Was Aristide Pushed?

I honestly can't say yes or no to that question, but I have to disagree strongly with what David Adesnik wrote here: "I haven't read more than a half-dozen articles about the situation there, but it seems like the Bush administration is handling the situation fairly responsibly."

First, before everyone starts creating strawmen, I carry no brief for Aristide. I am, however, on the side of the rule of law and democracy and in a country which has now seen some 33 coups, I cannot help but think that orderly succession of government is far better than a populace taking to the streets and the bloodshed that has resulted.

Part of the reason why I disagree with David is detailed in this post. For the other significant reason, one should also consider this: Aristide did agree to the power-sharing compromise negotiated among US, French, Caricom and OAS diplomats. The opposition rejected this compromise a week ago and consistently stuck to the line that Aristide must go. Subsequently the Bush Administration and the French also called for Aristide's resignation. By adopting this line, the United States and the French rewarded the intransigent side and punished the side that at least publicly went on record as being willing to compromise.

This is an ugly precedent and I can't imagine why anyone in the future would trust this or any other American or to a lesser extent, French administration. Am I being unreasonable? Consider this: Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro are probably drooling over this and telling anyone sitting on the fence, "See what happened! Someone offered to accomodate the US and the US sided with the group that dug in its heels, turning its back on a democratically elected leader [no matter how flawed]. Why trust them?"

As Jeffrey Sachs hints in this editorial the notion that a leader's legitimacy is questioned when the opposition decides to boycott an election is treading on dangerous ground. Consider what it would mean if the argument had credence in this country with our notoriously low rates of voter turnout, to say nothing of registration.

As for whether or not Aristide was taken out of Haiti against his will, I certainly cannot say with any certainty. There is plenty of ill will from both sides towards each other so, although it wouldn't surprise me, absent any evidence other than Aristide's claims, I reserve judgment.

Comments

[Michael J. Totten]

Hmm. Interesting points.

I don't know that Castro is happy about it, though. I'm sure his worst nightmare is a revolution in Cuba with the backing of the US. Which is kinda sorta what happened in Haiti. There is no way the US under any administration will lift a finger to help Fidel if he gets into trouble.

[Randy Paul]

I don't know that Castro is happy about it, though. I'm sure his worst nightmare is a revolution in Cuba with the backing of the US. Which is kinda sorta what happened in Haiti. There is no way the US under any administration will lift a finger to help Fidel if he gets into trouble.

That's not the point I was making Michael, so perhaps my writing wasn't clear.

Castro would probably be using this as a cudgel against the US: "See! Aristide cooperated with the Yanquis and look what happened to him. They betrayed him!" I'm sure we can agree that Castro is thrilled every time he can make us look bad to his followers and other countries in Latin America. I don't think we help if we give him such opportunities.

[Antonio]

I don't think you understand the situation under which Aristide got reelected. It wasn't pretty, and one has to remember that Aristide's government has been murderous and liars to boot. It wasn't the intransigience of the opposition that doomed any accord. It is Aristide's past actions that doomed any form of agreement between the two sides. As well, to think he was democratically elected is to think anyone who makes an election is democratically elected. Is Cuba a democracy then? It does hold elections. Are Iran, China, Russia or any other dictatorship democracies since they have elections? Democracies are more than just voting, and Aristide's Haiti was not a democracy nor a legitimate government.

[Randy Paul]

I do understand the situation, but if Aristide agreed to accept the power-sharing arrangement and the opposition rejected it, how can you possibly blame Aristide for that failing? The opposition refused to compromise.

As for murderous thugs, I wish the non-violent component of the opposition luck in dealing with likes of Guy Phillipe and Jodel Chamberlain. Phillipe has already proclaimed himself head of the "New Haitian Army." Under what authority has he done so? Solely on the authority of his group having weapons. How is Haiti better for that?

As for elections determining whether or not a country is a democracy, the examples you bring up are largely irrelevant. There is no opposition in Cuba and China, but there was in Haiti. Iran has an opposition, but ultimate authority rests with the mullahs. Russia is a very weak democracy.

I was always taught that one should vote, and that if you don't vote, don't complain. If the opposition in Haiti chose to boycott elections to throw Aristide's legitimacy into question, shame on them. They should have voted.

[J.Scott Barnard]

Aristide could have stayed, but chose to go. And the country will be better for it.

[Randy Paul]

Actually, unless you were in the room, none of us know what happened. In any event, as for Haiti being better, perhaps, but I doubt if it will with a reconstituted army and the FRAPH forces coming back.

Only time will tell and it is much too early to be optimistic.

[maja]

No, J. Scott, I think Randy's right: Aristide could only have stayed if the US had explicitly backed the compromise and made it clear that it looked with disfavor on the rebels for their intransigence. When the Bush Administration refused to do that and instead insisted that Aristide step down, they left him hanging with no option but to leave. The Bush Admin sided with Phillippe and Chamberlain, it's as simple as that.

[buermann]

"I don't think you understand the situation under which Aristide got reelected."

The WashPo on 2000 presidential elections:

Voting took place mostly without incident, and few irregularities were reported after a deadly weeklong bombing campaign, which each side has blamed on the other. One homemade bomb exploded in the impoverished neighborhood of Carrefour, and there were reports that a church in the countryside that was serving as a polling station was burned.

Ah, Churches and impoverished districts are where the wealthy opposition hides out to avoid the campaign of violence waged by the tyrant Aristide to undermine his support from the poorer 80% of the population. Or something.

[Michael J. Totten]

Randy,

Got your point now. Thanks for the clarification.

perhaps my writing wasn't clear.

Eh, I don't know. Makes sense now that I re-read it.

[J.Scott Barnard]

Bush sided with the Haitian people.

[Randy Paul]

Oh really? Why then has Gerard Phillipe, who promised to disarm upon Aristide's ouster, now has declared himself by fiat, the head of the Haitian Army? Why is Jodel Chamblain a convicted murderer and FRAPH figure aalking the streets of Haiti with weapons? This is siding with the Haitian people? What next do you recommend? Restoration of the TonTon Macoutes?

[J.Scott Barnard]

Randy, Randy... Phillipe is a monstrous figure. But do you know about the thugs acting for years on behalf of Aristide? I would hope that Boniface Alexandre and whatever other interim government emerges arrests Phillipe. I won't even dignify your Tonton Macoutes comment except to say, please...spare me.

Nice blog ya got here by the way. --scott

[Randy Paul]

Scott,

You're right I was over the top with the TonTon Macoute comment and I apologize.

But let's not gloss over a major part of the problem here. Alexandre is provisional president, but with no real police force and Phillipe placing himself in power as army head how will he be arrested? I honestly don't see how the ex-FRAPHists and the likes of Phillipe will face justice. After the foreign forces leave, they may very well be the only ones with guns.

Thanks for the kind words on the blog.

[J.Scott Barnard]

"..gloss over a major part of the problem here..."

How do you say gloss in Creole? "lustre"? Anyway, I think it's impossible to gloss over this matter. It was a mess before, during and after Aristide.

In fact, Haiti is a failed state.

And Guy Phillipe and co. strolling through the streets of Cap Haiten and Port-au-Prince...that's just a symptom of a much larger, deeply-rooted problem. I hope the international force can keep the Guy Phillipes of the island from their old ways.

And I wouldn't mind something as radical as a U.N. trusteeship, administered by France and the U.S. for twenty years to establish the democratic institutions so lacking. But I doubt anyone has the will. It's only when they're hacking limbs or climbing into boats that our government becomes concerned with the plight of haitians. --scott

[Randy Paul]

Well Scott, I have to say I agree with pretty much everything in that last post. The trusteeship is probably the only way to solve these problems and I think you're exactly right that a lot of time must be expended to get the democratic institutions rooted into Haiti.

[akaky]

if i remember right, didnt aristide lose power before and was restored by the us? how many times does this guy have to screw up before we tell him that we're not restoring him again?