One year ago today, the USS Harlan County, filled with American and Canadian troops, was not allowed to dock in Port au Prince, turned back by a group of Haitian thugs. President Clinton's Haiti policy was widely ridiculed and lay in tatters around him.

One year later, with the resignation and imminent departure of Haiti's dictators, Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras and Brig. Gen. Phillipe Biamby, one of the key objectives of Clinton's refined Haiti policy has been accomplished.

Last night, in his address to the nation, Clinton announced that the "objectives of the mission have been accomplished."

But has the United States miscalculated the breadth and depth of involvement required to salvage a viable future for the beleaguered Caribbean country?

The United States plans to withdraw its troops from Haiti early next year. The narrowly defined mission for the U.S. military, confined essentially to cobbling together and training a local police force, needs to be expanded.

The enormity of the problems facing Haiti, arising from a complex skein of social, political and economic factors, makes problem-solving difficult.

The poorest country in the hemisphere, Haiti has an illiteracy rate of 75 percent and an infant mortality rate of 149.1 per thousand.

Haiti occupies a curious place in Caribbean politics. There is no cultural affinity between Haiti and other Caribbean countries, a condition which serves to exacerbate its problems.

With the lifting of the economic embargo, the United States should be prepared to make a significant economic investment in Haiti, by providing external capital in the form of both private commercial sources and unrestricted government loans, and through the provision of tax breaks for companies who are willing to invest in Haiti.

The establishment of cultural ties, especially scholarly ones, should aid in cultivating an environment where democracy could take root and possibly thrive.

It is conceivable that Haiti can be transformed into a country where the domestic political will of the Haitian people could be legitimately translated into governance.

President Clinton has been uncharacteristically blunt in outlining the economics behind the mission to restore democracy. "The American people have already expended almost $200 million to support them [Haitian refugees], to maintain the economic embargo and the prospect of millions and millions more being spent every month for an indefinite period of time loom ahead unless we act."

The subsequent action has been a triumph of diplomacy. The Carter-brokered deal has, against all odds and in the face of much ridicule, succeeded in restoring the democratically-elected president to power.

Yet, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide who is scheduled to return to Haiti on Saturday, Clearly is a transient figure. He has provided no credible vision for Haiti's future and seems vague about the details of governing. The Clinton Administration's conditional support for Aristide is an appropriate response.

Clearly the United States cannot be expected to shoulder the burden of rebuilding Haiti. It is important that other Caribbean nations be substantively involved in the enterprise.

Ultimately, the people of Haiti are the architects of its future.

They do need, however, the basic tools with which to build this future. Since the Haitians are operating with a very narrow margin, it is essential that they are offered tangible forms of support from the international community. The military invasion was just the beginning.

Lorraine A. Lezama's column appears on alternate Tuesdays.