From yesterday’s Financial Times, Jeffrey Sachs offers a blustering indictment of the Bush administration’s approach to the crisis in Haiti. Not only has the US seemed to be bumbling in its reaction to an ever changing situation on the ground there, but it in fact is responsible for the rebellion by signalling to the opposition that it was on their side.
Mr Aristide won the presidential election later that year, in a contest the US media now
reports was “boycotted by the opposition” and hence, not legitimate. This is a cruel joke
to those who know Haiti, where Mr Aristide was swept in with an overwhelming
mandate and the opposition, such as it was, ducked the elections. Duvalier thugs hardly
constituted a winning ticket and as such, did not even try. Nor did they have to. Mr
Aristide’s foes in Haiti benefited from tight links with the incoming Bush team, which
told Mr Aristide it would freeze all aid unless he agreed with the opposition over new
elections for the contested Senate seats, among other demands. The wrangling led to the
freezing of $500m in emergency humanitarian aid from the US, the World Bank, the
Inter- American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund..
In sum, the administration has repeated its approach in Venezuela. More cautious about sending in the CIA perhaps, but still eager to call a coup successful and demand a democratically leader to step down. In neither case, has the US’s forein policy helped in fostering stability and democracy in our neighbors to the south - quite the opposite in fact. For those who doubt the moral clarity of the Bush and his policy makers or who feel that the rhetoric of being a beacon of freedom and democracy rings hollow, especially when it comes to Latin America, nothing could be starker proof.
No comments have been added to this post yet.