Should the United States act as the world's policeman? It seems that this has been a heated question, especially since its recent interference with Haiti. The United States has, for years, aided other countries in their time of need, and has acted as a mediator, particularly in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Panama. What of national affairs and national priorities? When is the US going to take care of imminent problems within the US, instead of wasting millions of precious dollars in other countries? These are questions asked by American citizens and their plight to survive in their own trying environment. Was the USÕ decision to intervene with Haiti's military coup a good one? The answer is yes. The United States has done much in protecting the countryÕs welfare in aiding Haiti and restoring its new, fragile democratic government under Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Three issues must be addressed when justifying this answer. First, there is a monetary issue. Our world today is a very monetarily-driven society. Money does indeed talk; it causes war or requires peace. Secondly, the issue of democracy comes into play. In circumstances such as Haiti, it is questionable whether or not it is something worth withholding when so much money is at stake. It inevitably is; the US was first and foremost in reinforcing that fact by taking the reigns in the Haiti situation, an action it had not planned to undertake. Lastly, an issue that ties the first items together, is the question of fairness in US foreign policy. Why should we intervene in Haiti and not Bosnia? Why canÕt we intervene with Bosnia when we aided Kuwait in the Gulf War? The clarification of these issues is important and at hand. Hopefully, through research such as this, we can understand the way our government reacts with the world around it.
I. Money
ÒMoney makes the world go round.Ó How very true; after all, most cases of foreign intervention are prompted by money lost or gained in the process of upheaval (i.e., oil priorities in Kuwait). In the specific case of Haiti, many Americans think that the USÕ intervention is a waste of valuable tax money because there is nothing gained in lieu of our intervention. This is a misconception for many reasons, the first being the most obvious: there was no saving money in allowing Haitian refugees to continue to flee their country to the United States for political asylum. Of course, having to support these tens of thousands of Haitians burdened the taxpayers greatly. Guantanamo Naval Base was housing thousands of Haitians with promise that there would be an unceasing flow of immigration if nothing was done to stop the violence in Haiti . What is so ironic is that in 1991, right after Raolo Cedras ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, he claimed that Aristide Òcondoned public lynching with burning tire scraps.Ó In three years, however, CedrasÕ rule led to the deaths of over 3,000 Haitians starting with over 300 in the first week.
These deaths are very logical basis for granted political asylum, which, under United Nations law, the US must accept in consideration of the Haitians. No wonder tens of thousand of Haitians fled to the US, costing its citizens Ò$177 million [to support and to] maintain the economic embargo designed to weaken the new regime. Ó The cost to maintain this protection (which under United Nations law, the US is obligated to do) would have been a staggering $168 million a year. It only made sense to intervene, simply because status quo would have burdened the US taxpayers even more.
The United States wanted to create, not only a democratic nation that would benefit the hemisphere, but a safe haven in which the Haitians could return. After all, the Haitian economy is the poorest in the Hemisphere; its total indebtedness to other countries alone is around $800 million . With the new democracy and businessman Smarck Michel, its prime minister, at the helm, perhaps the economy can be recovered and eventually these moneys will be paid back. ÒMichelÕs economic recovery program...would reduce tariffs, increase exports, and privatize unprofitable state enterprises. Ó This kind of planning would never have been possible if Cedras had still been in power, insuring HaitiÕs eternal indebtedness . The United States interference was financially logical. The continuing embargo would not only cost Americans more money, it would plunge the Haitian economy into disrepair.
"With only enough oil and cash on hand to keep the country running for about six weeks, the [Haitian] business man said he had little doubt that 'the most stub- forces' would be brought to their knees, but wondered 'if the rest of the world was willing to pick up what is left of Haiti afterwards.'"
Hence, the USÕ action was imperative. Only within a democracy could this country once again flourish and meet the needs of its people and hemisphere alike. II. Democracy Democracy was a key issue in Haiti, as well. Originally (especially after the Gulf War), the US did not want to get involved with Haiti by using military force . However, the countries in the Western Hemisphere knew their impending situation; the Organization of American States definitely aimed at restoring the democracy it fought and waited so long for.
"The...reason for the United States to push aggres- sively to restore President Aristide is because his is the youngest democracy in the hemisphere and the last link in a chain of democratic governments Washington has been trying to nurture next door for the last 20 years."
The US, though it agreed to take part, did not want to lead the way in crushing the coup under General Cedras. As time progressed, and costs were incurred through Haitian refugees, the US (the most powerful country in the OAS) realized that something had to be done. In the beginning, under the Bush Administration, one thing was certain, that democracy would stand. ÒLet the coup plotters in Haiti and any who dream of copying them know this: this hemisphere is united to defend democracy, Ó said Secretary of State, James Baker. Yet, as time went by, and Haitian refugees fled to Guantanamo, the issue of democracy seemed more imminent and imperative. President Clinton outlined his reasons for going into Haiti in the following address to the press: ÒWe have exhausted diplomacy. Now the United States must protect its interests: to stop the brutal atrocities that threaten tens of thousands of Haitians; to secure our borders and preserve stability in our Hemisphere; and to promote democracy and uphold the reliability of our commitment around the world. Ó It was time the democracy be withheld and strengthened, in hopes that the HemisphereÕs almost completely democratic governments could eventually Òfoster world peace .Ó The democracy has been achieved; let us hope with our guidance, Haiti can become a stable nation, allowing our hemisphere to be a shining example to our neighbors in the East.
III. Fairness in US Foreign Policy
Is it fair that the US will help Haiti, and neglect Bosnia, just because there is nothing to gain in aiding Bosnia? The same question was asked about Haiti in 1991. ÒHow far will the US go to defend democracy where there is no oil? Ó The US has begun and will probably intensify its aid to Bosnia in the years to come. However, if in fact it does not aid Bosnia, the United States does not have any obligatory responsibility to do so, nor does it have anything to gain. Does that make its supposed neglect of Bosnia unfair?? In Haiti, the safety of the democratic mindset was the main goal. In Kuwait, the main reason for intervention was money . Both items were imperative to the USÕ short and long-term well-being. The country was wise in interfering in both cases because there was a need. Perhaps Bosnia is no longer a valid example, because President Clinton has already issued military aid there. However, in any case one chooses, the United States, unless it needs or is obliged to through worldwide sanctions, should not have to aid every single country in dire-straits.
The problem the American people have in questionable cases of foreign policy is the fact that they do not research before they form an opinion. They look at cases such as Vietnam, where perhaps the country was not wise in its decisions of intervention, and decide that the country will continue to ÒcreateÓ makeshift reasons to invade a troublesome situation. This is not at all true. Hopefully the US learned from its mistakes in the past, and will continue to recognize imminent causes such as Haiti. What the American people should do is research and probe all the reasons for their countryÕs actions, and then form an opinion. This is common logic. Only through research of all sides of an issue will the truth be found.
Through valid research, these three issues: money, democracy, and fairness, reinforce the validity of US foreign intervention in Haiti. With the clarification of each issue, hopefully we can find the intelligence in our countryÕs leaders, and the faith we once possessed in the country itself. There is no doubt, that in the case of Haiti, the US government did the best it possibly could to maintain the most efficient form of democratic governmental powers to secure our hemisphere and our world.
William Clinton, Office of the Press Secretary, from Selected Remarks Prepared for Delivery by President William Jefferson Clinton on US Policy Towards Haiti, Aug. 22, 1994.
Howard W. French, ÒHaitiÕs Junta Leader Talks of ÔRight PathÕ Despite Signs,Ó New York Times 31 May 1992: A3.
Howard W. French, ÒUS Is Holding 200 Haitians on 2 Ships,Ó New York Times 8 Nov. 1991: A3 Ibid.: A3 William Clinton, from Selected Remarks Prepared for delivery by President William Jefferson Clinton on US Policy Towards Haiti.
Haiti Seeks Economic Help, C-ap@Clarinet.com, 8 Nov. 94
Aristide Extends Olive Branch, C-ap@Clarinet.com, 5 Nov. 94
Aristide Wants Dec. Elections, C-ap@Clarinet.com, 8 Nov. 94
Haiti Seeks Economic Help, Clarinet.com ÒEmbargo Worries Haitian Business PeopleÓ New York Times 11 Oct. 1991:A11
Robert A. Pastor, ÒHaiti is Not Alone,Ó New York Times 4 Oct. 1991: A19
Thomas L. Friedman, ÒHaitiÕs Coup: Test Case for BushÕs New World Order,Ó New York Times 4 Oct. 1991: A13
William Clinton, from Selected Remarks Prepared...On US Policy in Haiti
Haiti Seeks Economic Help, Clarinet.com
Thomas L. Friedman, ÒHaitiÕs Coup...Ó A13 Ibid., A13