In
1994, U.S. troops helped to return Haiti's President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide to office after he was ousted in a military takeover.
Since that time, he has ruled through partisan mobs and rigged
elections. As a result, national political consensus is fragmented,
human rights abuse is rampant, and governing institutions are
dysfunctional. Rather than fulfilling earlier promises to reform,
Aristide has spent his country's scant resources lobbying U.S.
lawmakers to restore aid directly to his administration. In the
short-term, his gambit may be paying off. Some U.S. congressional
supporters and newspaper commentary writers are calling for the
United States and international donors to renew direct assistance,
arguing that Aristide was democratically elected and that
withholding donations hurts the Haitian populace.
On
September 4, 2002, the Organization of American States (OAS) passed
a resolution giving Haiti a two-month "window of opportunity" to
apprehend human rights abusers, improve judicial and police
functions, and establish a new independent electoral council in
exchange for a recommendation that international funding be
restored. The Bush Administration, the European Union, and the
World Bank are doubtful that Haiti's government will be able to
comply with the offer. None of their big-dollar assistance programs
seem to have had a significant impact and little, if any, of the
funds given to Haiti have been accounted for.
Giving Aristide a blank check would lift
Haitians' hopes, only to dash them when the resources are
inevitably squandered or stolen. On the other hand, sitting on the
sidelines and expecting Haiti's leadership to produce reforms will
only fuel the current disintegration of the state and society and
accelerate the exodus of refugees. Governance in Haiti will improve
only when national leaders agree to be held accountable and when a
new order is cultivated, incorporating community consensus and
control. To help encourage such a transformation, the United
States, in coordination with other international donors,
should:
- Avoid supporting
predatory regimes and, instead, help to develop democratic
institutions from the grassroots level up;
- Direct grants to
non-governmental organizations with proven track records
that promote better community government, citizenship awareness,
more effective education, and humanitarian relief;
- Offer targeted
national-level assistance, under the condition that
Haiti's government accepts donor oversight to establish governing
legitimacy by organizing free and fair elections, supervising the
rebuilding of public institutions (including the judiciary and
police), and ensuring transparent utilization of resources;
- Encourage Haiti
to take advantage of trade opportunities by electing a
government that can enforce laws, negotiate treaties, and live up
to trade obligations; and
- Hold Haitian
officials accountable for their performance by revoking
visas and freezing the U.S. bank accounts of those who violate
local and international laws and abuse human rights.
Iron Rule Fosters Rebellion
Haiti gained independence in 1804 after
slaves overthrew French colonists and defeated an army sent by
Napoleon. Despite its heroic birth, Haiti has experienced
continuous rebellion ever since. Instead of building a new state
from grassroots consensus, Haitian leaders adopted the previous
model of imposing order from above. Haiti's first ruler,
Jean-Jacques Dessalines, declared himself emperor and was killed by
a mob on his way to put down a rebellion. Over the next 190 years,
a succession of autocrats assumed power and left office through
ousters and violence.
Following an uprising in 1915, President
Woodrow Wilson sent U.S. Marines into Haiti and the United States
imposed outside rule for 19 years. While U.S. intervention improved
public health, expanded national infrastructure, and paid off
Haiti's debts, local officials served as figureheads. As a result,
occupation left few lasting reforms beyond the establishment of
more professional security forces.
When
a country doctor named Francois Duvalier was elected president in
1957, he replaced U.S.-trained troops with young followers who were
less likely to challenge his authority and organized bands of
vigilantes named Tontons Macoutes (Volunteers for National
Security) to enforce loyalty in rural villages. He remained in
office until his death, leaving the regime to his 19-year-old son
Jean Claude in 1971. Malfeasance, epidemics, and unrest stirred up
by Jean Claude's opponents prompted the Reagan Administration to
ask him to step down. When he refused, riots triggered a coup that
was followed by a series of interim governments. During this
turbulent period, Haiti adopted its first truly democratic
constitution.
In
1990, a fiery ex-priest named Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected
president with 67 percent of the vote in what foreign observers
declared a fair contest. Yet Aristide soon created a partisan
secret police and exhorted street gangs to eliminate his political
opponents--including members of the armed forces--in a practice
called "necklacing." In less than a year, his presidency
collapsed into violent confusion and his own security chief General
Raoul Cedras replaced him with a military junta. The episode
triggered a huge exodus of Haitian rafters, 41,000 of whom were
interdicted at sea.
Later in Washington, Aristide reportedly obtained access to frozen
assets, including long-distance telephone fees due to the Haitian
telephone monopoly, and spent some $55,000 a month lobbying U.S.
officials to support his return.
Misguided Intervention
When
Organization of American States and United Nations efforts failed
to restore Haiti's elected leader, the U.N. Security Council
adopted a resolution empowering member states to use any means
necessary to restore Haiti's constitutional order. Acting with good
intentions, the United States led a multinational force to Haiti in
September 1994 to pressure the ruling generals to step aside. By
October, Aristide was back in office.
But
this effort, Operation Restore Democracy, was not the success many
predicted. The Clinton Administration's objectives--to restore
democratic rule, to slow the exodus of Haitian rafters, and turn
over peacekeeping duties to the United Nations by February
1996--were too ambitious for a country that had never known
democracy or peace. Moreover, the vehicle for achieving these goals
was to support a leader whom Washington barely understood.
Back
in power, the former priest surrounded himself with chimeres--mobs
that harassed and attacked opponents of his Fanmi Lavalas Party in
a manner reminiscent of Duvalier's Macoutes. In 1995, U.S.
officials even had to persuade Aristide to abandon the local
tradition of staying beyond one's term of office to allow
René Préval, his handpicked candidate and elected
successor, to take office.
Following flawed parliamentary elections
in 1997, President Préval--at Aristide's behest--blocked a
new vote until most assembly seats expired and then dissolved
parliament, leaving himself and a handful of unconfirmed cabinet
officials to carry out Lavalas policies unopposed. When
legislative, local, and municipal elections were finally held in
May 2000, Aristide and Préval reportedly pressed the
independent Provisional Electoral Council to exclude nearly a
quarter of the votes cast, using a formula that violated two
articles of Haiti's constitution.
The
dispute over the legitimacy of Haiti's parliament, dating from the
Préval administration, led the Clinton Administration to
suspend direct U.S. assistance, a policy the Bush Administration
has continued. The European community and multilateral institutions
did likewise, resulting in holds totaling about $500 million.
Subsequently, Aristide was returned to office in November 2000 in a
questionable vote that the opposition and OAS observer mission
boycotted, and in which the estimated turnout was between 5 to 15
percent. Instead of coming to an agreement over new elections and
adopting minimal standards of accountability, Aristide again hired
a Washington lobbying firm to dislodge frozen aid, calling its
denial economic terrorism.
In
fact, some $100 million donated by the United States had already
been lost. None of the money spent on elections--at $6 million to
$8 million apiece--left behind any lasting electoral
infrastructure. A professional police force of 6,000, initially
trained by U.S. and Canadian officers, dwindled to about
3,000--most of whom are now partisan loyalists and who do little to
protect Haiti's 7.8 million people. After a new Coast Guard was set up to
help apprehend drug traffickers, transhipments through the island
actually increased from 10 percent to 14 percent according to a GAO
study. In 2000,
some 80 percent of those in prison were simply awaiting trial from
Haiti's "reformed" judiciary.
Over
the last two years, the OAS has attempted to broker an agreement
with both Aristide and the opposition on more than 20 occasions,
discussing formulas that ranged from removing a few senators in
contested seats to holding entirely new elections. Intransigence on
both sides has blocked success. On September 4, 2002, in an effort
to breathe new life into what has evolved into a dialogue largely
with Aristide, the OAS adopted Resolution 822. In it, the OAS
promised to recommend that international donors resume loans and
aid, if in two months the government would prosecute those who
authored the attacks and murders of political opponents, strengthen
the police and the judiciary, and name a credible electoral
commission--dropping previous requirements for an electoral accord
with the opposition known collectively as the Democratic
Convergence. (See sidebar: Dealing in Bad Faith.)
Departures of key ministers reflect on
Aristide's ability to meet these conditions--at least concerning
human rights and the rule of law. On September 20, 2002, Haiti's
minister for electoral negotiations Marc Bazin resigned, faulting
the president on human rights and economic policy. And on September
29, Justice Minister Jean Baptiste Brown stepped down, complaining
that he found himself "unable to substantively address serious
issues such as professionalization of the Haitian police and
fighting against impunity."
Basket-Case Economy
If
Haiti was pillaged by the Duvalier family, it has been battered by
political turmoil ever since. According to the World Bank, real
per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) declined about two percent
per year during the 1980s. During the 1990s, it fell 2.5 percent
per year. The lack of a functioning, transparent government and
widespread corruption deserve much of the blame. The World Bank's
1998 Poverty Report put it more bluntly: "Haiti has never had a
tradition of governance aimed at providing services to the
population or creating an environment conducive to sustainable
growth."
Last
year, according to The Heritage Foundation's 2002 Index of Economic Freedom, Haiti,
with nearly 8 million people, generated little more than a $2.9
billion gross domestic product, which amounts to $371 per
capita--one of the lowest figures in the hemisphere. In 1999, it imported
$800 million worth of goods and services (half from the United
States) while its exports only totaled $359 million. Adult literacy
is now estimated at 48 percent, while unemployment stands at about
60 percent. Millions of adult Haitians eke out a living in
subsistence agriculture in one of the most environmentally degraded
places in the world, while only about 30,000 reportedly have jobs
in manufacturing or assembly industries. Electricity is available
for only a few hours a day and 80 percent of the nation's water
supply is contaminated.
Thus
far, direct assistance to Haiti has failed because the current
government has followed the extra-institutional governing patterns
of previous regimes: intimidating opponents, coercing
entrepreneurs, and making empty promises to the nation's majority
poor. While some Haitian elites view the situation with alarm, most
remain largely silent, fearing retribution and attacks on their
businesses. Sensing little momentum for change among the country's
leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan recommended curtailing
the United Nations International Civilian Support Mission in Haiti
(MICAH) in November 2000. In 2001, he stressed that any
resumption of aid could not take place without a resolution to the
political crisis.
Grants channeled solely to
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been more effectively
spent to the point that the country probably could not function
without them. NGOs maintain public health clinics, run schools,
support grassroots civic organizations, and operate needed
agricultural extension services. In FY 2000, the U.S. Agency for
International Development disbursed $79.8 million in such
assistance and, in FY 2001, $67 million--making the United States
Haiti's largest donor. But according to the World Bank, such
programs are "short-term solutions" that do best at providing
humanitarian relief and building minor infrastructure while leaving
national institutions largely untouched. More to the point, excessive reliance
on them removes incentives to develop effective homegrown
services.
Human Rights Woes
Since returning to power, Aristide has
used violence to intimidate opponents and enforce political
discipline, resulting in death for some and exile for others.
During the parliamentary, municipal, and local elections held May
21, 2000, President Préval and Aristide reportedly pressured
84-year-old Provisional Electoral Council chief Leon Manus to
confirm a fraudulent vote count in favor of Lavalas candidates. "At
the top governmental level, unequivocal messages were transmitted
to me on the consequences that would follow if I refused to publish
the false final results," he declared. Refusing to do so, he
resigned and fled to the United States.
Established in 1995, the Haitian National
Police (HNP) was intended to be an nonpartisan security force to
replace the pro-junta military. Yet, in his second term of office,
President Aristide politicized it, filling key positions with
Lavalas party loyalists. Although the police are not always
abusive, they often stand by while partisan gangs commit crimes. A
typical example of this occurred in May 2001, when a pro-government
mob surrounded a house where the opposition Democratic Convergence
was meeting in the city of Les Cayes. The mob threw rocks and fired
weapons. Nearby police took more than an hour to respond. When they
arrived, they arrested the Convergence leader inside, at first
claiming they were protecting him, and then later stating that a
complaint had been filed against him.
Now
Aristide turns to mobs to do what the police cannot. His "zero
tolerance" policy announced in June 2001 made it unnecessary to
bring suspects to court if citizens or police caught them in a
criminal act. According to Human Rights Watch in its 2002 World
Report, "his words were widely interpreted by Haitians as an
invitation to vigilante justice and police violence. Human rights
groups reported that in the months following the speech, dozens of
suspected thieves were killed by mobs."
Sadly, gang attacks have claimed the lives
of others as well. Last December, Brignol Lindor, news director of
Radio Echo 2000 in Petit-Goâve, was hacked to death by a
partisan group. A few days before, the town's deputy mayor Dubay
Bony reportedly called for "zero tolerance" to be enforced against
a list of political opponents that included Lindor. An inquiry
carried out by the Haitian Press Federation found that members from
the popular organization, "Domi Nan Bwa," close to Lavalas,
admitted committing the murder. In 2001 alone, 40 journalists were
attacked or threatened and a dozen were forced into exile,
according to the French-based Reporters Without Borders.
Ironically, the same mobs that Aristide
unleashed on opponents are now involved in internecine power
struggles. Some are competing for supremacy as Lavalas supporters.
In others, discontent over unfulfilled promises and fears that
Aristide may be purging some followers have created rebellion. Last
August, street thugs in Gonaïves broke a former Lavalas
militant out of jail and simultaneously released 158 prisoners,
sparking riots that lasted more than two weeks.
Choosing a New Course
Propping up Haiti's faltering government
with blank checks will only deepen the country's misery, inviting
funds to be pocketed by self-serving leaders and paid out to
violent supporters. Another armed intervention would only impose a
new fix at great cost, possibly with similarly disappointing
results. After all, the Clinton Administration did both in backing
a little understood politician in his bid to reclaim a lost
presidency--committing $3 billion and 20,000 troops. It then
compounded its difficulties by pursuing a quick-exit strategy that
encouraged a subsequent multilateral pullout before functional
institutions could be established. Now is not the moment to repeat
those mistakes.
Denying aid while expecting Haiti's
leadership to produce reforms by themselves only encourages the
current disintegration of the state and the accelerated flight of
refugees--impacting Caribbean neighbors, such as the Dominican
Republic and the Bahamas, as well as the United States. Last year,
the Dominican Republic deported some 12,000 Haitian migrants and
the rising tide of drug smuggling from Haiti prompted President
Hipólito Mejía to double his military forces across
the Dominican-Haitian border. The Bahamas and the United States also
receive asylum seekers, but more worrisome is the erosion of public
security, extreme poverty, and attendant disorder that make Haiti a
potential playground for international drug traffickers, criminals,
and even terrorists.
Haiti's only hope for improvement is
through targeted, supervised assistance to build institutions at
the national level and sustained efforts to promote accountable,
democratic governance at the community level. The challenge is to
check authoritarian impulses of those who would unfairly impose
their will on others and create space for democratic leaders and
budding entrepreneurs. Some of the foundation has already been
laid. In 1987, Haiti adopted a workable democratic constitution.
Opposition parties exist and might eventually gain a foothold if
they are permitted to reach out to a grassroots constituency.
Independent media continue to broadcast and print, despite
government and partisan intimidation. Moreover, Haitians are
hardworking and their cities feature vibrant marketplaces where
free choice is practiced on a daily basis.
To
help build on those strengths, the United States and other
international donors should pursue a coordinated policy to:
- Avoid supporting
dictatorial leaders in favor of promoting democratic institutions
from the grassroots up. The Clinton Administration's
support for Aristide mistakenly placed hopes in a demagogue, from
whom Haitians traditionally would expect nothing but exploitation.
Consensus is
better cultivated at the neighborhood level where trust between
individuals is typically the highest. Building democracy from the
bottom up not only encourages broader citizen understanding of
government as public service, but also promotes the idea of a
social contract and provides training opportunities for new
leaders.
- Direct grants to
non-governmental organizations that promote better community-level
governance, citizenship awareness, more effective education, and
humanitarian relief. Existing U.S. international
broadcasting and public diplomacy programs that provide information
on civic responsibility and how democracies function should be
fine-tuned to support such efforts. This kind of assistance is less
susceptible to misuse and can be easily adapted to the needs of the
moment as long as its purpose is to promote self-determination and
self-sufficiency. While it might not directly address large-scale
reforms in national institutions, it maintains momentum.
- Offer to resume
targeted direct assistance, provided Haitian leadership accepts
donor oversight. A U.S.-led multilateral donor commission
should provide on-site approval and supervision of any resources
used to reform national institutions. Priorities should be to: (1)
hold internationally supervised elections to establish the legitimacy of the
government and insure that Haitians may freely determine their own
leaders; (2) rebuild the judiciary and police to create a climate
of order and encourage investor confidence; and, (3) reestablish
other national and municipal agencies and help them develop
planning and coordination capabilities. Making a conditioned offer
rather than withholding assistance avoids the stigma of sanctions
and places the burden on the current leadership to take action. It could also be a
way to help Haiti qualify someday for assistance under such
programs as the Bush Administration's Millennium Challenge
Account--intended to "reward nations that root out corruption,
respect human rights, and adhere to the rule of law."
- Persuade Haitian
leaders to take advantage of trade opportunities to restore
growth. Haitian leaders, entrepreneurs, and workers need
incentives for reforms as well as a market for their goods if they
are to achieve prosperity on the basis of their own efforts. One
such incentive already exists with the U.S. Caribbean Basin
Initiative (CBI) that allows Haiti and other member countries
duty-free access to the United States for most goods, with some
limits placed on apparel. Bills sponsored by Senator Mike DeWine
(R-OH) and Representative Ben Gilman (R-NY) would lift some of
those limitations.
But all of these benefits depend on Haiti's ability to comply with
existing trade obligations, establish the rule of law, and
eliminate bureaucratic uncertainties that block foreign and local
investment.
- Hold Haitian
officials accountable for their conduct by revoking visas and
freezing the U.S. bank accounts of those who violate local and
international laws, including those who engage in human rights
abuse. U.S. federal law enforcement agencies should
investigate all credible allegations against leaders accused of
malfeasance, money laundering, involvement in drug or arms
trafficking, or human rights abuse. The United States should urge
other regional allies and organizations such as the European Union
to do the same.
Conclusion
In
2004, Haiti will celebrate its bicentennial as an independent
republic. It would be nice if it could achieve some measure of
progress by then. However, promoting a level playing field to
enable democracy and transparency to flower could take decades.
Unsupervised aid to the regime will not solve any problems, but
rather will make them worse by putting money into the wrong hands.
Assistance through NGOs buys time, but leaves no lasting solution.
Only a sustained and coordinated commitment by the international
community to provide direction will help establish the security
umbrella necessary to ensure that the practices of compromise and
consensus can take hold.
In
the interim, disaffected officials from the current government,
dissidents, and the unemployed poor will continue to flee to the
United States, the Dominican Republic, and the Bahamas--wherever
they think their chances of survival and earning a living are
better. They will be competing with hundreds of thousands of
migrants fleeing violence in Colombia, misrule in Venezuela,
economic meltdown in Argentina, and other American states with
troubled economies or simmering disaffection. Helping all of these
hemispheric neighbors resolve their difficulties is a daunting task
and U.S. policymakers will face hard choices in deciding how
and
where to employ scarce resources.
If
Haiti's government accepts targeted assistance with supervision,
the road to peace and prosperity will still be long. For one thing,
the tradition of winner-take-all politics and economic predation
hangs like a pall over any outcome. For another, the countryside is
an environmental disaster; and depleted resources are forcing what
was once a
rural society into cities where there are
few jobs, promoting social fragmentation. But if Haiti's leaders do
not accept conditions and instead choose to go on ruling with
impunity, the road will also be steeply uphill. Existing businesses
may pull out of Haiti's turbulent economy and the state could
dissolve amid worse violence and chaos. In that case, Haiti's
progress will depend almost entirely on small steps at the local
level to encourage the kind of consensus that one day would allow
ordinary Haitians to determine their own future.
Stephen Johnson
is Policy Analyst for Latin America in the Kathryn and Shelby
Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.