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

DATE: SATURDAY, September 17, 1994                   TAG: 9410270028
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A9   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

THE HAITIAN DILEMMA

The problem isn't so much with the plan's merits or morals or likely outcome. The problem is that Clinton has failed to get congressional authorization to invade.

At a more basic level, the problem is too many situations in which choices are reduced to an untenable proposition: send in the troops or lose credibility.

In his speech Thursday, Clinton warned Haiti's military ruler, Lt. Gen. Raoul Cedras, to ``leave now or we will force you from power.'' That's an ultimatum from which America cannot walk away without losing at least some influence in the rest of the world. The question is: Why do we come down so often to the last resort?

These situations keep arising, yet little is done to prevent their repetition. The Haitian dilemma offers another reminder that America and the world need more effective mechanisms to prevent human-rights violations, mediate conflicts and protect democracy.

Let's be clear about a few things.

Upholding the right to choose one's government without being murdered - in a country close to U.S. borders, in a country that is a source of potentially tens of thousands of refugees - is a better reason for intervention than many that have been offered in the past, such as in Grenada.

And it's not as though nonmilitary efforts haven't been made. Three years of talks produced an agreement that the ruling thugs then abrogated. Tough economic sanctions have hurt Haiti's poor more than its oligarchy. Promises of luxurious exile were repeatedly rejected by those who overthrew Haiti's president and have since overseen the slaughter of peasants, pastors and orphans.

President Clinton Thursday night said the United Nations-sanctioned intervention would be limited in duration and purpose, would not attempt "nation-building," and would involve troops from other countries.

The problem is that all these points should be the subject not just of a speech to the American public and an ultimatum to Haiti's generals. They ought to be presented to Congress in a request for authorization of military force, without which its use is, at the least, misguided.

Congressional debate would help clarify for the entire country what's at stake, which isn't clear now. Shared accountability would provide some cover for Clinton if the aftermath of the invasion proves messy, which it well might. And the Constitution in any case affords Congress a role in military actions other than those immediately necessary for the defense of the nation, which an invasion of Haiti isn't.

If President Bush sought congressional authority to restore Kuwait's monarchy, why shouldn't Clinton do the same to restore Haiti's democratically elected government? If Clinton fails to win the consent of Congress and, by extension, of the American people, there might be good reasons for that.

The bigger problem is that, even if Haiti's rulers agree to quit and run, the need for a better foreign policy remains.

America cannot and should not be the world's policeman, President Clinton said Thursday night. But U.S. leadership within the international community is needed to develop an effective global police force under U.N. auspices. The alternative is endless repetition of Haiti-like dilemmas and insupportable invasions.