Geof Brown

As guest commentators on Power 106 radio talk show, Nationwide, fellow commentator Rickey Singh and myself faced a significant question from host Cliff Hughes. Singh and I, in commenting on the strong stand of US Ambassador Sue Cobb, felt that her explanation of Haiti's President Aristide's sudden departure without undue pressure from US agents, was hardly plausible or credible. But Hughes' question was whether it was not conceivable that Aristide did in fact leave his presidency voluntarily and was too embarrassed to advise his Caricom colleagues.

My own view was, yes, that scenario is conceivable, but on the face of it, highly unlikely. However, if that speculation was the case, then the ambassador would be right while the positions of Caricom leaders and others like American congressional members of the Black Caucus would be wrong and unfounded. Leaving aside the less than diplomatic language of the ambassador, who lambasted Caricom leaders for "unsophisticated analysis" - a gratuitous insult to their intelligence - let us examine the possibility that the American envoy is correct. That would mean that President Aristide pleaded for American forces to escort him to safety and said not one word to his Caricom colleagues who were actively assisting him up to the last minute to resolve his governance problems.

If the ambassador is right, it would mean that the hectic efforts of the US State Department spending one and a half hours on the phone trying to find a refuge for Aristide, totally bypassed the Caricom leadership. One might then ask why in all this hectic phoning, not one phone call was made to the Caricom leadership - either advising of developments or requesting asylum for Aristide. Did the US State Department fear that all the Caricom countries (including Antigua where the American plane carrying Aristide made an incognito stop) would refuse asylum to their Haitian colleague? As PM Patterson observed in answer to whether the US broke faith with Caricom: it was not what he called partnership.

Why contact, instead, a far-away, relatively insignificant African country which was at no time involved in the dialogue to resolve Haiti's political difficulties? Recall that at the time of Aristide's sudden departure, Caricom leaders had been working actively with the US, France and Canada as partners to find a way out of the impasse created by rebel gangs (euphemistically termed "rebel forces" as against President Aristide's supporting forces termed "gangs" by some American media). Would it not have been correct for American State Department officials to advise all the partners working on the Haitian crisis that Aristide was bowing out and sought American help?

Only one phone call to the Jamaican prime minister as chairman of Caricom would have put the US State Department in the clear as acting in concert instead of acting arbitrarily and unilaterally. We know from the Caricom chairman's revelations, that no such call was made and therefore Caricom learnt after the fact and through Aristide's public claim that he was forcibly removed ("kidnapped"). In short, Caricom leaders did not learn of the American agents' involvement through diplomatic channels, but through the public media, just like the rest of us.

It should therefore come as no surprise that in the circumstances, Caricom leaders, as well as South Africa and many American political leaders, have called for a high-level inquiry. Removing a properly-elected constitutional head of a country involuntarily is, quite clearly, a very serious matter, setting a highly dangerous precedent indeed. However, Ambassador Cobb declared that such an investigation would be "a waste of time" and further darkly hinted that the findings could prove embarrassing to Aristide's friends and colleagues.

But if the ambassador is right, the inquiry or investigation would be a major advantage for the US. It would be a vindication of the truth of the American position in the matter, and the ambassador as well as her State Department superiors should therefore welcome it. The call for an inquiry should therefore not be viewed as an attack on the integrity of Secretary of State Colin Powell - incidentally, a direct Jamaican descendant with, until now, majority affection from Jamaicans. And if the ambassador is right, let the truth about Aristide hang out.

Far better that we should know the truth, than end up backing one who does not deserve our support. In short, if Aristide is a liar whose claims against American agents are absolutely false, let him be exposed! That would not only clear the American State Department and agents from blame; it would also free the Caricom leadership to back off from supporting Aristide. If the ambassador's dark hints are valid, the exposure of Aristide's whatever-unbecoming doings would be a win for the US position and a silencing of the pro-Aristide critics.

So back to the Cliff Hughes question. Yes, it is conceivable that what took place is exactly as stated by the US State Department, that Aristide was too embarrassed by his about-face to speak the truth, and that therefore the US Ambassador to Jamaica is right in her assertions. Fine, then; let's prove it through proper inquiry.

browngeof@hotmail.com

Feeding the multitude

DANGEROUS PETS

Pepper Pot