home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1995
/
TIME Almanac 1995.iso
/
time
/
091994
/
0919unk.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1995-01-31
|
6KB
|
116 lines
<text id=94TT1280>
<title>
Sep. 19, 1994: Haiti:The Political Interest
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1994
Sep. 19, 1994 So Young to Kill, So Young to Die
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
THE POLITICAL INTEREST, Page 34
The Case against Invading Haiti
</hdr>
<body>
<p>By Michael Kramer
</p>
<p> How would Jim Baker or Dick Cheney handle Haiti? Of the potential
Republican presidential nominees in 1996, the former secretaries
of State and Defense are the best qualified to speak about foreign
affairs, and both would avoid the invasion Bill Clinton seems
ready to launch. For Baker and Cheney, the bottom line is simple:
restoring Haiti's deposed President, Jean-Bertrand Aristide,
isn't worth a single American life. From there, however, their
positions diverge. Both would stay out of Haiti, but Cheney
would also stay away.
</p>
<p> Ever consistent, the cerebral but dull Cheney (he makes Baker
appear charismatic by comparison) reflects the views he unsuccessfully
advanced when Haiti was his headache. "I said during the Bush
Administration and I say today that we should forget about it,"
Cheney says. "Haiti's a mess. That's too bad. It was a mistake
for us to begin the sanctions Clinton's continued. They only
hurt the poor, the people who deserve better since we won't
allow them into the U.S., which is the right policy. We should
lift the embargo and focus on really important things, like
rolling back North Korea's nuclear program."
</p>
<p> Baker, too, echoes the policy he favored as Secretary of State.
"Turn back the refugees and toughen the sanctions," he argues.
"Haiti's border with the Dominican Republic has yet to be sealed
effectively." Baker concedes embargoes hurt the innocent most,
but says "you can't conclude they can't work until you've imposed
them seriously."
</p>
<p> This disagreement on sanctions reflects a deeper difference
about U.S. support for fledging democracies. Cheney and Baker
both describe Aristide as "a leftist," but Baker insists that
the exiled leader's politics are immaterial. Those like Cheney
"who urge walking away because Aristide isn't our kind of democrat
are wrong," says Baker. "If supporting democracy is a cornerstone
of our foreign policy, which it is and should be, then you can't
treat what democracy produces as a fruit salad, taking a raisin
here while rejecting a pecan there. The test should be whether
Aristide was chosen in a free and fair election. He was. Supporting
him is therefore an American interest. It isn't an interest
that justifies war, but it does justify rigorous sanctions."
</p>
<p> Neither Baker nor Cheney believes returning Aristide to power
in Haiti will encourage other Caribbean countries to become
more democratic. In fact, both discredit signal sending as particularly
important in foreign affairs, except as a "negative incentive,"
says Baker. "I never thought our resolve in getting Saddam out
of Kuwait would deter the Serbs in Bosnia or the coup that overthrew
Aristide," explains Cheney in an analysis Baker shares. "It
doesn't work that way unless, like Clinton, you talk loudly
about using force and then fail to follow through. When you
project weakness consistently you do embolden bad guys. But
standing up for a truly vital interest, as we did in the Gulf,
has never had much of a deterrent effect elsewhere, even during
the cold war."
</p>
<p> Handling foreign annoyances on a case-by-case basis is "obviously
the way you'll have to increasingly treat crises now that communism's
dead," says Baker. "We no longer have a global enemy, a prism
through which actions can be fitted," when trouble flares. "So,
yes, it's a different world but it's not a more complicated
or dangerous one." Baker and Cheney, then, are not enamored
of overarching visions. They're content to present themselves
as more competent than Clinton to manage whatever irritations
arise--and both particularly abhor the motivations they perceive
as influencing the President's willingness to fight Haiti's
thugs. "Clinton's driven by domestic considerations," says Cheney.
"The liberals are pushing him, and he's pushing himself because
he thinks he needs to show some muscle somewhere after promising
it everywhere." Worse, adds Baker, "the whole thing smells like
Somalia. It could too easily be another open-ended operation,"
the product, he says, of the U.N.'s mandating a continued U.S.
presence in Haiti until, as the Security Council resolution
states, "a secure and stable environment has been established."
Having the U.N. on board "is good," says Baker. It can deflect
the traditional Latin cry that "we're colonial cowboys, and
make it harder for Russia to muck around in the countries of
the former Soviet Union." But, he adds, permitting the U.N.
to control the end game as the arbiter of stability "is ridiculous."
</p>
<p> It's easy to portray Cheney and Baker as the kind of callous
politicians U.N. Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali had
in mind when he identified "indifference and inaction" as "the
real crimes against conscience." Indeed, some academic critics
familiar with their views have already compared Cheney and Baker
with John Quincy Adams, whom Henry Clay branded an isolationist
after Adams declared that the U.S. should be the "well wisher
to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion and
vindicator only of her own." In fact, though, Baker is right:
"All interests aren't equal." If war is a course best reserved
for advancing the nation's vital interests rather than its moral
preferences, then all Cheney and Baker are saying is that invading
Haiti doesn't meet that test no matter how much Clinton may
need to back his words with actions to save his credibility.
</p>
</body>
</article>
</text>