LIVINGSTONE THOMPSONTHE APPARENT political naivety of CARICOM and the Patterson administration in seeking the involvement of the United Nations (UN) Peacekeeping Force in Haiti, without the clear indication of the support of the United States, is breathtaking.
One gets the impression that Foreign Affairs Minister K.D. Knight, acting for CARICOM, approached his task intent on making a case for the involvement of the UN Security Council on the basis of some high moral or ethical position.
According to Mr. Knight in his presentation to the Security Council, CARICOM's position was not motivated by the desire to promote the political interests of any particular personality in Haiti, but "was based on the need to remain faithful to democratic principle(s) and the integrity of constitutional order."
The irony is that the very day the Council rejected the request for a peacekeeping force in Haiti it sanctioned a peacekeeping force for Cote d'Ivoire.
In his report to the Security Council, the Secretary General himself expressed the same concern in the same language as Minister Knight.
According to the report on Cote d'Ivoire, "the prolonged political stalemate could have taken a turn for the worse with recent attempt by the Young Patriots to break the ceasefire." In language akin to the Secretary General, Mr. Knight said, "the situation [in Haiti] had now reached crisis proportions, given the continuing breakdown in law and order."
In its resolution concerning Cote d'Ivoire the UN declared that it is committed to, "the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Cote d'Ivoire," and that by the resolution it was calling attention to, "the importance of the principles of good neighbourliness, non-interference and regional co-operation."
THE DIFFERENCE
These are the very principles that CARICOM would wish to uphold for Haiti. So, what is the difference?
What CARICOM missed is that the Security Council is not swayed so much by ethical and moral principles as it is by sheer political pragmatism.
The recent involvement or non-involvement in Iraq is only one of several cases in point. The UN Security Council is under the de facto administration of the United States primarily. To have sought the involvement of the Security Council without assurance of the support of the U.S. is either sheer naivety or insincerity.
Mr. Knight was at pains, with Prime Minister Patterson, to say they are concerned with democratic principles and the rule of law. In truth, and in fact, the net effect of that concern was the propping up of Mr. Aristide.
The subsequent abduction of Mr. Aristide shows that the U.S. was not concerned with securing a role for him in the solution to the crisis, which means the UN Security Council could not have supported CARICOM's position.
The rule of thumb, which the regional leaders should have known is that the UN Security Council will only support resolutions that the U.S. sponsors or support. The regional leaders should have known the position of the U.S. on the matter before exposing themselves to ridicule by having their resolution defeated and a mockery made of their position by the casting aside of Mr. Aristide.
THE CREDIBILITY OF THE UN
Many persons are now of the view that the way the UN Secretary General and the UN community in general responded to the Iraq crisis has seriously undermined and eroded the credibility of the UN. That body, then, should not be expected in this dispensation to rise to the heights of moral and ethical rectitude.
We live in an unreal world if we imagine that the UN operates with impartiality and neutrality. By attempting to perpetuate these false notions, the UN peacekeeping forces have overseen disasters in Somalia (1993), Rwanda (1994), and Bosnia (1992-95), where they refused to take the sides of the victims.
But how could (they) take the sides of victims when the UN peacekeeping forces are under the tutelage of U.S. foreign policy?
CARICOM must wake up and realise that the UN is no longer, if ever, a superior moral authority to national governments. It responds to the interests of the member nations, with the interest of the most powerful in military and economic terms of both, having the day.
Dealing via the UN Security Council's involvement in the region means getting into bed with the U.S.
A BLESSING IN DISGUISE
The non-involvement of the UN in Haiti is a blessing in disguise. The likely outcome of a UN involvement is that CARICOM member-states would be obliged to send their troops to serve for the UN and to further the interest of the U.S.
The fact that the U.S. has chosen to enter Haiti on its own, which is only a smaller version of the entry into Iraq, gives CARICOM the option not to be a part of that military initiative. Although it must be said that our need for American funds may mean we cannot refuse the invitation of the U.S. to help to give retroactive credibility to the abduction of Aristide.
The move is hewn out of the same principles that led to the Iraq invasion and subsequent complicity of states that opposed in the first instance. Now, we no longer are allowed to raise questions of the credibility of the move in the first place.
What I hope CARICOM will do is refuse to be part of the U.S.-Haiti initiative. However, that refusal to participate should not be articulated in some moral or ethical code.
It should be refused on the ground of financial inability because that language of money will make more sense to the U.S. than talk about democratic principles and high notions of morality and ethics.
If we need a world body that will act consistently in defence of moral and ethical principles, we have to look elsewhere because with its present rules of operation and political interests the UN cannot perform that role.
Dr. Livingstone Thompson is president of the Executive Board of the Moravian Church in Jamaica. E-mail: moravianchia@colis.com
