Haiti.
- Thread starter Clashman
- Start date
Joe DeFuria said:
Actually, it was quite a civil discussion until a series of sarcastic comments, that did in fact contribute nothing at all, set it ablaze.
DemoCoder said:
France and Germany particpated in the last few US military actions either by sending troops or by providing funds to their allies. They send troops to Kosovo, they fought in Afghanistan and they even paid a large chunk of the money spent on the last Gulf War. Taking a one singular event is grossly unfair and only a small fraction of the picture.
As for the UN though there're have been some failed missions, I am not going to deny that, there have been successful peacekeeping actions, such as Cyprus, Golan Heights etc.
L233 said:
If we'd apply that childish approach to the world, the UK and France would spend their whole time looking after Africa, Spain would have to clean up the mess in Columbia etc.
In my mind the common denominator in international affairs is that we will not tolerate mass slaughter and attrocities in any part of the world - wether this applies to the former Iraq is up to you, but more importantly not part of this thread -. This is the lesson we learned from Rwanda and Bosnia. Consequently we did do something about Kosovo even there was no UN mandate.
Now back to Haiti:
Clashman,
the financing probably had the good intent to strengthen opposition, since a strong opposition is vital to a functionating democracy. While this pack of different interests is not very peaceful bunch, this doesn't mean Aristide is free of guilt. Aristide also uses mobs to support his rule.
Concerning media manipulation it is remarkable that the exactly the same thing happened in Venezuala when the "opposition" tried to overthrow Chavez. But Chavez relied on 1 thing: He had initiated a movement to encourage the country's poor people Venezuala's constitution. Consequently civil protest led to a counter-coupe. (If you're interested in that, watch "Chavez the film" ( http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm ) which was shot by a BBC camera team ).
Finally, what can be done about the current situation in Haiti:
A) as you proposed, more political pressure. If this doesn't work:
B) security council resolution. If this doesn't work:
C) peacekeeping mission.
DemoCoder said:
Because this would all stop if the U.S. stopped funding and encouraging this group of armed thugs? It wouldn't require help from anyone else, (nor would it really require all that much effort on our part).
To hupfinsgack:
Right, but Aristide has also shown a willingness to compromise, and part of this civil war right now has happened because he tried to reign the gangs that used to support him. Furthermore, I don't think they're funding the opposition simply because it is vital to a functioning democracy. They're doing it because those people will serve their interests if they're in power. I don't think the Bush administration would go funding say a leftist opposition in Poland, for instance, because having the opposition is "vital for democracy", and I think it's pretty obvious why that is. In fact, I would argue that one country trying to influence the elections of a sovereign nation by funding parties friendly to them is pretty darn antithetical to democracy.
Agreed, and in fact I think the similarities between Venezuela, Haiti, and even Liberia are eerily similar. Wonder why that is?
Agreed, with the caveat that I really don't think the last two will really be altogether necessary. I would also like to add to the list:
.5A) Put pressure on your Congressperson to take a stand on the issue, (to get the ball rolling, so to speak).
Or better yet do what the US is doing now, nothing. As you point out, the US has an abismal track record WRT interventions in Haiti. What prospect is there that intervening again will be any more successful than any of the other times?L233 said:
The situation in Haiti is a no-win scenario for any outside country. The only thing which is likely to drag the US into Haiti at this point is the threat of thousands of refugees streaming onto Florida beaches.
Clashman said:
A lot of people listen to the wrong people instead of relying on their own research. At least that was what happened with Venezuela. The elite, controlling its oil resources and the media, came to D.C. to complain about how Chavez take over power and turn into a communist dictator. And they got listened to...
As for Aristide I acknowledge that he was at least willing to share power and I agree that this sets him apart from the opposition. Though it seems that he's already lost (see below)
Agreed.
CNN.com said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/27/haiti.revolt/index.html
L233 said:
I would just like to point out that those elections really weren't all that questionable. There were something like 8 seats out of around 7,000 up for grabs, where the argument was that the person had only won by a plurality, and not a majority. In the U.S. that wouldn't be a problem, but in Haiti I believe they would have needed a runoff. That didn't happen initially, and the opposition used it as an excuse to cry foul, demanding that Aristide's government resign. Aristide agreed to rerun the elections, but the opposition refused, likely because it wouldn't really give them any real political power.
VtC said:
Not speaking for anyone else, but my problem is that we are already intervening in Haiti, and that, to me, is the root of many of these problems. If we weren't encouraging this in the first place, it wouldn't have happened.
Give it time, and I'm sure that's what we'll be seeing.
More here:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/27/haiti.revolt/index.html
It seems like a international peacekeeping mission is more and more likely, especially as the rebel leader are trying to starve people in Port-au-Prince...
hupfinsgack said:
It depends. The difference between Haiti (or Afghanistan) and sub-saharan Africa is that the negative outside involvement is much more recent. I doubt you can backtrace every corrupt African idiot leader, every murdering warlord, AIDS and hunger to colonization. After 50+ years the colonization excuse begins to sound stale. That's plenty of time to form a viable state. Most countries in Africa are abundant with natural ressources and pretty much all of them could be at least self-sustaining.
The US involvement we are talking about is much more recent. Throughout the past decades, the US got heavily involed in Haitian politics to the point of even invading the place to change the regime. So there is a direct connection between the current situation and US involvement. It was 20.000 US marines that put Aristide back into power. IT doesn't get more direct than that.
In Afghanistan, the US trained, funded and armed the Mujahedeen who collapsed the communist regime and eventually evolved into the Taliban and Al-Queda is the direct answer to America's presence in Saudi-Arabia and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which the USA probably did more bad than good by unconditionally siding with Israel instead of becoming a impartial mediator.
That doesn't mean I am trying to absolve The European colonial powers from all guilt, e.g. I personally believe the Brits share a huge chunk of the blame for the last two Gulf Wars because it was the Brits who came up with that inconceivably idiotic idea to separate Kuwait from Iraq.
L233 said:
Apart from your arbitrary 50 year long staturary period of limitation it couldn't be further from the truth. As a matter of fact governments across Europe still influence African politics. Have you ever been to Namibia? To this very date its political landscape is shaped by German interests. Did you forget about Côte d'Ivoire? You're telling me that French involvment is vastly different from America's in Haiti? And let's not talk about Algeria...
Moreover, the arbitrary borders in Africa still are the major cause for bilateral as well as civil wars in Africa. I'm sure you can find some examples yourself. Still I am not taking into account, what social structure was left behind by our colonial powers, e.g. in Zimbabwe.
I am not arguing that some crisis were of one's making. However, claiming that European politics is limited to our borders and not promoting its interests across its former sphere of influence is not even naive, that's just blind.
hupfinsgack said:
No, I have never been to Namibia. Have you?
The political landscape is shaped by German interests? How? Does Germany send weapons there? Does Germany arm and train insurgents? Does the BND funnel massive funds to political groups in order to influence elections or subvert governments? Does Germany send troops there to change or stabilize governments?
Germany's colonial engagement in Namibia lasted a whooping 30 years and ended 85 years ago. South African occupation on the other hand lasted more than 70 years and ended in 1990. It's a bit preposterous to claim that Namibias political landscape is still shaped by German interests.
Germany has no coherent Africa policy or any notable influence anywhere in Africa and I think the biggest buyer of German weapons in sub-saharan Africa is tiny Botswana which bought a couple outdated tanks a few years ago.
I am not forgetting anything. And no, French involvement wasn't any different than US involvement in Haiti. That's what imperialistic states like France and the US do. What I am saying is that French imperialism was a problem in past, US imperialism has been a problem in the past decades and continues to be to this very day.
Yes, I am aware that the arbitrary borders are the root of many problems but they had decades to work things out and develope a nationalist movement that supercedes tribalism or at least to balkanize in whatever way they want. That's more a problem of African ineptitude than anything else.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
It's incredible the ease at which some can become parodies of themselves. I have about zero respect for the Admininstration but Lord, to arrive at a rock solid conclusion based on one wire story containing one's man testimony who is not exactly a "disinterested actor" is the epitome of poor logic.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
Clashman said:
You're right. Only you've got the liar wrong.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
akira888 said:
Bingo.
Clashman said:
I had a read through the transcrpit of the administration... aristide's claims are a little troubling IF they are true but the only inconsistency there is concerns aristide's group on hte plane not knowing where they were going... and powell confirmed this... saying they were still working an agreement to have aristide taken by an ally nation...
hupfinsgack said:
Why was Cyprus successful? That 200,000 people can't return to their homes? That 150,000 settlers have been moved into the occupied north? That the genocide they carried out, their fourth in the 20th century, was legitimized by the outside world?
If we nearly destroyed Belgrade as a first-world city in 1999 because of Kosovo then we, proportionally speaking, should have dropped a thermonuclear device on Constantinople for what they did to the poor Kurds between 1984-1999. 35000 dead Kurdish civilians and no one gave a god fucking damn in Europe or America. It boggles my mind and sickens my stomach how they got away with that, but of course I know why....
