President Bush and the Haiti Crisis: Ceding America's Leadership Role

"Given the direct role the U.S. played in the removal of the Aristide government, it is now President Bush's responsibility, in my view, and moral obligation to take charge of this situation. That means more than sending a couple hundred marines for 90 days or so into Haiti. Rather, it means a sustained commitment of personnel and resources for the foreseeable future by the U.S. and other members of the international community that called for the removal of the elected government."

- Senator Christopher Dodd, Congressional Record, 3/2/04

"We have a moral obligation, a moral imperative because of our past relationships with Haiti, because it is a neighbor of ours, because it is in our hemisphere, because we are the most powerful country in this hemisphere, let alone the world, and because we believe in democracy, we believe in the rule of law, we believe in human rights and human dignity... The situation in Haiti cries out for us to do something."

- Senator Tom Harkin, Congressional Record, 2/27/04

"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."

- Senator Bob Graham, Congressional Record, 2/24/04

President Bush Fails to Help Haiti Avert Crisis

• The Bush Administration's policy flip-flop ends with Aristide in exile. Days before Haiti's crisis came to a head, the Bush Administration announced its support for President Aristide's regime. Secretary of State Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "The policy of the administration is not regime change. President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti...He is the president. We are only interested in a democratic solution, a constitutional solution, and we will continue to work to that end." (2/12/04)
  
  Secretary Powell also announced during a press conference that "We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law and are bringing terrible violence to the Haitian people." (2/17/04)
  
  Less than a week later, however, the Bush Administration reversed course. On February 26, Secretary Powell left open the possibility that President Aristide should leave office: "Whether or not he is able to effectively continue as president is something he will have to examine. I hope he will examine it carefully, considering the interests of the Haitian people."
  
  Two days later, on February 28, the White House identified President Aristide as the cause of the crisis: "This long-simmering crisis is largely of Mr. Aristide's making. His failure to adhere to democratic principles has contributed to the deep polarization and violent unrest that we are witnessing in Haiti today. His own actions have called into question his fitness to continue to govern Haiti. We urge him to examine his position carefully, to accept responsibility, and to act in the best interests of the people of Haiti." (Statement by White House Press Secretary). President Aristide left office on February 29.
  
  
• Faced with instability after years of ignoring this crisis, the Bush Administration was left with no choice but to assume a greater role than would have been necessary. In the wake of President Aristide's ouster, the U.S. has committed 2,000 Marines to be a part of the international peacekeeping force preserving order as the transitional government seeks to prepare Haiti for new elections. Many observers have suggested that, had the Bush Administration decisively committed to working with CARICOM and other international groups to resolve the situation before it came to a head, the U.S. role in dealing with the fallout from the crisis might be much smaller.
  
  As Senator Daschle explained on the Senate floor, "The Administration's initial lack of attention and subsequent response left us with no policy levers to pull and no Haitian institutions to call upon to quell the crisis. In that situation - faced with violence and instability that threatened to lead to a refugee crisis - we deployed American Marines." (Congressional Record, 3/4/04)
  
  Senator Dodd concurred in that assessment: "If the Bush administration and others inside and outside of Haiti had been at all concerned over the last 3 weeks about the fate of the Haitian people, perhaps the situation would not have deteriorated into near anarchy, nor would the obligation of the U.S. to clean up this mess now loom so large." (Congressional Record, 3/2/04)
  
  
• The "no nation-building" president assumes the responsibility to build one more nation. In campaigning for the presidency in 2000, then-governor George W. Bush vowed to avoid nation-building, saying "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building." (Presidential Debate, 10/12/00) In the same forum, he specifically discussed the 1994 U.S. intervention in Haiti: "You mentioned Haiti. I wouldn't have sent troops to Haiti. I didn't think it was a mission worthwhile. It was a nation-building mission."
  
  However, as the Boston Globe recently reported, the U.S. mission in Haiti can only be termed nation-building: "United States intervention in Haiti is but the latest example of how nation-building has become a defining feature of this administration's foreign policy." ("Once against nation-building, Bush now involved," Boston Globe, 3/2/04)
  
  "Moreover, as some observers have noted, Haiti has become the latest sign of a disturbing trend in which the United States takes on the rebuilding of a country with little or no planning. As the New York Times recently editorialized:
  
  After costly nation-building stumbles in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's astonishing to see the administration assume responsibility for yet another failed state with so little forethought or serious planning. In a sadly familiar pattern, the White House again seems to have convinced itself that with the departure of a leader it detested and the arrival of American troops, political bitterness built up over generations would evaporate, hardened fighters would simply lay down their arms, and effective, popular pro-American politicians would emerge to run a newly functional government. Administration officials may already be starting to recognize that a far more active, lengthy and expensive American role will be required." ("Hard Realities in Haiti," 3/4/04)
  
  

Democrats Have a Strong Plan to Ensure a Peaceful and Democratic Future for the Haitian People

During the 1990s, Congressional Republicans obstructed and undercut American efforts to build institutions necessary for peace and stability in Haiti. Faced with a similar situation now, Senate Democrats, led by Senators Bob Graham, Harkin, and Dodd, have enunciated key policy priorities to ensure that Haiti, rather than remaining an unstable, violent, and failed state, can make progress toward establishing democratic institutions, sustainable development, and security for its people. Among these critical priorities are:

• Address humanitarian needs. UNICEF has reported that many hospitals have been incapacitated or closed as a result of upheaval. Moreover, the World Food Programme has been forced to hold 1,200 tons of emergency food relief on a boat offshore until security improves. The WFP was feeding nearly 400,000 Haitians before the crisis began, but many of its supplies have been looted. As Senator Graham noted in the days before President Aristide's departure, "We must enhance our humanitarian presence, starting with emergency deliveries of additional foodstuffs and medical supplies. And we must ensure the deliveries of those supplies throughout the countryside." (Congressional Record, 2/24/04)
  
  
• Maintain an international security presence until the job is finished. The international peacekeeping team, to which the U.S. Marines have contributed 2,000 members, is critical in both the immediate and more distant future. In the short term, Senator Harkin has noted that "The international security force must ensure as quickly as possible that the people of Haiti, our hemisphere's poorest, are safe from physical harm and have access to food and basic necessities." (Press Release, 2/29/04) Over the long term, however, Senator Graham has noted that the U.S. cannot make the same mistake that it did during the last decade, when Congressional Republicans forced the premature withdrawal of troops from Haiti: "We didn't stay long enough to ensure stability, and we didn't make a deep enough commitment to rebuilding the Haitian economy. This time, we have an obligation to do a better job. The Haitian people cannot afford to go through this sort of violent upheaval again in another 10 years." (Press Release, 2/29/04)
  
  
• Protect refugees until they can safely return to the island. Hundreds of Haitians have already sought refuge from violence, food shortages, and upheaval by attempting to enter the United States. These refugees cannot simply be returned to a situation that may threaten their lives. As Senator Graham has said, "We have traditionally recognized the difference between economic refugees - those seeking a better job and standard of living - and political refugees, who have a legitimate concern about persecution if they are returned home. We should continue to make that distinction today. It would be immoral to return someone if their life would be in jeopardy." (Press Release, 2/29/04)
  
  
• Prevent thugs from gaining access to Haiti's transitional government. In the wake of President Aristide's departure, Senator Harkin asserted that "any political arrangement that emerges must respect Haiti's constitutional processes and not reward with power the violent, anti-democratic forces who have been attacking the legitimate, elected government. Sadly, the Bush Administration, through its inaction and statements, has so far enabled and empowered those forces, whose leadership includes known criminals and remnants of past tyranny in Haiti. The United States must send a clear signal that these elements have no place in Haitian government." (Press Release, 2/29/04)
  
  

Democrats Urge President Bush to End His Neglect of America's Neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean

• President Bush's Fiscal Year 2005 budget neglects Latin America's need for economic assistance, development, counternarcotics, and military assistance. Latin America is the only region in the entire world to see both its total economic and development assistance and its total counternarcotic and military assistance cut in the President's Fiscal Year 2005 budget. Under the President's budget, development assistance for Latin America would fall by nearly 10 percent ($26.1 million), and child survival and health programs would be cut by almost 12 percent ($17.2 million).
  
  
• The Bush Administration has undercut decades-long bipartisan American policy to support democratically-elected governments in Latin America and the Caribbean. From Haiti to Venezuela to Bolivia, the Bush Administration has sent conflicting signals about America's support for democracy.
  
  
• Bush Administration disengagement and policies have undermined our relationships with key Latin American allies.
  
  Mexico. Few countries have seen their relationship with the U.S. suffer more in the last three years than Mexico. Mexico is the tenth largest economy in the world with a $637 billion GDP in 2002. When President Bush took office just over three years ago, U.S.-Mexican relations appeared to be on the brink of a new era of cooperation. The promise of this relationship remains unfulfilled, however, as the Administration has failed to engage with Mexico in a constructive way.
  
  Brazil. Brazil is South America's regional leader and largest economic power. In fact, with a $452 billion GDP in 2002, Brazil's economy is nearly as large as those of all other South American nations combined and ranks as the thirteenth largest in the world. Despite the strategic importance of this nation, which has a population of 182 million, the Bush Administration has repeatedly clashed with Brazil's government and been unable or unwilling to advance key American policy goals throughout South America.
  
  Argentina. Despite Argentina's economic crash in 2001, its $102 billion GDP in 2002 still ranked as the second largest economy in South America. Notwithstanding Argentina's importance as an economic bellwether for the region, and American investors' interest in this emerging market, leading Latin America experts have characterized Bush Administration policy toward Argentina as an "indifference to...gathering crisis." (Inter-American Dialogue President Peter Hakim, "U.S.-Latin American Relations Post-9/11," January 2004)