Important dimensions of the Haitian crisis and its im-pact on the region continue to unfold, particularly in view of the recent CARICOM Inter- sessional Heads of Govern-ment meeting. From my vantage point one of the most striking developments is the biting criticism now being widely disseminated across the region in the print media, about the equivocation, tentativeness, political expedience, lack of political will, and plain old incompetence, which are beginning to characterise CARICOM policy towards one of its member countries. This week's article is devoted to a small sampling of these views.
It was surprising to me the line taken by the staid Trinidad Guardian when it editorialised about this matter in its April 1 issue. That editorial bemoaned the situation where there seems to be "a sense coming out of the Inter-sessional Heads of Government meeting that having determined the position of the integration, movement on the legitimacy of the Government in Haiti, the region has done its job." It went on to express outright cynicism over the expressions of concern offered by the host Prime Minister, Denzil Douglas, who, in the name of CARICOM, promised continuing commitment to the people of Haiti.
In the Guardian's judgement this commitment means little and "does not go beyond the politically expedient." The editorial ended with a strong plea for CARICOM "to come alive" to its responsibilities and do something concrete for the people of Haiti, a country, which after all is said and done is still a full member of the integration movement.
This critical stance taken by the editorial was based on its stated concerns about the impact of the crisis on the living conditions of the mass of Haitian people. With the stepped up destruction of life, property, and infrastructure over the past several months, there is little doubt that the many already poor Haitians are, as is usually is the case in such circumstances, carrying the main burden of this insurrectionist interlude.
Neither approval nor disapproval
Some of the criticisms being expressed across the region go further and perhaps deeper into the psyche of Caribbean political leadership than the Guardian editorial. Here the concern seems to be about the inability of CARICOM's leadership to respond meaningfully to the deep-felt concerns of principle, human dignity, self-worth, and self-respect, which, for Caribbean peoples, the Haitian crisis has brought to the fore. Writing in the Herald, Jacqueline Charles reminds us that Haiti's close CARICOM neighbour, the Bahamas, has, despite coups, rebellions, and extended periods of dictatorship always "maintained steady relations" with whatever Haitian government is in power. Thus he quotes the Bahamian Foreign Minister who epitomises this policy of "neutrality," in the astonishingly embarrassing and undignified statement: "Our diplomats have remained there [Bahamas], and the question of announcing recognition didn't even arise. We just worked with who was in effective control - that is just the way it has been." This sickening stance of 'neither approval nor disapproval' reveals the total lack of any principled engagement with a sister Caribbean country.
This stance was breached when CARICOM took a stance against the ouster of Aristide. Regrettably, the regional media see clear signs of a retreat from this position. Thus at the Inter-sessional summit the leaders equivocated and decided not to accept, nor reject, the interim government. Indeed it indicated it would "revisit" this so-called decision in July, by which time it is more than likely that CARICOM would have been in contact with the interim government.
Furthermore, it seems likely that CARICOM would also join the United Nations peacekeeping force, which is being prepared to replace the present US-France backed multilateral coalition. When this takes place it means that in effect in a few months time it will be back to 'business as usual.' There is also every reasonable expectation that the dust will settle and frictions and disagreements with Canada, France, and the USA healed.
John Maxwell writing in the Observer has been particularly harsh in his criticism of CARICOM's leadership. Moved by his anger over the recognition that in this whole tragedy only one thing seems certain, Haiti's poor and powerless will pay the biggest price of all, he has described CARICOM's diplomacy as being even more hopeless than its cricket! And, scathingly he refers to the Heads of Government as "gutless leaders unable to look a principle in the face."
Tit for tat
As this type of criticism has multiplied across the region, Aristide has taken unnamed US and French officials to the international court for kidnapping and the forceable removal of the lawful President of Haiti from his office and country. In response the Latortue regime has called for the extradition of Aristide to stand trial before a Haitian tribunal for theft, embezzlement, narco- trafficking and the murder of political opponents.
The cruel irony in this tit-for-tat display is that, among Latortue's 'allies' in Haiti - those who lead the rebel forces - are persons wanted or already arraigned before the courts (and some are already convicted) for just these offences.
In some instances the offences are graver and include the massacre of the very Haitians his government has been installed to serve and protect. Latortue does not lack for persons to be put before such a tribunal; he has many of them among his allies. Latortue has forgotten he is an installed President.
He needs to keep in mind that only after a return to constitutionality and free elections will a President command respect in the region and the right to pronounce on the future of Haiti.