Contradictory Haiti Policies Charged
30 January 2006; Source: New York Times, 29 January 2006

A January 29 article in the New York Times alleges that the United States essentially had two conflicting policies toward Haiti, possibly leading to the turmoil that resulted in Aristide’s ouster in early 2004.  The article charges that the American ambassador, Mr. Curran, was following the administration’s policy of working with President Aristide, while the US funded International Republican Institute (one of a family of democracy promotion organizations under the National Endowment for Democracy) was supporting the opposition and effectively promoting regime change that led to Aristide’s ouster. The authors suggest that the extent to which back channels may have been used to promote the ouster of Aristide has profound implications for the legitimacy of United States’ democracy promotion and IRI.

According to the article, Ambassador Curran and Secretary of State Colin Powell held that US policy was to support Aristide’s incumbency.  However, Assistant Secretary of State Otto Reich was quoted by the Times as saying, “There was a change in policy that was perhaps not well perceived by some people in the embassy. We wanted to change, to give the Haitians an opportunity to choose a democratic leader.”

The article reports that Mr. Stanley Lucas, head of IRI in Haiti, was anti-Aristide, and allegedly met with Guy Philippe, who led the rebel forces into Haiti and encouraged rebel and opposition leaders to believe that ousting Aristide was U.S. policy.

Related: New York Times Editorial Condemns IRI Interference in Haiti 03 February 2006