[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2263-2267]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 2264]]

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 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.

[[Page 2265]]




                          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 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.

[[Page 2266]]

       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 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

[[Page 2267]]

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.

                          ____________________