Haiti

I didn't think that I would be making an entry about Haiti. The correct course of action seemed to be so obvious that I didn't think this would be worth my time. But then, the world governments dropped the ball, and, more importantly, I have talked to some people who don't seem to recognize it.

Haiti was a democracy. A fledgling democracy to be sure, and one that had many problems. After an army coup had nearly extinguished democracy on the island a decade ago, the president actually abolished the army, in one stroke appearing to secure the fate of his nation. There were other problems, Aristide was widely held to be corrupt, and there were suspicions that the most recent election was not entirely fair.

Then a group of rebels armed with guns decided that they wanted a new government. This was a low-tech and small group of vagabonds, who decided to seize on the opportunity that an army-less government presented.

The Western nations were faced with a choice. They could either intervene to help save Aristide or they could let the rebels take over the country. It was a no-brainer, distasteful as it may be, Aristide represented the democratically elected government, while the rebels represented some people with guns.

It was only a few months ago that the States pledged to Central America that they would safeguard their democracies:

And so I appreciate this opportunity to join your deliberations today, and pledge that the United States will continue to support the Central American democratic security process, through our diplomacy, through our law enforcement cooperation, and through our military relationships.

I guess Haiti isn't part of Central America?

More, from our own Barbara McDougall, about a year and a half ago:

Hard upon the heels of the signing of the Santiago Declaration, democracy was under attack in Haiti, and the OAS - some members with misgivings, but in the end unanimously, collectively took the appropriate action under the Declaration - sending a ministerial delegation, moving towards sanctions and the freezing of assets, engaging the United Nations.

Amazing what a difference a year makes, now Canada just sits by the sidelines and watches while a fellow democracy gets overthrown by a military coup. What is really galling of course is that almost any country on the planet could have protected democracy in Haiti. The best estimates indicated that it would take about 250 highly trained military personnel to turn the tide. Hell, last time the States intervened, they just had to announce that they were coming and that was enough to quell the coup.

More from McDougall:

We have all discovered that the rhetoric of democracy is easy; its practice is not. The value of the Inter-American Democratic Charter is that it spells out as no other document has, not just the principles that we are determined to live by, but the actions we must take both collectively and as individual countries in order to do so.

And we have failed. We have not taken the appropriate actions to safeguard a fellow democracy.

It doesn't matter if Aristide was corrupt or if the elections were not as fair as they could have been. The Canadian government has been shown to be corrupt, should the military be called in? The ballots were rigged in the 1995 Quebec election, does that mean other countries should sit by if a few armed thugs decide to take over the province? Aristide was the head of a democratic government, and as such deserved our protection.

If a military coup can overthrow a democratic government right off the shores of the United States without repercussion, what hope do democracies elsewhere have? We have set a terrible precedent, and it will haunt us for decades.