The Philadelphia Inquirer from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania • Page 23

Sunday, July 17,1994 THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER C3 The slow reaction to Rwanda Will lure of tax cut bring in business? As people died, nations debated what to do. The result: Inaction. p-vwr- i. i i 's ---V A 4' 1 I ff r-w I .1 I I Associated Press ARMANDO FRANCA Rwandan orphans wait for their ration of rice from the Red Cross outside Goma, Zaire. Many children were separated from their parents as hundreds of thousands fled the violence in Rwanda.

By Charles J. Hanloy ASSOCIATED PRESS On New York that damp evening, April 6, U.N. diplomats were trailing off to dinner after a long day's debates. At Washington's Kennedy Center, the Bill, Hillary, Chelsea were settling in for an evening of ballet, a production of Sleeping Beauty. Good, once more, would conquer evil.

But halfway around the world that in the early morning darkness of central Africa, evil looked unbeatable. In the flash of machetes, the thud of nail-spiked clubs, a genocidal slaughter innocents had begun in an obscure land called Rwanda, a blood bath that would soon shock and sicken the world wijh its grisly efficiency. In the days and weeks that followed, at least 200,000 and perhaps more than 500,000 people were interna-, authorities estimate. The rest of world, through it all, responded only reluctantly to pleas for action. A review of the last three months, based interviews in New York, Washington Europe, found that the reaction to "Rwanda was slowed by bureaucracy and simple inertia, by a cautious new U.S.

policy 'on peace-keeping, by intercontinental buck-passing, by questions about white paint, by quarrels over combat boots. V'There has been a very regrettable "inability of the international community ''not just the United States but the international community to respond i'qujckly and effectively," acknowledged a senior U.S. official. despondent Boutros Boutros-Ghali, secretary-general, is harsher. The world's response, he says, was "a scandal." Maj.

Gen. Romeo Dallaire, in charge of a small U.N. military force in Rwanda, wanted to take quick action after the killings began the night and morning of April 6-7. Relations between Rwanda's majority Hutus and minority Tutsis had long been tense, sometimes bloody. After the Hutu president died in an April 6 plane crash, fragile peace was shattered.

Hutu militias immediately put up street stopping Tutsis, herding them to roadsides, hacking and clubbing them to death. Others dragged Tutsi fam- ilies from their homes for slaughter. Dallaire, a tough Canadian artilleryman, got the satellite phone to New York to -ask permission to upgrade his men's mis- sum from passive "peace" monitors to ag-. grcssive protectors of civilians, a senior U.N. official says.

Permission was denied. -The reason: the United States. Rwanda had exploded into the headlines just as the Clinton administration completing "Presidential Decision 25," new U.S. guidelines on peace-keeping. Soured by its Somalia experience, the U.S.

government was "learning to say no" on U.N. operations proliferating worldwide. The "n5" came quickly to suggestions -of a Rwanda intervention, says a Western "diplomat on the Security Council. "It became clear to us that the Americans were -very keen to close an operation down, and Rwanda was it." So as bodies piled up across the Rwandan landscape and civil war resumed between Tutsi rebels and the Hutu-led army, the major powers focused on getting their own citizens out of the chaotic country. 'A State Department official briefed some U.S.

House members on the evacuation. "But when we asked about U.N. plans for Rwanda," a House source recalls, "the answer was, 'Look, we haven't ilhought about that In the U.N. back rooms in New York, of indecision set in. was a general sense of uncertainty, of not knowing how to handle the situation," concedes a senior U.N.

official. African governments wanted to expand Dallaire's U.N. force, to; help threatened civilians. Boutros-Ghali was in their camp, until advisers convinced him that U.S. opposition made it.

impossible, U.N. sources report. Council members were awaiting the secretary-general's recommendation when an impatient Belgium declared it would withdraw its troops from Dal--laire's contingent. Boutros-Ghali immediately presented the council two options: a complete withdrawal or partial with- drawal of the U.N. force.

The holocaust went on. At noon that very day, April 14, at a remote convent in Rwanda, Hutus began the systematic massacre of as many as 20,000 Tutsis. "It dawned on us that it was not dying down, as we had expected," the U.N. official says. Under pressure from the Africans, Boutros-Ghali added a third option: a massive reinforcement of the U.N.

contingent. Given a choice between two "extremes" total withdrawal and reinforcement and a middle road, the 15 Security Council members on April 21 chose the middle, voting to reduce the Rwanda force to 270. The United Nations had finally made a decision on Rwanda to begin a retreat. "We didn't really expect an OAU plan." Meanwhile, Boutros-Ghali's appeal to the Security Council for action lacked a detailed scenario. More delays.

By now, U.S. officials said they, too, were "brainstorming" an all-African intervention. But they had their own delays in store. On May 11, after consulting with Vice President Gore, Boutros-Ghali announced that Nigeria, Ghana and Tanzania had offered troops. A plan to put 5,500 soldiers quickly into Rwanda seemed set for council approval by May 13.

Then the Americans balked. They opposed inserting the force in embattled Kigali, favoring deployment on Rwanda's borders. They also wanted a go-slow approach. When a resolution was finally adopted, May 17, it allowed ZONE from C1 urban ghettos? Will it cause existing businesses to expand? Will it be sweet enough to overwhelm the bitter worries about bullets and bankruptcy that keep most businesses miles from the inner-city? Clinton and Mayor Rendell are betting it will. Skeptics, even people like Haifetz, have their doubts.

Although Haifetz welcomes a federal tax cut, he doesn't think it will be sufficient to offset the negative effect on potential new employers of other state and city taxes. And, there is a potential Catch-22. The tax break is good only while the workers live inside the zone. If the newly employed worker moves to a better neighborhood say because of the new, better paying job poof, goodbye tax cut. "The crime is so high here, and the availability of decent housing is so poor, once they get a job and they begin to get a litle bit of money, they're moving," Haifetz said.

Stephen Horton, a top commerce official in the Rendell administration, is much more upbeat. He thinks the wage credit tax cut will definitely encourage expansion and bring in new businesses. "I see it as a very significant carrot," he said. If nothing else, the plan will be a sweet thank you to the businesses already in the proposed PhiladelphiaCamden zone. Estimates are that of the zone's 12,000 residents with jobs, about 3,000 work inside the zone.

It is composed of North Philadelphia west of Broad Street, the American Street corridor in North Philadelphia where Kensington is, and the West Philadelphia Parkside area. One Camden neighborhood, which includes the waterfront and New Jersey Aquarium, also is included. The zone could spell a collective $9 million yearly tax credit for zone business owners. The cut phases out after a decade. Planners predict that the venture will ultimately generate 4,700 jobs in the two cities.

In all, the Clinton plan the most ambitious federal urban-renewal program in years is a $3.5 billion deal. One billion dollars is to be pumped into the zones six urban, three rural in direct aid. It will pay for law enforcement, job-training centers, housing renovation and the like. Ijo-cally, the PhiladelphiaCamden zone would carve up $100 million of that. The remaining $2.5 billion is the estimated value of the various tax breaks inside the zones.

Indeed, the tax break benefits exceed the actual direct cash aid. Details on how this $2.5 billion figure was derived couldn't be obtained last week. John L. Buckley, chief of staff for Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, which prepared such an estimate, refused to permit his staff to speak with a reporter. Besides the tax break for hiring zone residents, the plan stipulates that zone firms can borrow up to $3 million apiece to be repaid at low interest rates.

And zone businesses buying factory equipment will qualify for about an $8,000 tax cut. A U.S. Treasury official conceded that $8,000 cut was "not likely to draw business into the zone. However, it will benefit those that are in the zone already." Clinton wanted an even more generous program. Congress balked and cut $1.5 billion in additional tax breaks Clinton proposed, including one that would have given employers a tax cut to recoup pension costs.

By far, the biggest break is the $3,000 tax cut for each zone resident hired. Not everyone thinks this approach is the best one. Some say the empowerment zones foolishly seek to help places in this case by attracting new businesses when government should be putting its energy solely into people. Adam Handler, a Los Angeles tax lawyer who analyzed the law for a trade journal, said in an interview that the plan would be far more effective if any employer anywhere got a tax break for hiring zone residents. Of course, Handler's idea would have driven up the cost of the program by millions, if not billions.

And it would have effectively removed all the incentive to stick a factory within the zone. Horton, the city commerce official, had a different idea. While endorsing the concept of requiring businesses to operate within the zone, he suggested that firms should get tax breaks for hiring residents from any poor area in Philadelphia, not just from the zone community. "Why not put a voucher in everyone's hands?" he asked, referring to the workers who would carry the tax break. Some remain skeptical about whether any wage program can create jobs.

They point to the still-existing Targeted Job Credits programs. It has cost taxpayers $5 billion since 1978 but generates few jobs, the critics complain. That program awards a $2,400 tax break for hiring the disabled, ex-convicts, welfare mothers and disadvantaged youth. Detractors argue that firms participating in that program often fast-food outlets have hired only people they would have hired anyway. Advocates of the new plan insist that the (Uf tnv rut nor vnnp rociHnrtt fint npmnt and will pay off in jobs.

Consider: The owners of one manufacturing plant in North Philadelphia situated squarely within the propozed zone recently decided to move to New Jersey because the firm needed a larger factory. The medium-size business, which the owners did not want identified, is just the type of factory Philadelphia has been desperate to keep. However, the potential $3,000 tax break wasn't factored into the company's decision-making. An executive of the firm said the company couldn't base business decisions on government incentives not yet finally approved. But had the zone been in place, the credit might have kept the factory in Philadelphia, he said.

"It would have been a very big factor. We were on the cusp" of remaining in North Philadelphia, he "This might hive pushed us over." World reaction was swift. Relief and human-rights groups condemned the decision against intervention as "callous" and "appalling." In Rwanda, hundreds of bodies were tumbling over Rusumo Falls and down the Kagera River. Boutros-Ghali was having second thoughts. "He Inertia, bureaucracy and buck-passing all contributed to the delay.

But pressure was mounting on the administration. Influential senators asked for "swift decision-making." Bad publicity soon was making the Americans "more positive about things," says a Western diplomat. On June 8, the United States voted for a revised resolution that "telescoped" the two phases of troop deployment into one. But the delays did not end. The Pentagon, going by the book, drove a hard bargain on leasing 50 armored personnel carriers to the United Nations, and said it might take a month to ship them.

Belatedly realizing they needed to be painted "U.N. white," the Pentagon added a couple of days to the estimate, a Washington source reports. Next came the combat boots. Washington agreed to supply special equipment to Ghanaian soldiers bound for Rwanda. But Pentagon quartermasters objected to what a U.S.

diplomatic source describes as Ghana's expansive "shopping list," including two pairs of boots per soldier. The list went into negotiation. In Rwanda, the killings went on. On June 10, Hutus massacred 170 Tutsis in a church in Kigali. "There are people dying who could be saved," said a Ghanaian general in Rwanda.

"That's why we are crying for the force to do it." In mid-June, someone finally moved to fill the vacuum. The French government dispatched hundreds of troops to protect refugees in western Rwanda, temporarily shifting the spotlight away from a floundering United Nations, where Boutros-Ghali now speaks of a U.N. deployment by August. Anthony Lake, Clinton's national securily adviser, describes Rwanda as a "test case" of the post-Cold War era. At the United Nations, many feel the world has failed the test, and the failure shows the need for a small, permanent U.N.

force to react to emergencies. But they're not hopeful. "What we need is a Churchill, a Roosevelt," said the senior U.N. adviser. "But we don't have one." only a small first deployment and called on Boutros-Ghali to report back on progress toward a Tutsi-Hutu cease-fire before the main force could be sent in.

Security Council President Ibrahim Gambari, Ni- genas u.N. ambassador, was dismayed. "I thought we had an agreement that the 5,500 troops would be inserted in one operation," he now says. Boutros-Ghali himself sounded despairing. "If we do not intervene in a situation where over a quarter of a million people are reported to have been killed in a few weeks, where will we intervene?" he asked in a speech in Baltimore.

By closely questioning every U.N. peace-keeping move, the Americans were following the demands of their demanding new "PDD-25." "We want to be confident that when we do turn to the U.N., the U.N. will be able to do the job," the American U.N. ambassador, Madeleine K. Albright, told a House hearing.

regretted not having explicitly recommended the massive reinforcement," a senior adviser says. On April 29, the U.N. chief took the unusual step of asking the council to reverse its decision of eight days earlier and examine forceful intervention. The mood in New York was changing. "By early May, there was a general feeling in the Security Council that the April 21 decision had been a mistake," says Ed Cairns of the British aid group Oxfam, who was lobbying U.N.

delegations for intervention. But between feeling and action lay delays and distractions. On April 30, Boutros3hali asked the ill-prepared Organization of African Unity to plan an all-African intervention. Nothing came of it, and a U.N. official now admits, Black caucus finds itself in tough spot on Haiti said.

"I do sense in the caucus there is a feeling that Haitians and other people of color have been treated differently. That's frustrating. But that's no reason to call for an invasion of a foreign country and the loss of American lives." An invasion would also cost hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. "In one breath, we are saying we have all these domestic demands, and we have to reduce military expenditures," said Morris of the Joint Center. "In the next breath, we're saying let's invade Haiti." Owens said the United States had long been involved in Haitian political affairs and had an obligation to help restore stability to the nearby nation.

"We have acted as mentor and puppet master," Owens said. "We wash our hands now." race-relations issue," said Milton Morris, an analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a think tank concerned with issues affecting blacks. "It's a matter of emotion and passion, and that's unfortunate because that is not the best basis for making good policy," Morris added. But for that, Rep. Major R.

Owens N.Y.), who heads the caucus' Haiti task force, makes no apologies. "Yes, we are sensitive about it, we are emotional. There has been a double standard, because Haitians are black. African Americans ought to be particularly concerned about this double standard." That's unfortunate, but not reason enough for military action, said Rep. Melvin Watt N.C.).

"We're not in business to be emotional," he of Haitian citizens. "We ought not, in a situation of this sort, rule out any option," Moseley-Braun said. "But the time for intervention has not arrived, and I hope it never will." Also opposing the use of force is Rep. Ronald V. Dellums who chairs the House Armed Services Committee.

Other African American members of Congress support an invasion. On a recent news show, Rep. Charles B. Rangel N.Y.) called the lack of support for an invasion of Haiti a double standard against a "poor black country with no political and economic base in this country." People supported Ronald Reagan when he sent the Marines "to rescue 18 white kids in Grenada," Rangel said, referring to the 1983 invasion that rescued 300 Americrfils. Haitian policy has "been identified as a i.

CAUCUS from C1 make' that decision. Rep! Carrie Meek whose district incluflcTthe Little Haiti section of Miami, says the time for military action is now. "We don't have any other options," Meek think.it is time to go in there and get out quickly and try to help them rebuild their't'puntry. "The Haitians want an invasion, but they don'CWaht occupation." Conyers Jr. senior member the caucus and chairman of the Hous'Government Operations Committee, HoWeVer, Sen.

Carol Moseley-Braun 111.) fias -not given up on sanctions: the eco-! nomic embargo, the cutoJf of commercial ah travei-ond the freezing of U.S. bank accounts.