Will U.S. troops be leading the charge into Haiti?

By Jonathan Power

LONDON (JP): It looks increasingly likely, as the refugee flood breaks its banks, that we are going to see the U.S. do in Haiti what it has refused to do in Bosnia and Rwanda-ask the UN for authorization to send in its troops.

But there has been no indication that the Clinton Administration has learned from the Somali fiasco on the necessity of placing its troops fully under UN command, rather than running a parallel operation, and whether it is prepared to abjure the massive firepower tactics used then which are fine in all out war but quite counterproductive in UN operations.

The big question for the White House to face up to: Is this operation going to be run in such a way as to put the UN back into business, or will it be another two headed gun-toting monster likely to end in disaster and thus ensure that the words `UN' will never be able to be spoken aloud again when Americans are present?

The big question for the UN membership as a whole: are we going to be able to make this UN system of peacekeeping and peace- enforcement work well or are we going to make do with some instant ad hocery when every power that has guns and will go, free-lances where they see fit -- as the French are now doing in Rwanda and the Russians are in Georgia?

In both the case of Rwanda and Georgia appeals to the UN to organize a proper multinational peacekeeping operation ran into U.S. opposition on the Security Council. The U.S. was neither prepared to offer its own troops or to fund or vote for anyone else's. (Although with Rwanda too late, it changed its position on funding and logistical aid.)

The situation in Haiti itself suggests that President Bill Clinton would make a dreadful mistake if he merely asks for a UN blessing on an autonomous American operation, as the French did in Rwanda and the Russians did in Georgia.

First, everyone knows that unlike the French in Rwanda, the U.S. would, if it chose, have plenty of countries who would volunteer to be part of a joint UN force. A number of Latin American and Caribbean countries have already indicated willingness.

Second, if Clinton wants to avoid a repeat of the so similar situation in 1915 when America invaded Haiti to depose a blood stained dictator and then stayed for 19 years, only to leave with its tail between its legs, the politics of Haiti basically unchanged, its best hope lies in an UN operation. Then the anti- American venom that lies deep in the Haitian armed forces can be neutralized.

The UN has a working rule that no single country should contribute more than 30 percent of the troops to a particular peacekeeping operation. This makes a lot of sense, even though in the case of Rwanda it made it impossible to build a UN operation around the French offer to go in, since no one else among the big powers, who had the logistical capability to move fast alongside, was willing to join them. It would certainly make sense in Haiti.

The other hard decision, both for Clinton and for the Security Council: Should this be a peacekeeping or a peace-enforcement exercise? The former can only really work if both sides -- exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and the army -- agree that they accept the UN's presence. The army doesn't. So it will have to be the latter -- imposing the will of the international community by the use of force.

Peace-enforcement failed in Somalia, mainly because of Gen. Mohammed Farrah Aidid's shrawd direction of his guerrillas. Is the Haitian army commander, Lt.-Gen. Raoul Cedras, made of similar stuff? And if he is would enough Haitians stand with him?

The answer to the fist question is probably no. For all its internal violence Haiti is not essentially a war-like culture, unlike the Somali desert tribes. Its border with the Dominican Republic has been for many years one of the quietest in the world. The Haitian army has no experience of war.

The answer to the second is that most Haitians would probably welcome a UN force, as long as it is not U.S. dominated. The middle and upper classes who've long supported the generals are now seriously divided. Those that actually earn a living by commerce or industry are really hurt by sanctions and desperately want a return to normalcy.

Usually I'm against enforcement. And since Somalia I've entertained serious doubts about American participation in peacekeeping. But Haiti is an exception. It is part of America's backyard. It is probably double without much actual fighting. On balance President Clinton should decide to go in but without bending UN rules or sidesteping the UN chain of command.