THE row between Caribbean leaders and the George W Bush administration over the ditching of Caricom's plan for power sharing in Haiti and the forced exile of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, underscores the perilous paths that small nations have to tread in a world where practical politics trumps principle every time.
The row ratcheted up a few notches Thursday on Nationwide (POWER 106 FM) when US Ambassador Sue Cobb said the US was "offended by the inflammatory language" used by Prime Minister PJ Patterson at a press conference Wednesday at Jamaica House, outlining the results of an emergency CARICOM summit on Haiti.
While the Ambassador did not identify which of Mr Patterson's remarks she found 'offensive', it was clear she was referring to the prime minister's questioning US assertions that President Aristide's departure from Haiti was not forced and, more specifically, his remark disputing the US claim that Caribbean officials were informed of Aristide's previously un-announced travel plans when his plane landed in Antigua for refuelling.
"We have been unable to identify any such person to whom he (Aristide) may have spoken" said Mr Patterson, adding that the operators of the aircraft had specifically declared to Antiguan officials "that there were no passengers on board".
At the time of writing Friday, it was not clear whether Ambassador Cobb had been granted the appointment she requested of Jamaica House to see the Prime Minister, or what would be the purpose of such a meeting.
The US and France undercut the Caricom plan just two weeks after US Secretary of State Colin Powell said the elected president of Haiti should not be forced from office by thugs. At that time, it appeared that the US would support the Caricom plan which was accepted by President Aristide, but rejected both by the formal opposition and the armed gangs, both of which insisted on the president's departure as the only basis for ending the armed rebellion which was spreading.
A great deal of press attention in the region and elsewhere sought to explain the US about face, and identify options now available to Caribbean leaders to deal with this latest crisis in relations with the US.
Amidst the myriad of explanations for US and France pulling the rug from under the Caribbean, the British newspaper, The Economist (March 4), linked the change to Bush's re-election agenda.
The Economist reported that Aristide's "doom was sealed" February 27 when the chimeres, the pro-Aristide gangs, began beating up Haitian boat people who had been turned around by the US Coast guard on the instructions of President Bush.
"If there was anything the Bush administration was not going to stand it was an interruption, especially in the months before the election, of its policy of sending home intercepted Haitian boat people", the newspaper said.
The argument goes something like this: Intimidation by pro-Aristide chimeres would encourage more and more Haitians to flee the country for Florida. If the refugees faced further attacks when they were forcibly repatriated, then the Bush administration would be put under severe pressure by domestic and international human rights groups, to halt the forced repatriation on humanitarian grounds. But yielding to such pressure would anger the president's more conservative political base.
So American diplomats in Haiti demanded that president Aristide get the chimeres off the street, which they did after he appeared on television and asked them to do so.
"At the weekend, Luis Moreno, the number two at the American embassy and a veteran Haiti hand, visited the president to tell him that the rebels were massing to attack the capital and that America would not intervene to save him. If he valued his life and those of his citizens, it was time to go. In the early hours of February 29th, Mr Aristide left his palace with Mr Moreno, handing him a short resignation letter, that declared his wish to avoid a bloodbath", The Economist reported.
While disputing Aristide's description of his departure as a 'kidnapping', The Economist said "his removal was more like slow death by strangulation".
A similar point was made by African-American Congressman Charles Rangel, of New York, who said the Bush administration "made it abundantly clear that Aristide would do best by leaving the country. Which means that the rebels, the looters (were) given to believe that they should never, never, never accept Aristide as the president."
While the US-French alliance on Haiti may provide some short-term help, president Bush's electoral chances, as well as a salve for the Franco-American wounds opened up over French opposition to the American-led war on Iraq, there are longer term issues that need to be addressed.
As a recent editorial in the Boston Globe put it, "It would be a mistake for US policy in Haiti to swing between pro and anti-Aristide poles. The goal of the United States and Haiti's other neighbours should be the development of internal institutions that involve both Haiti's urban and rural citizens, its educated elites, and its poverty-stricken farmers and workers in that much-maligned project, nation building".
These appeared to have been the precise objectives of the Caricom plan which have been widely supported by editorial opinion in the region. The heart of the Caricom plan was the commitment to support democratic institutions that have failed to take root in a country that has seen too many events like the one which unfolded last week.
So, Mr Patterson and his colleagues cannot abandon them now, despite the deep frustration over the about face by the US, and what the prime minister has called the "dangerous precedent" set by the manner of the departure of a constitutionally elected leader.
The entire region, including the United States, has a deep interest in Haitian stability and progress. The prospects of large flows of displaced refugees, drug trafficking and cocaine trans-shipment and the alarming incidence HIV/AIDS are just some of the issues of joint concern.
For Caricom - indeed for small and medium sized nations throughout the world - the only real 'challenge' to America, is to encourage Washington to respect the values of openness and democracy that many people outside America have found attractive for so long. This is a major challenge for both CARICOM and the US, especially as passions are inflamed on both sides.
Another interesting twist to the crisis was the common cause between Caricom and South Africa, which could prove beneficial according to the editorial in the Observer Friday which urged Caricom to put a trade and security pact between itself and South Africa on the agenda. The suggestion recognised both the links of race and South Africa's growing global influence.
There's another potentially beneficial special relationship which might also be explored, namely with India. For too long, the Indian connection with the Caribbean has been regarded in the region as being of significance only to Indo-Guyanese or Indo-Trinidadians.
The reality is that India, South Africa and Brazil are emerging as major global players in the new order of things. We need to exploit our historical connections to all three - remembering that Brazil is the second largest black nation, trailing only Nigeria.
As events in Haiti unfolded over the past weeks, another glaring deficiency was the absence of the Caribbean media there to report and explain the issues from a Caribbean perspective. It is entirely unacceptable that all the images and text coming out of Haiti in the run-up to the destruction of legitimacy came from the BBC, the American TV networks and the global news agencies.
As someone who was directly involved in media management, I know the issues about costs and our small markets. But we are not impotent. Our business leaders and media managers regularly make deals to allow the Jamaican press, for example, to cover the opening of a new hotel or business venture or entertainment event in some regional tourism destination or the US mainland.
Surely, they must be able to make similar arrangements, together, to defray the expenses of sending our media to see Haiti through Caribbean lenses. We still need Caribbean journalists in Haiti to explain life after Aristide's enforced departure as the story continues.

'What was I thinking?' Chris Brown speaks out

Fashion Saturday

Colourful Coif