But how would the U.S. benefit by losing Aristide? The Haitian embargo is based on refusing to allow Haitian government to evovle slowly and stubbornly demanding immedate democracy, which is stupid and shortsighted, but even the Bush administration understands that, right now, there is no one to replace Aristide.
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Monday, 23 February 2004 00:04 (twenty years ago) link
And quit being so touchy. I don't hate americans. I just hate the people that govern it. Duh. (x-post)
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 23 February 2004 00:06 (twenty years ago) link
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Monday, 23 February 2004 00:13 (twenty years ago) link
as Colin just said, that's exactly what the negotiating position of the US is. the only funding going on is by an independent organization in the US associated with people who are Republicans, some of whom have been in government.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 23 February 2004 00:26 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 23 February 2004 10:46 (twenty years ago) link
THE PEOPLE is a dangerous term. All you really mean is some of the people.
― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:12 (twenty years ago) link
The majority = those who American interests will ignore in order to promote the minority
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 23 February 2004 13:31 (twenty years ago) link
even from the early 1990s i always had the sense that aristide was a sketchy would-be autocrat, which is not to say that his opposition is right in what they're doing
― amateur!st (amateurist), Friday, 27 February 2004 12:55 (twenty years ago) link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_haiti
― maypang (maypang), Friday, 27 February 2004 21:08 (twenty years ago) link
The Secret Service? Um, no. Maybe the CIA. The Secret Service handles security for politicians, visiting heads of state and carries out Treasury Department enforcement (i.e. anti-counterfeit measures, etc.). They don't destabilize countries.
― hstencil, Friday, 27 February 2004 23:05 (twenty years ago) link
Yes, I should have said "people". "some" is also arguably a "dangerous" term. Neither of us know how many. My point still stands.
The people = the minority who support American interestsThe majority = those who American interests will ignore in order to promote the minority
What "American interests"? How do you know? The foreign press suggests that there is popular discontent with Aristide. What incentive would Haitians have to "support American interests"?
I'll admit that with Powell saying that it may be time for Aristide to step down, at least some people in the US may be involved here.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Friday, 27 February 2004 23:22 (twenty years ago) link
― amateur!st (amateurist), Saturday, 28 February 2004 13:29 (twenty years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 15:47 (twenty years ago) link
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 15:52 (twenty years ago) link
Ask yourself where all this 'information' is coming from and why this, rather than other information, is being fed to the American public.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 15:55 (twenty years ago) link
The tone of this opening question demands a comparison to all U.S. incursions into other nations, but, I'm afraid, that's so general as to be meaningless.
1. Haiti is in the U.S.'s backyard. The U.S. has an interest in what happens there. 2. There's no oil or anything else in Haiti that the U.S. is trying to commandeer.3. Is it more appropriate to adopt the (recent) European stance? That is, watch idly as second or third world citizens kill one another plunging their society into anarchy, but do nothing to help. Oh, of course, criticize the U.S. in a kneejerk fashion when action is taken, no matter what it is.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 15:58 (twenty years ago) link
Such a comparison would not be meaningless, it would be relevant. Every single incursion into other nations by the US should be seen in terms of the totality of incursions by the US. If nothing else, such a comparison - even if incomplete - shows that these events are not singular and unique but are part of a pattern of activity and the result of a global strategy by the US.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:06 (twenty years ago) link
what on this thread isn't "propaganda"? how would you describe the people that Aristide pays who beat, burn or shoot Haitian civilians?
Uh, the Associated Press? National Public Radio? Oh no, I am the naive ugly American! I must believe only that which is ideologically consistent with my political beliefs and reject the potential truthfulness of everything else! When you can come up with some contrary information, I'll pay attention to it.
by the US
a strategy that has completely reversed direction in ten years. i suppose we did the wrong thing when we restored Aristide to power in 94?
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:09 (twenty years ago) link
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:10 (twenty years ago) link
and until then, you will simply believe all the propaganda you get in favour of American intervention?
i suppose we did the wrong thing when we restored Aristide to power in 94?
the US did what the US always does: it did what it thought was in American interests and when things don't turn out as planned, send in the army (preceded by special forces) in order to intervene again.
So yes, I do suppose you did the wrong thing when you supported and armed Saddam and then did the wrong thing again by going to war to get rid of Saddam. And Haiti follows the same pattern.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:13 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:16 (twenty years ago) link
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:16 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:18 (twenty years ago) link
If you think the American government and the Pentagon don't think strategically about foreign affairs
If the "American Government" is an entity that acts on the world stage with a coherent objective over a long period of time, then discussions about what Bush would do vs. what Gore would have done or what Clinton did are rendered invalid.
Even the Pentagon, while entrenched and isolated to a certain degree from the executive branch, is an extremely transient place. Generals with enough power to make long-term "strategic" policy don't stay around long enough to implement it. They spend a lot of money thinking about things, maybe, but, no I don't think there's a nefarious strategy.
If we had a consistent, long-term strategy, we'd be better at running the world.
Nike and Coca-cola, on the other hand, DO have long-term strategies. And they do pretty well.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:22 (twenty years ago) link
No it doesn't, it means that they will respond to the same research, data, prognosis, planning, advice etc differently.
I don't think there's a nefarious strategy.
Consider this from the CIA archive:
"It is firm and continuing policy that Allende [Chilean leader] be overthrown by a coup... We are to continue to generate maximum pressures toward this end utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that United States Government and American hand be well hidden."
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:28 (twenty years ago) link
It's arguable that the US acted in 94 firstly out of American interests in dealing with the refugee problem, sure. I'm glad that you effectively concede my point that we did the right thing, whatever our motive. You seek to elide that concession by monolithically - and offensively - using "the US" to suggest that our motives remained the same but changed merely because of the facts, suggesting that the Clinton administration approached world affairs in exactly the same way and with the same motives as either of the Bush administrations, the latter of which no longer has the popular opinion support of even half of the country.
Maybe I should say this instead:
Britain did what Britain always does: it did what it thought was in British interests - imperialism - and when things didn't turn out as planned, it sent in the army in order to intervene again. Both in Iraq and in the Falklands.
But because I'm free from kneejerk anti-Americanism (and anti-interventionism and pacifism), I can admit that once in a while Britain does something simply because it's right.
Actually, a government that didn't do this would be stupid and vulnerable.
Yes. Quite, as y'all say. It sounds like you're justifying it.
And what does the Nixon administration have to do with the Clinton administration, more than 20 years later?
Leave the democratically elected government alone.
Provide some evidence that the elections were fair and not rigged.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:37 (twenty years ago) link
Tactical: overthrow Allende via coupStrategic: formulate policy to foster x-type of political structure in Latin America overall. With the resulting goal of ____.
Good longterm policy, political, corporate, whatever, also includes an exit strategy. We never have one. Reagan's goal, end the Soviet Union. Okay, it happens, what replaces it? Anarchy. Ditto virtually everywhere else we've had a hand.
Also, there's little distinction in the American policy of intervention between big goals and little goals.
Soviet Union/Iraq - high stakesHaiti/Chile/Grenada/Panama - no stakes at all
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:42 (twenty years ago) link
That we can consider something from the CIA archives is telling.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:45 (twenty years ago) link
I did not. I simply said that you were wrong to intervene in the first place and continue to be wrong to intervene now.
If you think that various administrations start from scratch with their military and foreign policies, consider this chain of events:
Colin Powell had laid military contingency plans to deal with Iraq prior to the first Gulf War. Regime change was argued for by Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense as early as 1992. Regime change in Iraq was policy in the Clinton administration. And in a report written in 1999 by a group including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle, it was stated that American military intervention in Iraq for regime change could not get popular support in the States unless there was "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor". They got one and then all their planning came into action.
America has no right to such evidence after the way that Bush got in. But either way, this is typical muscular American foreign policy: find a minority group who dispute the government of a foreign state that isn't towing the US line and back them. If the minority claim that the elections weren't fair then all the better. It is just an excuse for American muscle.
By the way, I'm not a knee-jerk anti-American. I agree with you about Britain's imperialist policies. My points are never against America as such. However, when I think that America is wrong, I will say so. By calling this knee-jerk you are either trying to ridicule opposition or you actually believe, slavishly, that opposition to American good sense is always ridiculous. That's quite sad.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:50 (twenty years ago) link
Oh, I like this one. Pure ideology!
The argument - if there was one, rather than this assertion - would be something like this: America is an open society and here is the proof, the CIA opens its archive so that we can see what awful things it got up to destabilising countries all over the world. Forget about what the CIA were doing in these countries. If only the societies that the CIA is fucking up were as open as the US then the CIA would not need to covertly undermine them.
A bullying open society is justified in bullying the world because it is open, is it? It is the bullying that is the problem and using the open society to justify it is to fail to justify it. Basically, there is no justification for imperial bullying, so what imperial powers do is defend it by referring to the superiority of their culture instead.
― run it off (run it off), Saturday, 28 February 2004 16:56 (twenty years ago) link
― cybele (cybele), Saturday, 28 February 2004 17:40 (twenty years ago) link
Scales falling from eyes! Well yes, of course. And?
Cute closing note of moral superiority. Very Joe Lieberman.
I do believe that you are a knee-jerk anti-American at least in the sense that you are unwilling to regard "America" as anything other than an entity that acts outside its borders, whether or not it acts with the support or even knowledge of its people, or to distinguish between different American administrations or between administrations and America's people.
I don't think we can talk about whether American intervention here is justified, because there is no American intervention here. I am readily willing to concede that Haitian expatriates in the US, the CIA, Republicans outside of government, Republicans in government, or any combination of these, may be involved in what's going on now. The US is not, as a matter of formal policy, although concededly it is officially taking at least a hands-off approach and may be well aware of what's really happening.
Suppose for the sake of argument that the Bush administration, and/or some other part of the government is involved at least indirectly. I am arguing against your opposition to such involvement (even if I might agree with such opposition; I'm not informed enough to take a position one way or the other) because I perceive the opposition to be based simply on the fact of American involvement, as well as on the assumption - not necessarily wrong, but without evidence that you have examined the facts - that Aristide is good or popular and that an American-approved alternative would be bad or unpopular. I don't necessarily assume the opposite, and having looked around more I am more skeptical about the stories of Aristide's undemocratic tendencies (though, as is always true in attempting to prove a negative, I haven't seen hard evidence either). But if I have bought into "propaganda" about Aristide, so has Isabel Hilton.
The argument - if there was one, rather than this assertion - would be something like this: America is an open society and here is the proof, the CIA opens its archive so that we can see what awful things it got up to destabilising countries all over the world. Forget about what the CIA were doing in these countries.
I'm not going to back up Skottie's point here, but I don't think that you understood it.
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Saturday, 28 February 2004 17:53 (twenty years ago) link
I can't tell if you're kneejerk anti-american or not, doesn't matter. You do seem to be kneejerk anti-interventionist, however. And a touch paranoid. The problem with government conspiracy theories are many, not least among them, governments can't keep secrets, and there isn't longterm continuity among the players powerful enough to try. There just isn't.
It seems unlikely that the vast, vast revenues generated by Haitian purchases of American rice would justify military intervention. What are the components of the Haitian "market" anyway. They buy rice from the U.S. with IMF loans financed by the U.S.? Or with direct aid grants from the U.S.? Come on.
Leave Haiti alone to work out its problems until there are no more Haitians standing. Then there won't be any more problems. That was the European policy in the Balkans, of course.
― Skottie, Saturday, 28 February 2004 18:41 (twenty years ago) link
Which is not to say I think you're hugely misguided or anything, and for the record it's not like I know loads and loads about Haiti -- it's just that I think the traditional U.S.-interests analysis you're pushing isn't particularly effective here. Because the U.S. interest is, in this case, quite likely very simple: the goal, as always, is to sort of screw the ideological specifics and just get this county to a state where we can safely mostly-ignore it.
And there are perfectly good reasons to criticize that, which is the one place where i can semi-agree with you. As in, let's go over a list of reasons why we wouldn't take a hand-off approach to Haiti -- reasons I'm not necessarily advancing or defending but just offering up as surely the ones in operation: (a) refugees, (b) Haitian-American voters, (c) even worse chaos and violence that eventually shames the "uncaring" U.S. into stepping in anyway, eventually, plus of course (d) inclination to stabilize the thing you know and can live with rather than open the door to something even non-ideologues couldn't stomach. And it's that last point, sensible as it is, that I think you're trying to hammer at, right? Because it's Not Our Place to be stomaching or not-stomaching the government of another nation, right? And I semi-agree with you on that one, but not universally, because that logic, carried to its extreme, means abandoning even our more worthwhile principles.
And you'd have to say more than you're currently saying to convince me that Haiti is a situation that deserves that kind of neglect.
― nabiscothingy, Sunday, 29 February 2004 00:28 (twenty years ago) link
American interest in keeping Aristide in power isn't necessarily due to apathy or just an interest in keeping things calm. Right now there is no one to fill the Aristide's position if he's deposed. However ineffectual Aristide is, The Cannibal Army (I'm sorry, "The Gonaives Resistance Front") is a lot less prepared (and less willing) to try and rebuiled Haiti.
― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Sunday, 29 February 2004 00:51 (twenty years ago) link
― Skottie, Sunday, 29 February 2004 01:24 (twenty years ago) link
I try not to get involved in political threads anymore (I get in them, then don't go back for a few days, and lose all interest in debate), but here I gotta say Skottie's OTM. Prime Example:
"and until then, you will simply believe all the propaganda you get in favour of American intervention?"
― Alan Conceicao, Sunday, 29 February 2004 02:44 (twenty years ago) link
Stomaching and not-stomaching other governments, when it is backed with the military - ie imposing stomach-able governments on other nations - is problematic, I agree. And yes, that's is my main gripe with Americans contemplating what they should do about the situation in Haiti.
In run it off's weltanschauung, the U.S. is always either in "uncaring" or "meddling imperialistic" mode. This binary status is convenient because whatever the situation, the U.S. is always wrong.
Show me where I did this. I haven't once talked about the US being uncaring and I don't think the US would be uncaring if it kept out of other nation's democratic business. And, to reiterate, I am not limiting my anti-imperialism to the US.
By the way, this is not pacifism. If there is good reason to go to war - against an aggressive Fascism, say - then I think all governments should fight for their principles against that fascism. I'm not a pacifist, I'm anti-imperlialist. If America is flexing its imperialist muscles a lot lately, I don't consider that my fault and so my opposition to it will naturally mean arguing against American foreign policy. That doesn't make me anti-American. It makes me anti-imperialist.
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 09:53 (twenty years ago) link
Gabbneb, after being told about the strong links between administrations and the foreign policy that is common between them: Scales falling from eyes! Well yes, of course. And?
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 11:41 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Sunday, 29 February 2004 11:55 (twenty years ago) link
― hstencil, Sunday, 29 February 2004 20:56 (twenty years ago) link
― cybele (cybele), Sunday, 29 February 2004 21:06 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:20 (twenty years ago) link
Also, Run it Off's commentary is definitely OTM.
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:34 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:44 (twenty years ago) link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&e=1&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/haiti_uprising
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:46 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:49 (twenty years ago) link
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/un_haiti_10
― maypang (maypang), Monday, 1 March 2004 06:55 (twenty years ago) link
― dyson (dyson), Monday, 1 March 2004 07:08 (twenty years ago) link
― run it off (run it off), Monday, 1 March 2004 09:15 (twenty years ago) link
barf
― werewolf bar mitzvah of the xx (gbx), Sunday, 14 February 2010 03:19 (fourteen years ago) link
now i'm looking for material online to investigate her "points." i'm sure i won't bother discussing it with her, but now i'm motivated to read up on the subject. any tips/links to useful websites appreciated.
― Daniel, Esq., Sunday, 14 February 2010 03:22 (fourteen years ago) link
oh no, they killed their oppressors! truly unheard-of levels of savagery.
― call all destroyer, Sunday, 14 February 2010 17:49 (fourteen years ago) link
Daniel
I read Ned Sublette's e-mail newsletter. He wrote books including Cuba and Its Music(which also discusses Haiti)and the Year Before the Flood (one of 2 books about New Orleans he has written) and he just mentioned "Laurent Dubois's book Avengers of the New World, which besides presenting the clearest explanation of the twists and turns of the Haitian Revolution is a model of how to write history for a general reader" . Dubois also teaches at Duke and his syllabus might be online. There are several other books out about Haiti.
Here's a recent op-ed that summarizes some of Haiti's history
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/economy/2010/01/haitian-history-beyond-robertson-and-limbaugh/
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 04:13 (fourteen years ago) link
thanks! finally stopped fuming about my sister-in-law's comments. read a few articles, which led me to two books about haiti that i'm buying. the article you linked to is fascinating. i'm especially curious about the link between IMF loans -- and the opening of markets they force as consideration for the loan -- and the damage done to haiti's agricultural system. the video link embedded in the article hopefully will provide more detail on that topic.
― Daniel, Esq., Tuesday, 16 February 2010 04:34 (fourteen years ago) link
As I understand it, some blame the economic policies forced on Haiti to get them out of debt with messing up the local economy and sending farmers and others out of rural areas into P o P. Forests and such got stripped and destroyed by desperate Haitians and environmental and economic problems accelerated.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 17:11 (fourteen years ago) link
^^^^haven't read the article yet (thanks!), but my impression has been that IMF/WB bailouts have generally lead to devastating economic policies.
this is a vague and probably inaccurate take, but from what i understand: Haiti (and other poor countries) get loan money, with heavy strings attached. generally those involve a) conversion to an export economy and b) lowering of tariffs on foreign imports. if a country doesn't have much in the way of exportable resources, it will "export" its labor by allowing foreign companies to manufacture in-country. the situation can then get so lop-sided to the point where imported food is considerably cheaper than what is produced locally, and arable land is devoted to either commercial products (tobacco, cotton, sugar) or the meanest subsistence. export/service economies produce the trade that is necessary to pay down loan balances, but not at a rate or amplitude to make any progress. superimpose gov't corruption and mismanagement, and the debt gets even larger.
...but i'm cribbing that from, like, naomi klein and other lefties, so ymmv
― werewolf bar mitzvah of the xx (gbx), Tuesday, 16 February 2010 18:17 (fourteen years ago) link
Yep, just saw that Ned Sublette forwarded Naomi's latest Haiti piece from the Nation, I think.
― curmudgeon, Wednesday, 17 February 2010 13:59 (fourteen years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtwkTS9mq8
― James Mitchell, Wednesday, 24 March 2010 18:46 (fourteen years ago) link
Sean Penn (who has done a hell of a lot there, it seems) on the cosmetic nature of NGO work in Haiti:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11127
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Saturday, 24 July 2010 08:24 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.tvsquad.com/2010/08/06/wyclef-jean-announces-presidential-bid-sean-penn-reacts-on-lar/
wyclef jean runs for pres, sean penn oh snap
― pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 18:42 (thirteen years ago) link
like how is it possible that he won't win, is what i want to know
― pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 18:49 (thirteen years ago) link
this is going to be trainwreck
― Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 August 2010 18:53 (thirteen years ago) link
has a pop star ever become a dictator before?
― iatee, Friday, 6 August 2010 18:55 (thirteen years ago) link
bono had a secret ceremony at the UN like five years ago iirc
― pies. (gbx), Friday, 6 August 2010 18:59 (thirteen years ago) link
Michael Jackson almost
― Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 August 2010 19:00 (thirteen years ago) link
lol
― Party Car! (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 6 August 2010 21:47 (thirteen years ago) link
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/opinion/07blow.html?hp
― symsymsym, Saturday, 7 August 2010 23:43 (thirteen years ago) link
If you haven't heard, there's a cholera epidemic, if you want to contribute to your favorite relevant charity.
http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/haiti.html
― kind of shrill and very self-righteous (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 27 October 2010 18:52 (thirteen years ago) link
Baby Doc back in Haiti
hmm
― Alba, Monday, 17 January 2011 00:25 (thirteen years ago) link
Mesdames et messieurs, the new president of Haiti:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEgcP1_fMzg
― Pop is superior to all other genres (DL), Tuesday, 5 April 2011 10:10 (thirteen years ago) link
from the BBC: "On Sunday, President Michel Martelly said he had reached a deal with the opposition to hold long-delayed elections . . . But the left-wing Fanmi Lavalas, which has been at the forefront of anti-government protests, was not part of the agreement."
http://otherworldsarepossible.org/five-years-after-earthquake-haiti-sad-state-democracy-and-human-rights
― curmudgeon, Monday, 12 January 2015 17:13 (nine years ago) link
http://www.thenation.com/article/can-haitis-corrupt-president-hold-on-to-power/
Michel Martelly is trying to impose a successor amid widespread public anger at government repression and failure to rebuild after the earthquake.....
In another week or so, Haiti could explode, and the disastrous American policy of supporting the country’s violent and corrupt president will be a big part of the reason. Michel Martelly, prevented from continuing in office by term limits, is trying to impose a successor, and the United States has not spoken out against his ruthless, undemocratic strategy. On or after November 3, Haiti will announce the top two finishers in the first election round, held on October 25, and if Martelly’s man is one of them, thousands of enraged citizens will surge into the streets.
The United States is already widely blamed here for supporting Martelly, and the ambassador until recently, Pamela White, is singled out bitterly and publicly for her alleged closeness to him.
The mainstream US press, which was here en masse after the January 2010 earthquake, is ignoring this latest acute crisis. With few exceptions, the American media have also not reported on the nearly complete failure of the international rebuilding effort, a shameful record for which Bill and Hillary Clinton have considerable responsibility.
― curmudgeon, Friday, 30 October 2015 16:50 (eight years ago) link
Michel Martelly
He was kinda entertaining as Haitian pop performer Lil Mickey, when I saw him near W. DC years ago
― curmudgeon, Friday, 30 October 2015 17:00 (eight years ago) link
From 2011... crimes of our fave Foundation:
It is hard to imagine a better case study of the very opposite approach than the Clinton trailers. In response to questions about what due diligence the foundation did to ensure the safety of the trailers it purchased for use as hurricane shelters, the Clinton Foundation initially insisted that the most appropriate person to speak to was a Haitian employee of Clinton’s UN Office. When Graham, the foundation’s COO, finally agreed to talk about the project on the record, she denied that the foundation had been responsible for any due diligence regarding its own project, claiming that those responsible were a "panel of experts," including one point person from the foundation, Greg Milne, and representatives of other organizations. (Milne referred all questions to the foundation’s press office.) The Clinton Foundation agreed to furnish documentation of who was on this panel but by press time had not done so.
Graham said that the staff of the Clinton Foundation—which has for more than a year publicized the "hurricane shelters" that "President Clinton" built in Léogâne—are "not experts" in hurricane shelter construction. She claimed the same "panel of experts" would have been responsible for due diligence to ensure air quality of the shelters whose secondary purpose was as classrooms.
Explaining Bill Clinton’s rationale for the trailers, which were installed at the tail end of the 2010 hurricane season, Conille said, "It was not meant to be sustainable. It was meant because we didn’t want to have dead people in September." According to Conille, Clinton was deeply troubled by what would happen to the women and children in case of a serious storm—and as the former president felt that "no one" was doing anything about the issue, he took the lead himself. Moreover, Clinton didn’t want to have his new "hurricane shelters" sitting empty while schoolchildren had classes in tents, Conille added.
Yet according to Maddalena, given the high rate of formaldehyde found in one of the classrooms, and the children’s headaches, "they’d be better off studying outside under a tarp."
Wall, the former OCHA spokeswoman, responded by e-mail, "We all knew that that project was misconceived from the start, a classic example of aid designed from a distance with no understanding of ground level realities or needs. It has had a predictably long and unhappy history from the start."
https://www.thenation.com/article/shelters-clinton-built/
― The Hon. J. Piedmont Mumblethunder (Dr Morbius), Friday, 7 October 2016 11:24 (seven years ago) link
Detail on the indictment of Guy Philippe:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/haitian-national-charged-international-narcotics-and-money-laundering-conspiracy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-38525651
Will be interesting, if it comes to trial, to see what he says about his relationship with the US at the time of the coup - which also overlaps with the time of some of the alleged drug trade activity.
― Bubba H.O.T.A.P.E (ShariVari), Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:48 (seven years ago) link
https://www.apnews.com/2dba9cf693594bfc8fd2f432e7207704
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) — Protesters have stoned the Haitian president’s home and clashed with police, leaving at least one demonstrator dead in the third straight day of demonstrations against economic mismanagement and corruption.Organizers pledged more protests for Sunday, increasing pressure on President Jovenel Moise, who is calling for negotiations with his opposition.A crowd of thousands protested in downtown Port-au-Prince Saturday, and an Associated Press journalist saw at least one fatally shot, apparently by nearby police. Protesters in the Petionville neighborhood blocked the road to Moise’s house and stoned his property after guards protecting a Moise ally hit a woman’s car and beat her near the president’s house.Protesters are angry about skyrocketing inflation and the government’s failure to prosecute embezzlement from a multi-billion Venezuelan program that sent discounted oil to Haiti.
Organizers pledged more protests for Sunday, increasing pressure on President Jovenel Moise, who is calling for negotiations with his opposition.
A crowd of thousands protested in downtown Port-au-Prince Saturday, and an Associated Press journalist saw at least one fatally shot, apparently by nearby police. Protesters in the Petionville neighborhood blocked the road to Moise’s house and stoned his property after guards protecting a Moise ally hit a woman’s car and beat her near the president’s house.
Protesters are angry about skyrocketing inflation and the government’s failure to prosecute embezzlement from a multi-billion Venezuelan program that sent discounted oil to Haiti.
Another camera angle of protests in Port au Prince, #Haiti today. pic.twitter.com/8dIsEUjXmL— HaitiInfoProject 📡 (@HaitiInfoProj) February 7, 2019
― Karl Malone, Sunday, 10 February 2019 04:51 (five years ago) link
BREAKING: The President of Haiti, Jovenel Moise has been assassinated at his private residence, his wife also wounded in the attack.#NBSUpdates pic.twitter.com/JGbYbVgxsZ— Daniel Lutaaya (@DanielLutaaya) July 7, 2021
― xyzzzz__, Wednesday, 7 July 2021 10:55 (two years ago) link
A “commando group with Spanish-speaking elements” being blamed.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/07/haiti-president-jovenel-moise-reportedly-assassinated
This has the potential to be very bad if the US tries to pin it on Venezuela.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Wednesday, 7 July 2021 11:27 (two years ago) link
Official line from the government is that they were mercenaries.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Wednesday, 7 July 2021 11:42 (two years ago) link
The Colombian government has apparently confirmed that some of the mercs arrested are former soldiers.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Friday, 9 July 2021 10:41 (two years ago) link
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/colombia-haiti-guns-for-hire-assassination?
― xyzzzz__, Saturday, 10 July 2021 07:34 (two years ago) link
There are claims in the Colombian press that the ex-soldiers were hired by Moise because he didn’t trust his guards and some only arrived after the assassination had taken place.
― Scampo di tutti i Scampi (ShariVari), Saturday, 10 July 2021 16:28 (two years ago) link
The plot to assassinate Haitian President Jovenel Moïse ran through South Florida, according to statements of captured Colombians who said they were hired by a Miami-area security firm.https://t.co/551RqWIm7s— Miami Herald (@MiamiHerald) July 10, 2021
― Joe Bombin (milo z), Saturday, 10 July 2021 20:58 (two years ago) link
Relevant commentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ55CEm6wpY
― Glower, Disruption & Pies (kingfish), Thursday, 27 October 2022 06:25 (one year ago) link