The moralists: 'softness' on Haiti? - Editorial

Christian Century, Oct 5, 1994 by James M. Wall

THE NATTERING nabobs of the newsmagazines and talk shows tried for weeks to convince us that President Clinton was too indecisive and his policy too muddled to resolve the Haiti crisis. On the eve of the dramatic peace agreement brokered by Jimmy Carter, Newsweek lamented Clinton's "stumble" into a "messy showdown." The magazine blamed Clinton's "zigzag Haiti policy" on a "group of moralists who form a liberal web knotted together during the administration of President Jimmy Carter." These moralists, all of whom "speak the same language, the Carteresque 'human rights first' policy," have no "real feel for politics." According to Newsweek, one reason these Clinton advisers are politically naive is because there isn't a "single former elected official among them." They are, in effect, think-tank products who need the chastening effect of elected office to learn how to exercise power.

It is true that running for sheriff helps one to focus one's political mind. But there is something sadly naive on Newsweek's part in attacking those "moralists" who are supposed to have persuaded Clinton to invade Haiti to preserve human rights. In its desire to zing the president, Newsweek presents an analysis that is largely a rehash of statements made by opponents of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically elected president of Haiti. Aristide is out of favor in mainstream Washington, where the CIA has peddled reports of his mental instability, giving many members of Congress and the media an excuse to oppose him.

Nowhere in its analysis does Newsweek remind its readers that Aristide, a Roman Catholic priest, is a product of the liberation theology movement which identifies the gospel with the concerns of the poor. Though attacks on communism are not so widespread these days, opponents of the political left are still quick to brand anyone supporting Aristide as politically naive, militarily soft, and, worst of all, "moral."

This time, however, the "moral" approach worked. Jimmy Carter's peace mission to Port-au-Prince, combined with the movement of airborne troops en route to Haiti from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, led to an agreement that avoided conflict. The "moralists" displayed considerable skill in combining power with diplomacy, right up to and including the final 30 minutes before U.S. troops were scheduled to launch their invasion. As a result of that agreement, the U.S. and the United Nations have a chance to keep the peace while preparing for the return of President Aristide.

"Softness" is the word often used to denigrate the moral approach to either domestic or foreign policy. I was on a talk show recently and listened to a Clinton critic complain that the U.S. has taken the "social worker" approach in Haiti. The implication was that helping others is not the business of nation states. I replied that it is not "social work" to confront human rights abuses and take action to correct economic injustice. I also noted that Carter had just returned from a two-week trip through Africa, and had ended up in St. Petersburg, Russia, five days before he was directed by Clinton to head the mission to Haiti.

While in Africa--where he was working on projects to eliminate the Guinea worm and river blindness, two diseases that have brought considerable suffering to that continent--Carter visited with government officials in the Ivory Coast, Ghana, Liberia and Chad. As he has often pointed out, Carter's status as a former president gives him access to these leaders; they have dealt with him in the past, and they know he has access to other world leaders. But beyond his status, it is Carter's character and demonstrated concern for them and their people that prompt leaders to trust him as a consultant and an honest broker.

Carter first met Haiti's General Raoul Cedras when Carter was a monitor in the 1990 election won by Aristide. This personal connection paid off four years later when Cedras let the White House know that he would talk with Carter. The two men had been in frequent telephone contact prior to Clinton's decision to send Carter on the negotiating mission.

When talk show host John Callaway asked what I thought made Carter so effective as an international negotiator, I suggested a rather obvious answer: Carter has the prestige and experience of the presidency without the political baggage. Furthermore, I said, he is able to draw on his personal, deeply held religious belief that in talking with another person one must be sensitive to the other's perspective. General Cedras obviously sensed this and responded.

Mary Matalin and James Carville have just coauthored a book, All's Fair, a title that illustrates the degree to which politics has become a mediadriven entertainment game for which there are no rules. Matalin and Carville were 1992 campaign strategists for, respectively, George Bush and Bill Clinton, a competition that put their romance on hold until after the election. Now they are married and are traveling the country on a book tour, chuckling over how much fun they had "spinning" the media from opposite sides. This book offers a chilling account of the degree to which public discourse has been reduced to sound bites, dirty tricks and the constant search for an opponent's points of vulnerability.