The Haitian Mirror
The United States has once again intervened unilaterally in Haiti's internal affairs, warning that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide must not be allowed to return ahead of the second round of presidential elections set for March 20.
Washington maintains that the return of the former president would destabilize the country by distracting the Haitian people at a critical moment. However, no similar standard was ever applied to prevent the January 17 return of the former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
Aristide was ousted from power in a 2004 coup, with the consent of the U.S. State Department. From his exile in South Africa he announced his intention on February 4 to return to Port-au-Prince.
It is inconsistent that the United States feels Aristide's return would agitate voters angered by poverty, when the return of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, who is under investigation for the diversion of billions of dollars from the Haitian treasury, has already inflamed a marginalized population.
It must also be noted that Washington has neither the right nor the authority to prevent the return of Aristide, Duvalier or any other Haitian citizen. To do so would be tantamount to blatant imperial meddling.
On January 30, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found the time to travel to Port-au-Prince and demand that the Haitian government accept the findings of the Organization of American States (OAS) mission monitoring the elections.
The OAS had determined that Jude Célestin, the candidate of Inite, or Unity Party, should not be allowed to participate in the upcoming runoff, having polled third in the first round of voting on November 28, 2010. Yet according to the Haitian Electoral Council (HEC), Célestin had come in second.
The move was nothing short of an act of diplomatic and political hubris reminiscent of the Cold War era.
This time, the State Department explained its opposition to a Haitian citizen returning to his own country by insisting that "it would distract voters" and "disrupt the peace."
It is clear that the United Nations and the OAS play merely symbolic roles in Haiti, because Washington feels free to decide the outcome of an electoral charade, all the while sponsoring the return of a dictator and preventing the homecoming of a former constitutional president.
Latin America would do well see its own reflection in Haiti's mirror and remember the old saying: Today it's you, tomorrow it's me.
Washington maintains that the return of the former president would destabilize the country by distracting the Haitian people at a critical moment. However, no similar standard was ever applied to prevent the January 17 return of the former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
Aristide was ousted from power in a 2004 coup, with the consent of the U.S. State Department. From his exile in South Africa he announced his intention on February 4 to return to Port-au-Prince.
It is inconsistent that the United States feels Aristide's return would agitate voters angered by poverty, when the return of "Baby Doc" Duvalier, who is under investigation for the diversion of billions of dollars from the Haitian treasury, has already inflamed a marginalized population.
It must also be noted that Washington has neither the right nor the authority to prevent the return of Aristide, Duvalier or any other Haitian citizen. To do so would be tantamount to blatant imperial meddling.
On January 30, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton found the time to travel to Port-au-Prince and demand that the Haitian government accept the findings of the Organization of American States (OAS) mission monitoring the elections.
The OAS had determined that Jude Célestin, the candidate of Inite, or Unity Party, should not be allowed to participate in the upcoming runoff, having polled third in the first round of voting on November 28, 2010. Yet according to the Haitian Electoral Council (HEC), Célestin had come in second.
The move was nothing short of an act of diplomatic and political hubris reminiscent of the Cold War era.
This time, the State Department explained its opposition to a Haitian citizen returning to his own country by insisting that "it would distract voters" and "disrupt the peace."
It is clear that the United Nations and the OAS play merely symbolic roles in Haiti, because Washington feels free to decide the outcome of an electoral charade, all the while sponsoring the return of a dictator and preventing the homecoming of a former constitutional president.
Latin America would do well see its own reflection in Haiti's mirror and remember the old saying: Today it's you, tomorrow it's me.