To the Editors of the Crimson:
Your editorial of Feb. 12, on Haiti adopts the tone that the United States was responsible for the Duvalier dynasty's rule, and that we should now provide aid to Haiti as a form of reparations. I personally think that both charity and self-interest should motivate us to help Haiti; but your attempt to blame this country for the Duvaliers is absurd.
Your editorial rests on two false assumptions: 1. The United States Government is some kind of devil that likes regimes such as the Duvalier's, or considers them expedient. 2. American "support" kept the Duvaliers in power.
As to the first, is it really plausible that any American administration of the past 30 years, any President, any Secretary of State, genuinely liked the Duvaliers? Thought that their regime was better for American interests than the kind of government Costa Rica enjoys? To put the question is to expose its absurdity.
As to the second point. Is it your contention that the United States ought to have no normal economic or diplomatic relations with authoritarian or dictatorial regimes? This policy was applied to China for 25 years and is still being applied to Cuba. Do you approve of the result? Would you recommend applying this policy to the Soviet Union? Of course not. Such sanctions work only when there is a genuine chance of changing a nation's form of government from dictatorial to democratic. By the nature of things, there has to be popular support for such a change. Where the existing dictatorial regime is in addition unscrupulous and well-armed, force is also necessary. Can the United States by its own power supply both the force and the political will to change another nation's form of government? Would you not greet an attempt to do so with a scathing editorial on the arrogance of power?
Where popular support for democracy exists, as in Grenada, the United States can sometimes supply the necessary force. But unless a people is politically mature enough to institute and sustain democracy on its own, we cannot gain anything by meddling in their internal affairs--other than, perhaps, ameliorating their misery a little by cautious and limited measures.
The Duvalier regime maintained itself by force of arms. Nothing we could have done by means of economic sanctions, or even force, could have restored the Haitian people to freedom until they were ready to sieze it themselves. That they could get rid of Duvalier themselves was shown last week. Whether they can avoid falling into the hands of another such as he remains to be seen, and not all our money nor all our might can ensure that they do not. We do not, in fact, have the power to order the whole world as we like, and consequently we do not deserve to bear the moral responsibility for everything in it that we find odious. Ira J Klein Center For International Affairs
Read more in Opinion
JFK: The Untold StoryRecommended Articles
-
Haiti Declares Seige Over ViolencePORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti--Mobs rioted, buildings were burned and Jean-Claude Duvalier, president-for-life, imposed a state of siege yesterday and told the people
-
Cubra Libra?The dictatorial spiral into which the Cuban government has fallen reached a new, but no doubt temporary, low Wednesday when
-
Where Haiti StandsIn 1804, a towering Negro named Henri Christophe tore the white center out of the French tricolor and proclaimed himself
-
Summit of the LosersAs American forces ousted the last elements of organized tyranny from Baghdad, the French, Russian and German presidents met in
-
THE PLAN IN BRIEFI. That the United States shall immediately enter the Permanent Court of International Justice, under the conditions stated by Secretary
-
FORCE--AND REASONWhen President Roosevelt presents Congress with the special message on national defense, asking a mammoth air force of 12,000 planes,