Haiti.

Clashman said:
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.

I am afraid they Haitian (sp?) opposition will not give until a resolution is put in place, since they know Bush isn't going to do anything and nobody else is "near" enough to take action. So how would you pressurize them? So far they seem pretty indifferent to negotiations.
BTW where did I say that there should be an open conflict? A simple UN peacekeeping force would do the job, but for that you need a resolution...
 
Well, that's the whole problem right there. They know that if they take over Bush will support them, both politically and financially. So why negotiate. If the U.S. made firm that they would not support them, this would be over right now.
 
Clashman said:
Well, that's the whole problem right there. They know that if they take over Bush will support them, both politically and financially. So why negotiate. If the U.S. made firm that they would not support them, this would be over right now.

I don't think so, Haitian politics has in 200 years never known power sharing and opposition is synonymous with revolt and civil war. At best It might have an affect on the politicians of the opposition, but the revolt is led by paramilitary squads who operate on their own.
It's worth a try, though. But I am not very convinced that it will work... And if not we'll have to put together a peacekeeping mission...
 
There are direct connections, however, between the political opposition and the rebel groups. Not just casual connections, but direct ones:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=54&ItemID=5043
The gangs are directly linked to two groups financed by the Bush Administration: the right-wing Convergence for Democracy and the pro-business Group of 184.

The Convergence is a coalition of about two dozen groups, ranging from neo-Duvalierists (named for the Duvaliers' dictatorship that ruled Haiti from 1957-1986) to former Aristide supporters. These groups have little in common except their desire to see Aristide overthrown.

According to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, the opposition's 'only policy goal seems to be reconstituting the army and the implementation of rigorous Structural Adjustment Programs.'

The Convergence is led by former FRAPH paramilitary leaders (including Louis Chamblain, Guy Phillipe and Jean Pierre Baptiste) who carried out the bloody 1991 coup d'etat, in which the CIA-trained and -funded FRAPH overthrew Aristide, killed 5,000 civilians and terrorized Haiti for four years.

The Convergence is supported by the Haitian elite and the leadership of the US Republican Party (through the National Endowment for Democracy and the International Republican Institute).

The Group of 184 is represented by Andy Apaid, a Duvalier supporter and US citizen who obtained a Haitian passport by fraudulently claiming to have been born in Haiti. Apaid owns 15 factories in Haiti and was the main foe of Aristide's 2003 campaign to raise the minimum wage (which, at $1.60 a day, was lower than what it had been 10 years earlier).

By demanding that the opposition be included in any resolution of Haiti's political impasse, the US has greatly empowered these forces. While the opposition perpetuates Haiti's political deadlock, the US embargo (see below) guarantees the island's economic strangulation. Aristide's opponents hope that these combined tactics will achieve what they cannot win through democratic elections: the ouster of Aristide.

Why is it so hard to get a clear picture of what's happening in Haiti? Media Manipulation

-> One reason is that the opposition has succeeded in mobilizing the mainstream media to create an image of Aristide as a tyrant and the opposition as democratic freedom fighters. For example, international media have run several stories comparing the opposition to the movement to overthrow Haiti's long-time Duvalier dictatorship. Although the Haitian government has condemned attacks by its supporters on opposition forces, mainstream media did not report the condemnations

-> Most international coverage of the crisis in Haiti comes from the large wire services, Reuters and the Associated Press. These wire services rely almost exclusively on Haiti's elite-owned media (Radio Metropole, Tele-Haiti, Radio Caraibe, Radio Vision 2000 and Radio Kiskeya) for their stories. The outlets are owned and operated by the opposition. For example, Andy Apaid, spokesman for the Group of 184, is the founder of Tele-Haiti.

-> Progressive journalists have accused these stations of exaggerating reports of violence by government supporters and ignoring violence by opposition forces. These stations air commercials inciting Haitians to overthrow the government.

So I think that if you place real pressure on the political opposition, this thing can come to a peaceable solution.
 
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.
I said kick some ass, not "shock and awe" their ass. ;) Pass a few resolutions, send in some peacekeepers, create/foster a stable govermnent. Put some bad guys in jail. Get some food to the needy.

later,
epic
 
Haiti is very small and intervention would be easy. Like rwanda couldve been from any number of nations and not just the US... 4-5000 troops can put an easy stop to this. Its the poverty in haiti that cant be stopped for some reason as the corruption of the elites there is some of the worst around. of course I think thats a red herring as cleaning up such corruption would demand a desire from our own political elites to see less profitability in some sector of the economy...

Not likely to happen short of shit hitting the fan sort of situation.
 
Yes, but why the US? Why not France, Germany, or the UN? They can field 5000 troops globally can't they? Why are the same people who clamored for UN intervention in Iraq now clamoring for UNILATERAL US intervention in Haiti?
 
B/c if the next administration of Haita doesn't work out, you can always blame the US.

You know, no matter what, it has to be traced back to some nefarious US scheme for world domination, corporate control and the slave labor of the honest working man!
 
and all us americans know we are apart of these scheme too don't you euros be fooled. We are just as evil and corrupt as your tv tells you...
 
You guys have it all wrong. All wrong.

All we have to do is get a haitian defector to claim the president of haiti has weapons of mass destruction and we'll be there faster than you can find osama!

Oh..... :oops: Wait....... :devilish:
 
You have it all wrong Natoma, we wouldn't invade unless they had massive oil deposits that we could exploit like we are doing in Iraq or have a president in office who could use the invasion to escape the lime light of politically damaging scandals.

Cruiz Missle Crusade anyone? Shall we blow up a few hospitals and claim they were chem weapons factories? Got to wait seven days for the debris clouds to settle.
 
Ah, Haiti. Time for a history lesson.

In 1959 when dictator Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier was faced with armed rebellion by socialists, the USA landed a contingent of Marines, provided his regime with weapons, training, reconnaissance and air lifted his troops to combat areas.

Just a few years later, the Kennedy administrations, which had little use for Papa Doc , tried to get rid of him by arming and funding dissident groups.

This was yet again to change in 1963 when the USA needed Haiti's cooperation for success of US efforts to have Cuba (which was now America's primary concern) expelled from the Organization of American States.

From that point on until his death in 1971, Papa Doc enjoyed full economic, military and diplomatic support. When his son Jean-Paul "Baby Doc" Duvalier was sworn in as the new President for Life, US Ambassador Clinton Knox was the only foreign diplomat present.

Baby Doc enjoyed the same degree of support as his father but with occassional hiccups and half-assed protest notes from Washinton when the level of repression became too difficult to ignore.

After Baby Doc was ousted in 1986, the USA funded several short lived military dictators with a total of $30.6 million. In the next 18 or so months those dictators initiated a brutal crack down on unions and the left which resulted in even more deaths than Baby Doc's 15 year reign of terror.

Aristide, who was elected despite America's best effords to stop him (he was widely considered to be a pinko), became the first democratically elected leader in Haiti in 1991. As a surprise to everyone, he was soon on good terms with the USA by being a pathetic suck-up to the IMF and the USA.

When he was thrown out of office by a military coup, the US invaded with 20.000 soldies and put him back into office. This might actually have been an honest attempt by the USA to safe democracy in Haiti. Or not. With the USA you never know. I woudn't completely rule it out, though.

Anyway, Aristite, who was once seen as a semi-messianic figure to many Haitians, mutated into yet another autocratic and corrupt nepotist and is now almost universally hated by the majority of the very same people that voted him into office.

After he manipulated the elections in 2000, the USA became a bit uneasy about him. Maybe the invasion of 1994 on behalf of Aristite was just the latst mistake in a long row of US blunders in Haiti.

The USA is now stuck in a dilemma. Either support Aristite who has a crappy track record but is at least elected (even if the last election was rather questionable) or support a rebel force bent on ousting an elected leader.
 
Perfect time for UN or France to step in then. Atleast let someone else make the mistakes and pay the price for awhile. If people want to argue that the UN should be the mechanism by which we solve these problems, then the UN should be held accountable for not doing anything.
 
Maybe those who fucked the place up to begin with should do it. I'd love to see joint Franco-American intervention.

The UN should be held accountable? Which part of the UN? The Americans? The French? The Brits? The Israelsi? The Japanese? Ze Germans? The Chinese? The Cubans? The Maxicans? The Canadians? The..... ?
 
If you argue that those who "fucked up the place in the first place" should be held accoutable to clean up the mess, than that argues that the UN, France, and Germany had no right to demand multilateralism in Iraq, because that's a mess the US created and should have cleaned up themselves, right?

Shouldn't police actions to deal with civil wars be run by the UN?
 
DemoCoder said:
Yes, but why the US? Why not France, Germany, or the UN? They can field 5000 troops globally can't they? Why are the same people who clamored for UN intervention in Iraq now clamoring for UNILATERAL US intervention in Haiti?

Thats what I said... You're right save the UN which has no army or authority...

Like rwanda couldve been from any number of nations and not just the US... 4-5000 troops can put an easy stop to this.
 
I am actually all for the USA and their British lackeys cleaning up the mess they created in Iraq on their own.

The UN can't run any police actions because the UN has no army. The UN provides merely legitimation (and in some cases patronage under UN banner) for military action taken by one or several member nations.

Military action without UN legitimation, like America's war against Iraq, is illegal and should be dealt with Nuremburg Trial style:
"CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;" (Charter of the International Military Tribunal)

That won't happen though because being the most fearsome military juggernaut in human history makes the USA untouchable.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
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...

Hey, I'm a prohpet!
 
Back
Top