The system works in Haiti... and the U.S. doesn't like it

Foreign election showcases hypocrisy of the Bush administration
Gary McCabe, Opinion Writer

February 23, 2006

In my mind, there are two kinds of countries that make up this world we live in: name brand countries and generic countries. The brand name countries of the world are pretty obvious. Let's just say that if the planet Earth were one giant clothing store, the brand name countries would be in the clothes in the storefront window, showing those who walk past the very best the store has to offer. These countries are rich, powerful and immensely successful.

The Republic of Haiti is clearly the latter kind of country. To put it bluntly, if the United States is the Armani suit of the world, Haiti is little more than a soiled pair of purple sweatpants in a dumpster behind K-Mart.

Destitute and rife with gang warfare, Haiti has been on the verge on anarchy for years. The past two years have been especially difficult following a 2004 political coup d'etat which unseated Haiti's elected leader, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Although the rebellion was a clear attack on democracy, the Bush administration was ambiguous in their response, publicly denouncing the actions of the rebels (the Haitian elite) while somewhat suggesting that Aristide's removal may actually be the first steps toward stability in the nation. It should also be pointed out that the United States had no problem interjecting itself into the rebellion that brought Aristide to power in 1994.

So as you can imagine, it's not often that good news actually comes out of what has become the most impoverished nation in the Western Hemisphere. However, when I opened the paper on Feb. 10, that's exactly what I found.

The good news was this: Haiti had just run presidential elections and early electoral results showed that candidate Ren� Pr�val was poised to win the contest. The significance of Pr�val's impending win was tied to who he represented, the nation's overwhelming majority of Haiti's 8.5 million people living in extreme poverty.

Pr�val ran for office on a very ambitious platform, calling for public schools, increased foreign investments, the use of negotiations rather then force to end gang warfare and a complete overhaul of the nation's flawed government. In a magnanimous gesture, Pr�val even pledged to appoint a prime minister from whichever political party won control of Parliament in this year's elections knowing perfectly well that it would not be his own.

On paper, Pr�val certainly seems to be the perfect leader for Haiti at this point in time. As President Bush might say, he's a "uniter," not a "divider." He has clear goals for the nation and if successful, Haiti could very well make some positive strides and eventually be in a position to crawl out of that metaphorical dumpster behind K-Mart. So if this is such a positive event for Haiti, why has the United States done everything in its power to keep Pr�val from actually taking office?

I won't go so far as to say that the United States was responsible for Aristide's removal in 2004 - enough Haitians have said it that it's almost unnecessary. Besides, that's all in the past. It's quite clear that the traditional Haitian elite who took control in 2004 - later put under the control of a U.S.-installed interim government - attempted to rig this election.

I'm not just speculating either. Patrick F�quiere, a member of Haiti's election council, said it himself. When Pr�val came up short of the fifty percent vote needed for an instant victory, the council voted him in anyway to avoid the backlash that would surely come from a subsequent run-off, which could very well rob Pr�val of his victory.

"We had to do something," said F�quiere. "We could have just told Pr�val he got 48.76 percent, but when he contests the results, all of this mess is going to come out - the blank votes, the missing votes."

Even after his confirmation, President Bush and his administration are insisting that Pr�val share power with the traditional elite after begrudgingly accepting him as Haiti's presidential-elect. Share power? If that's the way the world is supposed to handle disputed elections, Al Gore would be co-president right now and we'd probably all be better off.

So to answer my earlier question, the United States government doesn't want Pr�val in office simply because the United States is better off having Haitians starving to death and killing each other. What does the United States have to gain from a strong, independent Haiti when a country run by like-minded elites is so much easier to manipulate? They don't give a damn about Haiti or any other country for that matter.

Maybe if the Bush administration were up front about that attitude, it would be a bit easier to swallow. Instead, our government runs around the world pretending to be this high-minded nation that wants to "liberate the oppressed" and "spread democracy." Only we've seen too many times what happens to those oppressed peoples when they democratically elect someone that doesn't suit the U.S. government's agenda.

The United States has been telling the Palestinians to conduct democratic elections for years now. Earlier this year, the Palestinians held the elections and voted in candidates representing the terrorist group Hamas.

How do you think President Bush felt the day after those elections? Do you honestly believe he was sitting the Oval Office thinking, "I sure am glad we brought democracy to the Palestinians." Or do you think he's on the phone to Cheney asking, "What the hell are we going to do about this?"

The United States is obviously one brand name country that will not be satisfied until they have a monopoly on the entire world... and seemingly will do anything to reach that end. But is that such a good thing?

The system works in Haiti... and the U.S. doesn't like it