More than 1,000 Haitians have sought refuge in the United States, only to be returned to their deeply troubled nation. More refugees are sure to come as the widespread looting, street violence, and killings already under way during the past week intensifies in the wake of Aristide's departure.

President Bush has sent in a contingent of U.S. Marines. Other nations are contributing troops to an international peacekeeping force authorized by the United Nations Security Council.

Hopefully, these steps will quell the violence and anarchy. Hopefully, they will expedite the restoration of order and put into place a government acceptable to all Haitians. President Bush is staking a lot on hope. Unfortunately, hope is a poor substitute for policy especially good policy.

Which is why Americans should not take comfort in what has transpired, nor pride in the role of their own government. The Bush administration is deeply complicit in the ouster of a democratically elected president of an independent country. The long term interests of the American people as opposed to the immediate interests of the Bush Administration demand that Wednesday's congressional hearing on Haiti find answers to three questions: Why did developments in Haiti take the course they have? What are the implications of yet another U.S.-backed coup? Where will things go from here?

While it cannot be said that Aristide played no role in the demise of his presidency, it is also true that withholding badly needed U.S. and international aid made it doubly difficult for the Aristide government to fulfill its responsibilities to the Haitian people. Over the past several weeks, as gangs of armed thugs, former torturers and death squad leaders, coup plotters, drug dealers, and convicted murderers to paraphrase Colin Powell's words, mounted an armed rebellion against the duly elected government, the Administration rejected Aristide's call for international assistance. The Administration only supported the Caribbean Community's (CARICOM) plan of action for resolving the crisis in response to intense pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus a plan to which Aristide agreed but the opposition rejected.

The Administration's posture assured the opposition that it would not have to reach a compromise. They could simply hold out and let the thugs do their dirty work. In effect, the Administration promised to send in the marines if and only if Aristide resigned. Lacking sufficient internal forces to restore law and order, Aristide facing the specter of revenge killings, more looting, and massive waves of refugees fleeing to the United States had no choice. The Administration claims the resignation was consistent with Haiti's constitution. That may be formally true, but in essence we are witnessing the 33rd coup d'etat in Haiti's history most of them engineered by the United States.

The Administration suggests that the crisis was solely Aristide's fault. It also accuses the ousted Haitian president of electoral fraud. I have been among those who criticized Aristide for autocratic governance, for failure to develop democratic institutions, and for insufficient steps to improve the material conditions of the Haitian people. Yet, when the decisive moment arrived President Aristide chose to safeguard constitutional democracy rather than protect personal power, saying: "The constitution should not drown in the blood of the Haitian people. If my resignation is to prevent bloodshed, I accept to leave."

In a democracy, elections should be the principal means by which leaders are replaced. Instead, President Bush has strengthen undemocratic and anti-democratic methods, while further weakening Haiti's already fragile democratic institutions. Moreover, what exactly is the agenda of the opposition and of the armed rebels that our government tacitly supports? What costs will the American people incur? What will happened when the marines leave? What message are we sending to other countries in the hemisphere experiencing internal political difficulties? Will these nations be more or less inclined to tolerate dissent?

What Haiti needs most is the rule of law and an orderly constitutional process. It urgently needs large scale humanitarian assistance in the form of food, clothing, medical care, and shelter. It also needs stability, sustained help in creating a coherent civil society, and a long term economic development commitment from the United States, the UN, CARICOM, the Organization of American States, and the international community. CARICOM is to be commended for its balanced approach to resolving this crisis. Let us hope the UN maintains a peacekeeping presence and when the time comes contributes election monitors.

The Administration has once again demonstrated that it is fully capable of ousting a head of state that it does not like. It has shown itself to be far less capable when it comes to reconstruction and nation-building. Yet, it is precisely on these questions that once again the credibility of the United States hinges.