Author
|
Topic: virus: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UmU6IHZpcnVzOiBE6WphIHZ1IEFsbCBPdmVyIEFnYWluIGluIEhhaXRp?= (Read 446 times) |
|
simul
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
 
 
|
 |
virus: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UmU6IHZpcnVzOiBE6WphIHZ1IEFsbCBPdmVyIEFnYWluIGluIEhhaXRp?=
« on: 2004-03-05 09:34:00 » |
 |
We just didn't want a populist president in Haiti.
The word is that we kidnapped the president.
Standard US imperialist pattern: use the CIA to prop up a dictator, wait until he ruins country, then “rescue” the country with an invasion.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jei <jei@cc.hut.fi>
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:25:21
To:virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Déja vu All Over Again in Haiti
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/040302Eland.html
Déja vu All Over Again in Haiti
By Ivan Eland
When Americans see unrest, violence, rebellion or civil war in other nations
on the TV news, they often rightly sympathize with the plight of the foreign
citizens put at risk. Yet news is.well,.news, not history. Americans rarely
realize that their own government, somewhere along the line, most likely
contributed to the crisis du jour.
The United States is a superpower that meddles frequently-either overtly or
covertly-in the business of nations all over the world. Americans just
assume that such interventions have a positive effect in the countries
concerned. All to often, however, what seemed to U.S. policymakers like a
good idea at the time turns out to be counterproductive, and sometimes
disastrous, in the long-term. For example, in the 1980s, the United States
helped Iraq, which had invaded Iran, defeat and weaken that chief regional
rival-all the while looking the other way when Iraq used poison gas against
Iran and Iranian supported Iraqi Kurds. No longer worried about Iran after
that victory, Iraq was then free to invade Kuwait, and the result was 13
years of war between the United States and its former secret ally. Likewise,
during that same decade, the Carter and Reagan administrations, to oppose
their Soviet Cold War rival, funded and trained radical Islamic rebels in
remote, non-strategic Afghanistan. After the rebels won that war, some of
them turned on the United States and became al Qaeda-one of the most dire
threats to the U.S. homeland in the history of the republic.
And similarly, if we dig below the latest happenings in Haiti, we find much
more than first meets the eye. Much of Haiti's current problem lies in weak
civil institutions and no rule of law. Unfortunately, U.S. government policy
toward Haiti has contributed heavily to that state of affairs. Throughout
the 20th century, the U.S. military intervened repeatedly in Haiti. From
1915 to 1934, the U.S. Marines even occupied the country. During that time,
they dissolved Haiti's parliament, instituted martial law and created the
thuggish Haitian army. That army-containing senior officers on the CIA's
payroll- overthrew a democratically-elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991.
The remnants of it, with U.S. help, have just done it again.
In 1994, Bill Clinton, a Democrat, threatened to invade Haiti if the Haitian
military did not restore Aristide to power. But George W. Bush, a
Republican, having less use for the left-leaning leader, has now forced him
out. But there is more to schizophrenic U.S. policy than simply left-right
politics. In 1994, Haiti's internal strife was causing boatloads of refugees
to make a mad dash for Florida, a key electoral state. Although Haitians
then were fleeing mayhem, torture and other gross human rights violations,
the U.S. Coast Guard forced them back to Haiti. Similarly, the final straw
for George W. Bush during the current crisis was an attack on a Haitian
Coast Guard installation by pro-Aristide supporters-an attempt to shut down
the return of refugees. The number of boat people now fleeing the Caribbean
nation is less than in 1994, but the chaos and potential all-out civil war
there threatened to dramatically increase the flow. Keeping Haitian refugees
out of the United States is the primary driver of policy for both Democratic
and Republican administrations.
Of course, both the Clinton and Bush administrations must bear the moral
responsibility for directing a rich nation to turn away poor refugees, many
of whose lives have been endangered. But the Bush administration is also put
in the embarrassing position of ousting a democratically-elected leader
after its high-flying rhetoric about invading Iraq to spread democracy.
Granted, there were irregularities in Aristide's election win in 2000 and
plenty of corruption (there always is in Haiti), but Aristide was elected
twice and even peacefully turned power over to a successor in 1996.
Furthermore, the opposition fighters-many formerly in the army, police and
paramilitary-have thuggish pasts as bad or worse than Aristide's.
No workable solution can be imposed from the outside on Haitians, least of
all by a superpower that helped destroy Haitian civil society in the first
place. Haitians have to learn to solve their own problems, instead of always
looking to the United States to send troops to bring temporary peace. Racing
in with military forces to quell disorder merely rewards those local forces
perennially initiating violence to draw in the United States. Paradoxically,
if the United States declared that it would not interfere in Haitian society
in any way under any circumstances, more Haitian lives would probably be
saved in the long-term and the country would likely be better off. That is,
removing the reward for violence would likely lessen its occurrence.
But instead, the United States has again sent the Marines to Haiti. Don't
expect it to be the last time.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
simul
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul
I am a lama.
|
|
virus: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UmU6IHZpcnVzOiBE6WphIHZ1IEFsbCBPdmVyIEFnYWluIGluIEhhaXRp?=
« Reply #1 on: 2004-03-06 10:20:43 » |
|
If I sell someone the plans to a bank vault and sell them the tools needed to rob the bank, and help them bribe the security guards, am I not equally guilty when the bank is robbed?
If I sell chemical weapons to a dictator, train his men on how to use them, and then he uses them in violation of the Geneva convention, am I not equally guilty?
The U.S. is typically not so stupid as to be directly involved in violence unless it has an excellent excuse. Our typical role is to dominate others by selling weapons to either side of conflicts at prices varying depending on our desire to see one or the other win.
It's standard diplomatic imperialism.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
|
|
|
|
Logged
