[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 20 (Tuesday, February 24, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1510-S1514]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CRISIS IN HAITI
Mr. GRAHAM of Florida. Mr. President, I wish to share a few
observations and thoughts about the current circumstances, the tragic
circumstances in our near neighboring country of Haiti.
Haiti was once a beautiful country. It was one of the jewels of the
Caribbean. Its people, who secured their freedom from France in 1804,
have suffered a long history of despair, poverty, and misrule. This
country has now fallen into chaos.
Regrettably, Haiti is one of the poorest nations on Earth. It is
ranked 172 out of 208 countries in per capita gross national income. It
is the only country in the Western Hemisphere to be labeled a least-
developed nation.
Haitians are also among the most malnourished people in the Western
Hemisphere. The World Health Organization reports that the average
daily caloric intake for Haitians is the lowest in the hemisphere and
on a par with the poorest nations in Africa.
Violence is on the rise. At least 70 people have been killed in the
recent uprising, and the number of dead and wounded grows daily.
Indeed, the country of Haiti now faces twin crises. The first is the
possible collapse, if not the violent overthrow, of a democratically
elected government, with no agreed-upon follow-on governmental
structure. An opposition leader predicted on Sunday that the capital,
Port-au-Prince, would fall to armed rebels in 2 weeks.
Second is the humanitarian catastrophe, primarily caused by the
violence and the disruption that the violence has created.
The current humanitarian crisis is forcing poor Haitians to literally
eat the seeds they have saved for spring planting. With nothing
planted, there will be no harvest. These desperate food shortages will
strike at the same time the weather improves, and a massive exodus by
sea will be feasible and more likely.
The question before the United States and the world is, What should
be our priorities? Tragically, it appears that our administration has
taken a firm stance on the side of indifference. This may prove to be
the longest running and biggest crisis of all for Haiti. The diplomatic
effort this past weekend, unfortunately, has accomplished nothing to
date.
Cap Hatien, the second largest city in Haiti, fell to the rebels the
day after our Assistant Secretary of State left the country. We sent 50
marines to Port-au-Prince on Monday to protect our embassy. From what I
can tell, there is no administration plan B.
Furthermore, I have detected very little concern for the potential
impact of this crisis on the United States itself, with my State of
Florida being on the front lines.
As we have seen repeatedly over the past two decades, one of the
impacts of this catastrophe will almost certainly be a dramatic
increase in the number of refugees risking their lives in leaky and
unsafe boats to try to escape the violence.
Yet there has been little or no contact between Federal agencies and
the State and local authorities, our first responders, to prepare for
the potential influx of refugees. The principal agencies of the Federal
Government have limited capacities to handle yet another immigration
crisis. I am told the Department of Homeland Security, which includes
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has the capability
to handle only 150 additional
[[Page S1511]]
refugees once they reach our shores. This is in large part because of,
in my judgment, the inappropriate use of what is supposed to be a
temporary holding facility as, in fact, the permanent prison for long-
term detainees. But that is another story.
The Defense Department is understandably hesitant to mix Haitian
refugees with the detainees from the war on terror at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
The Bush administration's feeling--which appears to be shared by
others in the international community--is that the problem in Haiti is
a political crisis, and that until these paltry and late-starting
diplomatic efforts run their course, there is no basis for dealing with
the humanitarian crisis.
When asked at a briefing yesterday what the administration is
planning to do to halt the violence, Scott McClellan, the White House
spokesman, responded:
We remain actively engaged in these diplomatic efforts to
bring about a peaceful, political solution to the situation
in Haiti.
That is simply and obviously not enough. Our first priority must be
the humanitarian crisis and finding a way to halt the violence which
has fueled it.
A political solution should, of course, be actively pursued, but not
at the cost of abandoning efforts to address the humanitarian crisis
and loss of lives which are occurring daily in Haiti.
There was already a humanitarian crisis as seen by the level of
malnutrition. It is now crashing to new levels with the killings and
the threats of violence which have forced international aid
organizations to reduce support to the poor and impoverished of Haiti.
If we wait for a political settlement, we will be tolerating more
scores of people being killed and more deaths due to the meager food
supply and lack of adequate health services. Sadly, most of those who
are feeling this humanitarian crisis, who are dying today, are innocent
women and children.
If we continue to wait for a political solution, the country will be
controlled by armed gangs, drug dealers, and thugs. These conditions
represent a clear threat to the national security of the United States
of America and to the security of friendly allies even closer to Haiti
than we are.
It is estimated, for example, that approximately 30 percent of the
population of the Bahamas represents Haitian refugees. Allowing the
crisis in Haiti to continue could destabilize the Bahamas and its other
neighbors, such as the Dominican Republic.
What do we need to do to avoid a humanitarian tragedy? What do we
need to do to make that priority No. 1? First, we need to see a sense
of urgency on the part of the United States, and that sense of urgency
needs to start at the White House.
Just a few days ago, I met with the top administration official who
effectively said that it was the policy of the administration to stand
on the sidelines and hope that someone else--France, Canada, the
Organization of Caribbean Nations, CARICOM, or the Organization of
American States--would take the lead in settling the problem.
This is unacceptable as American foreign policy. There is no other
alternative but the use of U.S. influence. We must become engaged at a
serious and sustained level or, failing to do so, be prepared to pay
the cost of chaos 700 miles off our coast and on the seas which
separate us from Haiti.
Second, the next step should be a police presence of sufficient scale
that it can quell the violence. This can and should be done under the
auspices of the Organization of American States, but the United States
must be a leader and full participant.
Third, to assure the success of that police presence, the U.S.
military should serve as a visible backup force. Recently, this visible
backup force worked off the coast of Liberia when we sent a marine
amphibious group aboard Navy ships to stand by off the coast while we
put ashore a marine security team to protect our embassy. If we can
provide the powerful influence of U.S. military troops 3,000 miles
away, certainly we can do so in our own neighborhood.
Next, we must enhance our humanitarian presence starting with
emergency deliveries of additional foodstuffs and medical supplies, and
we must assure that delivery of those supplies is available throughout
the countryside.
Next, given the indifference of the State Department and the National
Security Council, the President should seriously consider the
appointment of a high-level delegation to Haiti, such as that
represented by President Carter, Senator Nunn, and General Powell in
1994, to make certain that our expectations, as well as our level of
commitment, is clear.
Next, we must enhance our capacity to understand what is happening
inside Haiti. In a manner which is eerily similar to the situation in
the late 1980s and the early 1990s, our capacity to gather information
inside Haiti is woefully inadequate to the scale and the significance
of the crisis.
Among other problems, all diplomatic personnel are confined to the
capital Port-au-Prince. As one senior administration official described
it:
Our intelligence is very thin.
This limited understanding, without question, has contributed to our
allowing the situation to reach near anarchy without the United States
assertively engaging itself. These circumstances in Haiti are part of a
disturbing pattern of our current international relations. One, by its
unwillingness to engage in a leadership role in the world, with the
dramatic exception of Iraq, this administration is ceding its
sovereignty to other nations. We have ceded to China the leadership for
negotiations with North Korea over its nuclear capability. We have
ceded to the French, the Canadians, the OAS, and the Caribbean
leadership our sovereignty in dealing with the crisis in Haiti.
That loss of sovereignty comes at a heavy price in our ability to
influence other nations and international organizations from a position
of strength. How can we challenge China on its trade practices when we
are relying on China to handle the most sensitive negotiations with
North Korea?
Just a year ago, our fragile relations with France were center stage.
How can we now rely on France and regional organizations alone to
defend our national interests in the Caribbean? The current
administration appears indifferent, at best, to our neighbors in the
hemisphere, specifically those in the Caribbean and Latin America. This
is surprising and distressing because candidate George W. Bush stated
that as President George W. Bush he would pursue a policy of much
greater U.S. involvement in Latin America.
On August 25, 2000, speaking at Florida International University in
Miami, FL, candidate George W. Bush declared:
This can be the century of the Americas. . . . Should I
become president, I will look South not as an afterthought,
but as a fundamental commitment to my presidency. . . . Those
who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America
itself.
After crises in Argentina, in Bolivia, in Venezuela, and now this
test in Haiti, the Bush administration has yet another credibility
crisis and yet another failure of intelligence. While not on the scale
of missed opportunities to disrupt the plots of September 11 or the
misinformation which led us to war in Iraq, again we have a failure of
intelligence to inform national leadership as to the true state of an
international situation or of national leadership to effectively
utilize the intelligence which was provided.
Had we secured and utilized accurate and timely information on Haiti,
possibly our response would not have been as impotent and retarded as
it now is.
Finally, this is the latest example of the need for a United States
or international capacity to respond effectively in nation sustaining,
even nation building, after our military has successfully secured the
territory.
In 1994, the United States effectively invaded Haiti in order to
remove a military dictatorship and replace its democratically elected
president. We did that with the kind of surgical precision that has
come to characterize our military efforts. We then proceeded to spend
almost $3 billion attempting to sustain and build the nation of Haiti.
I suggest that today, 10 years later, Haiti is in worse condition than
it was when we invaded in 1994. The very things that make our military
so effective; recruitment, training, support, the exercises of actions,
have allowed us to have such a string of successes in the military
phase of dealing
[[Page S1512]]
with a hostile or chaotic foreign situation. Unfortunately, none of
those characteristics is true of the efforts that are made after the
war concludes. We need to take the leadership, either unilaterally or,
I believe, preferably with other international allies, to develop a
capability which has the same characteristics of recruitment, training,
support. Having exercised, before actual use, the security, the
development of democratic institutions, the restoration of a
governmental structure, the development of infrastructure necessary to
support the population and a market economy, which can be available
after the bullets stop flying, assures our future investments in nation
sustaining and nation building are not as ineffective as they have been
in the last decade.
The failure to have such a capacity after the 1994 invasion is a
primary reason why today we stand on the edge of the volcano of chaos
in Haiti yet again, 10 short years later. Let us today, by our inaction
and indifference, not provide as a heritage to future generations in
America and to future generations in countries like Haiti, Iraq, and
Somalia the heritage of a failed effort because we were not able to
complete the mission that began so brilliantly with military actions to
the conclusion of a stable, democratic, functioning country that gave
to their people some reasonable prospect of prosperity and personal
peace.
I ask that immediately after my remarks editorials from the Miami
Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, the Palm Beach Post, the Washington
Post, and the New York Times be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Miami Herald, Feb. 19, 2004]
Set the Right Priorities in Haiti; Our Opinion: It's Time for
Washington to Take a More Active Role
Now that Haiti is in flames again, an epidemic of hand-
wringing is spreading from Washington to the United Nations
to the Elysee Palace in Paris.
Where was everybody when the first puffs of smoke appeared
years ago? When President Jean-Bertrand Aristide started
relying on thugs to maintain order? When brave journalists
were murdered for writing and broadcasting the truth? When
peaceful protests were repressed by violent means? Today, in
the belated haste to do something--anything--there is a
danger of failing to adopt the right set of priorities.
Prevent a disaster
The first goal should be to prevent a full-scale
humanitarian crisis, and it is already late in the day. It
shouldn't take an armed invasion of Haiti to put an end to
the hooliganism that has made food, gasoline and medicine
scarce. But if strong diplomatic pressure on all sides can't
do the job, a small military force may have to be deployed
before conditions worsen.
Restoring civil order on the streets is the next priority.
Here the challenge is both military and, ultimately,
political. Before any outside attempt to launch a police
action is made, the nonviolent opposition should be given a
chance to show that it is capable of doing something besides
voicing demands that Mr. Aristide must go. An effort by Mr.
Aristide's critics to curtail the growing insurrection would
demonstrate that the opposition is a legitimate political
force with clout. The opposition should be mature enough to
try to reach at least a temporary accommodation with Mr.
Aristide that could lay the groundwork for a political
settlement.
Although the president has failed to live up to previous
promises to govern in a more democratic manner, the crisis
demands a suspension of political demands from his opponents
because violence threatens the survival of all political
factions in the country.
Mr. Aristide carries the main burden of political
responsibility. A band of thugs must not be allowed to depose
an elected president, but Mr. Aristide has to do more than
simply insist on remaining in power. Reaching out to the
opposition to form a bulwark against the forces of violence
is the best way to show that he has Haiti's best interests at
heart.
democracy takes time
The fundamental problem is that Haiti is a failed state,
and will remain one until democracy takes root--the ultimate
goal. CARICOM and the OAS can help Haiti get there, but only
the United States has the authority, or the muscle, to lead
this effort. It is time for the Bush administration to take a
more active role in stabilizing the situation. As Sen. Bob
Graham has pointed out, if we can send a military force to
Liberia to protect our interests, we can do the same in
Haiti, the sooner the better.
____
[From the St. Petersburg Times, Feb. 21, 2004]
Crisis in Haiti
With violence and chaos spreading in Haiti, the world
community cannot afford to just stand by and do nothing. With
the police hiding in their barracks, armed thugs patrolling
the street and the elected president appealing for
international protection, Haiti is on the verge of another
major humanitarian and political crisis. It's understandable
that the Bush administration has ``no enthusiasm,'' as
Secretary of State Colin Powell put it, to intervene
militarily. However, there is an urgent need for an
international peacekeeping effort. If ever there was a
situation calling out for United Nations peacekeepers, Haiti
is it.
The two-week-old uprising has killed at least 60 people.
The U.S. government Thursday urged Americans to leave, and
the Peace Corps began withdrawing its staff. Washington also
dispatched a military team to assess security at the U.S.
Embassy. As the nation that stood behind the president, Jean-
Bertrand Aristide, the United States has a special obligation
to help. Since American military forces restored Aristide to
power in 1994, after his ouster in a coup, Aristide has
cruelly turned his back on his people and promises. He has
not alleviated the human misery in Haiti or reached out to
his political opponents. Armed vigilantes roaming the streets
terrorize in his name. Aristide has become a polarizing force
and a discredited figure internationally. The rebels,
however, are not any better. Many leaders are one-time death
squad commanders, who have no political legitimacy or idea
how to govern.
The United Nations, working with Caribbean leaders and
France and Canada, should dispatch a peacekeeping force as
soon as possible to try to end the bloodshed. Beyond the need
to protect innocent lives and extend a humanitarian hand, the
United Nations should underscore that change in Haiti must
come through the democratic process. Aristide should be held
to the commitments he made to his people. He needs to disarm
and disband the vigilante groups, disassociate himself from
their operations and bring political opponents into the
governing process. The world community has an interest in
protecting Aristide, but it stems from his standing as a
democratically elected president and because the alternative
is even worse. Far from endorsing his presidency,
international intervention would be a slap at the character
of a man who sold himself to the world as a champion of
democratic principles and then betrayed those very
principles.
Washington has a major role to play in defusing this
crisis--and a big stake in the outcome. This country, after
all, restored Aristide to power, and it will become the
destination of any mass exodus of Haitian refugees. On
Friday, diplomats from the United States, Europe and the
Caribbean were preparing to present Aristide and opposition
groups a plan for political reform and a return to the rule
of law. It's largely the same plan that was presented to the
warring parties weeks ago. Secretary of State Powell said the
plan does not call for Aristide's resignation but added that
the United States would not object if he decided to step down
before his term ends as part of a negotiated political
solution.
Even if the violence can be quelled in the coming days, a
humanitarian crisis is already upon one of the poorest
countries in the world. The world community should quickly
unite behind an effort that offers humanitarian aid and
protects both human rights and Haiti's sovereignty.
____
[From the Palm Beach Post, Feb. 21, 2004]
On Haiti, U.S. Can't Wait
As President Bush tries to install democracy thousands of
miles away in Iraq, he no longer can remain disengaged from
the moral and practical need for democracy hundreds of miles
away in Haiti.
Late this week, the State Department acknowledged that
Americans in Haiti should leave the ``steady deterioration of
the security situation'' between an increasingly defiant
President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the loosely organized
movement to oust him. But as the administration finally has
become more active in trying to broker a political
settlement, it has become increasingly unrealistic to think
that a settlement will not require military action. Ideally,
that would take place in concert with regional allies,
stabilizing Haiti and bolstering the country for the long
haul beyond the end of Mr. Aristide's term in 2006.
Each hour's delay only makes the problem more difficult, as
the loyal opposition that Mr. Aristide calls a band of
terrorists is being subordinated by gangsters returning from
exile. Haiti's outnumbered and outgunned police force of
fewer than 4,000 is retreating from its posts. If certain
rebels take control, they will not easily give it up.
Gov. Bush was brief by the Coast Guard again this week.
``But we have the power to some degree to stop this from
hitting our shores,'' said U.S. Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Plam
Beach. ``We can't take the standoff position.'' Colombia, he
said, is a case where the U.S. has ``used the military to try
to rebuild the economy and stem the drug flow. Liberia also
is an example that's on point. (Former President) Charles
Taylor wasn't going anywhere until the U.S. said we're
backing the nations that are liberating Liberia.''
In Haiti, Rep. Foley said, Jamaica, the Dominican Republic
and the Bahamas ``need to be leading the dialogue rather than
have the perception of imperial saber-rattling. We
[[Page S1513]]
have to have the sense that we're all in this together, With
America saying, `We're behind you.' '' But it is important,
as he said, ``to make sure the Haitian people understand, as
well as Aristide, that we are not there to prop him up.''
That's the message the international delegation led by
Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega should carry to
Haiti today. There's a lot at stake for Florida and the
United States, which doesn't need a failed state close to
home. It is too late just to assume that things will get
better.
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 9, 2004]
No Help for Haiti
Once again a poor nation with strong ties to the United
States is in desperate trouble--and once again, the response
of the Bush administration is to backpedal away, forswear all
responsibility and leave any rescue to others. Last summer
President Bush refused to commit even a few hundred U.S.
troops on the ground to help end a bloody crisis in Liberia.
Now he and his administration stand by as Haiti, a country of
7.5 million just 600 miles from Florida, plunges into
anarchy.
Armed gangs are spreading through cities across the country
in a violent rebellion against President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, whose own police force is so weak that a group of
about 40 thugs was able to take over a town of 87,000 people
on Tuesday. France and the United Nations have begun
exploring the possible deployment of police or peacekeepers--
which is probably the only way to stop the killing. But
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made clear that ``there is
frankly no enthusiasm'' within the Bush administration ``for
sending in military or police forces to put down the
violence.'' Mr. Powell rejected ``a proposition that says the
elected president must be forced out of office by thugs.''
But that, apparently, doesn't mean the United States--which
has intervened repeatedly in Haitian affairs during its 200-
year history--is prepared to take any action to stop it.
Nor has the administration been willing to take the lead in
seeking a political settlement to the crisis. For several
years it has delegated the arbitration of Haiti's mounting
domestic conflict to well-meaning but powerless diplomats
from the Organization of American States or the Caribbean
Community, also known as Caricom. In particular, it has
declined to exercise its considerable leverage on the
civilian opposition parties, some of which have been
supported by such U.S. groups as the International Republican
Institute and which have rejected any political solution
short of Mr. Aristide's immediate resignation. Apart from Mr.
Powell's statement, the administration's rhetoric has mostly
been directed at Mr. Aristide. ``There certainly needs to be
some changes in the way Haiti is governed,'' said White House
spokesman Scott McClellan.
Mr. Aristide is guilty of supporting violence against the
opposition and has cruelly disappointed those who expected
him to consolidate democracy. But Haiti's mess flows in part
from U.S. actions. After restoring Mr. Aristide to power in
1994 and abolishing the army that previously ruled the
country by dictatorship, the United States failed to follow
through. U.S. forces were pulled out after only two years--
they are still in Bosnia and Kosovo eight and five years,
respectively, after they arrived--and all aid to the
government was suspended after Mr. Aristide's party tampered
with the results of a congressional election. Some of the
military's former death-squad leaders command the gangs that
would seize power. But the Bush administration would rather
leave the answers to Caricom or the United Nations or France.
It's an inexcusable abdication.
____
[From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2004]
Hour of the Gunmen in Haiti
Rebels in Haiti were going house to house yesterday,
arresting supporters of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and
looting their possessions. The capital, Port-au-Prince,
remained in government hands, but the nation's second-largest
city, Cap Haitien, was held by the insurgents. The situation
is clearly becoming dire. The United States needs to take the
lead in protecting the Haitian people from the growing
anarchy around them. There is much that Washington could do.
Only the slimmest hope remains for salvaging an
international mediation effort that began last weekend. If it
cannot be revived, there is a strong likelihood that the
country's raging political crisis could ultimately be
resolved by brute force. Abrupt and violent changes of
government have been a regular feature of Haitian politics
over the years and are among the main reasons that Haiti has
never developed stable democratic institutions.
Mr. Aristide is no beacon of democratic principles, but he
was freely elected to a five-year term that is not scheduled
to run out until February 2006. It would have been better if
all sides had accepted the proposed compromise that would
allow him to stay in office while sharing power with the
opposition.
Most, but not all, of the responsibility for the failure to
reach an agreement lies with the leaders of Haiti's
nonviolent political opposition. They argued that with
popular anger against Mr. Aristide running so high, they
could accept no compromise that did not cut short his
presidency.
That public anger is largely Mr. Aristide's fault, because
of a succession of betrayals of his original democratic
promises. By failing to end a long impasse over flawed
parliamentary elections, he has effectively shut down
Parliament and now rules by decree. He has politicized the
police and courts and uses special police brigades and armed
gangs of his supporters to terrorize civilians and break up
opposition demonstrations.
Yet the opposition's unwillingness to stand up to the
former army leaders and opposition thugs now demanding Mr.
Aristide departure--and their failure to back a compromise
that would have been strongly supported by Washington and
other mediating countries--is a troubling sign. It suggests
that these politicians may not have the toughness needed to
make sure that any armed ouster of Mr. Aristide does not lead
to a rapid restoration of the same discredited forces that
ruled Haiti before he came to power. These include thuggish
leaders of the country's officially disbanded army and the
murderous paramilitary groups that supported military rule.
Some of these elements have already re-entered Haiti from the
neighboring Dominican Republic.
There is still time for the political opposition to
reconsider its rejection of compromise before the armed
rebels impose their own new tyranny.
Whether or not the opposition comes to its senses, Haiti's
people deserve protection. More than 70 lives have already
been lost. The United States should quickly offer to build up
the current force of 50 marines who arrived Monday to protect
the American Embassy and make it the core of a multinational
stabilization force that would also include soldiers from
France, Canada and Latin America. Haiti's army was dissolved
in 1994, and a modest international military force could go a
long way. It should be in place before armed rebel elements
grab power for themselves.
Once a stabilization force is established, an American-led
international effort should be mounted to train professional,
politically independent police officers and judges. It was
the absence of such institutions that allowed Mr. Aristide to
create a new authoritarianism behind a democratic shell.
American police training programs during the Clinton
administration did not reach far enough or last long enough
to succeed. Washington should also make it easier for Haiti
to earn its way out of poverty by eliminating the American
rice subsidies that have contributed to pricing poor Haitian
rice farmers out of the market.
Developing a durable democracy in this deeply impoverished
country, which has no history of strong, independent civic
institutions, will take plenty of time and effort. Failure to
begin that effort now will surely result in future revolts,
future dictators and future tides of desperate refugees
headed for American shores.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern
about the violent political crisis engulfing Haiti. We dare not remain
silent when faced with such a widespread insurrection in our backyard.
I believe that we, members of Congress and the Bush administration,
must make an honest reckoning regarding our history of often
inconsistence and sometimes even negligent U.S. policies toward this
neighboring country, the poorest in the western hemisphere. If the
current vicious cycle of resistance and violent reaction to the
resistance continues, the resulting instability will have a substantial
impact on democracy and security in the Caribbean and will affect our
entire hemisphere.
Just last month, Haiti celebrated the 200th anniversary of its
independence; it was only the second country in the western hemisphere
after the United State to throw off the yoke of foreign domination and
to declare independence from a European colonizer. Unfortunately,
Haiti's long experience with democracy and self-rule has been impeded
by successive waves of military coups--over 30 since its independence--
and power consolidation by elites. Poverty and disease are pervasive
and government corruption rampant. In its October 2003 survey,
Transparency International labeled Haiti the third most corrupt country
out of 133 countries in the world and the most corrupt of the 30
countries in the Americas and the Caribbean.
Prior to Jean-Bertrand Aristide's election to his first term in 1990,
Haiti had been ruled by successive military dictators, many of whom
were anointed by foreign leaders. In 1990, the U.S. government and we,
the members of the U.S. Congress, felt optimistic about democratic
prospects under Aristide's leadership. The subsequent U.S.-backed
restoration of Aristide to power derived from an American hope, perhaps
even a naive idealism, that he could rebuild viable democratic
institutions and further democratic progress as a legitimate head of
state. This American idealism, I believe, led the Clinton
administration to deploy 20,000 American troops to support Aristide.
Since this time, however, Aristide and his political party have made
poor economic
[[Page S1514]]
choices; they have consolidated power, eviscerated the role of the
parliament, and allowed corruption and cronyism to corrode the
government.
Indeed, over the past few years, as our foreign policy attention has
shifted eastward, towards hotpots in the Middle East and Southeast
Asia, we have been dangerously negligent of Haiti's continuing
political dissolution and Aristide's failed leadership.
I believe that the current violent expression of political
opposition, which has taken the lives of over 40 Haitians in the past
two weeks, derives directly from the Haitians' frustration with their
government. Haitian political rights have been chipped away since
Aristide's 2000 re-election, based on only five percent voter turnout,
created a political stalemate. The Haitian parliament has since stopped
functioning, prompting international aid donors to block millions of
dollars in needed economic aid.
The resulting economic situation is bleak. Most of Haiti's 8 million
people live on less than $1 per day and it ranks 150th out of 175
countries on the United Nations Human Development Index.
But Aristide's government has exacerbated Haiti's economic crisis.
The U.S. State Department classified the country's current situation as
``economic stagnation'' caused by ineffective economic policies,
political instability, environmental deterioration, the lack of a
functioning judiciary, and the migration of skilled workers.
On the other hand, we know that this month's violent outburst is not
the only means for Haitians to express political opposition. For years,
legitimate opposition groups have opposed Aristide's government and
most of them do not condone today's violence. Instead they endorse new
elections and a peaceful transition of power.
We have a unique obligation to stand up for the people of Haiti. Our
two countries are inextricably linked--by the virtue of our similar
histories, because of our involvement in Aristide's return to power,
and as a result of the influx of Haitians who have come to our shores
seeking refuge from the economically and politically ravaged country.
These Haitian Americans have contributed greatly to American life and I
am proud to have a talented young man of Haitian origins on my staff
and to represent nearly 60,000 Haitian Americans in my State.
The Bush administration has advocated for a negotiated political
solution to the crisis. Yesterday, Southern Command has dispatched a
small military team to Haiti to provide the ambassador and the embassy
staff with an enhanced capability to monitor the current situation.
Secretary of State Colin Powell recently met with regional officials
and the Canadian and Haitian ambassadors to discuss a possible
Caribbean-Canadian police force for Haiti. I support the State
Department in its efforts to forge a negotiated political solution
brought about by dialogue, negotiation, and compromise and fully
support the power sharing agreement put forth by Secretary Powell and
international community. I urge the opposition groups to accept this
proposal to share power with Aristide until he can be replaced
democratically.
I also ask my colleagues to follow this crisis closely and to join me
in demanding that President Bush, Secretary Powell and other foreign
policy advisors continue to play a leading role, facilitating
negotiations between the Haitian government and the opposition
factions.
If the opposition accepts the power-sharing agreement, Secretary
Powell should enlist French, United Nations, and Caricom help to see
that forceful diplomatic intervention ends the current stand-off. The
next step is for the U.S., in concert with international organizations,
to assist Haiti in creating a unity government, a council of advisors
and the installation of a new prime minister. American diplomacy and
influence can be effectively mustered to convince both Aristide and the
opposition to accept these reformist measures.
U.S. hegemony, wealth, and power have, over the course of our
country's history, generated myriad international obligations to
resolve global conflicts and preserve peace and security. Our
responsibilities emerge no clearer than when conflicts arise in our own
neighborhood. It is time to break with a recent policy of U.S.
dismissal and neglect regarding Haiti's self-destructive government and
devastating economic situation.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in insisting that the
administration, with Congressional support, rise to fulfill the
responsibilities of global leadership.
____________________