Editorials
Monday, June 14, 1999Troops should be
withdrawn from HaitiAFTER five years of helping to develop democracy in Haiti, it's time to withdraw U.S. troops. That is the view of the House of Representatives, which voted last week to remove the troops. It's unclear whether the Senate will concur. But the idea makes sense.The issue: U.S. troops were sent to Haiti five years ago to restore an elected president to office.
The House was closely divided on the issue -- the vote was 227 to 198, mainly along party lines. The question is whether the U.S. effort has run its course or whether American troops should be stationed in the desperately poor country indefinitely.
President Clinton sent 20,000 troops to Haiti in 1994, to restore President Bertrand Aristide to office three years after he was ousted in a military coup. Aristide had won the country's first democratic elections in 1991.
Aristide's successor, Rene Preval, fell into a stalemate with the parliament, which repeatedly refused to approve his choice for prime minister. Elections were canceled in 1997 due to allegations of fraud. Preval dismissed the parliament last January; another round of elections for a new president and parliament is scheduled for the fall.
From the initial 20,000, the U.S. contingent has dwindled to 500 soldiers who perform mostly humanitarian duties -- building schools and drilling wells. The mission costs U.S. taxpayers about $20 million a year.
Since Preval dissolved parliament, reports of unrest have swelled. The U.S. military compound has had to upgrade its "threat conditions." In April shots were fired at several soldiers outside the compound but no one was hit. Of the 500 troops, 175 are assigned to guard duty.
Democrats who oppose the removal maintain that U.S. troops are needed in Haiti as a reminder that America is watching the country. They argue that removal of the troops could lead to even more instability, possibly triggering another wave of refugees across the Caribbean toward this country.
Gen. Charles Wilhelm, commander of U.S. forces in Latin America, recommended in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that permanent stationing of troops in Haiti be replaced with periodic deployments. Wilhelm pointed out that U.S. forces are sent periodically to other countries in the Western Hemisphere and Haiti is the only country with a permanent presence.
It seems unlikely that the U.S. military can achieve anything more in Haiti than it has in the past five years. The humanitarian activities now occupying the troops could be be filled by civilian aid organizations.
If the need arises, troops could be sent back to Haiti, but keeping them there permanently seems both unnecessary and unwise.
Japanese steel exports
face higher tariffsSINCE World War II Japan and the United States have gone from being enemies to allies and economic partners. But the business relationship has often been strained by disputes over trade. Another conflict is now building over Japanese exports of low-priced steel to the U.S.
The import surge came in the wake of the Asian economic crisis, which lowered demand for steel abroad. The strong U.S. economy made an irresistible target for producers desperate to find a market.
The U.S. industry had accused Japanese, Russian and Brazilian producers of illegally dumping hot-rolled steel in the United States at prices below production costs or home-market prices.
The Clinton administration has tentatively struck deals with Russia and Brazil in which those countries could avoid higher tariffs by voluntarily reducing steel shipments.
The American producers won a major ruling Friday when the U.S. International Trade Commission approved punitive tariffs to discourage low-priced Japanese shipments. As a result, tariffs ranging from 18 percent to 67 percent will be ordered by the administration. The tariffs will effectively make Japanese steel more expensive to sell in the United States, offering domestic producers some relief.
The trade commission ruled 6-0 that Japanese pricing practices on hot-rolled carbon steel, the industry's main product, have or could hurt domestic producers.
The Commerce Department previously declared the pricing illegal. The foreign producers argued that the pricing trends result from normal market forces.
Hot-rolled shipments from Japan already have gone down drastically, partly because of the threat of tariffs, so the vote was mostly about sustaining those reductions.
In addition to the anti-dumping tariffs, the U.S. industry is seeking quotas on steel imports from all countries. Supporters of the quotas are hoping for a Senate vote later this month. The House overwhelmingly passed a quota bill in March by a 289-141 vote, despite the threat of a presidential veto.
It is not surprising that the assault of low-priced steel imports spurred domestic producers to seek protection. If the Japanese are selling steel here at below-cost prices or below prices at home, the U.S. industry has a basis for its complaints.
But the government must weigh the industry's grievances against the importance of maintaining good relations with Japan. Washington and Tokyo have settled many trade disputes in the past. They must resolve this one amicably, too.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
