
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, July 16, 1994                   TAG: 9407280039
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DON'T RUSH INTO HAITI

GUESSING WHAT the Clinton administration will do next, regarding Haiti, can be a hazardous undertaking. Inconsistency has been the only constant in Haiti policy so far. Particularly in dealing with the tide of refugees flowing off the island, flip has followed flop at a bewildering pace, making it difficult even to keep track of where current U.S. policy stands.

Still, America seems to have gotten itself now on a course with but one destination: invasion. The decision this week by Haiti's ruling thugs to oust international human-rights observers, decried with good cause in Washington and around the world, clearly brings intervention a step closer. The U.S. military exercises in earnest. A chorus of voices rises in favor of action.

But military intervention ought to be resisted, at least for now.

There's no question that removing the murderous generals and restoring the democratically elected leader, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, would be a just effort. The option is tempting, as well, on practical grounds. Not only could it stem the destabilizing and dangerous outpouring of refugees. A muscular show of resolve might also redeem some of America's recent indecision, confusion and drift. The Marines could finally win one for the flip-flopper.

This is a delicate matter, of course, because the threat of an invasion is a stick the administration may need to wield. The fact of an invasion, however, would transfer a good portion of responsibility for Haiti's troubles to the United States, a prospect far more burdensome and less straightforward than the military challenge of ousting a few dictators and their sneering cronies. Nation-invading and nation-building are very different enterprises.

For all the talk, America's most immediate interest is to manage the refugee problem - and there remains a chance of doing so without resorting to the military option.

The old policy of immediate and automatic repatriation was indefensible, in part because it was racist (refugees who don't happen to be black are treated differently), and also because the U.S.-led embargo worsens the Haitians' plight. Yet neither Haiti nor the United States was served by the combination of a liberal asylum policy with tightened economic sanctions, a combination that helped motivate thousands to crowd into makeshift, dangerous boats and set out in the belief they could immigrate to America.

Clinton's latest flip-flop - affording refuge to those fleeing Haiti, but in third countries in the region - is a reasonable innovation. If those rescued at sea have no access to America proper, the numbers making the attempt will probably decline (and already have). If, miserable as they are, Haitians want only escape from tyranny rather than resettlement in the United States, they have no legitimate complaint. And U.S. officials still are interviewing Haitians applying for political asylum in offices on the island.

If the flood of refugees abates, that could buy time for sanctions, isolation and diplomacy to continue racheting up pressure on the tyrants and their privileged supporters in Port-au-Prince. Such time may be needed, too, for the United States to organize a fully multilateral peace-keeping force to help restore democracy. And for Clinton to show he understands that tough talk, violent zig-zags in policy and spasmodic military reaction are no substitutes for sustained resolve.

If invasion in the end proves the only way to dislodge the despots and ease Haitians' terrible suffering, so be it. But let it be truly the last option. The confidence with which it now can be regarded is less than serene, to say the least, given Clinton's eroding credibility overseas and his manifest difficulty with the concept of staying a course.

by CNB