I’m a few days late, but let me applaud the Bush administration’s handling of the ongoing crisis in Haiti. It was right not to chose sides in a war with no good guys, right not to save Aristide, right not to deploy troops until the outcome was clear, and right to limit the mission at this time to certain clearly-identified goals. And I’m perfectly sanguine about it all, even if we “kidnapped” Aristide: He was no believer in democracy, and his departure averted a bloodbath.
Now, a personal note: a good friend’s father — an obstetrician* — is currently in Haiti doing good works and visiting his family. A brief thought or prayer on his behalf would be appreciated.
von
*A description applicable to both the friend and the father, in fact.
I don’t really understand this point of view. Aristide was democratically elected, and he was overthrown by people who were aligned with the Duvalier family.
We should be thrilled when elected presidents are overthrown in our backyard?
We only believe in democracy for countries with Oil, Barry…
…just kidding. I think the outcome in Haiti was a good one too. Anytime you can save thousands of civilians from senseless slaughter through “diplomatic” means is a win-win situation as far as I’m concerned…of course it remains to be seen if the new government won’t still do a bit of slaughtering, but the bloodshed in Port-au-Prince was imminent.
Barry wrote:
Who said that we were “thrilled”?
We should be thrilled when elected presidents are overthrown in our backyard?
Three thoughts, Barry: first, Thorley‘s right. It’s not a question of being thrilled. It’s about doing the best we can with a bad hand. (Edward suggests the same point in his post.)
Second, Aristide was democratically-elected, but he was far from committed to democracy. At best, he was a corrupt thug who ruled via street gang. Or worst . . . .
His departure is no loss for democracy.
Third, and more generally, the guiding principle of US policy should not be to promote democracy everywhere, at whatever cost. It’s to promote the US‘s interests. And, though I recognize the limitations of that philosophy, I see no alternative at the present time.
‘Course, I don’t need to be a global citizen, ’cause I’m blessed by nationality. (As the old punk hymn goes . . . )
We did choose sides – we’ve been pushing Aristide out of office for years by vetoing loans. Plus never helping him to establish a stable regime in the first place. Blood has been shed, and we could have prevented it easily, at least if what I’ve seen in the news analyses is right. But fine, why not give the Cannibal Army and Duvalier fils a shot.
Anytime our Caribbean policy is run by the likes of Otto Reich of Iran/Contra fame — see
http://corrente.blogspot.com/archives/2004_02_29_corrente_archive.html#107819053627218028
I think it makes sense to be dubious.
Haiti is in fact a fair test of the neo-cons’ thesis.
see http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/lind_3_2_04.htm
I only offer the prayer. Good luck and God bless to your friend and her father.
Mark Weisbrot has a column on this subject with some interesting background facts:
http://www.cepr.net/columns/weisbrot/Haiti.htm
A sample:
Aristide, a populist priest who preached liberation theology, was elected by a landslide in 1990. After serving seven months in office, he was overthrown by the military. The officers who led the military coup were, as later reported by the New York Times, on the payroll of the CIA. But the Washington connection did not end there.
A death squad organization known by the French acronym F.R.A.P.H was formed, and murdered at least 3000 of Aristide’s supporters over the next three years. The founder of the organization, Emanuel Constant, stated in an interview on CBS’ 60 minutes that he was paid by the CIA to create and maintain the organization during the dictatorship. He now lives in New York.
Constant’s second in command, convicted murderer Louis-Jodel Chamblain, was one of the leaders of last week’s insurrection. The New York Times report on Tuesday summed up the situation after the coup: “These men, whom Mr. Powell characterized last week as “thugs,” and a few hundred of their followers are for now the domestic face of national security in Haiti.
Aristide, a populist priest who preached liberation theology, was elected by a landslide in 1990.
It’s worth noting that Aristide was forced out of the priesthood due (in part) to his corruption, and that “lilberation theology” is frequently (and correctly) regarded as soft-core communism.
I’m not suggesting that Aristide may not, all things being equal, be marginally better than the alternative. I am saying, however, that Aristide is not so much better than the alternative that he was worth a bloodbath.
When the decision is between bad and worse, you choose bad.
Do you have a URL for the charge of corruption? I’ve seen this discussion, which only talks about his politics, not corruption:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2095635/
Sounds like consistent Christianity to me.
I again assert that this is a false dilemma – rather like a revealed preference fallacy. You have to look several years back to put these events into a reasonable context.
I know zip about Haiti, so could someone please fill me in on why we’re certain that Aristide’s departure a) averted an imminent bloodbath, and b) won’t engender one the minute the Duvalier’s get back?
[Hmmm… sounds snarky. It isn’t intended to be so — I genuinely don’t know.]
And I too will send well-wishes to your friend. Best of luck there.
Do you have a URL for the charge of corruption?
Do either of these google searches, Barry: “aristide corrupt” or “aristide corruption”.
so could someone please fill me in on why we’re certain that Aristide’s departure a) averted an imminent bloodbath, and b) won’t engender one the minute the Duvalier’s get back?
Anarch, google “Aristide bloodbath.” As for the Duvaliers returning, I think you assume too much. Let’s see what happens.
I can use Google, but I don’t see anything that says he was kicked out of the Church for corruption. It’s not helpful to the discussion here to just tell people “use Google.” If you have URLs, post them.
There is a lot of nonsense out on the net, and bringing up right-wing sites that hate him doesn’t convince me of anything.
I’m not arguing he is a saint, or that he is squeaky clean, I’m just trying to get more information.
Frankly, seeing someone criticized for being leftist by the Catholic Church after they proved themselves useful to the Duvaliers and the right-wing dictatorships of Latin America isn’t really a negative in my book.
Mother Teresa accepted a Legion d’Honneur from Baby Doc Duvalier. The Church isn’t exactly a good example to use when we’re talking about Haiti.