Haiti
Quote:
CALL IT COINCIDENCE. A 10-year-old experiment by the United States in "nation-building" is unravelling rapidly at the very time it is engaged in another purported nation-building exercise of an awful kind. Haiti is not as far away from the U.S. as Iraq, or as big or as complex. It is a tiny country on an island off the Florida coast. In the last few days, Haiti has been tormented by internal violence with armed gangs taking over towns and opposition groups demanding the ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide whose election in 2000 they refuse to recognise as legitimate. This is President Aristide's second term in office. His first, between 1990 and 1995, was interrupted by a military coup and he could reclaim office only after an armed intervention by U.S. forces removed the junta. He may get no such help this time, having fallen out with his patron in the intervening years. Without directly calling for the ouster of Mr. Aristide, the U.S. has sent out signals that have encouraged his opponents, rightly raising questions about the Bush administration's support for the removal of an elected leader. Even though there has been some erosion in support for the Haitian leader, he remains deeply popular among his people. Apart from the armed militias, the main opposition is a loose coalition called the Democratic Convergence that has links to a U.S. organisation representing Republican Party interests. Not surprisingly, comparisons are also being drawn with what was enacted in Venezuela two years ago. But more than anything else, Haiti's crisis has reinforced disturbing questions about the U.S. style of nation-building abroad and its motives behind such ventures.
Haiti is a classic case of the tension between the stated aim of the U.S. to build democracies around the world and its desire to ensure that such governments remain pliant and reflect its own policies. After nine decades of U.S. involvement, Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. For 30 years from 1958, Washington nurtured the tyrannical regimes of the Duvaliers (father and son) so that they remained allies during the Cold War. After a popular revolt deposed Baby Doc Duvalier in 1986, U.S. policy towards Haiti has largely been determined by the thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants who wash up on American shores, fleeing the economic and political instability at home. This was one of the main reasons behind the Clinton administration's 1993 intervention to reinstall Mr. Aristide, and it definitely helped that he was democratically elected. But working to a quick "exit strategy," the U.S. then abandoned Haiti; the new Government found itself without either support structure or financial resources to enable it to revive the economy and restore political stability. Not enthused by President Aristide, the Bush administration has exacerbated Haiti's plight by blocking international aid, and with its recent calls for a "thorough change" in governance, is now seen as backing a dubious opposition. Naturally, Haitians who want to see a genuine democracy take root in their country fear a return to the free-for-all chaos that reigned in the late 1980s.
In this election year for President George Bush, the course of his administration's policy towards Haiti is certain to be influenced by the presence of a sizeable Haitian migrant community in at least three States in the U.S. and the possibility of another surge of refugees and illegal immigrants should the impasse between President Aristide and his opponents continue. But as the Bush administration struggles to extricate itself from the horrible mess it has created in Iraq, the troubles in Haiti give Americans an opportunity to reflect on yet another of Washington's interventions in the name of freedom and democracy producing nothing but tragedy for the alleged beneficiaries.
CALL IT COINCIDENCE. A 10-year-old experiment by the United States in "nation-building" is unravelling rapidly at the very time it is engaged in another purported nation-building exercise of an awful kind. Haiti is not as far away from the U.S. as Iraq, or as big or as complex. It is a tiny country on an island off the Florida coast. In the last few days, Haiti has been tormented by internal violence with armed gangs taking over towns and opposition groups demanding the ouster of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide whose election in 2000 they refuse to recognise as legitimate. This is President Aristide's second term in office. His first, between 1990 and 1995, was interrupted by a military coup and he could reclaim office only after an armed intervention by U.S. forces removed the junta. He may get no such help this time, having fallen out with his patron in the intervening years. Without directly calling for the ouster of Mr. Aristide, the U.S. has sent out signals that have encouraged his opponents, rightly raising questions about the Bush administration's support for the removal of an elected leader. Even though there has been some erosion in support for the Haitian leader, he remains deeply popular among his people. Apart from the armed militias, the main opposition is a loose coalition called the Democratic Convergence that has links to a U.S. organisation representing Republican Party interests. Not surprisingly, comparisons are also being drawn with what was enacted in Venezuela two years ago. But more than anything else, Haiti's crisis has reinforced disturbing questions about the U.S. style of nation-building abroad and its motives behind such ventures.
Haiti is a classic case of the tension between the stated aim of the U.S. to build democracies around the world and its desire to ensure that such governments remain pliant and reflect its own policies. After nine decades of U.S. involvement, Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. For 30 years from 1958, Washington nurtured the tyrannical regimes of the Duvaliers (father and son) so that they remained allies during the Cold War. After a popular revolt deposed Baby Doc Duvalier in 1986, U.S. policy towards Haiti has largely been determined by the thousands of illegal Haitian immigrants who wash up on American shores, fleeing the economic and political instability at home. This was one of the main reasons behind the Clinton administration's 1993 intervention to reinstall Mr. Aristide, and it definitely helped that he was democratically elected. But working to a quick "exit strategy," the U.S. then abandoned Haiti; the new Government found itself without either support structure or financial resources to enable it to revive the economy and restore political stability. Not enthused by President Aristide, the Bush administration has exacerbated Haiti's plight by blocking international aid, and with its recent calls for a "thorough change" in governance, is now seen as backing a dubious opposition. Naturally, Haitians who want to see a genuine democracy take root in their country fear a return to the free-for-all chaos that reigned in the late 1980s.
In this election year for President George Bush, the course of his administration's policy towards Haiti is certain to be influenced by the presence of a sizeable Haitian migrant community in at least three States in the U.S. and the possibility of another surge of refugees and illegal immigrants should the impasse between President Aristide and his opponents continue. But as the Bush administration struggles to extricate itself from the horrible mess it has created in Iraq, the troubles in Haiti give Americans an opportunity to reflect on yet another of Washington's interventions in the name of freedom and democracy producing nothing but tragedy for the alleged beneficiaries.
So, what do you think?
Comments
but i remember clinton appeared to leave haiti all too quickly in the 1990's, perhaps not entirely his fault (since congress most likely would not have supported and extended stay), but he did just drop out after aristide was installed and if i recall ignored pleas for help.
Hopefully, I'll be going back to Haiti this summer. We'll see what it's like then.
About the article - first a clarification: Haiti was already the poorest country in this hemisphere before 1995. Second, where's that from?
Thirdly, I'm really not surprised that the US kept up with it's tradition on having "Nation Building" fall flat on it's face. I have also been to Nicaragua and Colombia, and saw first-hand the effects of the stupidity of US foreign policy. Now we just need to insert a leader in the Dominican Republic to 'keep Haiti under control', wait ten years, and then say he's the worst man on the planet
talksense101, you have to give us a little bit more of your opinion. OK? What do you think about it?
bauman, watch your 6 when you go back down there man...
While we wait, we can point out that the US has had very, uh, mixed results with their efforts in their own hemisphere for nation building and whatnot. While the government has managed to created democracies in lots of places through any number of avenues, most of these countries remain very poor. And when you can't feed the people, well all that structure and good intentions get pushed aside for obvious reasons.
Leaving countries to languish in their own problems seems heartless, you feel like you should do something, but this stuff is a bit overwhelming, isn't it?
I read that article in the editorial section of a local newspaper and I was wondering if that viewpoint is shared by people in the US. I wanted to make sure that it was not just propoganda. But it does seem that the international community including the US is now doing something instead of ditching the nation.
It seems like the rebels are simply attacking any sign of Aristede, which is most prevalent in the police force. It seems like they aren't paying much attention to whites there... yet, but it's hard to tell.
An interesting development this week is that it's Carnival in Haiti, and so schools and businesses are out this week. It actually was extended by Aristede, but the reasons behind it are uncertain.
I have an Aunt in Haiti I'd be visiting, and she is very fluent in the culture. I have no doubts as to her confidence in surveying the safety of me visiting, and her relationships with fellow Haitians are strong enough that there would be little guesswork on the safety of the situation. She's been there long enough that the locals are especially looking out for her now. It's a safe community.
Now in the news, Aristede is conceding to a Power Sharing Peace plan, but the rebels would have to agree to it... something he can be confident they will never do. Thus he will get international support by saying "I am in support of this peace plan, but the bad terrorists aren't. Help me!" He's been throwing "Terrorist" around A LOT in attempts to grab attention from Bush, but it seems like it isn't working.
Things seem to have gotten more violent over this weekend, too. News from Haiti is always a little sketchy, as it seems nobody really knows what is happening, but it sounds like he is quickly losing grip on the nation.