Haitian Crisis Still Resists a Solution : Diplomacy: Claims of progress are vague after 4 days of OAS talks. Some say they are ready to ease embargo.

A high-ranking delegation from the Organization of American States finished talks on resolving Haiti’s political crisis Friday with only vague claims of progress, but influential diplomats made clear that they are prepared to at least ease the international embargo against the poverty-stricken nation.

The ambiguous public tone for the four days of talks was set by OAS Secretary General Joao Baena Soares, who said in an interview before returning to Washington that “I am bringing back some signals that allow me to continue this effort.”

The former Brazilian diplomat explained that the signals included agreement by all parties that there should be “a dialogue” to end the conflict arising from the violent Sept. 30 military overthrow of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected president.

But when pressed for the elements of a dialogue--when, where and who--Baena Soares declined to be specific and pointedly added that “there is no instant solution to (the) political question.”

There had been hopes that a willingness to modify the embargo would bring a more positive response from Haiti’s rulers, but there was little more than silence from the military leaders who are seen as a key to any solution, according to one OAS official.

Still, some diplomats said, even though no quick response was made, there is a growing willingness among OAS members to amend, if not remove, the trade boycott.

“I am ready to go back and argue in the councils of my government that the embargo should be lifted,” said one participant, voicing a position echoed in separate interviews with other officials.

Other diplomats acknowledged the lack of any immediate meaningful movement, with one OAS delegate saying that the best that came out of the talks was a realization “for the first time” of the seriousness of the crisis. He said this could lead to a step-by-step approach that could result in a long-range solution, including the return of Aristide, who has taken refuge in the United States.

There was no immediate public reaction from either the army or the de facto government of Marc Bazin, the former World Bank official installed in June as prime minister by the military.

However, a senior military officer close to Gen. Raoul Cedras, the army chief of staff who led the coup, said “under no circumstances can Aristide return.”

This officer said that not even a promise to lift the embargo completely would change the opposition to Aristide, explaining that “we think the embargo hurts (the OAS members) more than us. Besides, it is a matter of principle. We can support a democratic process, but Aristide is anti-democratic, and we cannot accept him.”

Baena Soares acknowledged that the question of the embargo is central to the talks, but he denied reports in The Times and the Washington Post that there was pressure by U.S. political leaders to modify the embargo, which the OAS imposed after the army ousted Aristide and installed a puppet regime.

There was a suggestion that the embargo might be eased without full acceptance of Aristide back home.

One South American diplomat in the OAS delegation said that “it would be enough to get the embargo lifted if there is a partial recognition of Aristide as president by the army, at least by keeping silent.” That seems a long way from the long-range goal of the OAS and the stated purpose of the embargo: the restoration of Haitian democracy and the return of Aristide.

However, the diplomat’s view does recognize the failure of the embargo so far to solve the 11-month standoff.

Instead, the boycott, which was described in its early days as certain to force the anti-Aristide forces to back down, has been ignored by European nations and frequently violated by several OAS member nations.

The acknowledged result has been to seriously hurt the poor of Haiti while doing little more than inconveniencing the military and the wealthy Aristide opponents.

In fact, military officials and some members of the elite point to the leaky boycott to support their position that the OAS, and particularly the United States, is not really serious about bringing Aristide back.

They are also bolstered by news reports that the embargo’s limited impact on the rich and devastation of the poor have led U.S. and other OAS leaders to consider easing or even ending it, rather than be blamed for destroying what was already the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation.

“We read your stories,” said a military source about news accounts of famished Haitian children, “and we know that the American people now see that the embargo is at fault and not the (Haitian) government. I think the reports (of a change in the embargo) recognize that.”

The possibility of seeing the embargo end without wringing concessions from the military worries the Aristide forces, particularly those who have suspected a U.S. role in the coup.

“The Americans have been against Aristide from the start,” said Antoine Ismry, a millionaire businessman and one of the ousted president’s major financial supporters.

“If they end the embargo, it just proves they don’t want him back.”

Other Aristide backers think Washington is at best a reluctant ally.