what you won't hear about Haiti

[corplinx]

1. The leftist kooks say we are only in Haiti to help Bush's friends in the caribbean resort industry.

2. On democratunderground forums people will claim we are only in Haiti to cleanup Clinton's mess.

3. Someone will equate Clinton installing Aristide with Nixon era intervention like Chile or East Timor.

4. Constant claims about America expanding its empire


I hope I made a good point about the inconsistencies of the fringe left with this tongue-in-cheek look at Iraq rhetoric. Now, the interesting thing is the fringe right is/will probably use arguement number 2 since anything Clinton did was evil.

Now, was Clinton wrong for installing Aristide? Maybe. Hindsight is always clearest and at the time installing Aristide fit with the motif of supporting democratic elections. Whatever the case may be, America and not specifically Bill Clinton now have an obligation to help the Hatians since we goofed up by supporting that rat Aristide. No big deal.

 

[Zep]

No. Every time the US steps into somebody else's country unasked to try to solve their problems for them it only makes things worse.

Better solution: Mind your own beeswax! Let them sort it out themselves. It will be ugly, but that way they can't blame anyone but themselves when the fecal matter hits the spinning blades.

Note that the operative word here is "unasked"...

 

[aerocontrols]

Note that the operative word here is "unasked"...

Which brings us to an important question: Who has to ask?

 

[corplinx]

No. Every time the US steps into somebody else's country unasked to try to solve their problems for them it only makes things worse.

Well, in this case many Haitian and French interests have asked us to help. In any case, I think we have some rudimentary duty to help the country since we contributed to their problems.

Now, will there ever be stability in Haiti? Who knows!

 

[Zep]

Which brings us to an important question: Who has to ask?

Of course. That's that tricky "diplomacy" bit that seems to be deliberately ignored by certain "patriotic" people oftentimes. General answer: Horses for courses.

But don't you agree that an open and international call for help should be the appropriate signal in this case? It's not like Haiti poses a major threat to the US homeland security at all, necessitating a purely military response...

 

[Nikk]

Of course. That's that tricky "diplomacy" bit that seems to be deliberately ignored by certain "patriotic" people oftentimes. General answer: Horses for courses.

But don't you agree that an open and international call for help should be the appropriate signal in this case? It's not like Haiti poses a major threat to the US homeland security at all, necessitating a purely military response...

Well the caribean community - Caricom has asked for an international force and the US and France have said they will participate, other significant regional players are in agreement. I think there is supposed to be a security council meeting and resolution on the matter this pm. Seems like a textbook way of dealing with an uncontroversial problem.

 

[Zep]

Well the caribean community - Caricom has asked for an international force and the US and France have said they will participate, other significant regional players are in agreement. I think there is supposed to be a security council meeting and resolution on the matter this pm. Seems like a textbook way of dealing with an uncontroversial problem.

It does indeed. It will be interesting to see what sort of intervention, if any, eventuates.

 

[aerocontrols]

Of course. That's that tricky "diplomacy" bit that seems to be deliberately ignored by certain "patriotic" people oftentimes. General answer: Horses for courses.

But don't you agree that an open and international call for help should be the appropriate signal in this case? It's not like Haiti poses a major threat to the US homeland security at all, necessitating a purely military response...

I don't agree that any such 'rule of thumb' can be written. I don't recall that we received such a signal before we got involved and removed Noriega, for instance, though it hardly seems to me that his removal made Panama worse.

Also, it seems to me that we have been asked to get involved by the international community, by Aristide himself, and by the rebels as well. Of course, they all want different things from our involvement. Does part of not doing 'unasked' things mean that our response should be to do as they ask, as well as get involved when they ask?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what 'horses for courses' means.

 

[epepke]

Well the caribean community - Caricom has asked for an international force and the US and France have said they will participate, other significant regional players are in agreement. I think there is supposed to be a security council meeting and resolution on the matter this pm. Seems like a textbook way of dealing with an uncontroversial problem.

I'm being cynical, but I think largely accurate here.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter with respect to international perception, does it?

In any conflict, there are two or more sides. Chances are, at least one of the sides won't see US intervention in their best interests and won't ask.

If it works out well, nobody will remember it, because the bad stuff didn't happen, and one can always assert that it wouldn't have happened anyway.

If it works out poorly, well then, everybody will get out their history books and their Majic Markers and highlight whoever didn't ask for US intervention.

 

[demon]

corplinx:
"Whatever the case may be, America and not specifically Bill Clinton now have an obligation to help the Hatians since we goofed up by supporting that rat Aristide. No big deal."

How is Aristide a "rat"? Please explain.
The reality of the situation is that Aristide, Haiti`s first democratically elected president has been ousted by armed thugs who have about 8% of the population behind them.

Again the wool is being pulled over everyone's eyes by the establishment media. No information about Haiti's revolutionary past, no information concerning the IMF debt ballast dragging down yet another Third World country, and of course no news whatsoever about 'full spectrum control' USA/CIA infiltration.

No wonder people were misled over the NATO attacks on Yugoslavia, since we're being completely/comprehensively misinformed.
Quite stunning really, to see again, how uniform are the tales/myths we're all being told

Don't know why they are letting the dogs of war loose right now - unless things in Iraq really do not look hopeful and a diversion is required already.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

The hindsight question of installing the president is not quite correct if you remember the history. Aristide was elected and overthrown and restored to his elected position. At the time the guy appeared fairly reasonable , a populist who helped overthrow the Docs (Papa and Baby), a priest and largely embraced by the overwhelming majority of Haitians. Probably a more defensible position than installing a Pinochet or Norieaga.

Then we have power corrupting and America ( as usual ) has to play cop. This for a society that has less stability then the tower at Pisa. At what point do we separate ourselves from conflicts that seem only to have a moral bearing that we must pay for in blood and treasure?

I mean , really , we have no interest there. We don't have a strategic or monetary or even a clear moral mandate.

 

[Nikk]

I'm being cynical, but I think largely accurate here.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter with respect to international perception, does it?

In any conflict, there are two or more sides. Chances are, at least one of the sides won't see US intervention in their best interests and won't ask.

If it works out well, nobody will remember it, because the bad stuff didn't happen, and one can always assert that it wouldn't have happened anyway.

If it works out poorly, well then, everybody will get out their history books and their Majic Markers and highlight whoever didn't ask for US intervention.

In any internal conflict foreign intervention is more likely to bring an end to the conflict if all the neighbouring states support that intervention which seems to be the case here.

I don't think anyone expects that US/UN intervention will lead to Haiti becoming a flourishing liberal democracy. If they can just manage to feed themselves it would be an improvement.

 

[corplinx]

I don't think anyone expects that US/UN intervention will lead to Haiti becoming a flourishing liberal democracy. If they can just manage to feed themselves it would be an improvement.

I think the best thing would be to take send all the haitians to Liberia where society will blend right in and give haiti to the cayman islands.

Of course, there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening.

 

[Zep]

I don't agree that any such 'rule of thumb' can be written. I don't recall that we received such a signal before we got involved and removed Noriega, for instance, though it hardly seems to me that his removal made Panama worse.

Also, it seems to me that we have been asked to get involved by the international community, by Aristide himself, and by the rebels as well. Of course, they all want different things from our involvement. Does part of not doing 'unasked' things mean that our response should be to do as they ask, as well as get involved when they ask?

I'm afraid I'm not familiar with what 'horses for courses' means.

"Horses for courses" means much the same as using the right tool for the job at hand.

I agree - no "rule of thumb" can be written about it, but there are still some operating parameters that should be kept in mind. For example, would it be "overkill" for the US to lead a large-scale armed invasion of Haiti now, like it did into Iraq? Would it be politically inadvisable today? Even if, for example, Aristide asked for it? I would say it would be, but others may disagree. Then again, sending a small handful of "advisors" might be next to useless and be seen as a political "don't care" response. Somewhere in between is a level of response suitable - I don't know what it is though.

The level and type of response is determined through negotiation, and that process may even lead to a peaceful solution that requires no US intervention at all. You never know...

 

[epepke]

In any internal conflict foreign intervention is more likely to bring an end to the conflict if all the neighbouring states support that intervention which seems to be the case here.

Oh, sure, but I'm talking about international perception, not what works. If it goes wahoonie-shaped, all the support for intervention will be forgotten in a femtosecond. It'll all go into Winston Smith's memory hole.

 

[a_unique_person]

No. Every time the US steps into somebody else's country unasked to try to solve their problems for them it only makes things worse.

Better solution: Mind your own beeswax! Let them sort it out themselves. It will be ugly, but that way they can't blame anyone but themselves when the fecal matter hits the spinning blades.

Note that the operative word here is "unasked"...

It is also important to note the times the US steps in, not to solve the countries problems, but to protect US 'interests'.

 

[peptoabysmal]

No. Every time the US steps into somebody else's country unasked to try to solve their problems for them it only makes things worse.

Better solution: Mind your own beeswax! Let them sort it out themselves. It will be ugly, but that way they can't blame anyone but themselves when the fecal matter hits the spinning blades.

Note that the operative word here is "unasked"...

Believe it or not, it is the US's beeswax. It dates back to a treaty signed between the US and Haiti c. 1915, the first US occupation and intervention in Haiti, which was sadly a little war on a little country over US financial interests in that country. But nevertheless, we signed a treaty stating that we ... well here read it yourself (or at least the Reader's Digest version of it):

Art. I. The Government of the United States will, by its good offices, aid the Haitian Government in the proper and efficient development of its ...resources and in the establishment of the finances of Haiti on a firm...basis.

Art II. The President of Haiti shall appoint, upon nomination by the President of the United States, a general receiver ... who shall collect, receive and apply all customs duties ...

The President of Haiti shall appoint, upon nomination by the President of the United States, a financial advisor...

Art. III. The Government of ...Haiti will provide by law...for the payment of all customs duties to the general receiver...

Art. V. All sums collected ...by the general receiver shall be applied first [to pay his expenses] second, to the interest and sinking fund of the public debt of ...Haiti...

Translation: "You lose, give us all our money back and we promise to help you in the future..."

 

[epepke]

Believe it or not, it is the US's beeswax. It dates back to a treaty signed between the US and Haiti c. 1915,

Yes, yes, yes. And Aristide has asked for US intervention. And Caricom has asked for international support, including the US. And there is plenty of news footage of Haitians asking the US to intervene. I don't even try to keep up on current events, but I'm aware of all of these things, which means there are probably more. One would have to have five ice picks stuck in one's forehead to miss all of this; four wouldn't be enough.

And aren't we incessantly reminded by our overseas brethren, again and again to the point of nausea, how Americans are the only ignoramuses on the planet, and how everyone else is up-to-date? Or at least up-to-date enough to pick up on at least one of the things mentioned in the previous paragraph?

And yet, Zep posts an opening salvo containing the idea of the US sticking its nose, unasked, where it doesn't belong.

What does this tell you?

 

[iain]

Good to see that the UN security council has unanimously agreed to send a peace-keeping force into Haiti - so far with Canada, France and US contributing troops; probably under US leadership.

It's a difficult situation but I think there is more chance of a good resolution with the international community showing its strength.

 

[Agammamon]

Well, in this case many Haitian and French interests have asked us to help. In any case, I think we have some rudimentary duty to help the country since we contributed to their problems.

Now, will there ever be stability in Haiti? Who knows!

Yes, unfortunately many of the mplaces we go into to help with their problems are having problems because we went in in the first place.

I'd say that if military intervention in someone else's squabbles has such poor results it justifies not continuing to repeat the mistakes due to a misguided sense of guilt.

It's a Hatian problem now, let the Hatians sort it out. Yes a lot of people are going to die but, if the fall of the Soviet Union is an indicator, most likely not as many as will later if we put a lid on this boiler.