Amnesty in Haiti

Rep. Robert G. Torricelli’s appeal for an amnesty of the mass murderers in the Haitian army (Commentary, May 6) elevates defeatism to a virtue. International law and basic decency require that governments prosecute those responsible for state-sponsored murder and torture. Yet he argues that an amnesty for these crimes is necessary in Haiti because of Latin America’s mixed record of bringing gross abusers to justice over the past decade.

What Torricelli ignores is the U.S. contribution to this impunity. For 12 years, Washington’s indifference to prosecutions of human rights violators emboldened Latin American armies to insist on amnesties as a condition for relinquishing power. Rather than undertake the difficult task of establishing the rule of law, the Reagan and Bush administrations tended to press only for quick elections.

Haiti provides the Clinton Administration with its first opportunity to improve on this record. So far, ousted Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide has resisted army demands for an amnesty. He recognizes that because the Haitian judiciary is not now capable of trying abusive army officials, they cannot be jailed immediately. When reinstated, his government will need to build an independent judiciary and to investigate the army’s atrocities. At that point, the Haitian people should be permitted to debate the difficult question of whether to proceed with prosecutions without deliberating under the barrel of a gun.

Firm U.S. opposition to an amnesty could force the army and its backers to acquiesce, particularly if supported by tough sanctions such as freezing of their U.S. bank accounts and revoking the U.S. visas that serve as their safety valve.

KENNETH ROTH, Deputy Director

Human Rights Watch, New York