Haiti: WTF?

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

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=2&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_haiti

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.

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 interests
The 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.

Ask yourself where all this 'information' is coming from and why this, rather than other information, is being fed to the American public.

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.

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.

what on this thread isn't "propaganda"? how would you describe the people that Aristide pays who beat, burn or shoot Haitian civilians?

Ask yourself where all this 'information' is coming from and why this, rather than other information, is being fed to the American public.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

"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."

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.

Tactical: overthrow Allende via coup
Strategic: 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 stakes
Haiti/Chile/Grenada/Panama - no stakes at all

That we can consider something from the CIA archives is telling.

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.

Provide some evidence that the elections were fair and not rigged.

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.

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.

Scales falling from eyes! Well yes, of course. And?

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.

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.

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.

I'm not going to back up Skottie's point here, but I don't think that you understood it.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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?

Also, Run it Off's commentary is definitely OTM.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=589&e=1&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/haiti_uprising

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040301/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/un_haiti_10

i think it's mostly a matter of the us not wanting to be embarrassed by a bloodbath in their backyard but otherwise ignoring the situation as best they can, or simply managing it for maximum quiet, whatever that happens to mean

i don't know much about this; can you point me to an article that goes into detail?

i'm skeptical only because this is the "line" on so many other countries and it begins to sound overfamiliar, but you may be right.

Here’s an article about the history of America’s intervention in Haiti

Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, so you are right that America has nothing to worry about from Haiti or any Haitian leader directly. However, America insists that the countries in its 'backyard' comply with American interests. The force of this insistence can take military form, or simply be tied to aid and loan packages. When one of these countries, or their leaders, resists Washington in some way, the American government becomes nervous. There seems to be a bad-apple-mentality in the Pentagon that fears middle and southern American mutiny. So, it is not Haiti itself which is a threat to the states, but there is a perception that if the poorest nation in the western hemisphere can flout American demands that that is an unacceptable situation and a bad example. America does not demand that human rights be upheld as a precondition for aid in these countries (Colombia, for instance) only that they comply with and actively support American interests.

http://www.exile.ru/184/war_nerd.html

relevant quote:

"In a way, the only sad thing about Haiti is the way we keep trying to make it into Ohio. Because it never will be, and only looks ridiculous trying, giving the local killers fancy democratic names. If we just let Haiti be Haiti—a crazy, gory voodoo kingdom—people might learn to respect the place."

oh that helps!

Isn't that quite close to the way the British empire described India before deciding India would be better off in under British rule?

Yep, just saw that Ned Sublette forwarded Naomi's latest Haiti piece from the Nation, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DtwkTS9mq8

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

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

like how is it possible that he won't win, is what i want to know

this is going to be trainwreck

has a pop star ever become a dictator before?

bono had a secret ceremony at the UN like five years ago iirc

has a pop star ever become a dictator before?

Michael Jackson almost

lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/opinion/07blow.html?hp

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

Baby Doc back in Haiti

hmm

Mesdames et messieurs, the new president of Haiti:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEgcP1_fMzg

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

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.

Michel Martelly

He was kinda entertaining as Haitian pop performer Lil Mickey, when I saw him near W. DC years ago

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/

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.

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.

Another camera angle of protests in Port au Prince, #Haiti today. pic.twitter.com/8dIsEUjXmL

— HaitiInfoProject 📡 (@HaitiInfoProj) February 7, 2019

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

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.

Official line from the government is that they were mercenaries.

The Colombian government has apparently confirmed that some of the mercs arrested are former soldiers.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/09/colombia-haiti-guns-for-hire-assassination?

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.

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

Relevant commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ55CEm6wpY