Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, September 16, 1994 TAG: 9409160065
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By GEORGE GEDDA ASSOCIATED PRESS
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
Anthony Lake perhaps made the strongest case for the viewpoint that a superpower too timid to follow up on its threats will not be a superpower for long.
As Lake sees it, American adversaries would no longer take the United States seriously if it failed to take on Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras and his friends.
Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, anti-American terrorists, drug traffickers and nuclear proliferators - all were watching to see if Clinton backed off under pressure to stay out of Haiti.
As Lake, the White House national security adviser, said in a speech Tuesday, ``Our actions in Haiti will send a message far beyond our region, to all who seriously threaten our interests.''
Another forceful advocate of invasion has been Strobe Talbott, No. 2 at the State Department and a longtime friend of Clinton. He is said to have stressed a moral duty to rescue the people from their oppressors.
The argument that the nation needed to back its threats with action has been publicly soft-pedaled by the administration, mindful that most Americans find it arcane and unconvincing. Thus Clinton has sought to make his case on the basis of issues he believes Americans can identify with - protecting democracy and human rights, and avoiding refugee flows.
Support within the bureaucracy for an invasion was much smaller months ago when the administration was attempting to negotiate the return of exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Now, many career diplomats have concluded that if military action is bad policy, doing nothing is worse.
The Pentagon clearly still has grave reservations. Military officials are said to be wary of becoming bogged in a situation where public support is scant, the prospect of casualties is strong and American security interests are murky at best.
The latter arguments are echoed these days in Congress and public opinion polls.
Former Secretary of State James Baker summed up the reservations of many during an NBC interview on Thursday.
``We can still pursue the objective of restoring democracy in Haiti, but we really ought not to be doing this in this case at the risk of loss of American lives. That's where we differ with the Clinton administration.''
But, sounding much like Lake, Baker added: ``No American president should ever, ever, ever threaten the use of force unless he's prepared to follow up.''
After the Haitian military reneged on a promise to step down last fall, the administration stopped trying to negotiate and opted to try humbling Haiti's generals through severe economic sanctions.
Few beyond the foreign policy establishment then realized the risks the new policy entailed. Reliance on tightened sanctions could only be a short-term option because of the catastrophic economic conditions they would cause. Some recognized that invasion was the only option left if the policy failed. So far, it has.
Clinton appears to have decided it's time to draw the line in the sand, perhaps aware of the criticism he received for having made threats earlier in Bosnia and elsewhere, only to retreat.
Because of these unfilled threats, Baker charged, ``40 years of credibility built up under Republican and Democratic administrations was eroded.''
``The United States,'' he said, ``must protect its interests: to stop the brutal atrocities that threaten tens of thousands of Haitians; to secure our borders and preserve stability in our hemisphere; and to promote democracy and uphold the reliability of our commitment around the world.''
Clinton minced no words in describing the rights situation, accusing the military regime of carrying out a ``reign of terror.''
by CNB