http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/26/haiti.revolt/index.html (CNN) -- Caribbean countries Thursday called on the United Nations to dispatch a multinational force to restore order in Haiti, with Jamaica's foreign minister warning that a humanitarian crisis and "sheer anarchy and chaos" are imminent. ...President Bush has warned Haitians against trying to flee their nation for the United States, saying they would be returned to their homeland. A violent rebellion has been ongoing in Haiti for a few weeks, does the US have an obligation to go back and straighten out that island? I can see us not going to Liberia or Ivory Coast, but this situation is occuring in our sphere of the world and with a leader that we backed? Also, how outdated is it to continue to allow defecting Cuban citizens landing rights, but denying fleeing Haitians and anyone else from planet earth the same opportunity? And luckily spring training began, thus keeping players such as Pedro and Sammy Sosa away from mortal danger.
i posted this in another thread, but perhaps it belongs here: aristide is a thug. he was "elected" with less than ten percent of the population participating in the election. i'm not sure his governmet has any legitimacy. i have no faith that the rebels would be any better, but aristide needs to go, not be propped up. where's the UN on this, the OAS? the french?
To what extent is the US uniquely responsible? Some will say 100%, but I disagree, and I'm not sure that's the most relevant issue at this point in any case. Here's a good place for a multi-national, UN-based group to do some good. If the UN can't confront a relatively small-scale thing like this, I believe it adds fuel to the fire for those critical of the UN. The immigrant question is a good one, but its very inflammatory. I don't even want to touch it, and I see both sides of the issue plainly.
I posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it. If I'm not mistake it's the Monroe Doctrine. That's why other countries don't tread in the Western Hemisphere. And we have said we don't think military force is needed yet. The ball is in the Bushies court.
Let the Haitians duke it out and send their tired and huddled masses back to that cesspool if they try to come here. We do not belong there when we know that order will be restored only temporarily before another corrupt govt. takes charge. Haiti will always be a cesspool because those folks are beyond help. So just accept it and move on.
The US has no objection to the UN acting in this case. unfortunately, "rapid response" is not in the UN's vocabulary. the french have made no attempt to offer their troops. unfortunately, if any thing is to be done, it's up to the US, and it's wrong to characterise this as a "bushies" thing. this is an issue for US diplomacy, or force, as the case may be. unfortunately, there is no good choice here. aristide needs to go, "elected" or not. the times ed board seems to think he's no worse than any other latin american ruler, but he clearly has no legitimacy with his own people. i'd be in favor of US intervention to restore order, then placing the country under some sort of UN proectorate to ensure free, fair election and see if some sort of legitimate government can emerge.
i'm curious, those of you who now oppose the iraq war, if the US sent in the marines to restore order would you support it as a humanitarian intervention ala the Kosovo/Bosnian war, or would you oppose it because the US was acting unilaterally: "no blood for sugarcane?"
Well, that might in part depend on how much was made of the grave and immediate danger Haiti was to us....
Sorry, meant to add: And if it turned out that Jamaica supported terrorists, of course that would seal Haiti's fate...
. Well, since I can see the question now, I'd say this looks strictly humanitarian from my angle. Urgently humanitarian. Since they're calling for the UN, I hope the UN can act and act quickly, though it may be as basso says: way too slow. I was never a "no blood for oil!" kind of protestor myself. I disagreed with the rationale presented, which was not humanitarian. I do like "no blood for cane!" though.
Every search on google with France + Haiti brings up multiple articles in the past week. This is simply the most recent. http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,237292,00.html France calls for security force in Haiti In a move which takes even Washington by surprise, France wants international force sent immediately to restore order PARIS - France has called for an international peacekeeping force to restore order immediately in its former colony of Haiti - a proposal that has taken even the United States by surprise. France - which sees Haiti as part of its sphere of influence - has said it will contribute to the force. An inter-ministerial committee was to meet in Paris yesterday to review security in Haiti and discuss possible commitments, officials said. While the US has spoken about sending a peacekeeping force to Haiti, American officials seemed to be taken aback by the speed at which France wants to deploy the force. . . . Mr Bush has stressed that a security force could be sent only after a settlement is reached. . . . The Bushies are the ones dragging their feet. When did the US stop enforcing the Monroe Doctrine?
Every search on google with France + Haiti brings up multiple articles in the past week. This is simply the most recent. Damn those pesky facts! It would be much easier if we could just use our ridiculously inaccurate stereotypes of France and just blame them for everything..
It's slightly different. a.) The Monroe Doctrine. b.) We made Haiti what it is today by not funding the rebuilding of it - see 1994 Congress, c.) everyone except the US wants to restore order, the US wants to sit this one out according to most recent statements.
It's slightly different. a.) The Monroe Doctrine. b.) We made Haiti what it is today by not funding the rebuilding of it - see 1994 Congress, c.) everyone except the US wants to restore order, the US wants to sit this one out according to most recent statements. d. we wouldn't be starting a war. minor detail.
this article is datelined tomorrow! could that be why washington was taken by surprise? I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but the website is in Asia, where it already is tomorrow.
why not send the OTHER huddles masses back? Hell, the Mexicans can get QUASI-citizenship Rocket River
i think the arguement in this case is to try and avoid a humanitarian crisis, tens of thousands in boats. if we can avoid engouraging an exodus and reach some sort of solution in country they, and we, would be better off.
