The removal of Haiti’s first freely elected president highlights America’s blind imposition of self-interest.
By Crystal Luong
Assistant Perspectives Editor
The crisis in northern Haiti that began more than four weeks ago has ousted a president while revealing another’s hypocrisy.
Leaders can speak about freedom.
They can speak about compassion.
They can speak about anything they want, but the consequence of their decisions can hurt generations.
Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s deposed leader, once preached freedom to his people but proved to be no more than a dictator. In 1990, he became the first “freely elected” leader in Haiti’s history of independence. Aristide lost power only eight months later, but President Clinton restored him to office in 1994.
Due to constitutional term limits, Aristide had to step down the year he was elected, but continued to rule from behind the scenes while his successor served a term.
Human rights groups have accused Aristide of suppressing dissent by military force. Journalists critical of Aristide have been assassinated. He has also publicly endorsed execution by the “necklacing” method, which involves throwing a gasoline-soaked tire over a person’s neck and setting it on fire.
Although Aristide claims U.S. troops kidnapped him in the coup on Feb. 29, his removal from power has been long overdue.
The coup, however, is as much the fault of American leadership and policy as it is Aristide’s.
President Bush waited too long to act before the violence of the Haitian rebels spread to the capital of Port-au-Prince.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said in a statement, “By the inaction of the United States government over the last several years, the democratically elected president of Haiti has been undermined and forced to leave his country.”
Amid the bloodshed in Haiti prior to the coup, Bush even washed his hands clean of the international responsibility to protect refugees by granting political asylum.
“We will turn back any refugee that attempts to reach our shore, and that message needs to be very clear as well to the Haitian people,” Bush said Feb. 25. Since then, the U.S. Coast Guard has interdicted and returned hundreds of Haitian refugees.
For a politician who strives to maintain the image of a “compassionate conservative” in an election year, the statement undermines all moral authority. The American war president has taken it upon himself to flagrantly ignore the existence of international law.
His statement directly violates Article 33 of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which forbids the return of a refugee “where his life or freedom would be threatened.” Known as non-refoulement, this principle has become a customary international standard.
Originally, the asylum laws of the UN Refugee Convention were passed to protect World War II refugees in Europe.
Asylum is generally granted on the grounds that a refugee demonstrates a fear of persecution based on at least one of five issues: race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Bush furthers the historic unequal treatment of Haitian refugees in relation to Cubans. Immigrants from Cuba benefit from the wet foot/dry foot policy, which grants asylum on less substantiated grounds.
In the past, Haitian refugees have been denied asylum because their motivations were viewed as based in economics, without credible fear of persecution.
However, a state of political turmoil, fear and danger has existed before and after Aristide’s departure from Haiti. Bush’s outright refusal to accept refugees who are victims of political persecution contradicts ethical standards.
Is another message being sent to the international community that America stands above the law when the situation serves to follow self-interest?
Haiti serves as an example of leaders crossing legal thresholds without considering the greater good of the people whom their decisions affect.
Submitted March 25, 2004