Pleasantly hesitating on Haiti

In Haiti, politics is not something families debate about over dinner and then agree to disagree. It symbolizes the tumultuous history of a beleaguered nation. In its 200-year history, Haiti has endured more than 30 regime changes, only one occurring in a democratic fashion. The rest were a result of violent upheavals. The small Caribbean nation, carved out of an island shared with the Dominican Republic, has come to know a cycle of strife, poverty and civil war that makes Argentina look like a Latin paradise.

With authority vested by the Monroe Doctrine, the United States has imposed "peace" in Haiti on multiple occasions with the intention of breaking this vicious cycle and, in turn, spreading democracy. After 90 years, Haitians are still living in poverty and we have yet to empower a government capable of sustaining democracy. U.S. involvement in Haiti has been insufficient in creating stability for anything more than a negligible period of time.

In fact, recent history has seen mixed results when it comes to interfering in foreign civil war. It often incites further anti-American sentiment and tends to escalate hostilities. Our tenuous involvements in both Somalia and Bosnia proved to be particularly detrimental.

With a new round of "King of the island" a few weeks and 70 victims in the making, President Bush has yet to take decisive action -- other than the 50 Marines dispatched to protect the embassy. It appears the Bush administration has decided not to meddle in Haitian politics and, for the time being, observe patiently in the shadows. Despite increasing pressure from the Senate and from various humanitarian organizations, it is likely the United States will delay military action until a diplomatic resolution is reached.

Given Bush's track record, this is a conspicuous decision, but I applaud him none-the-less. In this particular situation, the best course of action in Haiti is inaction. The only chance of Haiti forging a brighter future is if it is left to its own accord.

As it is, the United States has been in a perpetual state of war stretching back to Sept. 11, 2001. With hundreds of thousands of United States soldiers deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, our country's resources are already spread thin and our military is overtaxed. Intervening in Haiti, under the current geopolitical climate, is not a feasible course of action.

Even if we were capable of taking military action on a third front, which party would we align ourselves with?

President Jean - Bertrand Aristide, the current leader, has proven himself a corrupt and conniving power-monger undeserving of our support. In 1994, the Clinton administration sent in 20,000 troops to supplant a tyrannical regime and reinstall Airstide as the democratic president for a second time. He then repaid us by allegedly rigging the 2000 election and disbanding parliament more than a year ago, subsequently undermining the democracy that he was supposed to symbolize.

On the other hand, it is not the practice of the United States to support the violent overthrow of any regime unless we are the ones doing it. Not to mention the principal rebel leaders are reputed war criminals.

Neither party has done anything to prove it is capable of creating stability and revitalizing the island. Why would the United States choose between two tyrants when it can let them dispose of each other?

As long as U.S. citizens are not the target of Haitian hostilities, I see no reason to interfere in the civil war and I commend Bush for making a conscious decision to sit on his hands for the time being. It is painful to watch a struggling nation suffer, but Haiti needs to find its own course before the international community can help it build a better future for its people.