And with all sincerity I understand that. It’s why the U.S. has such a spotty record when it comes to nation building. (We like quick fixes!) I never suggested it would go quickly. But IMHO the OP’s suggestion of martial law fails to even lay a foundation for a long-term solution.
Also, it’s not only America’s problem to solve.
The western portion of the island of Hispaniola, where Haiti is situated, was inhabited by the Taíno and Arawakan people, who called their island Ayiti.
And just to add to the early history, and the lovely treatment of Haiti by colonial powers, three million Taino people on the island of Hispaniola in the late 15th century. They were a very kind and generous people by all accounts, which led our hero Christopher Columbus to remark "They do not carry arms or know them…They should be good servants.”
By 1530, the Taino had been wiped out. Thanks Europe!
I gave my reasoning in the OP (wrong or correct, feel free to let me know).
…still unclear. Are you imagining that Germany post WWII and Haiti post centuries of divide-and-conquer are somehow comparable?
Saying “because European powers screwed it up hundreds of years ago” is not a very good case. Afghanistan is a much better case actually. But anyway…
So it sounds like the majority vote here is do nothing.
I am curious though. Is there a line? How bad would a state have to get before you think there should be an international intervention?
I said in the OP, " I also don’t see it as nearly as susceptible to so many external pressures and internal divisions as Iraq/Afghanistan. I feel like the people have more of a national identity and desire for a western style democracy."
The stability of Afghanistan was constantly being disturbed by Pakistan and the Taliban. Haiti as an island is more isolated.
There is no indication that the majority of the people in Afghanistan were looking for a western style democracy. However, Haiti has a much stronger history of that and fewer internal divisions.
…not just European powers. Not just “hundreds of years ago.”
And compared to the case you made in the OP? Infinitely better.
There is a world of difference between “do nothing” and an “alliance of countries led by the US to completely take over the country and install martial law for a decade while setting up a government.”
There are other options available you know. We are discussing the ultra-specific scenario you posted in the OP.
It depends on what you define as “international intervention.” As I said in my first post in this thread, the United States IMHO crossed this line a long time ago. If anyone needs an intervention, its them. We should form an international alliance and storm the capital, suspend the supreme court, lock up President Biden under house arrest, disarm the rouge and militant police forces, free the slaves from the prisons.
…what exactly are you basing all of this on?
I didn’t say those were the only two options. I gave my opinion and then explicitly asked “What do you think should be done (if anything)?”
And instead of getting any suggestions on what people think should be done all I get is how dumb my ideas are. If they are dumb, fine. I’m ok with that. School me on what should be done.
The only suggestions I have seen are (sorry I don’t know how to do multi-quotes):
“Perhaps the United Nations should send in peace keeping forces to, well, keep the peace. The UN has to be good for something.”
and
“Do actual nation building. Education, sanitation, healthcare, clamp down on corruption that discourages investment, etc”
I’m cool with the first suggestion. However, I am not convinced that action has a better success record than my suggestion.
The second suggestion doesn’t indicate who should do those things. I am sure the government of Haiti has tried to do those for decades and it is not working.
…that wasn’t the majority vote. People are addressing the ridiculousness of the scenario posted in the OP. But that doesn’t mean most of us think we should “do nothing.”
Its a situation that I currently don’t know much about. There isn’t much context given in your OP, so I’ve had to independently do some research into what is happening right now and would take me a while to process my thoughts.
But that doesn’t mean my vote is for “doing nothing.” Its a vote for “let’s not do something knee-jerk that will probably make everything worse.”
Back in the 1980s, the mother of a friend of mine belonged to a church. Her church offered to sponsor her to go to Haiti for a couple years as a Christian missionary. She was a very idealistic and “hippy” type person, and had never been outside the U.S. before. So she jumped at the chance.
She was back in six months. Was shell-shocked. She said corruption was the norm, theft was common, and she couldn’t figure out how to get help to the people who needed help. The last straw was when the electric kept shutting off at her place, and each time she had to bribe the electric company to turn it back on.
Good point.
I was interpreting no suggestion as do nothing which is not exactly the same thing.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking. To be blunt: “What’s in it for us?” In every other case of the US intervening in other countries’ business, for good or bad or better or worse, we had some sort of interest in stabilizing the area and improving conditions (to support our interests or security). I suppose if Haiti had some sort of commodity we needed bad enough, like lithium or some such material that was rare, or if we had a land border with them (like the Dominican Republic) that required an improved security situation, we’d be more motivated to “do” something. But without some sort of motivation, we probably will continue doing not much other than monitoring.
Let’s just give Haiti to the Dominican Republic.
I’d like to think that we’ve finally gotten over thinking that we are the savior of the world. It’s not our job nor our right to enter other countries and tell them how to live. They have to work out their own problems. As global environmental conditions continue to deteriorate, there are going to be even more crises in more nations.
Since that was my suggestion, I’ll say, let the United Nations do it. You’re right that it’s too big aa job for the Haitian government to do by itself, but it’s not just America’s problem to solve. In fact, I’m not convinced it’s even America’s role to take the lead on solving. It seems that every time a big nation (U.S., USSR, China, whoever) takes it upon itself to build a nation, it inevitably becomes an attempt to build a fiefdom.
Exclusive: White House warns Haiti force can’t deploy until Republicans release funds
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article286395655.html
So a UN peacekeeping force is planned but no one seems to be in any rush about it and the Republicans are obstructing it. It could well end up being too little, too late.
As mentioned earlier, all the various versions of security intervention — US, OAS, UN — have been applied before, some more than once, and any improvements did not stick for long (or just got the locals even more ticked off).
The WW1-era US intervention did usher in a period of, shall we say, “normal” dictatorships of homegrown thugs, culminating though in the 29-year reign of the Duvaliers, who so thoroughly sucked up for themselves everything and anything that they left behind no instititutional foundation for stability after they fell.
(A) That would be an extraordinarily bad idea (prior history) and (B) the DR doesn’t want it (because they know the prior history).
The obvious solution is to give it back to the French who controlled it from 1697 to 1804.
Currently:
The only long-term solution, as I see it, is for the Haitian people to rise up against the racketeers, thugs, tyrants, and all the built-in corruption and rebuild a government from the ground up. Akin to the US Revolution, but in this case the they must overcome an internal versus an external power. Socialistic, Communistic, or Democratic government, whatever the people want, it doesn’t matter.
The US along with other parties could help fund and coordinate the insurrection, but until the Haitian people feel they are in charge nothing is going to change.This isn’t a problem that anyone but the Haitian people can solve themselves.