It’s Sad

Poor Haiti. Last week’s military coup, complete with a phony firefight, has snuffed out any lingering hopes that the toppling of the longstanding Duvalier family dictatorship might bring democracy, stability and economic progress to that beleaguered nation. Haiti, which has endured more than its share of strong-arm rule, once again is in the grip of Lt. Gen. Henri Namphy.

Granted, the ousted president, French-educated political scientist Leslie F. Manigat, was hardly the leader whom Haitians had hoped for when they rose up against President-for-Life Jean-Claude Duvalier two years ago. Hand-picked by the junta that replaced Duvalier, Manigat was elected in January in balloting marred by fraud and boycotted by most Haitians. But, whatever his short-comings, Manigat at least had tried to revive the prostrate economy, reduce corruption and rein in the army--though he had the bad judgment to ally himself with Col. Jean-Claude Paul, who was indicted in Florida last March for smuggling cocaine to the United States.

Civilian control clearly was not what the military had expected from Manigat. Once he put Namphy under house arrest and replaced him as commander-in-chief, it took less than a day for military officers to turn the tables and send Manigat into exile; the treacherous Paul, transferring his loyalties to Namphy, was a key player. Namphy promptly proclaimed himself president, appointed a 12-member Cabinet that included only one civilian and dissolved the National Assembly. He said that he would rule by decree.

Although Manigat, from exile, has appealed for the international isolation of Haiti, the rest of the world appears resigned to dealing with the Namphy dictatorship. The United States, which lately has tried to move away from the notion that recognizing a government denotes approval of those who are in power, condemned the coup but said that it will continue diplomatic relations with Haiti. As State Department spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley explained, “There are . . . many governments around the world of whom we don’t particularly approve with whom we have relations.”

Nor does Washington have any real economic leverage; direct U.S. aid to Haiti was suspended last November, when an aborted election ended in a massacre almost certainly orchestrated by the armed forces. Only about $36 million of food and U.S. developmental assistance flows into Haiti yearly, and that is distributed by private agencies. Withholding that aid would hurt only the poorest Haitians, as would any move toward a trade embargo. At least 40,000 Haitians hold down jobs assembling goods for the American market, and each of these, in turn, supports another five people.

Covertly, the United States may be able to encourage Namphy’s opponents, the few who aren’t in jail or exile, though even the slightest show of resistance can be fatal in Haiti. The latest coup accounts hint that Namphy may be a mere figure-head and that those calling the shots are younger officers, including Paul, whose chief concern is maintaining lucrative trade monopolies and control of the drug traffic to the United States. If they someday want to exercise political power in their own names, Haiti may be in for still more turmoil.