and reassert the role of the UN.

Commenting this latter issue following the recent Heads of Government meeting in Belize, Jamaica’s Prime Minister, PJ Patterson, noted that the Caribbean had been astonished at the speed with which the United Nations Security Council had been able to reach an agreement to send peacekeeping troops into Haiti following the departure of Mr Aristide. He noted that three days earlier the Caribbean had urged the UN body to help diffuse the situation and warned that any destabilisation of Haiti would have an effect on the neighbouring Caribbean states. More damningly, the Jamaican Prime Minister said: “We cannot fail to observe that what was impossible on Thursday could be accomplished in an emergency meeting on Sunday… without any involvement or consultation with any Caricom country as to the departure and the resolution which was eventually passed.”

In the world at large the debate about the legal principle involved in removing an elected head of Government is probably lost. The argument that has prevailed is that a lawless and chaotic Haiti had the potential for a humanitarian disaster or a refugee crisis and there was a need to act.

Despite this, the circumstances of Mr Aristide's departure remain disturbing. The former President said he was the victim of a coup d'etat and was forced to leave. Officials suggest Mr Aristide only knew of his destination 45 minutes before the plane carrying him touched down and that he and those with him had been ‘guarded’ by US marines. However, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has strenuously denied the allegation, saying said Mr Aristide had gone into exile "willingly, and that's the truth".

It is a story about which we have not heard the last.

David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be contacted at david.jessop [at] caribbean-council.org March 5th, 2004

http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_business?id=16542698