Looks like there’s another rebellion in Haiti. (See http://www.haiti-info.com/.) Scheduled legislative elections last year failed to come off when no electoral body was organized to supervise them. The opposition, which as of this week holds several towns, now demands President Aristide step down before any new elections are held; he says he won’t leave office before his term expires in 2006.
What’s going on here? Wasn’t Aristide legitimately elected president in 1990, and again in 2000? Why are so many Haitians opposed to him? Do more oppose or support him?
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is worried this new unrest will lead to another exodus of Haitian refugees to Florida. Is there any chance the U.S. will intervene in Haiti? If so, on which side will we intervene? On which side SHOULD we intervene?
I have followed Haitian politics for the past decade very closely and I spent some time there in 95-96. I was once a great optimist, but that optimism has faded, crumbled and died.
In a very real sense Aristide blew it. He was a leftist priest who commanded more than just political support among the people of the countryside of Haiti. He was beloved, to many he was considered almost saintly. His Lavalas party was offered a chance to change the historical thugocracy that has plagued Haiti for centuries. Aristide made the decision to allow his supporters to intimidate the oppostion and subvert the democratic process to maintain power. The recent parliamentary elections were typical of his rule and were characterized by intimidation of opposition and questionable results.
Aristide remains popular among the poor, which is to say most of the country. There is a reason though that I had him in my death pool for this year. The guns that fueled the Cedras’ junta fifteen years ago are still there, and Aristide’s permissive attitude towards corruption and political intimidation has driven the opposition to a frenzy.
I once felt that we should intervene in Haiti. At this point I can’t imagine what that would accomplish. Aristide is not someone the US can enthusiastically support and the opposition will likely be far worse.
America has intervened several times in Haiti over the last century and, besides a few paved roads, has accomplished nothing. Haiti is simply not important enough politically for the US to exert the effort to make a difference.
There may not be another country on earth with as little reason for hope as Haiti. It is not just a poor country. There are no natural resources, tourism is minimal, it is politically unstable and thus unattractive to business. Changing that would take decades and billions of dollars. Neither of which is a commitment that can be realistically expected from the United States, whichever party is in control of the government.
I wish I could find reason to be optimistic. I care about the future of Haiti, and know more about its culture and history than the vast majority of people. When I was there in 1995-96 it was desperately poor, but there was a sense of great hope. I could walk the streets without fear of crime. Where there was once one political party there were now dozens. Democracy seemed to be working. The culture is unique and I hoped people would start to visit. The magnificent Citadel near Cap Haitien is reason enough to make the short trip on a vacation. From what I understand it is increasingly dangerous now to even walk the streets.
I would expect the immigration to start soon and we will have to do our best to integrate the flow of migrants into American life. In short I don’t see any intervention in the near future.
So, what are you saying, fruitbat? That the U.S. won’t intervene in Haiti because it wouldn’t be politically advantageous for us? Or that the U.S. shouldn’t intervene because no good could come of it? Or both?
I would ad that Haiti has destroyed what little resources it had…vast stretches of the country are effectively desert-deforestation has stripped the land of trees, and the soil has washed away. Haiti is an example of what the whole earth will become if we do not take steps to limit population growth-the country cannot sustain 1 million people, let alone 8 million.
Oh, and add to this a huge rate of AIDS infection, endemic diseases like cholera and malaria, it is clear that Haiti has very little going for it.
I hope the United States does not send forces into Haiti. No good will come of it and the US will get nothing but dead soldiers and another black eye as in Somalia. Let the UN handle it.
Both I’m afraid. We have intervened in Haiti many times in the past and it has only bred resentment. The US has a tendency to support oppressive regimes for the short term stability that oppression can bring. I don’t have any faith that the US, or anyone else, can bring the resources or dedication to the table that would make any long-term difference. Politically cows would fly before Bush would become involved in Haiti. Clinton gained nothing by it, and I would expect reticence in the future to step in.
Businesses need to invest in Haiti. The cheap labor is there, and its proximity to the US makes it attractive. They will not invest without stability and a climate that encourages capital investment. I would love for some outside entity to come in and give Haiti those things. They will be left largely on their own to figure it out though, because there is no political will to offer the needed assistance.
Okay, now the Haitian prime minister, Yvon Neptune (sp?), is calling for “international assistance” with this “coup” situation. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan is talking about doing something but hasn’t specified what. The French are talking about sending in a “peacekeeping force” – which, I suppose, would be the first time French troops have been in Haiti since Napoleon gave up on holding the colony.
I just hear a report on the left-wing Pacifica Network News: The reporter compared the situation in Haiti now to the Congo in 1960 – a supposedly popular uprising fomented by foreign powers and led by wealthy businessment. I was unclear on who is supposed to be fomenting this rebellion – France, the U.S., or both.
Does anybody know the background here? Is this purely a homegrown uprising, or does some foreign government have a hand in it?
I doubt very much there is any significant foreign influence involved in Haiti. To put it coldly, Haiti has nothing to steal.
Myself, I’m entirely torn on this issue. On the one hand, I am loathe to see any American military intervention in this pustule of a nation. But if the French or the UN is willing to take it on, I sincerely hope we offer whatever support we can. God knows they’ll need all the help we can give them, and more besides.
But all of that is no more than a bandage on a festering wound. We cannot even offer development aid when there is nothing whatever to develop! Haiti’s only natural resources are poverty, ignorance and disease.
It has to be a UN project, with all of us wealthy nations passing the hat to support a permanent state of welfare dependency, with virtually no prospect of any meaningful independence, either politically or financially. At best, we might be able to salvage some, bring them to a state of health and education where they might be acceptable prospects of emigration to some place not Godforsaken.
But, of course, that means skimming off the human cream and leaving the rest to do what Haitians do best. Die.
Some problems don’t have solutions. I fear that this is one of them.
I started a thread not long ago on this same subject. At that time there was only a hit of what is going on in Haiti right now.
All Haiti’s neighbors, specially us (I am Dominican) are mostly concerned in stopping the massive wave of inmigrants soon to hit our doors. Our own country has been left alone in dealing with this, at this moment there is not much we can offer having problems of our own.
I was talking to a friend about that yesterday. I was wondering of the legal and moral implications of a “league of nations” taking over Haiti at this point. I am split in the middle about that. Haiti is a complete failure as a nation, even the second poorest country in America is far off the level of poverty in Haiti. There seems to be no hope at had and it will be a sad day when everybody decide to shut the door and just let them die a slow death.
I was talking to a friend yesterday…his son was a segeant in an army unit that went to Haiti (the Clinton intervention). Most of the Army’s time was spent in searching for weapons! Here you have a country sopoor that most people suffer from malnutrition, and yet everybody has automatic rifles! Ammunition was sold regularly in the street markets, and armed gangs roved the streets at night. Anybody who had anything (yes, there is a small middle and upper class in Haiti) lived in walled, guarded enclosures/gated communities.
As I say, dispite the stupifying poverty, the people still found enough money to buy the means to kill eachother. Aristide is just as bad as the Duvaliers-his idea of law is to kill anybody that opposes him. So,it ain’t getting an better, and peobably will get a lot worse.
I read in the news yesterday that the French foreign minister, Dominic de Villepin, wants to lead an international peacekeeping force to Haiti. The US has refused to send troops to help though, so it looks unlikely at the moment. Looks like its just gonna get worse in Haiti.
Just saw an update on CNN Headline News: Aristide repeats that he will not resign, and there was a shot of some well-armed government troops who are ready to fight the rebels. I thought Aristide had disbanded the Haitian army . . .
This I don’t understand. Why would the lack of US troops cause other nations to not send forces to Haiti? There is no reason that UN peacekeepers can’t be sent there to restore order.
According to CNN today, the Haitian rebels are attacking the northern port city of Cap Hatien; the U.S. and international community have proposed a settlement that would provide for new legislative elections; Aristide has accepted the plan; the rebels have rejected it and still demand Aristide resign, which he again refuses to do.
In a shot of marching rebels/demonstrators, I saw at least two guys wearing American flags as wraps. I don’t know if that means they like us or hate us.
If this escalates to a prolonged civil war, will the U.S. or anybody intervene? And how would the Haitians react to that? (I think if I were Haitian, I would welcome it – hoping earnestly for a Marshall Plan afterwards.)
Now Al Sharpton is offering to go to Haiti, meet with both sides, and try to bring them together. I honestly do not know whether to look on this as laughable or inspiring. What the Hell, Al, give it a try! There’s no way you could make things any worse!
Today on NPR they were talking about Bush’s decision on Haiti which basically boils down to “No troops but we will help work out a political solution”. SInce the rebels seem to be winning, I doubt they will be too eager to negotiate. I believe the decision not to send troops is a good one. Any forces sent should be UN or from a nation which won’t be called imperialist for sending forces.
Well this rebellion is being led by people who’ve been trained and funded by the CIA. Figure out this one. The US does not respect land reformation and presidents of the leftist persuasion (see Venezuela). Don’t believe me? Read this:
That’s just one little editorial. There are others out there that you can find.
Editorials != facts. Because someone says they think something does not make it the case. The editorial you linked to is based on one person’s opinion which is supported by nothing more than speculation. Because someone posted it on the Internet doesn’t make it true. Has any major news agency shown a link between this revolt and the CIA?
The article itself doesn’t even make this claim about a CIA link, only going so far as to say:
“If a direct US connection is proven, it will mark the second time in just over a decade that Washington has been involved in a coup in Haiti.”
Then again, this is the Internet and many people will believe anything someone posts.
Common knowledge that the U.S. FULLY supported Duvalier throughout his 29 year reign of bloody and savage brutality. To say anything else is revisionist in the extreme…
When the Duvalier dynasty was finally overthrown violently, by a massive popular uprising against him, many of the key players in the Duvalier torture chambers received full amnesty in the U.S. and Aristide was easily elected in a supervised and uncontested election. The U.S. “immediately” canceled all humane aid programs and imposed abrutal and indefinite embargo on what was already then the poorest nation in the western hemisphere. Much of the reported opposition platform is that Aristide has failed to provide western-standard economic progress, while all the while he has been crippled by fiscal exile.
The current rebellion is largely led by ex TonTons, and other returning murderous players from the Duvalier mob who raped the country and slaughtered, mutilated, tortured men women and children for decades.
Once again, the North American media is ludicrously focussing on the supposed shortcomings and peripheral unubstantiated “reports” of ba government part of Aristide, and gleefully forgetting to report that the heroic “rebels” are big money and better armed players from one of Earth’s most hideous and deformed dictatorships, returning at Haiti’s weaknest financial moment, many from American sanctuary…
Today I read some blogrant that alluded to Aristide being “just another Duvalier”.
Roughly the Haitian equivalent of saying Simon Wiesenthal was “just another Goebbels”. While Bush announces that ANY Haitian refugees will be turned back at gunpoint, (huddled masses), the ones who have been given sanctuary for all these years are some of the bloodiest monsters in the hemisphere.
Aristide has just announced his resignation. According to the Haitian constitution, the chief justice of the Supreme Court now should take over, pending appointment of an interim president. It’s not clear whether the rebels, now just outside Port-au-Prince, will allow that, although they’ve always said Aristide’s removal was their one and only goal. There’s still talk of sending in an “international peacekeeping force” – but what will it be getting into?