 |
End to Standoff in Haiti |
 |
A standoff involving former soldiers who seized and occupied two former military buildings came to a peaceful conclusion yesterday. From the BBC:
The men were demanding 14 years of back pay and the reinstatement of the armed forces, which were disbanded in 1995 by ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The soldiers say the move was illegal and they continue to demand back pay.
After the army’s dissolution — sweet revenge for Aristide, who was overthrown in a military coup 1991 — a 9,000 member UN peacekeeping mission became the only security presence in Haiti.
As the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, and an island nation heavily dependent upon imports, the boom in commodity prices is pushing desperate Haitian men and women to embrace more and more desperate measures. The food riots of last April, which began in the slum of Les Cayes and lead to Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis’ ouster, is one example. This latest standoff is yet another.
The US government has responded to Haiti’s troubles modestly, offering a small chunk of cash ($170 million in USAID, $60 million less than we’re giving Pakistan to upgrade its aging F-16 fighters), but balking at further measures. Most notably, the Bush administration refused to revisit the issue of Temporary Protective Status for Haitians.
If TPS were granted, the government would immediately suspend all deportations to Haiti, thereby refusing to throw men, women and children back into our hemisphere’s worst conditions. It would also boost the economy of Haiti, ensuring that remittances to the island continue. Experts agree that remittances from citizens living abroad will play a key role in stabilizing life in Haiti. Currently, citizens of Burundi, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Liberia, Somalia and Sudan all enjoy TPS.
Though it seems callous, a strong case can be made for not granting TPS. Requests for Protective Status for Haitians is nothing new, and, if it were granted, the circumstances in Haiti are so dire that justifying its repeal would be a tricky business. “Temporary” status would risk becoming a de facto “permanent” status in this particular case.
