Allen Jennings
The July 31 UN Security Council resolution to "use all necessary means" to oust the military regime in Haiti and reinstate leftist president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, marks a watershed in international relations history.
Resolution 940, which supports a US-led invasion of the Caribbean island and allocates a 6000-strong peace-keeping force "to assist the democratic government of Haiti" in "sustaining a secure and stable environment" until elections are held in February 1996, has provoked widespread opposition throughout the Americas and forced the Clinton administration into even greater foreign policy divisions and contradictions.
While almost all the world's nations have a seat in the UN General Assembly, vital UN decisions on "international security" are taken by the 15-member UN Security Council. Reflecting the balance of world powers immediately after World War II (when the UN was created), the permanent "big five" Security Council members are the US, the UK, France, China and Russia (which took the seat previously held by the USSR). Each of the five has the power to veto any Security Council vote. The other ten members, presently Spain, Rwanda, Argentina, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Djibouti, New Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, and Pakistan, serve a two-year term.
The Council voted 12-0 in favour of the US-introduced Resolution 940. Although China and Brazil strongly opposed the resolution, they both chose to abstain rather than vote against it. Rwanda was not present. (While the previous Rwandan regime has lost its Security Council seat, a representative of the new government has not been allowed to replace it)
Resolution 940 sets a dangerous precedent and demonstrates the changing role of the UN. Only twice before (if we omit Somalia) has the UN condoned military aggression â first in Korea and then Iraq â justifying both cases by invoking Chapter VII of its Charter, which can only be applied when there is a threat to international peace. This vote, however, is the first time the UN has sanctioned the use of an invading force to "restore democracy". It is also the first time the US has sought and gained UN approval for an invasion in the Americas.
Latin America opposes US-led invasion
Understandably, the resolution has provoked strong opposition in the Americas, with Mexico, Cuba, Brazil and Uruguay the most vehement.
Mexico's UN ambassador, Victor Flores Olea, spoke out against the resolution, saying that "it sets an extremely dangerous precedent in the field of international relations" because the crisis "does not constitute a threat to peace and international security".
Cuban Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina said that the resolution furthers "the repeated attempts by the Security Council to amplify its powers beyond those which were granted it by the Charter".
Brazilian President Itamar Franco strongly opposed the UN decision, saying "The Security Council's special powers should not be invoked in an indiscriminate manner in the name of a 'search for more rapid means' to respond to attacks on democracy, because it violates the basic principles of peaceful co-existence between nations and normal UN legal procedures." After a visit to Brazil from US Undersecretary of State Peter Tarnoff the week before the vote, Brazil's decision to abstain instead of oppose the resolution can clearly be seen to be the result of enormous US pressure.
Pointing out that the situation in Haiti posed no threat to world peace and security, Uruguay's UN representative Ramiro Piriz Ballon said his country "will not support any military intervention, unilateral or multilateral".
Jamaican political scientist, Dr Brian Meeks, summed up Latin American sentiment on the issue: "I am instinctively opposed to a US-led invasion, given that the history of US intervention in the region has been a long and tortuous one".
Opposition builds in Haiti
Within Haiti, there is almost universal opposition to military intervention.
Aristide's supporters are wary of US motives. They believe that their president's hands would be tied if his position in power was dependent upon US backing. Furthermore, he would alienate his working-class supporters should he associate himself with a US-led invasion. Marcellus, who campaigned for Aristide in the 1990 elections, expressed a common view among Aristide's backers: "All the noise being orchestrated about an eventual landing of foreign military troops in the country actually reveals a calculated policy of attacks intended to smooth out the difficulties of setting up a neo-liberal political system in Haiti".
The National Progressive Revolutionary Party was more direct about Aristide's return: "If Aristide returned to power through a foreign intervention, he would be no more than an agent of imperialism and a lackey of the dominant classes".
A growing number of grassroots organisations and Haitian church groups have come out against foreign intervention.
"This brings us back to the US military invasion at the beginning of the century [1915]", said Pastor Luc Pierre of the New Jerusalem Church of Nazareth. "That occupation didn't do us any good. When the marines left [1934], they left nothing but a hateful situation."
"Don't be fooled", warned Ti Legliz (the Little Church) "this intervention will be against the people of Haiti, since it arises from the same logic as the coup d'etat, which simply aims to 'legitimise', under international cover, its principal achievement: the total erasure of the Haitian people from the political scene of their own country."
Meanwhile, the military incumbent, Lieutenant-General Raoul Cedras, said after the UN resolution was announced, "It has been decided to invade and we are waiting the moment". He predicted "bloodshed on both sides". The army is busy training new recruits in the capital, Port-au-Prince, in preparation for war.
Division in the United States
Support for an invasion within the US is fading daily, both in Washington and throughout the country.
A Time/CNN poll shows that 61% of the US population is opposed to sending US troops into Haiti, up from 52% in June.
Washington is talking of delaying the invasion until mid-September, supposedly, to allow them sufficient time to train other international troops. However, this reason seems unlikely. US forces have been ready to attack for months and, besides, no other country has publicly offered to send invasion troops.
After supporting the resolution in the UN Security Council, Argentina initially offered to send four marine and infantry companies to join the US-led invasion forces. However, after massive popular discontent over the decision, President Carlos Menem was forced to back down on the offer.
While Canada says it will join a peace-keeping force, it has refused to participate in an invasion.
Talk of a September invasion, while maintaining pressure, gives the US time to buy off Cedras and his cronies. Safe passage to another country with financial "incentives" for the military leaders is an alternative being discussed in Washington. ê;J7
In addition, if Clinton does decide to invade, he wants to avoid a spoiling Congress, which will not be sitting in September.
In spite of a unanimous Congress vote on August 4, urging Clinton to seek its approval before taking any action, he is unlikely to oblige. Reagan and Bush ordered the most recent US invasions in the region â Grenada in 1983 and Panama in 1989 â without the approval of Congress.
Amongst his advisers, Clinton faces even greater opposition and division than before the UN resolution. The State Department, which wants "decisiveness", is urging an immediate attack, whereas the Defense Department, wary of another Somalia-like situation, is opposed to even setting a deadline.
Setting a deadline on an invasion, as was the case for Iraq, would lock them into a scenario which is growing more unpopular by the day.
Tragically, it appears that the decision on an invasion and the fate of the Haitian people may rest with Clinton's popularity pollsters and his fear of appearing weak.
Nonetheless, we must heed the words of the Haitian people and their grassroots organisations who maintain that "US military intervention in the country will not be undertaken to restore President Aristide, but rather to reinforce US domination and protect the criminals who carried out the September 30 [1991] coup against the people who are demanding justice for the more than 5,000 who have perished".