Haiti.

C

Clashman

Regular
The government in Haiti has been democratically elected. For all it's flaws, it's a hundred times better than the group of thugs that's trying to overrun the country right now. Yet the Bush administration as well as the European Union have been at least tacitly, if not overtly, backing these thugs.

A couple of good background primers on the current conflict as well as the 2000 Haitian elections.
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0208-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0224-09.htm
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/haiti_2-16.html
 
But we've made it our business by funding these opposition parties, (and there's at least some evidence of directly or indirectly arming these thugs). The U.S. bears at least partial responsibility for what's going on in Haiti right now, and should at least be pressuring opposition leaders it has directly funded into entering into honest negotiations with Aristide.
 
Im a bit surprised as the US intervened to support Aristide before. I thought it still supported him. The leader of the rebels is a former death squad commander. But one news reporter on CBC said aristide had his own gang of thugs... seems like a way of doing biz down there... The product of endemic poverty.

I suppose the US couldve gone to major league baseball and asked them if they didnt mind giving the haitian sewers more than 13 cents an hour for their work making official baseballs to help things out a little bit...
 
Actually, if you read the first article I posted, the original intent in 1994 was not to reinstate Aristide, but to get 3 regime leaders to step down while allowing the regime as a whole to remain intact. That fell apart due to a couple of chance encounters:

Moreover, the objectives of the Clinton administration were less than democratic: the plan at the time was to leave the army and repressive apparatus in place, removing only the top three officers.

This plan began to fall apart after Haitian soldiers beat an innocent man to death in front of international TV cameras. US troops stood by under orders not to intervene, and they expressed their disgust and frustration openly to the press. President Clinton found himself in a bind: to drum up support for the invasion he had described the Haitian military as "murderers, rapists, and thugs." Less than a week later he was calling these same people "our allies."

Aristide took advantage of the situation to dismantle the military, as well as the violent "section chief" system of repression of in the countryside. In doing so he created the foundation for the first democratic government in the history of the nation, which had lived for thirty years under the US-supported Duvalier family dictatorship until 1986. For the first time people could hold meetings and form political organizations without fear of being killed.
Click to expand...
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Come on people...we're proppoing up both sides, just because we like to see a good fight now and again.
Click to expand...

Well, Joe, thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this thread except childish jibes. Heaven forbid we actually hold a civil discussion about anything.
 
Im almost to a point where I would advocate having the UN go in a kick some ass. Then I remember france and germany's apprehansion to fighting the good fight, at which point i just give up and say a little prayer to those less fortunate in haiti.

later,
epic
 
That's why we have UN... if they have problems in Haiti they should sit down have an election and elect who they want. UN should keepe peace until than and after it's settled even if it is a deceade... leave...

but welll... UN at the moment is with no real power to save lives and prevent conflicts.
 
RussSchultz said:
How is the US tacitly, or overtly, supporting the thugs when they release statements like "The policy of the administration is not regime change, President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti"?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1044736.htm

Should they have added "No, really, we mean it" for extra emphasis?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was just trying to pre-empt what this "civil discussion" is going to be about:

1) How many different ways the U.S. (or Bush) "caused" the current situation
2) How many different ways the U.S. (or Bush) is/will screw it up further.

No different than any other dissucssion here on U.S. policy...
 
Joe DeFuria said:
RussSchultz said:
How is the US tacitly, or overtly, supporting the thugs when they release statements like "The policy of the administration is not regime change, President Aristide is the elected president of Haiti"?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1044736.htm

Should they have added "No, really, we mean it" for extra emphasis?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I was just trying to pre-empt what this "civil discussion" is going to be about:

1) How many different ways the U.S. (or Bush) "caused" the current situation
2) How many different ways the U.S. (or Bush) is/will screw it up further.

No different than any other dissucssion here on U.S. policy...
Click to expand...

AFAIK Bush didn't screw up, and he won't... simple ;)
 
For starters, the U.S. has never come out and openly said it wouldn't back a government that overthrew Aristide.In addition, many of the opposition groups the U.S. is directly funding right now stand to benefit from this coup, and there is at least some overlap between the parties.

The opposition parties, for their part, were supported by the United States in mainly the International Republican Institute and the USAID which supported them and also they received some funding for the European Union. As a result of that they saw no need to really enter into negotiations with Aristide because the U.S. made it clear to them that they would not recognize an outcome to the conflict that did not include the opposition parties.

So in that sense even though they represented, if you will, at the time a minority of the population, they really had no incentives to enter into a serious negotiations with Aristide
Click to expand...

If the U.S. made serious an intention that Aristide were to remain in power, that the coup leaders would not be recognized as a legitimate government if they overthrew Aristide, and that both sides should return to the negotiating table, this conflict would be over in a matter of days. That second part is key, though, because if the coup leaders know they won't be punished for taking out Aristide, they have no incentive to share power, or to enter into democratic elections they know they would lose.
 
epicstruggle said:
Im almost to a point where I would advocate having the UN go in a kick some ass.
Click to expand...

"Kicking ass", as you put it, is completely and totally uneccessary here. Some harsh words to the rebel leaders and those who stand to benefit to this would stop this thing dead in it's tracks. Aristide has already agreed to the provisional peace plan. The rebels have rejected it, and the U.S. has made no intention to give them any reason why they should accept it.
 
Clashman said:
epicstruggle said:
Im almost to a point where I would advocate having the UN go in a kick some ass.
Click to expand...

"Kicking ass", as you put it, is completely and totally uneccessary here. Some harsh words to the rebel leaders and those who stand to benefit to this would stop this thing dead in it's tracks. Aristide has already agreed to the provisional peace plan. The rebels have rejected it, and the U.S. has made no intention to give them any reason why they should accept it.
Click to expand...

Actually I think that a resolution in the security council would have good chances of being approved as no permanent member has special interests in Haiti.
 
But once again, using military force simply for the sake of using military force is both dangerous and stupid. It's not necessarry here. We could easily stop this without additional bloodshed.

And I would argue that the U.S. does in fact have interests in Haiti, even if they aren't as great as say Iraq.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/67/67_pina.html
 
Clashman said:
But once again, using military force simply for the sake of using military force is both dangerous and stupid. It's not necessarry here. We could easily stop this without additional bloodshed.

And I would argue that the U.S. does in fact have interests in Haiti, even if they aren't as great as say Iraq.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/67/67_pina.html
Click to expand...

Well, the security council resolution would just enough pressure to make the opposition give in as they know that a military operation would probably take 1 day to plan and 1 day to finish the job.
 
But like I said, why even talk about it? People need to get over this incredibly stupid idea that military solutions, or threats of military solutions, will solve everything, or even sizeable minority of things.

Wars are expensive, both in terms of human life and money. The infrastructure they damage harms the country and people involved for years after the actual conflict ends. And in most cases they outright fail to bring about postitive change. Yet for some reason that's always the first club alot of people take out of the bag, so to speak.

It's like lending your neighbor some clipping shears and the next day going over and pointing a gun point blank in their face and demand it back. You probably could have asked for them back and they'd have given them to you. But instead, you've risked serious physical harm to your neighbor, and the entire neighborhood thinks you're completely wacko, (and they may be right). Once again, there's no reason for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top