|
False Summit
By James R. Morrell
A meeting of world leaders such as the Summit of the
Americas should be an occasion for the resolution, not
exacerbation, of differences. The Summit of the Americas
fails this test because of the ideologically-driven
exclusion of Cuba. It reconfirms, and in a sense seeks
to legitimize, the chasm between the United States and
Cuba, two countries that have been aptly called "the
closest of enemies."
No such disability attends the Ibero-American summit,
which regularly includes Cuba. Cuba is now recognized
by virtually all of Latin America.
The excuse given for this exclusion is that this is
a gathering of all the democratically-elected presidents
of the hemisphere. Since Mr. Castro is running a one-party
dictatorship, he does not qualify.
The point is fair in that the repression of dissidents
in Cuba is indeed severe, although it scants the deeply
democratic aspects of the original revolution that propelled
Castro to power and the exigencies of defending against
the world's only superpower. From the Bay of Pigs to
the attempts to assassinate Castro with exploding cigars,
the United States' efforts to overthrow the Castro regime
have afforded Cuba ample national-security grounds on
which to limit dissent. Even so, the persecution of
totally nonviolent and loyal writers and poets such
as Elizardo Sanchez, who pose no national-security threat,
is indefensible.
More to the point, however, is the fact that several
of the other attending countries can scarcely be considered
democratic. In past years, Cuba used to point to Guatemala
and El Salvador as examples of countries where the military
and oligarchy ruled by violence beneath the thinnest
facade of elections and representative institutions.
In the 1990s, however, both of these countries made
important strides toward observance of democratic practice.
Peru too posed the issue of an overstaying president
who rigged the elections and constitution to perpetuate
his power. The OAS election observers had to withdraw
from President Fujimori's re-election exercise in the
year 2000. But Peru quickly squared accounts with Fujimori
and restored its vigorous political system.
It is Haiti that poses the greatest threat to the "democratically-elected"
criterion, because although President Aristide has genuine
popularity, and may be compared with President Castro
in that regard, in no way can the process by which he
and his party attained absolute power be considered
democratic.
The most recent Haitian electoral cycle began well
on May 21, 2000 in elections in which both Aristide's
governmental party and the opposition participated.
Results strongly favored Aristide's party, but not content
with this impressive majority, Aristide had his minions
on the electoral commission discard over a million senatorial
votes for opposition candidates so as to deliver the
entire senate to his party. When the electoral commissioner
himself called Aristide on this procedure and insisted
that all the votes be counted, both the then-president,
René Préval, and Aristide threatened him
and forced him to flee the country. (To its credit,
the U.S. government played a crucial role in enabling
the octogenarian commissioner's escape.) This deliberate
fraud then forced the Organization of American States
observation mission to withdraw in protest. The opposition
did likewise, boycotting all subsequent elections including
the one in which Aristide ran virtually unopposed. With
the forcible expulsion of the election commissioner,
all the other nongovernmental members of the election
commission also resigned, leaving that body in the hands
of governmental representatives who made no secret of
their partisan agenda.
Accompanying all these political machinations was a
rising wave of terror and impunity that claimed the
life of the country's leading journalist, Jean Dominique,
forced police chiefs into exile if they refused to bow
to Aristide's authority, and saw the burning of opposition
headquarters and arrest and shooting of opposition supporters.
No one has been prosecuted for any of the crimes and
police usually stand by idly while they are perpetrated.
The violence is all perpetrated by President Aristide's
supporters or unknown offenders; there are no credible
instances of violence by the followers of the scattered
civic opposition and leftist parties.
The result has been an exclusion of the opposition
from government no less perfect than in Cuba. There
is not a single member of the opposition in the Haitian
parliament.
In short, if Cuba is to be excluded on the grounds
of nondemocratic elections, then so must Haiti. Even
more so because Cuba's government is still an effective
provider of social services, which Haiti's has never
been.
Until the Summit of the Americas uses fair criteria
for its invitations, and seeks to heal rather than perpetuate
the grievous differences between the United States and
Cuba, it cannot be considered a contribution to hemispheric
peace and so lacks an essential moral basis.
______
The writer, research director of the Center for International
Policy, was a member of the electoral observation delegation
of the OAS in the Haitian elections of May 21, 2000.
His views in no way reflect the view of the OAS.
|
Haiti@inxil.com
· James
R. Morrell, executive director