Myths About Haiti
LA KAT47
is read with open minds.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
MYTHS ABOUT HAITI
by The Haiti Action Committee, California
haiti...@yahoo.com
US Press Coverage Versus Haitian Reality
MYTH: Elections held in Haiti in 2000 were fraudulent, therefore calling into
question the legitimacy of the presidency of Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
"Every national election since 1997, including the one last Nov. 26 in which
Mr. Aristide claimed victory, has been ruled fraudulent by independent outside
observers." - Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2001
REALITY: Both the May parliamentary and local elections and the November 26th
presidential elections were historic for their non-violence and popular
participation. There was a prolonged international controversy regarding the
technicalities of the May 21st parliamentary elections. Both the Organization
of American States, as well as the governments of the US and Canada, now agree
that Aristide's popular mandate is undeniable and have recognized the need to
work with his government. Presently, it is only the opposition coalition, the
Democratic Convergence, that refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the
Aristide government.
Voters turned out in large numbers across the country to vote in the November
26, 2000 presidential elections. The Electoral Council projected participation
at 61%, a number supported by the largest group of domestic observers, KOZEPEP.
A campaign of intimidation in the form of sporadic pipe bombs in
Port-au-Prince throughout the week leading up to the elections convinced some
people to stay at home during the early parts of the day.
MYTH: Haiti is deteriorating into violence; things are worse now than under
Duvalier.
"Economic deterioration, drug trafficking, and political assassination of
Lavalas critics have defined Mr. Aristide's Haiti." - Wall Street Journal,
January 26, 2001
REALITY: Since Aristide was first elected in 1990, Haiti experienced a bloody
military coup d'etat that resulted in the political assassination of over 5,000
people. Since Aristide's return to Haiti in 1994, and his abolition of the
military in 1995, state sponsored terrorism is no longer part of the daily
lives of Haiti's citizens. Freedom of speech has been one of the most
prominent gains in the post 1994 period. Critics from all sides can and do
speak out in Haiti. Despite this progress, political violence in the form of
assassinations and assassination attempts has continued with leaders on all
sides of the political spectrum falling victim, including the sister of Lavalas
President Preval.
Haiti's democracy is young and fragile, the police force is inexperienced and
the justice system, which for the first 200 years of Haiti's history served
only those who could buy justice, will take years to transform. However, there
has been progress. The trial of police officers for the murder of residents in
Carrefour Feuilles in September 2000 and the October 2000 conviction of 19
former military and paramilitary members for their roles in the Raboteau
massacre were landmarks for human rights. These cases showed that the justice
system and the current government were not only capable of prosecuting crimes
during the coup, but also of holding its own police force accountable for
crimes committed now.
Mainstream media focus on violence in Haiti completely obscures the progress of
the past few years. The following are just a few milestones.
- Haitians have elected local governments for the first time, a major step
towards the process of decentralizing power away from the city and into the
countryside.
- Haiti launched a major land reform program, which, while not without its
critics, has put land tenure at the center of national policy with peasant
farmers directly participating in the process for the first time in history.
- The Haitian government has made major investments in agriculture, public
transportation and education, with more schools built in Haiti between
1994-2000 than between 1804 and 1994.
MYTH: Aristide has refused to Condemn Violence by his Supporters.
"Political violence that has left three dead and 16 injured spread to Haiti's
provinces Wednesday as the government threatened to arrest opposition leaders,
repeating the very warnings that sparked the latest attacks...Aristide, in this
first public statement on the issue, did not condemn the attacks but said he
was 'asking all citizens to promote peace." - Associated Press, March 21, 2001
REALITY: The March 21st headline of Haiti's center-right paper, Le
Nouvelliste, read, "Aristide condemns without reserve all acts of violence."
The actual text of his speech read, "Because we want peace, we condemn without
reserve all acts of violence." In the particular incident referred to in this
article, the AP writer failed to mention that while Lavalas supporters threw
rocks at the office building of the Democratic Convergence, individuals within
the building were reaching out the windows and shooting into the crowd with
automatic fire. The three killed were all Lavalas supporters.
MYTH: Aristide is a dictator, violently suppressing the opposition.
REALITY: Protesters in the streets of Port-au-Prince have been demanding the
arrest of Gerard Gourgue, the leader of the Democratic Convergence. They are
supporters of Aristide who feel strongly that the Convergence is waging an
illegal campaign to destroy a democratically elected government. However,
Aristide has repeatedly condemned the violence on both sides and has asked for
negotiations with the opposition leaders. Aristide stepped down as president
in 1995 marking the first peaceful transfer of power in Haiti's history. His
inauguration on Feb. 7, 2001 marks the second. Aristide abolished the army in
1995 after the end of the military-led coup. Gourgue, the "virtual president"
of the opposition, has repeatedly called for the army's return.
MYTH: Haiti is a major drug trafficking country.
"Columbia narcotics traffickers have established a firm beachhead and, with
their Haitian confederates, have largely succeeded in consolidating a
narco-state in Haiti."
- Representative Gilman, Senator Helms and Representative Goss issue a
statement on Haitian elections, December 8, 2000
REALITY: Haiti's proximity to the US has resulted in an increase in drug
transport from Columbia to the US by way of Haiti. Cocaine is not produced nor
consumed in large quantities in Haiti. In fact, Haiti has allowed the US Drug
Enforcement Agency to board ships in Haitian waters and to inspect Haitian
ports. Haiti has a small police force, a tiny coast guard and extremely
limited resources to fight drug trafficking. It is absurd to expect Haiti to
stem the flow of drugs. Like many other countries in the Caribbean, Haiti is a
victim of geography, sitting as it does between a site of drug production in
South America and the huge drug market in the United States. The Haitian
people are suffering an increase in crime and arms trading as a consequence.
MYTH: The United States has spent billions of dollars to bail out Haiti and
this money has all been wasted.
"Haiti is one the world's poorest countries, and yet, says George Fauriol
(Center for Strategic and International Studies), its proximity to the United
States gave it a golden opportunity. Mr. Fauriol: 'Unlike most other countries
in the world, Haiti has, in fact, ironically, been provided with an unusual set
of circumstances of goodwill from the United States, from the international
community. And that goodwill has been, in many ways, wasted." - NPR, March 10,
2000
REALITY: Haiti's proximity to the US has resulted in two American military
interventions in the last 100 years. The 1915 occupation, inspired by the
Monroe Doctrine, ended in 1934 but not before Haiti became the number one
source of cheap labor for US business interests in the Caribbean. US
intervention in 1994 was supposed to restore democracy to Haiti. But the US
never disarmed the paramilitary terrorists of the FRAPH and other former
military operatives. The U.S. continues to harbor death squad leaders and to
withhold 60,000 pages of FRAPH and military records which document human rights
abuses committed during the coup. All this helped lay the groundwork for the
current insecurity in Haiti.
The 1994 US intervention was also accompanied by strict conditions of IMF
backed structural adjustment programs that have resulted in an increased
marginalization of the poor population, an inability of the Haitian government
to support national agricultural production, and a serious devaluation of the
Haitian currency. The same economic squeeze continues today.
While internal factors are also significant in the crisis Haiti faces today,
Haitians have paid a heavy price for the "goodwill of the United States."
What's At Stake in Haiti?
In 1893 Frederick Douglass, then envoy to Haiti, said he felt compelled to
defend Haiti against the prejudices of "newspaper correspondents and six day
tourists" by pointing out that Haiti seemed capable of enduring crisis without
"falling to pieces and without being hopelessly abandoned to barbarism."
Not much has changed. According to much of the mainstream media, Haiti is
still on the brink of chaos. Despite the fact that President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide was elected with over 70% of the popular vote, the press casts
Aristide as an illegitimate ruler while it touts an elite opposition with no
demonstrable popular support as a "shadow government."
Laced with racism and condescension, corporate media reports depict Haitians as
failures at democracy and incapable of running their own country. Just as in
1990 when President Aristide was first elected, there is now a concerted
campaign to destabilize and isolate the Haitian government.
At a minimum, this intense international pressure severely limits the ability
of the Haitian people and government to create progressive social and economic
change.
In 1990, this type of campaign contributed to the violent overthrow of Haiti's
elected government and to the deaths of 5,000 Haitians during the three years
of military rule that followed.
Under the best of circumstances Haiti faces enormous challenges: a harrowing
polarization of wealth, economic poverty, lack of infrastructure, a badly
damaged environment, and the legacy of centuries of education denied to the
majority.
Why are the United States Government and its media mouthpieces mounting a
campaign against a country and people struggling under such difficult
circumstances towards genuine democratic development?
1. Haiti has a vibrant and well-organized popular movement.
During the 1980s a highly diverse and organized popular movement grew up in
Haiti. Made up of thousands of urban neighborhood groups, peasant
organizations, women's and human rights groups, this movement led the fight to
overthrow the Duvalier regime in 1986, paved the way for Haiti's first
democratic elections in 1990, and heroically resisted the coup d'etat of 1991.
The coup period devastated organized grassroots groups in Haiti.
The years since have seen a slow but steady rebuilding with many groups turning
their attention to the long-term work of building cooperative economic
structures, and of healing the land.
The strength of the Haitian popular movement and its history of struggle
represents a challenge to the dominant economic model of globalization.
2. The people of Haiti are resisting corporate globalization.
In Haiti globalization is known as the "plan lamo" or the "death plan." Since
1994 the Haitian people and government have borne intense pressure to adopt
neoliberal economic policies (opening of markets to U.S. goods, maintaining low
wages, austerity programs, and the privatization of state owned enterprises).
When Aristide came back to Haiti in 1994, U.S. officials expected that Haiti's
public enterprises -- the telephone company, electrical company, airport, port,
three banks, a cement factory and flour mill -- would be quickly sold to
private corporations, preferably to U.S. multinationals working in partnership
with Haitian elites. In the last months of his first term as President,
Aristide refused to move forward with privatization, calling instead for a
national dialogue on the issue. In 1996 the Preval government attempted to
fast track privatization and gain US support for his less popular government.
Preval faced massive popular demonstrations, which led to the fall of his first
government and a protracted political struggle that left the country without a
Prime Minister for almost two years. Despite U.S. pressure, seven years later
only the flour mill and the cement mill have sold.
In recent years Aristide has continued to be a spokesman for an alternative
vision, one which places human development at the center of all economic
programs.
Now that Aristide is back in power the U.S. is again tightening the screws,
hoping to force his government to accede to Washington's economic agenda, and
to severely limit the Haitian government's ability to invest in its own people.
3. Haiti has a popularly elected government that has committed itself to
making healthcare and education its top priorities.
The Famni Lavalas platform on which President Aristide based his candidacy
proposes decentralized rural development, funded by Haitian government
resources. It prioritizes small-scale community-based projects as key to rural
development. The centerpiece of the platform is a plan to build, staff and
equip a primary school and primary health care clinic in each of Haiti's 565
rural sections.
4. Haiti is the only country in the world, aside from Costa Rica, with no
military.
In 1995, President Aristide disbanded the Haitian military. Wildly popular in
Haiti, the move caught the U.S. by surprise. Created during the U.S.
occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934, the Haitian military served throughout its
history as a force of internal repression against the Haitian people. As is
the case throughout Latin America, the Haitian military was a conduit for
covert and overt United States intervention in Haitian affairs. This conduit
is now gone. The Haitian military once absorbed 40% of Haiti's national
budget. Today, Haiti spends zero on the military, making it a model in
devoting resources to human development rather than to militarism.
5. Haiti has built close, cooperative ties with Cuba.
On February 6, 1996, in his final act in office, President Aristide
reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba. The Preval government deepened
and strengthened ties with Cuba. Cuban assistance has been concrete,
effective, practical, appropriate and speedy -- in stark contrast to the
wasteful, fly-in-another-highly-paid expert type of "aid" offered by the United
States and the international lending agencies.
Cuba has sent more than 800 doctors to Haiti as part of a joint Haitian-Cuban
effort to cut infant mortality in half. Cuba has also provided critical
assistance in agriculture, literacy, communications, and fisheries. This
cooperation stands as a clear challenge to U.S. plans for Haiti.
The United States has long considered Haiti a threat.
Since 1804, when Haiti gained independence after the world's only successful
slave revolution, the U.S. refused to recognize the new nation, and viewed
Haitian freedom as a danger to the American system of slavery.
Even then Haiti experienced "globalization."
In 1825 Haiti was forced to assume a 150 million franc debt to France as
"reimbursement" to the former slave owners. To make the first payment Haiti
had to close all its public schools in what has been called the hemisphere's
first case of structural adjustment. Today, as Haitians attempt to create an
alternative to debt, dependence and the indignity of foreign domination, the
attacks continue. Haitian grassroots organizations are working for democracy,
better health care, education, reforestation, justice for victims of violence,
and for women to play a full role in Haitian society. In support of these
goals the new Haitian government has set forth an ambitious agenda for social
investment. To achieve any of this the Haitian people and government need
political stability, some space to maneuver, and a degree of freedom from
international harassment. We here in the US owe it to the Haitian people to
help create that opening.
The Haiti Action Committee is a Bay Area based network of activists who have
been supporting the Haitian struggle for democracy since 1991. Our members
have extensive contacts in the grassroots movement in Haiti and can link
journalists interested in hearing an alternative view with sources both in
Haiti and in the United States.
"Long before 1804, from the moment they were taken from their homes, our
ancestors began the struggle against slavery...The revolution, when it began,
took thirteen long years to achieve. Today, the weapons may be different, but
we are in a similar moment of struggle, striving to realize 2004.
--Jean-Bertrand Aristide, 2000
For more information contact Haiti Action Committee at haiti...@yahoo.com
The One - Orgasmatron
> MYTH: The United States has spent billions of dollars to bail out Haiti and
> this money has all been wasted.
Actually, this part is more or less true. Most of this money was wasted
as developmental and military aid to the Duvaliers. Under Papa Doc, the
GAO found that over 88% of the money given to Haiti was wasted almost
entirely by corruption, governmental incompetence (projects like the NRM
shakedown for "Duvalierville") and outright theft. This doesn't include
the cold war money various corrupt Haitian regimes gleefully took playing
the US and Cuba off each other, which can't be really counted as "bail
out" money. This isn't any national flaw of Haiti itself, but rather, the
tinpot dicators ready to exploit the United States, or anyone else for
that matter.
> "Haiti is one the world's poorest countries, and yet, says George Fauriol
> (Center for Strategic and International Studies), its proximity to the United
> States gave it a golden opportunity. Mr. Fauriol: 'Unlike most other
> countries in the world, Haiti has, in fact, ironically, been provided
> with an unusual set of circumstances of goodwill from the United States,
> from the international community. And that goodwill has been, in many
> ways, wasted." - NPR, March 10, 2000
From a financial standpoint, this is also true, although we both know
that the United States has rarely provided Haiti with money out of sheer
altruism. Oddly enough, the United States likes to impose (*gasp!*)
conditions on foreign aid, and watching money ostensibly spent on
hospitals, infrastructure, and economic development spent on secret
police, corrupt generals, and waste hasn't exactly provided the United
States with the best return on investment in Haiti.
> REALITY: Haiti's proximity to the US has resulted in two American military
> interventions in the last 100 years. The 1915 occupation, inspired by the
> Monroe Doctrine, ended in 1934 but not before Haiti became the number one
> source of cheap labor for US business interests in the Caribbean.
Not true at all. The #1 source of cheap labor for US business dropped
into America's lap at the end of the Spanish-American war: Puerto Rico
(formerly known as the "poorhouse of the Carribean") filled that role
until well after the Marine occupation of Haiti. The Monroe Doctrine, and
FDR's equally disastrous "Good Neighbor Policy" have little to do with
wasted financial aid to Haiti's people. You also need to remember that
Haiti was in good company (more like BAD company, really) when it came to
banana republic brasshat dictators showcasing poverty to get US aid, and
then spending it on their armies or other tools of repression. The Cold
War merely made this even worse.
> US
> intervention in 1994 was supposed to restore democracy to Haiti. But the US
> never disarmed the paramilitary terrorists of the FRAPH and other former
> military operatives.
There would have been no mandate for the US to do so without an act of
war against Haiti. These kind of "in and out" Marine invasions, like the
one in Panama, are aimed specifically at installing or removing leadership,
and then getting the hell out as soon as possible. If Aristide declares
himself "President for life", it would probably lead to another invasion.
And to be frank, it really *is* Haiti's responsibility to disarm groups
like FRAPH. The United States operates in this way around the world -
notice how we didn't disarm the KLA in Kosovo, or even Saddam Hussein's
army?
> The U.S. continues to harbor death squad leaders and to withhold 60,000
> pages of FRAPH and military records which document human rights abuses
> committed during the coup. All this helped lay the groundwork for the
> current insecurity in Haiti.
I would think it has more to do with Haiti's chequered history of
honest government. From what I've seen, the first priority of EVERY
military or political bigwig in Haitian history is to use the office of
president as a license to steal. They hardly needed the help of the United
States here. With corruption and dictatorship so ingrained in Haitian
history, the groundwork was laid well in advance, and fairly indepently
of the Marines.
> The 1994 US intervention was also accompanied by strict conditions of IMF
> backed structural adjustment programs that have resulted in an increased
> marginalization of the poor population, an inability of the Haitian government
> to support national agricultural production, and a serious devaluation of the
> Haitian currency. The same economic squeeze continues today.
And what conditions, in detail, are those? Is the United States going
to try to bail out Haiti again? What are America's specific obligations to
Haiti? They say "once bitten, twice shy", but in America's case, Haiti's
governments have bitten America over, and over again. The resentment the
Haitian people feel towards America is understandable in light of how much
money the United States pissed away in believing liars like Papa Doc,
Raoul Cedras, etc. However, this resentment is a two way street, and
United States has cynically become more interested in keeping Haitian
refugees out of Florida than they are in supporting a change in goverment
in a revolving door series of dictatorships.
The United States no longer has any real advantage to keeping Haiti a
"banana republic" as it arugably did in the 1930's. There's far more money
to be made trading with a healthy economy than a shattered one, and from a
humanitarian standpoint, nobody in America is comfortable with how poor
Haiti is. However, what, exactly, do YOU think America's role should be?
Just wave a flag for Aristide, and give him as much money as he wants
without conditions or accountability? Oh yeah. That's worked REAL well in
the past.
> While internal factors are also significant in the crisis Haiti faces today,
> Haitians have paid a heavy price for the "goodwill of the United States."
Not nearly as heavy as they have from the lack of goodwill from their
own emperors, presidents for life, generals, etc. What would you have the
United States do, La Kat? Occupy Haiti for a length of time sufficient to
instill a tradition of security and democracy? To repair the nation's
infrastructure, instill real land reform? To build a modern economy from
virtually scratch? What does Haiti want from the United States beyond not
being invaded?
> Not much has changed. According to much of the mainstream media, Haiti is
> still on the brink of chaos. Despite the fact that President Jean-Bertrand
> Aristide was elected with over 70% of the popular vote, the press casts
> Aristide as an illegitimate ruler while it touts an elite opposition with no
> demonstrable popular support as a "shadow government."
Duvalier was "elected" with 102% of the popular vote. We're still not
convinced everything is on the up and up with Aristide, and frankly, who
can blame us? Kafou? Care to remind me where you stand on "Titid"? :)
> Laced with racism and condescension, corporate media reports depict
> Haitians as failures at democracy and incapable of running their own
> country.
There's hardly anything "racist" about that assertion, as,
historically, Haiti's record is as bad as the Dominican Republic's or
Cuba's. It's not the failure of the will of the Haitian people, but
rather, an exploitative mindset and culture of greed that's seems to keep
coming back like Strom Thurmond does in our senate.
> Just as in 1990 when President Aristide was first elected, there is now
> a concerted campaign to destabilize and isolate the Haitian government.
From the CIA? OAS? The State Department? Who, and how, *exactly*?
> At a minimum, this intense international pressure severely limits the ability
> of the Haitian people and government to create progressive social and economic
> change.
That's kind of funny, since Duvalier said the same thing whenever the
American ambassador would get insisent about accounting for lost money, or
not having the secret police torture people to death. "Interference!
Pressure!". Bah!
The United States cannot, and should not, be Lavalas cheerleaders any
more than they were for Duvalier. Financial aid will doubtlessly continue,
as will pressure on human rights and military co-operation. However,
Haiti, and Haiti alone, has to break the cycle of corrupt governance, and
short of a brutal US annexation (note: not occupation, ANNEXATION, Puerto
Rico style), the US cannot magically solve all of Haiti's problems.
I'm starting to agree with Kafou. Aristide doesn't really seem any
different than the rest of the theives and crooks who exploit the poverty
and problems of his country to cash in. Very, very sad. Haiti's origins as
a true REPUBLIC entitle her to far better leaders than the ones fate has
provided her with.
--
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} \|/
{} RogerW rog...@newsguy.com {} 0< -- parrot.net!
{} http://www.parrot.net ad...@parrot.net {} ^^^^(*)^^^^
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{} ^^ / \ ^^
Thomas
Definitely a California leftist anti-American perspective.
Cuba is probably the last place in the Caribbean to look for guidance in
healthcare.
Other than infant mortality stats which the Cuban government manipulates to
justify the dictatorship, the newest W.H.O. numbers show they are double the
mortality of Costa Rica in Cancer, Cardio, infection, ect .
Costa Rica doesn't seem to mind that globalization having all the Pentium
processor chips manufactured in San Jose, CR.
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
Thanks for the open mind...
(more to come when I have time to respond in earnest)
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
> Actually, this part is more or less true. Most of this money was wasted
>as developmental and military aid to the Duvaliers. Under Papa Doc, the
>GAO found that over 88% of the money given to Haiti was wasted almost
>entirely by corruption, governmental incompetence (projects like the NRM
>shakedown for "Duvalierville") and outright theft. This doesn't include
>the cold war money various corrupt Haitian regimes gleefully took playing
>the US and Cuba off each other,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thanks for the history lesson but this is an analysis of today's situation. I
would hardly argue that money to Duvalier was money to Haiti. In fact, that is
exactly what foreign aid is. Under the table hush money. The US power elite
do not care any more about the "people" in any given country than the elite do
in Haiti. If foreign aid were to rehabilitate a country to self-suffiency,
Haiti would be on her own today. Foriegn aid is no more than welfare. There
are good people in US government, but they do not make policy.
It's so easy to put Aristide in the same category as Duvalier. But you are
wrong.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
philthy-animal:
>Oddly enough, the United States likes to impose (*gasp!*) conditions on
foreign aid, and watching money ostensibly spent on
>hospitals, infrastructure, and economic >development spent on secret police,
corrupt generals, and waste hasn't exactly provided the United States with the
best >return on investment in Haiti.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Conditions.......that's rich. If the US wanted progress in Haiti, it would be
a model of modern living. I may be too ready to see the evil in my own
government, but you, sir, have your rose colored glasses on. They have always
given money to despots.....so why now the conscience??? I hardly think
Aristide is in a league with the Shah of Iran, Marcos, and countless other
dictators who were made richer by foreign payoffs....I mean aid. You have to
ask yourself why Aristide? Why now? Why weren't they up in arms about Cedras.
Clinton had a hell of a time getting Aristide back in power. The republicans
have learned how to assassinate presidents without firing a shot (don't want to
make martyrs out of them).
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>And to be frank, it really *is* Haiti's responsibility to disarm groups
>like FRAPH.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes if groups like FRAPH weren't financed and encouraged by US groups (I hate
to be crying republican again but........). The disarming of the disbanded army
could have been accomplished easily but it was not in the best interests of
those in power in the US to have them disarmed. They actually tried to
categorize FRAPH as an opposition party.........outrageous! Have you read
Immaculate Invasion? Or Hideous Dream? Very enlightening if you're willing to
see your country as the third world sees it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>notice how we didn't disarm the KLA in Kosovo, or even Saddam Hussein's
>army?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hardly the same situation at ALL. The US was helping a democratically elected
leader get back to where he was supposed to be. If the US supports democracy,
then why not? And arguments can be made for mishandling both the Kosovo and
Iraq situations. Do you know how stressful the Haiti invasion was on US
soldiers? There were suicides and mental health breaks because the men thought
their mission was a goodwill one and instead it was to support the wealthy
interests. Read those two books and get back to me.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I will answer the rest later.......going to work now...have a nice day all.
LA KAT
"Hope can be the greatest weapon of a downtrodden people, or the greatest enemy
of those who are about to fail."
(from Dune - House Atreides)
The One - Orgasmatron
normal attribution marks, and do not conform to healthy 80 column
formatting, making it a real pain in the ass for old school UNIX users to
respond to your articles, and keep attributions (ie, "who said what")
straight. That being said, let's begin:
Also spracht LA KAT47 <lak...@aol.com>:
>> Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>> Actually, this part is more or less true. Most of this money was wasted
>>as developmental and military aid to the Duvaliers. Under Papa Doc, the
>>GAO found that over 88% of the money given to Haiti was wasted almost
>>entirely by corruption, governmental incompetence (projects like the NRM
>>shakedown for "Duvalierville") and outright theft. This doesn't include
>>the cold war money various corrupt Haitian regimes gleefully took playing
>>the US and Cuba off each other,
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Thanks for the history lesson but this is an analysis of today's situation.
Oh no? History, for better or worse, sets the tone for the present. The
The United States has, as a matter of foreign policy, given up on the idea
that American political/diplomatic intervention or money can make a
difference in Haiti (the sole exceptions being Bill Clinton and the
spineless Warren Christopher). The invasion of Haiti under Bill Clinton's
tenure lacked the support of the Pentagon (as did Bill "don't ask, don't
tell" Clinton in general) which led to a removal of a military junta, but
did nothing to provide a framework for real political reform, and American
troops left without a real foreign policy initiative in Haiti, beyond
various Duvalierist cronies (like "Toto" Constant) collecting CIA
paychecks from an American government to entrenched in more important
foreign policy issues to pay any real sort of time and effort to care
who was ruling Haiti "this year".
That Aristide, or even the FRAPH terrorists, imagined they were so
indispensible to the United States as to actually be important would have
been laughable in any other American administration until the politically
malleable Bill Clinton was elected. Lacking any goals in Haiti, much less
the political will to enforce it's muddled mandate after the troops were
sent in, the United States left, leaving Americans baffled as to what was
*really* accomplished besides delaying the start of another political/
constitutional breakdown in Haiti.
This lack of a coherent foreign policy directives in Haiti is true
today. In many ways, the sole concern of the US government towards Haiti
is not "who we do establish relationships and foreign trade with", but
rather, "what do we have to do to make refugees stop coming to Florida?".
This cynical approach would seem to be unfounded, but Haiti has been a
tough nut for the United States to crack, and what could either be called
"diplomatic fatigue" or simply "conceding to reality" has caused the
United States to deal with Haiti in a very different way than in years
past. The United States has been outfoxed, at long last, by a revolving
door series of military juntas, dicatators, and chaos, and is starting to
tailor what little foreign policy strategy towards Haiti exists
accordingly.
> I would hardly argue that money to Duvalier was money to Haiti. In
> fact, that is exactly what foreign aid is. Under the table hush money.
The sad part is, most of it was not "hush money", but Cold War money
given to Duvalier to contain communism, in retrospect, an unthinkable free
ride for Papa Doc, but at the time, it was accompanied by money strictly
earmarked for development. It didn't matter. Both were treated as a cash
gift by Duvalier, who resented any suggestion that it needed to be
accounted for. This suggestion from the American State Department caused
the US and Haiti to break diplomatic ties, and caused Papa Doc to look
like a folk hero who was being "bullied" by the United States. How unfair
of the giant super power to deny funding to us, a poor little black
nation. Racism! Injustice! The United States congress is not wild about
unrestricted foreign aid, and the CIA is probably responsible for more
post-Duvalier spending than anyone else, to pay off it's various Cuban
exile groups, Macoute stooges/informers, etc.
However, all of that started to change when the CIA began to collapse
under the weight of it's own inactivity and post-Cold War ossification.
The NSA has more or less ursurped the virtually defunct CIA, leaving it
with virtually no say or influence on foreign policy decisions (especially
after the string of security scandals in the early-mid 1990's). To
continue to hold the CIA responsible for events in Haiti is tenuous, at
best. The new "Atlantic Monthly" magazine has an interesting feature on
Emmanuel "Toto" Constant, and documents how the CIA got him out of Haiti,
but has also left him more or less out to dry by confining him an a NY
neighborhood full of Haitian political asylees/refugees who not only know
who is and where he lives, but are more than eager to rip him to pieces.
Had someone like Constant, or even FRAPH for that matter, been of any
real importance to the United States, he'd have been spirited away
somewhere safe and given a comfortable retirement - as were many high
ranking Soviet, Chinese, and Cuban defectors. The fact that Haiti is
almost completely off the American foreign policy radar, and the minor
fuss over still classified CIA dealings is a higher priority than
extraditing criminals like Constant keeps them here. The State Department
feels the embarassment and "scandal" generated by this is worth
protecting hoary old CIA cold war secrets, but it isn't going to any real lengths to protect
Haitian CIA beneficiaries beyond refusing them to be deported to Haiti
(Constant was convicted in absentia).
> The US power elite do not care any more about the "people" in any given
> country than the elite do in Haiti. If foreign aid were to rehabilitate
> a country to self-suffiency, Haiti would be on her own today. Foriegn
> aid is no more than welfare. There are good people in US government, but
> they do not make policy.
Altruism is not the decision as much as the interest of the United
States. During the Cold War, one priority was to showcase the living
conditions of America's allies outside Cuba in the hopes of attracting
Cuban defection. Aid to America's Carribean allies boomed, and in some
countries, actual improvements were made with money earmarked for foreign
aid.
> It's so easy to put Aristide in the same category as Duvalier. But you are
> wrong.
From an American standpoint? There have been few differences so far in
tack, only in scope. The United States concurred with the OAS in
determining that the most recent elections were a joke, and feel that
Aristide (who once called for necklacing opponents Winnie Mandela style)
is simply the latest populist president trying to stuff his pockets at
the expense of the Haitian and American treasuries, and seeking to
maintain an indefinite hold on power through voting fraud.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> philthy-animal:
>>Oddly enough, the United States likes to impose (*gasp!*) conditions on
> foreign aid, and watching money ostensibly spent on
>>hospitals, infrastructure, and economic >development spent on secret police,
> corrupt generals, and waste hasn't exactly provided the United States with the
> best >return on investment in Haiti.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Conditions.......that's rich.
It would seem so, wouldn't it? And rich is exactly what Haiti's despots
have become after fraud, graft, and corruption in large part subsidized by
stealing American military and numanitarian aid. Haiti is not alone in
doing this with American aid monies (note: not the money the CIA
throws/threw around, but actual money earmarked for aid), but was
certainly one of the more egregious offenders. The Republican congress,
who are discinclined to grant foreign aid to anyone at all, cut back
dramatically on the money Haiti was to receive, and cited past abuses.
This was a minor foreign policy sticking point between Bill Clinton, and
various Republican senate bigshots like Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and
later Jesse Helms (now former chairman of the Foreign Relations
Committee).
> If the US wanted progress in Haiti, it would be
> a model of modern living.
The United States already tried that, and was unable to do it except
by virtually annexing Haiti for over a decade. The improvements in
infrastructure left by the Marines are probably already gone, but the ill
will engendered in Haiti by the occupation could, quite possibly, last
forever.
Henry Kissinger came to the conclusion that until Haiti developed it's
own traditions of political stability and democracy, the role of the
United States was futile except in the capacity as to use Haiti as a
buffer against Cuba, and nothing except annexation would enable the US
to change the "Haitian political tradition" (such as it is).
The sounds hideously cynical, until one realizes that the tangled
history of US/Haitian relations (started when President John Adams sent
arms to the island to help the revolution against the French) have always
brought about the same result, or more pointedly, lack of them. Duvalier's
sole saving grace in the eyes of that the United States was that he was in
office more than a year or two, and that saved them time establishing
relations with a new junta or dictatorship. It sounds horrible from a
Haitian point of view, but from an American political perspective, it can
be compared to finally giving into reality. Short of completely violating
Haitian sovereignity, the United States can do nothing to help Haiti
except give money that is almost predestined to be wasted or stolen.
> I may be too ready to see the evil in my own government, but you, sir,
> have your rose colored glasses on.
I fail to see anything rosy about the dismal history of US/Haitian
relations. You'll have to show me where I was optimistic about "anything",
in fact.
> They have always given money to despots.....so why now the conscience???
I'm not exactly talking about a "conscience", but a realization by
American presidents since Reagan that Haiti no longer has the same foreign
policy role that it did under previous administrations, especially since
the United States has relaxed considerably towards Cuba, and that Haiti
is left out in the cold.
Humanitarian aid has been provided since, but with dismal results for
both Haiti and the United States. The finery Aristide has surrounded
himself with since becoming President certainly can't make the United
States feel good about funneling more money into the pockets of
politicians. Or perhaps you think it will get different results from
Lavalas than it did from the Duvaliers or FRAPH? That, my friend, is a
political difference for Haiti, not for the US.
> I hardly think Aristide is in a league with the Shah of Iran, Marcos,
> and countless other dictators who were made richer by foreign
> payoffs....I mean aid.
All of those countries managed to build roads, telephone
infrastructure, and hospitals with the money they skimmed off American
aid. Ironically, Ferdinand Marcos stole a lesser percentage of American
aide than Duvalier did. The fact that the Phillipines and Iran actually
were important to American interests didn't hurt either. In fact, the
Phillipines is an excellent example of declining importance in American
foreign policy - one that practically mirrors Haiti's relevance or lack
thereof, to American political needs/desires.
> You have to ask yourself why Aristide?
To save face after a bungled invasion with no followup plan beyond
"get rid of FRAPH and Raoul Cedras". You could perhaps ask Bill Clinton or
Warren Christopher "why Aristide"? They couldn't adequately explain it to
the American people during the time of the invasion, and I doubt they
could now.
> Why now? Why weren't they up in arms about Cedras.
> Clinton had a hell of a time getting Aristide back in power. The
> republicans have learned how to assassinate presidents without firing a
> shot (don't want to make martyrs out of them).
The Republican "boogeymen" have long since stopped giving an actual
damn about Haiti beyond the refugee crisis and drug smuggling issues. Why
Bill Clinton felt obligated to reinstall Aristide with a Marine police
action only he could approve (remember - only the congress can declare
war, which even Clinton never pressed for) was never explained, beyond
Clinton's hideous naivite on ALL foreign relations issues, and his
unfortunate position of being the president who had to do something,
anything, to shift American foreign policy into a coherent, consistent,
post-Soviet role.
Whether Clinton had a real foreign policy objective in Haiti, or simply
used the invasion as a testing grounds for future foreign policy/peacekeeping
blunders in Somalia and Kosovo will never be known. Without an objective
goal defining American interests, the erratic foreign policy decisions
of the Clinton administration (especially his choice of the weak willed,
and frankly incompetent Warren Christopher) will likely be looked back on
unkindly in American history. Haiti, and the role of the US "support" for
Aristide is just one more half-baked mess for Colin Powell to deal with.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>And to be frank, it really *is* Haiti's responsibility to disarm groups
>>like FRAPH.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Yes if groups like FRAPH weren't financed and encouraged by US groups (I hate
> to be crying republican again but........). The disarming of the
> disbanded army could have been accomplished easily but it was not in the
> best interests of those in power in the US to have them disarmed.
It certainly wasn't. The sad fact of the matter is that the United
States had virtually NO overriding national interest in stake from either
FRAPH or Lavalas, which makes our bungled interference in Haitian affairs
even more shameful and pointless.
> They actually tried to categorize FRAPH as an opposition party
> .........outrageous!
It seems outrageous until placed in the context of the history of
Haitain "politics" and the United States. The question of WHO will be
dictator, and which one will cause the fewest refugees is what the United
States has resigned itself to.
> Have you read Immaculate Invasion?
Yes. The Clinton administration walked right into a sucker punch by
getting involved at all without a clear policy, or even an idea of what
they wanted to change in Haiti beyond a change in despot. To my dismay,
this book wasn't very good, and was more interested in presenting a battle
of good and evil (Col. Rockwood versus the lethargic American military)
than in documenting the aimless American foreign policy nightmare that
found America involved at all. It's right about one point, however: Bill
Clinton lost his taste for "nation building" halfway INTO his invasion of
Haiti, confirming the notion in many people's minds that Haiti was merely
a testing ground for Bill Clinton's stunted political vision of using
"nation building peacekeepers" as some sort of shock troops for the new
post-Cold War "pax Americana" (comparable to the old "pax Romana" in the
Roman Empire).
> Or Hideous Dream?
No.
> Very enlightening if you're willing to see your country as the third
> world sees it.
It's not a question of "will", La Kat. Haiti's political relations with
the United States are based on different expectations and ideas than
America's diplomatic relations. The conflicting expectations of
involvement are nothing new.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>notice how we didn't disarm the KLA in Kosovo, or even Saddam Hussein's
>>army?
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Hardly the same situation at ALL.
Actually, from a foreign policy standpoint, the lack of follow through
is dismally similar.
> The US was helping a democratically elected leader get back to where he
> was supposed to be.
Many will contest the notion that Aristide has been fairly elected or
re-elected. More to the point, getting involved in Haitian politics, much
less with the objective of "fixing" the hopelessly demolished Haitian
political system is like getting involved in a land war in Asia. We've
tried both, and one day, we'll learn enough to avoid getting involved in
either.
> If the US supports democracy, then why not?
The lack of Haiti's poltical will, honest democratic traditions, and
the poisoned well of US/Haitian relations just for starters.
> And arguments can be made for mishandling both the Kosovo and
> Iraq situations.
You'll be hard pressed for me to argue with that. The United States has
steered a rudderless foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet
Union, and the virtual end of the Cold War. America has been conditioned
to think solely of "US vs. THEM" for so long, that it was ill prepared for
it's raison d'etre (the Soviets) suddenly pulling out of the game.
> Do you know how stressful the Haiti invasion was on US soldiers?
The poor darlings. They're soldiers. That's what they do. What was
especially irrating to the Pentagon, and doubtlessly the troops
themselves, was the answer to the burning, "so what are we supposed to be
DOING here?" question. The half assed approach to sending in the Marines
that was the hallmark of the Bush Sr. and Clinton administrations can't
provide an answer for them, either. It would ordinarily make one think
twice about heading back in for seconds. It's hard to prop up a strategy
that only half-exists, if at all.
> There were suicides and mental health breaks because the men thought
> their mission was a goodwill one and instead it was to support the wealthy
> interests. Read those two books and get back to me.
Got any more blatantly partisan reading for me? Now try paying
attention to the White House, and the Foreign Relations Committee. The
question of "what does the US want in/from Haiti?" has been asked without
answer for so long, that even the Clinton administration finally had to
admit "we don't know".
That has not changed, and is not likely to. Your imaginary Republican
boogeymen hellbent on oppressing Haiti don't actually exist, leaving a
more complex reality than Clinton's simple minded intervensionism (and
your own "good vs. bad" dichotomy), or Republican isolationists in the
Congress, allowed to even exist.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I will answer the rest later.......going to work now...have a nice day all.
Fair enough. Condsider this a like minded reply. :)
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>First of all, *must* you use AOL, La Kat?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes........I must...;)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Just a note to tell you that I am not dodging this issue but I am leaving town
to do an art show in La Jolla. I will have time to answer you next
week.....but to be honest, we are ideologically on opposite ends of the
spectrum and no amount of discussion will make a dent. Still, it's a good
exercise.
wish me luck!
Kat~
kafou
LA KAT47 wrote:
> >Re: Myths About Haiti
> >From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>
> >First of all, *must* you use AOL, La Kat?
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Yes........I must...;)
Brother is saying you are way too sophisticated for AOL, I concur.
>
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Just a note to tell you that I am not dodging this issue but I am leaving town
> to do an art show in La Jolla.
Dang, gUrl! I got ring seats and popcorn for this bout, what is up with that?
But I agree with you, he did put up some salient points.... I am impatiently
awaiting your rebuttal.
Kafou
kafou
LA KAT47 wrote:
> This is an article about "US Press Coverage Versus Haitian Reality" I hope it
> is read with open minds.
Yeah well, my mind is open, but that doesn't mean my brains have fallen off.
I am sorry to say, but this was a cheaply orchestrated PR campaign.
I wish Lavalas would start acting like THE governing Party, and not like some
two-bit opposition Party.
Kafou
LA KAT47
>From: kafou ka...@yahoo.com
>Brother is saying you are way too sophisticated for AOL, I concur.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thank you for the compliment but I beg to differ. I love AOL for what I am
looking for. It suits me fine and I am not worried what others think about my
choice in service providers...;)
Kat~
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>watching money ostensibly spent on
>hospitals, infrastructure, and economic development spent on secret
>police, corrupt generals, and waste hasn't exactly provided the United
>States with the best return on investment in Haiti.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Just wanted to comment on ROI here. The US would benefit (and live up to her
credo) if conditions in Haiti were improved so that all who live there would
have opportunity to make a decent life for themselves and their families. Then
you would not have Haitians risking life and limb to get to this country
illegally. IF the US wanted conditions improved, they would do so. So why
isn't it being done? Because the power elites of both countries are not
interested in improving quality of life for the poor and middle classes of
either country. They like to tell us that if conditions are good for the
wealthy, it will be good for all. This, as we all know, is not true. When
they say, if you regulate us, it will go bad for "the people" they are
conditioning us to lower our expectations. It's blackmail so they can make
more money while safety conditions for workers, environmental protections and
compensation go out the window.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Regarding cheap labor, I'm afraid that is the case for Haiti. I don't know if
you are just theorizing that Haiti doesn't provide much in the way of cheap
labor to US companies, but you are wrong. I know a man who owned a car parts
factory in Haiti in the late 70s. He is American. He had good working
conditions and decent wages and got good productivity out of his happy
employees and still made a quality product cheaper than he could in the States.
He was warned several times to lower his wages to be in line with the other
factories. He refused to do this as he was happy with his profits and his
workers were doing the job he asked them to. He was put in prison for his
trouble. His wife delivered food to him daily. A journalist from Reuters
wrote about him daily too, otherwise, he tells me, he would have been killed in
prison. The US State Department told him they could do nothing, and in fact he
felt it was collusion between the US embassy and the Haitian government that
got him in prison and his factory confiscated. He lost everything; they let
him go with the clothes on their backs.......that's it. I met he and his wife
at a parking lot art show when we were first starting out. He was a broken
man......it hurt me to know my country was capable of such callous greed and
cruelty. I was born Republican, you know. I was a stinking Republican all
through my employment with a major bank in California. My involvement with
Haiti made me grow up and see my country for what it really is. I am doubly
disgusted because we like to think we are the good guys.......I'm not sure
there are any good guys in any government anymore.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" I would think it has more to do with Haiti's chequered history of honest
government. "
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You would? Then you would be wrong again. You are arguing history and
extrapolating that to todays situation. The US trained that ARMY, they did not
want it disbanded. They left the arms there because it served their
purpose......which is to have a coup maker in place in case they need it. You
sound like you bleed red white and blue......I'm sorry to tell you, it isn't
white anymore.....it's filthy....or philthy dirty.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"And what conditions, in detail, are those? Is the United States going to try
to bail out Haiti again? What are America's specific obligations to Haiti? They
say "once bitten, twice shy", but in America's case, Haiti's
governments have bitten America over, and over again."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wish the US would not involve themselves in Haiti's business at all. But FAT
CHANCE OF THAT! As I see it America's obligations to Haiti are to undo all the
damage they have done in the past 12 years, including an embargo that, once
again didn't do anything but make the rich richer and destroy Haiti's fragile
economy. The huge monster named USA is not an entity you need to spend any time
feeling sorry for. Once again, the US pays for what it wants and if you don't
give it to them, they make you pay, ten times over.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"The resentment the Haitian people feel towards America is understandable in
light of how much money the United States pissed away in believing liars like
Papa Doc, Raoul Cedras, etc."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The resentment Haitian people feel towards America has nothing to do with money
given to Duvalier.......how stupid do you think the people are??? Their
resentment is how the US is trying to run their supposedly sovereign country
and take away their votes. Democracy in reverse. The resentment started when
the people thought that the US sent soldiers to save them from the evil
overlords......hahaha! No such thing. When it became apparent that the
mission was to keep the people from storming the hills and not to save
them....their image of a benificent America died, just like mine has.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"However, what, exactly, do YOU think America's role should be?"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If I had my way, the US government would forget the existance of
Haiti........just stay the hell away. Dependence on this government is deadly.
Learn to do without it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" What would you have the United States do, La Kat? Occupy Haiti for a length
of time sufficient to instill a tradition of security and democracy? "
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hell no! I do not wish an occupation ever again. I want them to let these
people vote for their president and let him fix that country. I WANT THEM TO
STOP HARASSING ARISTIDE. Let him have his five F*****G years. Then the people
can vote for some other guy. If you think this crisis in Haiti is not made by
the US, you are living in a fairytale world.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Duvalier was "elected" with 102% of the popular vote."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
No one but a rank neophyte would call that an election.....Aristide remains the
first democratically elected president in Haiti's history.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" I'm starting to agree with Kafou. Aristide doesn't really seem any different
than the rest of the theives and crooks who exploit the povertyand problems of
his country to cash in."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't care what you and Kafou agree on about Aristide. You are outside the
country and it is of no consequence to you. The people think otherwise. He
should be given the chance to govern his country, my God! How much more could
it be hurt??? The discussion should be a discussion period and not policy. I
don't mind if my government doesn't like Aristide and doesn't trust him but to
interfere in his governance is not right. He is the president....stop the
harrassment, let him do his job.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Haiti's origins as a true REPUBLIC entitle her to far better leaders than the
ones fate has provided her with."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Lovely sentiment......If the racist policies of the US and Europe hadn't
hamstrung Haiti from the time of her independence, perhaps Haiti's "fate" might
have been kinder.
LaKat~
The One - Orgasmatron
>>Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>>watching money ostensibly spent on
>>hospitals, infrastructure, and economic development spent on secret
>>police, corrupt generals, and waste hasn't exactly provided the United
>>States with the best return on investment in Haiti.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Just wanted to comment on ROI here. The US would benefit (and live up to her
> credo) if conditions in Haiti were improved so that all who live there would
> have opportunity to make a decent life for themselves and their
> families. Then you would not have Haitians risking life and limb to get
> to this country illegally.
That's only partially for economic reasons. Without political
stability, the U.S. will always be a beacon for people leaving Haiti, as
it should be. This leads to another point:
> IF the US wanted conditions improved, they would do so.
And why is that? When is it the responsibility of the United States
to "improve conditions" in foreign countries? Be very clear about this,
La Kat - it is ultimately Haiti, and Haiti alone, that is responsible
for improving her own social and economic conditions. The United States
is no more a fairy godmother granting wishes than it is a 300 pound
boogeyman who can expect Haiti to do what it tells her to do.
> So why isn't it being done?
In large part, because "fixing" Haiti would require annexation. The
United States tried that once, and found that the Haitian taste for
sovereignity was greater than the taste for new roads, hospitals, phone
lines, etc.
> Because the power elites of both countries are not
> interested in improving quality of life for the poor and middle classes of
> either country.
What part of "the United States is not a poltical or economic panacea"
is so unpalatable to people? The case study for this sort of interventionist
"nation building" is Puerto Rico, where the success has been limited at
best. The United States has brought some level of economic prosperity to
Puerto Rico, but at the expense of hostility and resentment at being
treated like an unequal partner of the United States (which, frankly, it
is, not being a state).
Given that Guam, Puerto Rico, the Marianas, et al cannot fully benefit
from America's imperial largesse, why would you expect the United States
to commit the money, manpower, and political will to "change" Haiti?
It cannot, and will not. Foreign aid is just that - aid. Foreign aid has
a long tradition in Western diplomacy, but make no mistake - any change
in Haiti's status quo will not be made by the United States.
The terrible mistake in the Clinton White House's foreign policy is the
notion that the "pax Americana" allows the United States to wave a magic
wand, send in Marines, and in months change poltical, social, and economic
conditions that have prevailed for centuries - all with a minimum loss of
human life, tiny economic expenditures, and the full support and goodwill
from neighboring countries. Not surprisingly, FDR's equally disastrous
"Good Neighbor Policy" (which led to the Marine occupation of Haiti) took
a similar approach in ignorning reality for distinctly utopian, and
unacheivable, foreign policy goals that made the problems they sought to
solve twice as bad as before.
This genuinely inexplicable thinking led to some of America's greatest
foreign policy disasters - namely the invasions of Haiti and Somalia.
> They like to tell us that if conditions are good for the
> wealthy, it will be good for all.
The stated "goal" of the invasion of Haiti was not to support a ruling
elite, but rather, create the image that the United States will "do
something" when "democracy is threatened" and support "nation building" in
nascent democracies. This trickle down economics boogeyman you want to
blame is Bill Clinton - hardly the spokesman for right wing foreign policy
objectives.
> This, as we all know, is not true. When they say, if you regulate us,
> it will go bad for "the people" they are conditioning us to lower our
> expectations. It's blackmail so they can make more money while safety
> conditions for workers, environmental protections and compensation go
> out the window.
This argument has more to do with the economic trend of globalization,
not American interference in Haiti's politics or sovereignity. The sad
fact of the matter is that the State Department is steering the rudderless
ship of US/Haitian relations, a boat flooded with the dirty water of
the Duvalier years, American wariness, Haitian resentment, and no landfall
in sight. If Aristide is expecting, or demanding, that America wave a
magic wand to fix Haiti, he's going to have to keep waiting. The American
goverment is not convinced that Aristide is acting in good faith, and
frankly, it doesn't even care anymore.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Regarding cheap labor, I'm afraid that is the case for Haiti. I don't
> know if you are just theorizing that Haiti doesn't provide much in the
> way of cheap labor to US companies, but you are wrong.
Pay attention to what I'm saying. I am not saying that there isn't
a US export market in Haiti. What I am saying is that the dollar volume
of this trade places Haiti in the VERY lower echelon of American trading
partners, both in and out of Haiti. Haiti could sink into the sea tomorrow
and fail to cause even a 10 point swing on Wall Street. America's
important trading partners dwarf Haiti, Disney sweatshops notwithstanding.
The sad condition of the Haitian economy means that it's another source
of interchangable cheap labor. If Haiti sank, in the scenario above,
the labor focus would shift elsewhere with no perceivable change.
> I know a man who owned a car parts factory in Haiti in the late 70s. He
> is American. He had good working conditions and decent wages and got
> good productivity out of his happy employees and still made a quality
> product cheaper than he could in the States.
> He was warned several times to lower his wages to be in line with the other
> factories. He refused to do this as he was happy with his profits and his
> workers were doing the job he asked them to. He was put in prison for his
> trouble. His wife delivered food to him daily. A journalist from Reuters
> wrote about him daily too, otherwise, he tells me, he would have been
> killed in prison.
Which is very sad, but almost entirely irrelevant. Shift that car parts
factory to Vietnam, China, Mexico, or the Dominican Repbulic, and the
economic impact (and American political interest) is still next to
nothing. If it were an oil field, platinum mine, or any other large
exporting facility of materials that the United States considers
important, the United States can, and certainly will, make moves to secure
it for "American national interests". Sadly enough, La Kat, sweatshop
labor doesn't matter enough to collude to protect it in the grandiose
conspiratorial ways you imagine.
A quick examination of America's largest *profitable* trading
relationships (ie, ones with no large surplus or deficits) reveals that
large first world nations are the most valuable trading partners the
United States has, or will likely ever have. Cheaply labor for American
companies is constantly on the move, and has a larger supply than demand
in the United States. There are so many other politically stable sources
of cheap labor in Haiti that it nearly staggers the mind.
> The US State Department told him they could do nothing, and in fact he
> felt it was collusion between the US embassy and the Haitian government that
> got him in prison and his factory confiscated.
And what would he have the United States diplomatic corps do, La Kat?
Send in the Marines to bust him out of jail? Presure Baby Doc to let him
go? Get involved in yet another Haitian political jailing, torture, or
disappearance? Or concede to reality that Haiti is another country that
has consistently, and stubbornly, resisted every US attempt to change
political, social, or economic trends that make it more like the United
States? Where, again, is the return on investment for America's
involvement at all? America learned the hard way under Papa Doc that
it has to pay hard cash, and plenty of it, to make the Haitian government
du jour do what it wants. So much so, in fact, that any poltical spending
beyond food aid, and Cold War money was nixed for ages because the State
Department was tired of having to pay to play with Haiti - especially with
such negligible results.
A sad side effect of having a country run by thieves, thugs, and
criminals is the effect it has on your diplomatic partners. The United
States would much rather do business with a prosperous Haiti than a
destitute one. The tiny amount of money to be gained by propping up
a mulatto elite that, frankly, the United States doesn't care about would
pale in comparison to a trade relationship that would be possible with
a healthy economy paired with political stability.
This, however, is a task for Haiti to acheive. NOT the United States!
> I was born Republican, you know. I was a stinking Republican all
> through my employment with a major bank in California.
Interesting. What made you such a bombastic neo-marxist? I am still
a "stinking Republican", albeit of the Massachusetts variety (which
couldn't pass for anything right of communist in Texas or Florida).
> My involvement with Haiti made me grow up and see my country for what
> it really is.
You would be better served by seeing America for what it is NOT. What
America is NOT is a nanny for other countries. It's been tried, and we've
failed. We've failed at every single attempt of "nation building" we've
ever attempted in the United States - short of nations we've occupied
militarily for long periods of time. Think of the Marshall Plan. Germany
and Japan were rescued from the brink of economic disaster and starvation
by the Marshall Plan. Doubtlessly, the Marshall Plan style of nation
building could reshape Haiti in a way that would make it completely
unrecognizable when compared to present day Haiti.
Unfortunately, the Marshall Plan is only applied to conquered wartime
foes - to avoid the mistake of the Versailles Treaty. Should Haiti declare
war on the United States in the hope that it will be annexed? No.
> I am doubly disgusted because we like to think we are the good
> guys.......I'm not sure there are any good guys in any government
> anymore.
You need to expand your thinking beyond black and white; beyond
"good" and "bad" guys. Perhaps some understanding of realpolitik would
clear up some very simplistic notions of "good vs. evil" you seem to have
about the United States and her foreign policy.
There is no doubt that American foreign policy has traditionally placed
American interests first. What you need to realize is that what various
Presidents and Secys of State have deemed "American interests" has not
always been as sinsiter or byzantine as you imagine. In fact, as is most
often the case, America has made foreign policy decisions with no real
long term goals in mind - the idea of the "quick fix". This was the
thinking behind Vietnam, Somalia, and yes, even Haiti.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " I would think it has more to do with Haiti's chequered history of honest
> government. "
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> You would?
Yes, I would.
> Then you would be wrong again. You are arguing history and
> extrapolating that to todays situation. The US trained that ARMY, they
> did not want it disbanded.
The US, again, can hardly care. Haiti's main Cold War objective, in the
eyes of the United States, was a buffer/launching point against Cuba.
> They left the arms there because it served their purpose......which is
> to have a coup maker in place in case they need it.
A relic of CIA paranoia, ironically, of a CIA that doesn't even exist
in the same Cold War world that the rest of us do. The CIA's days of
kingmaking in the Carribean are over without the Russians. There isn't
even a long term strategy to deal with Castro in place beyond US funded
insurgency groups. The need for a "pro-American" government in Haiti is
pointless, because of the certainty that American interests are guaranteed
by virtue of necessity.
> You sound like you bleed red white and blue......
I don't, particularly. What I have done, however, is spent countless
hours studying the history and direction of America's foreign policy, both
the good and ill. What seem like big impacts in Haiti, are minor ripples
of American foreign policy. Haiti is a bit player, on a stage much bigger
than it is used to merely by virtue of her proximity to the United States.
For better or for worse, they are stuck with each other, and the events
of the past provide a context and flavor for the events of the present,
for better or worse in both countries.
> I'm sorry to tell you, it isn't white anymore.....it's filthy....or
> philthy dirty.
Like I said, America's foreign policy is *much* more understandable
when one ceases to attempt to oversimplify in terms of "villains" and
"heroes". Haiti has not always been the beneficiary of American foreign
policy at times, while at others she has had the chance to do something
constructive with massive amounts of American money and goodwill, both
of which have been prodigiously squandered. The same goes for America's
opportunities to foster good will and understanding with the Haitian
people.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "And what conditions, in detail, are those? Is the United States going to try
> to bail out Haiti again? What are America's specific obligations to Haiti? They
> say "once bitten, twice shy", but in America's case, Haiti's
> governments have bitten America over, and over again."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I wish the US would not involve themselves in Haiti's business at all.
You yourself have expressed otherwise at times, by asking "why is the
US letting Haiti ... <fill in the blank>". Is America the bon fil here?
The sugar daddy? The protector? The toppler of dictators? What, again, do
you imagine, are the obligations of strong nations to weaker nations?
> But FAT CHANCE OF THAT! As I see it America's obligations to Haiti are
> to undo all the damage they have done in the past 12 years, including an
> embargo that, once again didn't do anything but make the rich richer and
> destroy Haiti's fragile economy.
As opposed to what, La Kat, the economic powerhouse created by
Duvalier or Aristide?
> The huge monster named USA is not an entity you need to spend any time
> feeling sorry for.
I don't feel sorry for the US, beyond pitying a foreign policy that is,
in general, without direction whatsoever. Not merely in Haiti, but around
the world. The United States has attempted the "world policeman" gig
before, and with typically disastrous results.
> Once again, the US pays for what it wants and if you don't give it to
> them, they make you pay, ten times over.
The United States has gained nothing for money spent in Haiti. It
gained nothing when Duvalier played the Americans like a fiddle with fears
of communism, it gained nothing by it's Marine occupation, and it gained
nothing by forcing Aristide back in the picture. It gained nothing, that
is, but the hatred of the Haitian people, the condemnation of Haiti's
neighbors, and a large hole in the budget where money thrown at Haiti had
once been. I will agree with you that the United States should be out of
Haitian affairs. We have no policy goals, and no vested interests beyond
protecting Americans in Haiti, much as with any other foreign nation. The
goodwiil America has shown Haiti, and vice versa, has been wasted for
almost 50 years.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "The resentment the Haitian people feel towards America is understandable in
> light of how much money the United States pissed away in believing liars like
> Papa Doc, Raoul Cedras, etc."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> The resentment Haitian people feel towards America has nothing to do
> with money given to Duvalier.......how stupid do you think the people
> are???
When people are led to believe that the US is in bed with their own
dictators? How much resentment do you think the US garnered by feeding
money to corrupt brasshats like Trujillo, Somosa, Batista, Marcos, and
yes, the Duvaliers?!
> Their resentment is how the US is trying to run their supposedly
> sovereign country and take away their votes.
The implication that the United States is to blame for the failure
of Haitian democracy is straight out of a Fidel Castro-esque philippic.
The Haitian "democracy" was long dead before the United States ever paid
Haiti a visit with a diplomat.
Haiti's political history reads like a horror novel, and has since
the first day her dreams as a republic were gang raped by power hungry
theives - all native sons. The United States helped "subvert Haitian
democracy" by answering calls to prop it up.
> Democracy in reverse.
Now what is this a reference to? Henry Cristophe? Dessalines? Or
any number of "presidents for life" not installed by the United States?
Phony elections? Vote tampering? Papadocracy? The United States can only
be blamed to a point, and really only because they should have known
better than to expect to change a political climate that was crippled in
it's infancy.
Haiti alone has the power, but not the will, to instill a tradition
of democracy. Indeed, "democracy" has been tried so often for Haiti
without success, that one must wonder if it's even a viable goal. Part of
the problem with chauvinist American political thought, as exhibited by
you, I, and American presidents since Washington, is that "democracy" is
a panacea that solves all social and economic problems. Indeed, the phony
"democracies" in Haiti's history have been even less palatable than the
outright dictatorships, which were at least honest in not claming to be
anything BUT.
> their image of a benificent America died, just like mine has.
Upgrade your imagine to a less polarized reality. If by claiming that
I "imagine a lily white America" by merely stating the fact that genuine
humanitarian aid to Haiti has been, for the most part, wasted, then you're
barking up the wrong tree.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "However, what, exactly, do YOU think America's role should be?"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> If I had my way, the US government would forget the existance of
> Haiti........just stay the hell away. Dependence on this government is
> deadly.
When the United States did that, the world rightly cried "racism!"-
staying the hell away would leave Haiti in even worse straits, especially
if America were to completely deny all Haitian asylum seekers,
educational, medical, and economic assistance programs, etc. For better or
worse, America and Haiti are stuck with each other, and will have to find
a way to coexist.
What I think is needed is the birth of a genuinely stable Haitian
political tradition - and not necessarily a democracy, but one that is not
yet another revolving door military junta or dictatorship. This alone
can signal the begining of a more equal diplomatic position with not just
America, but the rest of the world.
> Learn to do without it.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " What would you have the United States do, La Kat? Occupy Haiti for a length
> of time sufficient to instill a tradition of security and democracy? "
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Hell no! I do not wish an occupation ever again. I want them to let these
> people vote for their president and let him fix that country. I WANT THEM TO
> STOP HARASSING ARISTIDE.
"Harassing" Aristide? Any world leader would beg God almighty that the
US would "harass" them in such a way that granted virtual unthinking
legitimacy on their own regimes. Without thinking, Bill Clinton gave Titid
a legitimacy he has done little to earn on his own.
> Let him have his five F*****G years. Then the people can vote for some
> other guy. If you think this crisis in Haiti is not made by
> the US, you are living in a fairytale world.
If I think this mess is borne of Haiti's political history, I'm living
in the real world. The United States interests in Haiti, beyond the
anti-Castro goons still collecting CIA paychecks in 1963 dollars, is
virtually nil. You may have noticed that the current state of US/Haitian
affairs has far more to do with punishing innocent refugees at Guantanamo
than invading Haiti yet again to benefit Lavalas. Ask yourself "why"? It's
not so difficult to figure out when one pays attention to public policy.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "Duvalier was "elected" with 102% of the popular vote."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> No one but a rank neophyte would call that an election.....
Now you're catching on.
> Aristide remains the first democratically elected president in Haiti's
> history.
... or are you? Any "popular election" that requires having the
opposition hunted down, beaten, necklaced, etc. and propped up with a US
invasion force doesn't seem to be standing on entirely solid ground.
The OAS report on these marvelously "free and fair" elections paints
a less optimistic picture. Fair elections? Only by Haiti's notoriously
rotten historical standards.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " I'm starting to agree with Kafou. Aristide doesn't really seem any different
> than the rest of the theives and crooks who exploit the povertyand problems of
> his country to cash in."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I don't care what you and Kafou agree on about Aristide. You are outside the
> country and it is of no consequence to you.
I see. So when you do find time to post articles from Haiti again? :)
Kafou is a good example of why Haitian politics are doomed, as long
as her best and brightest are forced to flee. Why are there more Haitian
doctors in Montreal and New York than in Haiti? The political climate that
was pre-existent in Haiti have chased away her best future leaders. You
cannot possibly blame that on the United States, beyond being a place
where Haitains feel compelled to flee to, often betraying their own
feelings for Haiti in exchange for a future.
> The people think otherwise.
Come on, now. You are no more their spokesperson than I am. The
latest suspicious election and phony plebescites are not convincing to
many. Should Aristide be given an unconditional thumbs up?
> He should be given the chance to govern his country, my God!
Damn! How much more of a "chance" could any one leader get? How much
more money can he stuff in his pockets, perhaps? How many wings can he add
to his palatial home, perhaps? How much longer can any get a "chance" to
use the office of President of Haiti as a license to steal?
> How much more could it be hurt???
One would have to ask the opposition parties, now wouldn't one? And we
both know that doesn't include FRAPH, but ANYONE opposed to Lavalas.
You seem to have an idea that Aristide is a Robin Hood style benevolent
philosopher king sort of ruler. Looking objectively, this is NOT the case.
The United States made just as bad a mistake propping up Aristide (and
buying into his myth) as they have with their support for any other
Haitian goverment.
> The discussion should be a discussion period and not policy. I
> don't mind if my government doesn't like Aristide and doesn't trust him but to
> interfere in his governance is not right. He is the president....stop the
> harrassment, let him do his job.
Haiti will know the United States is "interfering" when the Marines
land. Shit! Haiti, better than most places, should know when the US is
"interfering", and when it is not! A look back at the half-assed American
financed attempts to topple Duvalier, a man they genuinely hated, as
prima facie evidence that if the American government *really* wanted to
interfere in Haiti, there would be no mistake in results. That level of
interference is next to impossible when you don't have a coherent foreign
policy, which unsurprisingly, the United States does *not*.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "Haiti's origins as a true REPUBLIC entitle her to far better leaders than the
> ones fate has provided her with."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Lovely sentiment......If the racist policies of the US and Europe hadn't
> hamstrung Haiti from the time of her independence, perhaps Haiti's
> "fate" might have been kinder.
Haiti can only cry "racism!" for so long. Indeed, various Haitian
despots played the race card into the ground. Haiti is an independent
state, and sadly, most of her problems are self-inflicted, as are
America's. Haiti had other poltical channels that it ignored, and an
untapped reservoir of goodwill from the United States, right off the bat,
that it squandered (mostly from American President John Adams). You can
thank the "Emperor" of Haiti for that, not even the "racist" United States
had the power to corrupt the well of Haitian politics the way it has been.
Haiti's poltical tradiion mainly seems to be a scramble to see who can
rule most profitably for themselves, for the longest length of time. Haiti
has also had time to outgrow this, but until she finds the path herself,
neither America, nor Aristide, nor anyone else can do a blessed thing
but wait. It's the peculiarly Haitian tragedy that beauty, and their best
natural resource (Haitians themselves) have been more or less wasted on
Haiti, to say nothing of what it's cost America in wasted potential.
LA KAT47
>From: kaspa...@aol.comnojunk (Thomas )
>Definitely a California leftist anti-American perspective.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Definitely a clueless statement....
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Cuba is probably the last place in the Caribbean to look for guidance in
healthcare. Other than infant mortality stats which the Cuban government
manipulates to justify the dictatorship,......"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
All I'm saying is if an isolated, embargoed, punished country can help Haiti in
ways that truly help the people, then why can't the greatest country on earth
do better? Could it be that the agendas are different? It's a
thought..............
LaKat~
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
> Oh no? History, for better or worse, sets the tone for the present.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The past is prologue......yes, I know. But it's lazy thinking to assume that
this leader is like all other leaders. And that things are doomed to be the
same as they have always been. The trouble with a visionary is that the rest
of your support may not have the same visions and how do you control a tiger
you have by the tail?? My question to you and everyone is, if not Aristide,
then who?? If he is just a crook looking to fill his personal coffers, then
who will bring Haiti out of the abyss??? I never get an answer.......
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"The United States has, as a matter of foreign policy, given up on the idea
that American political/diplomatic intervention or money can make a
difference in Haiti (the sole exceptions being Bill Clinton and the spineless
Warren Christopher)The invasion of Haiti under Bill Clinton's tenure lacked the
support of the Pentagon (as did Bill "don't ask, don't
tell" Clinton in general)"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You didn't go far enough in your analysis. Clinton's attempt to do the right
thing (by gays in the military and to Haiti) was not supported not only by the
military but those who control the military.......yes, folks, the power elites
and their henchmen, the Republican party. Especially by way of chairrnan of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ....Jesse Helms. His attempt at helping
Haiti was hamstrung as almost all of the things he tried to do to help the
people of this country were too. I see the problems with Aristide's government
the same way. The opposition can't let these populists win....so they
assassinate them in the modern way. It's frustrating to me that it is so clear
and yet so few people want to see. Perhaps it's because these people want to
see themselves as aligned with the elite and not part of the masses. Let me
assure you, we are not them, they wouldn't have us...we ARE the masses...;)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Haiti has been a tough nut for the United States to crack, and what could
either be called "diplomatic fatigue" or simply "conceding to reality" has
caused the
United States to deal with Haiti in a very different way than in years past."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh WAHHHHHH! Poor US government....they tried so hard and couldn't crack that
nut. Save your tears for the people of Haiti who are being stepped on in a big
way by Uncle Sam. They don't try to help Haiti........they try to control
Haiti for personal gain. This may be too cynical for you to grasp, but I can't
help you if you see your government as benificent......or maybe you just don't
care. Also consider this......those who make policy are not so bright. They
see the world through a narrow prism that does not allow for different
cultures, different values and different ways of dealing with life. Let me put
it another way.......they are stupid. And can't deal with anyone who doesn't
look, act and think like they do. They make idiotic decisions that hurt more
than help time after time. So even if you want to see it as not evil, at best
it's just plain stupidity. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" Henry Kissinger came to the conclusion that until Haiti developed it's own
traditions of political stability and democracy, the role of the United States
was futile except in the capacity as to use Haiti as a buffer against Cuba,"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes, so let them develop their own tradition of political stability.........
Thomas
Has the US done a good job helping Haiti ? Absolutely not .
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
"Without political stability, the U.S. will always be a beacon for people
leaving Haiti, as it should be"
and the ever popular:
"When is it the responsibility of the United States to "improve conditions" in
foreign countries?"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What is the reason for foreign aid then? If not to improve conditions in a
country so as to promote political and economical stability? You can't have it
both ways. I maintain again, if the US were REALLY interested in political
stability, they would help rather than hinder the democratic process. If Cuba
can make a dent, why not the US???
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Be very clear about this, La Kat - it is ultimately Haiti, and Haiti alone,
that is responsible for improving her own social and economic conditions"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thank you philthy animal for helping me to see the error of my ways......and
here I thought I was advocating just that. I do not want the US meddling in
Haitian affairs. If you believe what you wrote up there, how can you support
this government's interference in Haiti's struggle for democracy. Is it
possible you honestly don't see the duplicity of US foreign policy?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" In large part, because "fixing" Haiti would require annexation."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Do you see how you put words in my mouth? I never said the US should fix
Haiti, how arrogant is that?? The US couldn't FIX Haiti if they tried, because
they only know one way.....and that is not relevant in Haiti.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"The United States tried that once, and found that the Haitian taste for
sovereignity was greater than the taste for new roads, hospitals, phone lines,
etc."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Are you by any chance talking about the marine occupation in 1915?? If so, you
need to read up on that horrible episode in US history. The marines chosen for
this duty came from the south......because it was felt that white men from the
south knew how to handle negroes......are you feeling the pride yet? The
Haitians didn't mind the roads and hospitals (that were built for the military
not for Haitians) they minded being hunted and killed and displayed on a cross
as a warning to others to stay in line.....gee what's so bad about that?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"The terrible mistake in the Clinton White House's foreign policy is the notion
that the "pax Americana" allows the United States to wave a magic wand, send in
Marines, and in months change poltical, social, and economic conditions that
have prevailed for centuries - all with a minimum loss of
human life, tiny economic expenditures, and the full support and goodwill from
neighboring countries"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You are so misguided here. I'm going to assume you are sincere and really
think that you "got it" regarding Clinton's Haiti policy. Clinton didn't want
to fix Haiti any more than I do. He was trying to help Aristide and Haiti help
themselves to become independent and self-sustaining.
Helping Aristide get back to serve the term he was brutally taken from should
have been accomplished on Bush's watch. But for obvious reasons it wasn't and
the faux embargo was put in place to show that the US really is for
democracy....ha! By the time Clinton got there, it was too late because the
catastrophe in Somalia messed up any further military aid to any black nation.
Clinton's intentions were honorable, in my opinion but the president is not
autonomous and he had to water down his policies to get done whatever he could
with a hostile congress.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"The stated "goal" of the invasion of Haiti was not to support a ruling elite,
but rather, create the image that the United States will "do something" when
"democracy is threatened" and support "nation building" in
nascent democracies."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't give a crap what the stated goal was, the TRUE goal was to do just what
I said. That was why the rank and file was disturbed and confused. Many of
them didn't like watching the people fall victim to the brutal oppression of
the Duvalierists but those were the orders.......they had to stand by and
watch......and the Haitian people knew then that the US soldiers weren't there
to support them but to suppress them. A sad day all around. Men were
court-martialed for doing the right thing against orders. Shameful.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"This trickle down economics boogeyman you want to blame is Bill Clinton -
hardly the spokesman for right wing foreign policy
objectives."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How do you figure Clinton ever supported trickle down economics????? He was
trying to help Aristide help the people of Haiti.......that is where he got in
trouble....the guys with the money don't want that policy......and YOU are
falling right into their hands....like the rest of the sheep who can only hear
one thing....tax relief.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"interesting. What made you such a bombastic neo-marxist?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I explained my shift in ideologies......Haiti made me aware. I do not suffer
betrayal silently.....I am pissed off that my country does not live up to her
credo. I do. I am what an American should be. And I will not be quiet while
the flag gets trampled by those in Washington. If all of us were aware and
didn't learn their politics from Jay Leno and David Letterman, we would have a
democracy.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"I am still a "stinking Republican"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
no shit! you could knock me over with a feather!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" What I have done, however, is spent countless hours studying the history and
direction of America's foreign policy, both
the good and ill. What seem like big impacts in Haiti, are minor ripples of
American foreign policy"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ahhhh my favorite......book larnin'. Well dang my doggies.....you DO know what
you're talking about. How's about you go to Haiti and get some up front
knowledge of what is what before you try blowing smoke up my Seattle. And do
me a favor......talk to the people who make up the majority class.
You see philthy......Haiti is not an area of study for me.....it is a real
place with real people who are suffering. They suffer in large part because of
the proximity to the US. It is piddling to you......not to me. And not to
those who struggle daily. You are damn lucky you were born here and born
white. Stop with the history lesson and slams on my simplistic passionate
posts.....you are a dispassionate observer, nothing more, nothing less. Let me
spell it out for you again......I do not want the US to bail Haiti out.....I
won't say "again" because they never have before. I want them to leave them to
figure out their own way. THAT'S ALL........do you hear me now or do you want
to impress yourself with how well you regurgitate things you read?
LaKat!
LA KAT47
>From: kaspa...@aol.comnojunk (Thomas )
>Castro certainly has a different agenda, oppression.
,,,,,,,,,,,
knee-jerk response......I still maintain that Cuba has given more positive aid
to Haiti than the US ever has.......how do you explain this?
Thomas
know virtually nothing about, thus my reading SCH .
I do know that anything Cuba (Castro) offered to Haiti was in the form of
surplus and was juiced for maximum political propaganda first and goodwill
second.
LA KAT47
>From: kaspa...@aol.comnojunk (Thomas )
>I do know that anything Cuba (Castro) offered to Haiti was in the form of
>surplus and was juiced for maximum political propaganda first and goodwill
>second.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
No, you don't know anything of the kind because I am not talking about sending
a box of clothing or rice or beans or any goods like that. Cuba has been
sending doctors to help teach Haitians how to treat their medical needs. They
have taken a number of young Haitian men and women to Cuba to make doctors out
of them. They have helped rebuild a sugar processing plant or two so that
production can begin and they won't have to import what they can make in Haiti.
They, in short are trying to help Haiti become self sufficient. The US wants
to keep them slaves....I am not a Communist or even a Socialist.....but I can't
argue with results. They are teaching them to fish not giving them food to
eat. Get it? And as for propaganda, you didn't know about Cuba's aid to Haiti
so how are you figuring that?
LaKat~
Thomas
I know very well about what Cuba does and how they use the propaganda in Haiti
or elsewhere. Cuba has a surplus of physicians that are bartered around the
world in exchange for hard currency and in the case of Venezuela, oil.
I suggest you broaden your horizons by reading up on Cuba. Then perhaps you
would sound less sour and more knowledgeable.
LA KAT47
>From: kaspa...@aol.comnojunk (Thomas )
>I suggest you broaden your horizons by reading up on Cuba. Then perhaps you
>would sound less sour and more knowledgeable.
>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
LOL.......this from a pickle......ha!
The One - Orgasmatron
>>: Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
> "Without political stability, the U.S. will always be a beacon for people
> leaving Haiti, as it should be"
> and the ever popular:
> "When is it the responsibility of the United States to "improve conditions" in
> foreign countries?"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> What is the reason for foreign aid then?
I forgot I was talking to a true expert on foreign relations like La
Kat.
> If not to improve conditions in a country so as to promote political and
> economical stability?
To promote goodwill between nations. Oh, but that's neither here nor
there.
> You can't have it both ways. I maintain again, if the US were REALLY
> interested in political stability, they would help rather than hinder
> the democratic process. If Cuba can make a dent, why not the US???
Vis a vis Haiti, the United States has more or less given up trying
to help or hinder. Colin Powell seems to have taken the failure of
Bill Clinton's "nation building" exercises to heart, and I have a feeling
his State Department will be one more focused on NATO and the China/Taiwan
problem.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "Be very clear about this, La Kat - it is ultimately Haiti, and Haiti alone,
> that is responsible for improving her own social and economic conditions"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Thank you philthy animal for helping me to see the error of my ways......and
> here I thought I was advocating just that.
Please! Call me Roger. Only my mother gets to call me "philthy animal".
You seem to want it both ways, frankly. You hold the US responsible for
the failure of Haiti's politics and economics, and yet, you have in the
past chided America for not doing more to prop up Aristide. Well? Which is
it?
> I do not want the US meddling in Haitian affairs. If you believe what
> you wrote up there, how can you support this government's interference
> in Haiti's struggle for democracy. Is it possible you honestly don't
> see the duplicity of US foreign policy?
Is it possible you confuse "duplicity" with "aimless self-interest"?
The United States has had an aimless foreign policy for the last 8 years.
The State Department, under Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright
would energetically inject the US into various projects, only to abandon
them halfway through. Bill Clinton, who lacked any really coherent vision
of what America's role in the world at large should be, was only too ready
to fully commit America's armed forces to these half-baked projects.
The "meddling" that you complain hampers Aristide was started in very
large part to prop him up in the first place, thanks in large part
to Bill Clinton and Warren Christopher. And let's also be perfectly clear
that Haiti will never cut her own ties to the United States. For years,
Haitian leaders have used America, with her readiness to send money and
Marines, as a political tool to outfox opponents and further their own
causes. You don't think Aristide has continued in this tradition? The
diplomatic history suggests otherwise.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " In large part, because "fixing" Haiti would require annexation."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Do you see how you put words in my mouth? I never said the US should fix
> Haiti, how arrogant is that??
Perhaps if you learned to express yourself clearly, you'd leave less
room for muddled interpretation of your ideas. Oh, and getting rid of AOL,
or at least fixing your attribution marks, wouldn't hurt either.
> The US couldn't FIX Haiti if they tried, because they only know one
> way.....and that is not relevant in Haiti.
Well, then we agree. The United States has, on occasion, made a
difference with American money in Haiti, but it's like spitting in the
wind. A hospital here, food relief there, but nothing has permanently
benefitted either side.
My mother spent two years in Papa Doc's Haiti working at the Schweitzer
hospital in Deschappelles, and recalls angrily that all the money, food,
and medicine sent to the hospital were ruthlessly skimmed by the Tonton
Macoutes (Papa Doc's "negritude" in action no doubt - the suffering of
the many to support the kleptocracy of a few). Complaints to the American
ambassador, discreet as they were, were futile. The United States was
deathly afraid of offending Papa Doc lest he make overtures to the Cubans
and upset the balance of power in the Carribean.
When it was all over, the mountains of money spent to keep the
Schweitzer hospital afloat were wasted - stolen by the government who then
flaunted the leprous, the malarial, and the malnourished in front of the
world crying "See? See how our little negro nation suffers, while America
the rich ignores our pain?". America and other donors, shamed, would
renegotiate foreign aid agreements ever higher, knowing full well what
happened to the money it gave to Haiti, but dared say nothing. The giants
were humbled by Papa Doc, and without firing a shot.
America has made attempts in the past to feed, clothe, house, and
doctor Haiti - attempts that have been cynically rebuffed. America has
also given generous monies to help Haiti solve it's own problems that
have gone wasted as surely as if it were burned. Only in Mobutu's Zaire
was money to help the poor so shamefacedly stolen from the west more than
it's been in Haiti. Both nations have poisoned the well of diplomacy.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "The United States tried that once, and found that the Haitian taste for
> sovereignity was greater than the taste for new roads, hospitals, phone lines,
> etc."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Are you by any chance talking about the marine occupation in 1915??
Indeed.
> If so, you need to read up on that horrible episode in US history.
Oh, and I have, from numerous sources - letters, memoirs, news accounts
and the like. There was a wealth of information and opinion left in the
wake of the invasion - from Haitians and Americans.
> The marines chosen for this duty came from the south......because it
> was felt that white men from the south knew how to handle
> negroes......
Quel horreur, La Kat. That was the world in 1915. I can't apologize for
it, and I won't. The Marine occupation did leave behind modest
improvements in infrastructure and goverment, but as I already said, the
Haitian people preferred independence to American "gifts". I didn't say I
could blame them.
> are you feeling the pride yet?
I don't know, La Kat, should I? I don't feel the neo-Marxist urge to
feel embarassed to be an American because of the blunders or attitudes
of the past. Half of my family wasn't even in America in 1915, and none
of them were Marines from southern states occupying Haiti.
> The Haitians didn't mind the roads and hospitals (that were built for
> the military not for Haitians)
Most of the improvements left behind were torn to pieces when the
Marines left. The bitter taste of occupation was too great. The changes
America tried to enforce on the Haitian military were also over and done
with almost as soon as they left. The Monroe Doctrine was disastrous
for the United States, and as I've said over and over again, set a tone
for things to come. It is you who keeps dismissing the past as
"irrelevant" except when to make a point of your own. The past is the
prelude to the present, especially in foreign relations. You're only as
good as your history.
> they minded being hunted and killed and displayed on a cross
> as a warning to others to stay in line.....gee what's so bad about that?
I don't recall saying anything good about the Marine occupation. I
merely noted that it's part of the backdrop of US/Haitian relations, and
a stink that will never go away, even when it's irrelevant to issues at
hand.
Papa Doc played the US State Department like a fiddle, using the
lingering shame and guilt over the Marine invasion as the bow. This
translated into a US foreign policy that sought to "change the tone" in
Haiti, basically, with appeasement in the sticky context of the diastrous
"Good Neighbor Policy". As bad as America's imperial adventures in places
like Haiti and the Phillipines were, the support for tyranny that followed
the lingering guilt was just as bad, if not worse. Trujillo, Marcos,
Duvalier, Somosa ... ALL of them benefitted at various times by scolding
the United States about how ashamed it should be for their involvement
in their political past - almost always at the expense of diplomatic
pragmatism, human rights, or even common sense.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "The terrible mistake in the Clinton White House's foreign policy is
> the notion that the "pax Americana" allows the United States to wave a
> magic wand, send in Marines, and in months change poltical, social, and
> economic conditions that have prevailed for centuries - all with a
> minimum loss of human life, tiny economic expenditures, and the full
> support and goodwill from neighboring countries"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> You are so misguided here. I'm going to assume you are sincere and really
> think that you "got it" regarding Clinton's Haiti policy.
Oh, please. Elucidate.
> Clinton didn't want to fix Haiti any more than I do. He was trying to help
> Aristide and Haiti help themselves to become independent and self-sustaining.
And Bill Clinton thought this would work, why .... ? Why, see what
I wrote above. Clinton's assumptions about how sending the Marines
to Haiti would help was a precursor to Kosovo, where, in essence,
little has changed for Kosovar Albanians besides the removal of Milosevic.
Send in the Marines, and don't worry about the messy social and political
conditions that were extant decades (or even centuries) before sending
in the US military. When added with the aimlessness of American foreign
policy in the 1990's, the invasion of Haiti stands as a perfect example
of how we got it all wrong trying to be the world's policeman, again.
> Helping Aristide get back to serve the term he was brutally taken from
> should have been accomplished on Bush's watch.
But wait, La Kat! Weren't you saying a few paragraphs ago that the
United States shouldn't get involved at all? Which is it? Doesn't the
slippery slope of involvement preclude American tampering in Haitian
affairs?
> But for obvious reasons it wasn't andthe faux embargo was put in place
> to show that the US really is for democracy....ha!
Try looking at the history of American diplomacy and military
intervention. Embargoes and boycotts have always been used as a tool of
American diplomacy where military intervention is deemed inappropriate.
George Bush Sr., probably rightly, decided that America had nothing to
gain by sending the Marines to Haiti, and frankly, by your own admission
earlier regarding American involvement, it was the right decision.
> By the time Clinton got there, it was too late because the catastrophe
> in Somalia messed up any further military aid to any black nation.
The disaster in Somalia was another example of American hubris, and
half-hearted commitment to international organizations that may or may
not reflect actual American interest, your cynical play of the race card
notwithstanding.
What Somalia taught (or rather FAILED to teach) America is that
America's might and influence cannot be a panacea for what are essentially
intractable political and economic problems. The failure to restore order
to Somalia, and the decision to expand a flimsy mandate that, at first,
was limited to protecting aid agencies delivering food, is a fine example
of American brinkmanship without a goal in mind. When the mandate was
changed, on the fly, to include "nation building" in Somalia, the table
was set for failure. And so it went in Haiti in the 1990's.
> Clinton's intentions were honorable, in my opinion but the president is not
> autonomous and he had to water down his policies to get done whatever he could
> with a hostile congress.
Now I have to ask who does, or doesn't, get it. As commander in chief,
the president doesn't have to answer to the congress in a "police action",
as there is no declaration of war required. Clinton was no more
accountable to congress in Haiti (beyond garnering hostility that Clinton,
ever the poltical chameleon, thought would haunt him later when he wanted
favors) than Bush was accountable to an essentially hostile congress in
the decision to invade Panama, or than Ronald Reagan was when he sent
Marines to Grenada.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and while there's
little doubt Bill Clinton meant well, his failure to define what Haiti,
or America for that matter, hoped to gain by American intervention was a
failure, and one that was repeated over and over again by neutering the
State Department with muddled goals, mixed signals, and frank disinterest
in anything else but pet projects (like Northern Ireland, and the
half-assed commitment to the Oslo peace accords).
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "The stated "goal" of the invasion of Haiti was not to support a ruling elite,
> but rather, create the image that the United States will "do something" when
> "democracy is threatened" and support "nation building" in
> nascent democracies."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I don't give a crap what the stated goal was, the TRUE goal was to do
> just what I said.
You say it, so it's so? Thank heavens La Kat is around to redefine
history, beyond what the historical record has left behind for mere
mortals like me.
> That was why the rank and file was disturbed and confused. Many of
> them didn't like watching the people fall victim to the brutal oppression of
> the Duvalierists but those were the orders.......they had to stand by and
> watch......and the Haitian people knew then that the US soldiers weren't there
> to support them but to suppress them. A sad day all around. Men were
> court-martialed for doing the right thing against orders. Shameful.
With no actual goal beyond shoving another government through a
revolving door, America had no mandate. The failure to empty the hellish
prison that you're doubtlessly referring to is a failure, in military
terms, that went straight to the top - to the commander in chief. The
"look but don't touch" approach that so frustrated the military brass, as
well as the rank and file, was a direct result of America's aimless
foreign policy. The "goals" defined by the President and Secretary of
State were so laughable and short sighted, that failure was predestined
to accompany America to Haiti, and certainly did.
The fallout hasn't been pretty either, in Haiti or the United States.
Lavalas hunts down enemies, while Macoutes still occupy positions in power
in Haiti. And most shamefully of all, the Clintonian decision to get
involved to stop the flood of refugees ignored all the CIA relics like
Toto Constant receiving safe harbor in the US - when he could have
personally sent them packing.
Do you see what happens when a foreign policy that should serve
strictly national interests is watered down with half-hearted commitments
to experiments in nation building? America does the deus-ex-machina thing
as poorly as the Soviets did in Afghanistan and Angola.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "This trickle down economics boogeyman you want to blame is Bill Clinton -
> hardly the spokesman for right wing foreign policy
> objectives."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> How do you figure Clinton ever supported trickle down economics?????
Pay attention to what I wrote, La Kat. You wrote that America's
involvement was to support an economic elite; to support an elite of
amazing irrelevance to America's economic interests in both size and
scope. The real problem is the American desire to extend her influence,
and shamefully, the 400 pound gorilla act to "preserve and promote
democracy" has failed most spectacularly right in America's own backyard.
There is little difference between the wrongheaded decision to
prop up the Contras and the decision to prop up Aristide. The only
difference is one of America's dreary left/right political dichotomy.
The real world results are almost always the same.
> He was trying to help Aristide help the people of Haiti.......that is
> where he got in trouble....the guys with the money don't want that
> policy......and YOU are falling right into their hands....like the rest
> of the sheep who can only hear one thing....tax relief.
La Kat simplifies hundreds of years of America's involvement in foreign
affairs to less than a paragraph. Astounding. There's little need for
a State Department when you've summarized it so brilliantly. Poor Clinton,
wearing the white hat - the good guy - being confounded by the black hats
- the bad guys.
This frankly imbecilic oversimplification of American history is a
neo-Marxist anachronism. Have you ever read Kissinger's "Diplomacy"? It
would serve notice to people like you who try to reduce world affairs to
something you'd see in a children's book of good vs. evil. A look at
the past 400 years of western diplomacy puts our modern relations in
a historical light that cannot be ignored - despite seemingly endless
attempts to ignore that history or create a bold new one.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "interesting. What made you such a bombastic neo-marxist?
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> I explained my shift in ideologies......Haiti made me aware.
And yet, apparently, so unaware. What a terrible contradiction.
> I do not suffer betrayal silently.....I am pissed off that my country
> does not live up to her credo.
And what credo is that, exactly? America does not live up to YOUR
expectations, and frankly, no country could. Pragmatism and politics
prevent it. For better or for worse, Haiti is a tiny player on a vast
stage, and paid the price for her own political failures - as has America.
> I do. I am what an American should be. And I will not be quiet while
> the flag gets trampled by those in Washington.
And what exactly does this mean in the literal or metaphorical sense?
Clarity, please. Who is betraying what for whom?
> If all of us were aware and didn't learn their politics from Jay Leno
> and David Letterman, we would have a democracy.
Some of us do not, as you'd doubtlessly be shocked to learn. Now it's
my turn to wag the finger at you for reducing history and politics to the
hopelessly outmoded Marxist model of class struggle and "victim vs.
oppressor" that's made a mockery of the grey shades of history.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "I am still a "stinking Republican"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> no shit! you could knock me over with a feather!
No shit indeed. I noticed you snipped the rest of the paragraph
that stated I am a republican in the Massachusetts sense only - something
that would pass for a communist in Florida or Texas.
As much as I disagree with Pat Buchanan, I do agree with his assertion
that America should behave as a republic - NOT an empire. The failure
of foreign policy in the 1990's is a sad example of an America that cannot
decide what it wants, having been defined for so long by the fight against
communism. When we start expanding our own national interest as "democracy
in every nation around the world, damn the social and poltical costs", we
behave as an empire. It was true in Vietnam and Korea, and true in Haiti
and Somalia. Our lack of forward thinking, paired with short term military
"fixes", have left America teetering more precariously on the world stage
than at any time prior to the 20th century.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " What I have done, however, is spent countless hours studying the
> history and direction of America's foreign policy, both the good and
> ill. What seem like big impacts in Haiti, are minor ripples of American
> foreign policy"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Ahhhh my favorite......book larnin'.
Is that the only thing that the word "study" says to you? That's really
shameful, but who am I to favor study and consideration over your fiery
brand of didacticism and your peculiar habit of boiling history down to
the essence of oversimplification?
I don't believe in "my country right or wrong". I also don't believe in
"my country, wrong, wrong, wrong" either. What I do believe in is using
my own observations, and the process of critical thought to appreciate
everything that's happened in the context it happened in.
> Well dang my doggies.....you DO know what you're talking about. How's
> about you go to Haiti and get some up front knowledge of what is what
> before you try blowing smoke up my Seattle.
Up your "Seattle"? With apologies to W.C. Fields, frankly, I'd rather
be in Philadelphia.
> And do me a favor......talk to the people who make up the majority
> class.
The majority class where, vague one? America? Haiti? Mars? Where?
> You see philthy......Haiti is not an area of study for me.....it is a real
> place with real people who are suffering.
Golly gee, Ms. La Kat. One had no idea. You're not talking to a child.
> They suffer in large part because of the proximity to the US.
Haiti suffers in even larger part from Haitians. The political lessons
Haiti squandered after independence scarred her for a lifetime. The
shameful succession of of kleptocrats, emperors for life, and political
puppets that had nothing to do with the United States at all are a result
of Haiti's bombastic birth from violence and chaos. Haiti has had every
chance in the world to steer her own ship, and has failed time and time
again amidst a political climate of greed. Not even the latter days
of imperial Rome were so chaotic and shameful. You have to look far, far
afield to find political disasters worse than Haiti, and much further
still to find corruption of a dream once so noble as Haiti's.
> It is piddling to you......not to me.
It is? And you know that ... how?
> And not to those who struggle daily.
Ah! The redaction of history into pure struggle. Let's see if you can
understand this: at various times, Haiti has suffered as heavily under
black leaders as mulatto "elites". Petion and Christophe were two sides
of one coin. What coin could that be, La Kat? I'll give you a hint -
greed. Greed for money, and greed for power. The Marxist tendency to view
everything as a class struggle was the failure of James' otherwise
excellent "The Black Jacobins". He fell into the Marxist trap of
oversimplifying what, for Haiti and America, is more than a struggle of
rich versus poor, and black vs. white. The conflicts of individual
personalities and events shatters this simplistic historical view to
smithereens, and as someone who's ostensibly had the benefit of an
actual education, you should know better.
> You are damn lucky you were born here and born white.
And frankly, that's all relative. By any objective measure, I would be
better off being born in Japan or Sweden. Is this an attempt to awaken
some lingering guilt I'm not feeling, but apparently should?
> Stop with the history lesson and slams on my simplistic passionate
> posts.....
The key word here is "simplistic". The simplistic approach, especially
when taken to the shocking extremes in your worldview, serves nobody
but yourself as you work out your guilt about being born in a priviliged
society. When you see the events of the today, and understand, in their
context, how the events of the past set the stage, you gain a broader
picture. A picture that apparently disinterests or horrifies you.
> you are a dispassionate observer, nothing more, nothing less.
My own emotional involvement is not entirely dispassionate, but
rationality demands a certain emotional distance between feelings and
observation.
> Let me spell it out for you again......I do not want the US to bail
> Haiti out.....
... except when the descision is made by American presidents to you
like, to prop up Haitian presidents you favor. Got it.
> I won't say "again" because they never have before.
America has tried to bail Haiti out on many occasions. They have
used buckets of money in the past to try and remove water from the
sinking ship of the Haitian government. They have tried to use bail
money to Haiti to try and keep desperate people from Miami and Guantanamo.
All of these attempts are doomed to failure, and while we both agree,
the reasons are far different than you imagine.
> I want them to leave them to figure out their own way. THAT'S
> ALL........do you hear me now or do you want to impress yourself with
> how well you regurgitate things you read?
No more than you're going to impress me with how poorly informed you
are about the routes sailed by ships of state, La Kat. There is a
difference in historical views we hold so great that they will never be
bridged. I've studied and considered the simplistic, mawkish world view
as seen by the heart. I've chosen my brain instead.
The place that opened my eyes to America's history of foreign policy
was Japan, a country literally forced onto the world scene by American
gunboat diplomacy, and transformed into a nation at cultural and
intellectual (but never economic) odds with itself after America reshaped
Japan's society with Japan's surrender and the Marshall Plan. No other
country so perfectly represents the awesome transformative power, for good
or ill, of the foreign policy of a nation with the size and strength of
America.
Being in Japan for months on end was like taking a ride back through
the history of American diplomacy, where almost nothing in any major city
dated back to before 1945. A nation of burnt splinters and rubbles rebuilt
in America's image, with only a distant cultural and historical memory of
what came before the terrible day Commodore Perry steamed into Edo harbor.
Japan paid the price for her decisions to attack America, but also paid
a price for getting involved in the first place. So it is with all nations
and peoples who are swept up in the undertows of massively powerful
civilizations - Ancient Greece, Rome, China; all of them swept entire
nations into turmoil, sometimes accidentally. When an elephant walks, the
insects run for cover.
That lengthy stay in Japan, La Kat, was the event that forced me to
re-evaluate America with a freshly jaundiced eye, and showed me history's
grey areas. With any luck, some event will open your eyes to the nuances
in between the "good guys" vs. "bad guys" world view that limits your
vision.
> LaKat!
The One - Orgasmatron
> I still maintain that Cuba has given more positive aid to Haiti than the
> US ever has.......how do you explain this?
It's easily explained - once you know the history of Cuban/Haitian
relations, starting with Haiti "loaning" Cuba sugar cane cutters for a
price, as they have done in the Dominican Republic. Very carefully,
Haiti and Cuba were locked into a pas de deux economically and socially.
Complicating things were racial attitudes of old in Cuba, and Cuba's
relative wealth and power compared to Haiti. For many years, Haiti was
seen as a source of cheap labor for the cane fields, and little more.
The differences creole Haitians have had with the rest of the Spanish
Carribean existed as much in Haiti as in the rest of the region. A
cultural and political divide emerged.
Duvalier started the ball rolling with Fidel Castro, and was as adept
at playing him as we was the United States. Like a first violinist, Papa
Doc fiddled, playing Castro and America off of each other, playing on
their individual fears, and whetting their appetites by teasing them
with the prospect of military bases, and telling them exactly what they
wanted to hear when they wanted to hear it. Castro was excited to hear
Duvalier heap empty praise on Che Guevara and speak of a "worker's
revolution" in Haiti (this was around the same time that Duvalier spoke
of himself as "a revolutionary" and "the leader of the Haitian revolution").
Before long, however, Castro figured out the game, and started to entice
Papa Doc with the carrot instead of figuring himself as an equal partner
to Haiti as the spendthrift Americans. Doubtlessly, even a dictator like
Castro could not be immune to the suffering of Haiti, and has at times
(when conditions allowed) donated generously.
And so Castro has been in the background of Haitian politics since
the start of his regime, and likely will be there until he either dies
or is deposed. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union cut the
legs out from underneath Cuba, Cuba has vastly cut back it's own foreign
services in East Africa and Central America, so one would imagine Castro's
past generosity has waned as needs at home in Cuba are more pressing.
Someone who is more familiar with Cuba would know more than I about how
Cuba's post-Soviet foreign policy has kept going.
In the vast scheme of things, however, there was less to steal from
Cuba than from the United States, and so Cuban aid was been less in the
form of money for this or that project, but mostly in the form of labor
(doctors especially - for a hellhole, Cuba's medical system is top notch)
and material - not money. Had the fortunes America has spent on helping
Haiti been appropriated correctly, instead of stolen outright, there's
little doubt which nation could have helped Haiti more. However, American
cluelessness and Castro's cunning have turned American generosity into
corruption and waste while Cuba looks far better in comparison, despite
the vast gaps in money spent. Castro has probably proven himself wiser in
avoiding the American habit of trying to solve problems with huge
mountains of money - borne of the same creativity that makes people do the
most they can without it.
Thomas
Western.
Mysteries
so how are you figuring that?
LaKat~
>>
be careful. cuba does nothing altruistically. look at the misery of its own
people. It is a mistake to think a leader always represents what its people
are about. Cubans are great. Cuban politricks are a scam.
r
Racine125
>people. It is a mistake to think a leader always represents what its people
>are about. Cubans are great. Cuban politricks are a scam.
The exact same things can be said of the USA.
Mysteries
The exact same things can be said of the USA.
>>
and?
R
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
" Please! Call me Roger. Only my mother gets to call me "philthy animal".
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Then perhaps you should change your screen name...;) I kind of enjoy calling
you that, without the guilt of name calling.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"You hold the US responsible for the failure of Haiti's politics and economics,
and yet, you have in the past chided America for not doing more to prop up
Aristide.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Aristide doesn't need propping up....I chide America for not leaving him alone.
The people have overwhelmingly supported Aristide, so it is hardly "propping
up" to restore him to office, if that's what you are referring to. Propping up
is what you do to an unpopular leader. Assuming the US wants to help democracy
flourish in third world countries. And by the way, I don't claim to be an
expert on foreign relations. However I am intimately familiar with foreign
relations in Haiti.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" The "meddling" that you complain hampers Aristide was started in very
>large part to prop him up in the first place, thanks in large part to Bill
Clinton and Warren Christopher."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That's not true......it started when Aristide was gaining popularity during the
post-Duvalier years and he was a socialist priest. I am not talking about
trying to preserve the delicate nascent democracy as meddling.....I am talking
about people on US payroll making up stories about Aristide to discredit him
and all the behind the scenes harassment and terrorism. I am talking about
Jesse Helms. I am talking about FRAPH/CIA connections. Not
Clinton/Christopher.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Haitian leaders have used America, with her readiness to send money and
Marines, as a political tool to outfox opponents and further their own causes.
You don't think Aristide has continued in this tradition?"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Aristide was loathe to have the US send troops to Haiti for obvious reasons,
but without that, he would never have been able to return. However, when he
DID return he did what needed to be done to prevent further coups and further
need for foreign military involvement, he GOT RID OF THE HAITIAN ARMY, which
historically has been used to oppress the people and effect coups and not to
protect the country from foreign invaders.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" Perhaps if you learned to express yourself clearly, you'd leave less room for
muddled interpretation of your ideas."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
;) right. I will let you save face here. But I never have been accused of
not expressing myself well before...still, it could happen.
As I said before, we look at the world differently and nothing we say here will
shake the other's beliefs. What is it Robert Kennedy said? "Some people look
at how things are and say "Why?" I look at how they should be and say, "Why
not?"
My vision is fine.....I just see things that you can't see.
LaKat~
LA KAT47
>From: myst...@aol.com (Mysteries)
>be careful. cuba does nothing altruistically.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wasn't talking about motives, but results.
nice to see you here doing something other than flirting with Safia......;)
k.
El Hombre
myst...@aol.com (Mysteries) wrote:
> be careful. cuba does nothing altruistically. look at the misery of its own
> people. It is a mistake to think a leader always represents what its people
> are about. Cubans are great. Cuban politricks are a scam.
FWIW, ALL communist countries, in the bad old days, used to send
their "know-how" abroad and invite students from impoverished countries
to learn there. Engineers and doctors from Marxist countries could be found
from Mozambique to Bangladesh.
It was all part of the "marxism brings world peace" sham, but to a
boy with a prosthetic limb, or a man who learned to read from Cubans,
it's hard to argue. Undenaibly they brought their politics with them,
and a few were probably covert agents. The same has been said, of
course, about the Peace Corps.
The One - Orgasmatron
>>Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
> " Please! Call me Roger. Only my mother gets to call me "philthy animal".
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Then perhaps you should change your screen name...;) I kind of enjoy calling
> you that, without the guilt of name calling.
My name is hidden in plain sight in my .signature file. If you can't
find it, I'd be glad to point it out. I'm helpful like that. The name
used in the "from" line of my usenet posts is a reference to the English
metal band "Motorhead". It's all a very, very long story that doesn't bear
repeating here.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "You hold the US responsible for the failure of Haiti's politics and economics,
> and yet, you have in the past chided America for not doing more to prop up
> Aristide.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Aristide doesn't need propping up....I chide America for not leaving
> him alone.
This is greatly at odds with you cheerleading the Clinton
administration for removing his obstacles to power. What is going to be?
Interventionism? Non-interventionism? And should the US leave Haiti alone
economically, instead of using the World Bank and IMF to prop up the
gourde to it's already underwhelming value (at the cost of a mounting
foreign debt, or course)? What should the "Bretton Woods" bankers do with
Haiti?
> The people have overwhelmingly supported Aristide, so it is hardly "propping
> up" to restore him to office, if that's what you are referring to.
And yet, the OAS called his recent election extremely tainted by fraud.
Who is to believe what? You're cheerleading for Lavalas, but many other
people aren't so sure about Aristide. It would be incredibly hard to
believe, with the allegations of fraud, that Haiti's time honored
tradition of political fraud suddenly stopped, turned on a dime, and
put Aristide in power with the complete mandate he claims to enjoy. Is it
the cynicism of the OAS? Should America, a member nation, shrug and take
Aristide and Lavalas at their word and "leave him alone"? If so, why?
> Propping up is what you do to an unpopular leader.
Hardly! Read "In The Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz", an analysis of Mobutu
Sese Seko, a populist dictator (like most dictators) who was propped up
by the United States, while enjoying overwhelming support from the people
until nearly the end of his reign (he was deposed by a foreign invasion).
ANY leader can be propped up, or brought down, by a foreign nation.
Castro is another case, a populist leader who would possibly win a
majority election every year should he have ever chosen to hold them. And
yet, his regime was propped up militarily by the Soviet Union, but now he
holds on largely because of the arsenal the Soviets left his army, and the
secret police trained by the KGB. The cult of personality is a powerful
weapon, while propping up happens when political affiliations are made
with other countries. Your black and white notions are, unfortunately
disproven by history.
> Assuming the US wants to help democracy flourish in third world
> countries.
*AND* presuming that's the role of the United States, instead of a
United States that's devoted to preserving her own interests (security,
etc.) abroad. Papa Doc expertly offered a piece of Haitian territory to
the Marines during his reign, know the Marines were rebuffed when asking
for it after the military occupation pulled out of Haiti.
While the Marines no longer wanted it, they compromised with Papa Doc
to send Marines to train the Haitian army, thinking of the day when
Haiti would fight alongside the US to invade Cuba. The Marines knew full
well what kind of monster Papa Doc was - probably more initimately at the
time than many people in Haiti. So why didn't the Marines say no to Papa
Doc, and help topple the regime? The security of the United States was
Kennedy's first priority. Yes, La Kat, that notorious "right wing monster"
(as you seem to believe anyone who tramples on the poor overseas is)
and "champion of the people" (as you seem to believe popular leftist
leaders are), John Fitzgerald Kennedy put America's interests against Cuba
and the Soviets higher than the democratic process in Haiti. Why?
Let's see if the black and white "don't confuse me with grey shades"
school of thought can explain better than the history of American
diplomacy.
> And by the way, I don't claim to be an expert on foreign relations.
> However I am intimately familiar with foreign relations in Haiti.
Surely, then - you can explain why so many Haitian leaders have jumped
at the chance to make a deal with the devil - in the case, the United
States. Why do they follow the money?
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " The "meddling" that you complain hampers Aristide was started in very
>>large part to prop him up in the first place, thanks in large part to Bill
> Clinton and Warren Christopher."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> That's not true......it started when Aristide was gaining popularity
> during the post-Duvalier years and he was a socialist priest.
Yes, during the waning years of the cold war when Haiti was still
envisioned as a launching off point for an invasion of Cuba by exile
groups and Marines. What specific interference, besides not invading to
topple Jean-Claude Duvalier or giving Haiti more foreign aid are you
referring to? Having the CIA run around impotently, as they were wont to
do in harship posts like Haiti? Did Aristide grasp, as Baby Doc did, how
little Haiti actually meant to the American state department? Or did
Aristide, as I've gathered from reading his populist oriented books, use
the "big bad United States" as an evil rich boogeyman to excite to
populace? Both sides are true to a degree. You see Aristide as a saint of
some kind. I see him as an intelligent politician, who knows exactly which
buttons to push, and when.
> I am not talking about trying to preserve the delicate nascent
> democracy as meddling.....
You don't think any move that involves a *MARINE INVASION* qualifies as
even minor meddling in Haitian affairs? Of course it's interference; it's
the very definition of interferece! Whether it's good or bad is a separate
question, but it's unthinkable to say it doesn't qualify as interference
at all!
What obligation, except blind altruism and hope in the future, does
America have "preserving a delicate nascent democracy" in Haiti, or
anywhere else? To expiate her cold war sins? To show how sorry America is
for being rich and powerful while Haiti is poor and weak?
When America props up one dicatator, the world cries "interference!".
When we prop up a more popular leader, the world murmurs approval. The
only difference, in terms of where America's interests lie, is politics.
Bill Clinton, the eager to please Commander in Chief, wanted to show the
entire world that America was suddenly the nation to protect democracy
far, far outside the spheres of America's actual concerns or interests.
What followed is a matter of history. As far as I'm concerned, Haiti
needed to take it's own first steps to remove the military, just as Serbia
had to take her own steps to remove Milosevic. Why are Marines required?
> I am talking about people on US payroll making up stories about Aristide
> to discredit him and all the behind the scenes harassment and terrorism.
> I am talking about Jesse Helms.
Pay attention. The marine invasion in Haiti happened long before the
quirk of fate that put Jesse Helms anywhere near the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee (Helms has long admitted he has no taste for
diplomacy, but apparently couldn't turn down such a powerful pulpit from
which to abuse the White House). The "stories" that the big bad American
boogeyman "makes up" to "discredit" Aristide had a strange way of being
echoed by election observers in the OAS. Why do you think that is?
See between the lines between devil and saint. Aristide was forced to
operate in the context of the Haitian political system - driving the
pothole laden road to high office. Do you imagine, for all his pious
jabber, that he sought high office for reasons differing than anyone else
who has ever sought the presidency of Haiti? Your trust is far, far
greater than mine.
> I am talking about FRAPH/CIA connections. Not Clinton/Christopher.
The CIA presence in Haiti - so pitiful that most of it fled before the
Marines even arrived. Ask Toto Constant about the CIA stooges he's
betraying in the new issue of "The Atlantic Monthly" to see what a paper
tiger you're railing against. Aristide would be overjoyed to blame *all*
of his hardships and shortcomings on the CIA, instead of dealing with
thornier issues of the Tonton Macoutes and native elites. And then there's
the issue of him becoming an elite himself that few want to deal with.
All it takes is money, and plenty of it.
Toto Constant's brutal frankness about the ineptitude of the CIA shows
that even he doesn't fear them anymore, and certainly less than Haitians
in his NY neighborhood who (deservedly, in my opinion) want tear him to
pieces, and know where he lives. The CIA played both sides of the fence in
Haiti. In any power vaccuum, the question always is amongst American
diplomats, "If not X, then whom?". If not Duvalier, then whom? If not
FRAPH, then whom? If not Lavalas, then whom? Rarely is there any clear
answer, and in Haiti, just as Zaire, the CIA tried to play both sides of
the political fence.
The ambassadors who are familiar with the local politics are rarely
consulted (a nasty insular habit that's led to it's agonizing death, and
replacement by the NSA) and the resources are very rarely comitted. The
CIA is a boogeyman with no teeth, and Aristide knows it.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> "Haitian leaders have used America, with her readiness to send money and
> Marines, as a political tool to outfox opponents and further their own causes.
> You don't think Aristide has continued in this tradition?"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Aristide was loathe to have the US send troops to Haiti for obvious reasons,
> but without that, he would never have been able to return.
Looks like his "conscience of crisis" was solved once his political
future was put on the line. Nothing has changed in American foreign
policy, especially in the "New World Order" where the players and
expectations are different. You really think Aristide lost sleep at night
knowing that the Marines would remove his current obstacles to power? And
as Papa Doc knew very, very well - the image that you have have US Marines
walking side by side with you politically presents an obstacle Haitian
political rivals MUST take seriously. They worry about who the US will
favor, and where the money will go. The very invasion was not the coup
for democracy it seemed, but it did indeed present a Lavalas endorsement
that nobody in Haitian politics could ignore.
He must have known Lavalas couldn't fail once Cedras' junta was removed,
especially after pleading his case to the equally eager-to-please Warren
Christopher, who made the mistake of viewing Aristide as a saint, and
not a politician. For every Nelson Mandela, there's a Winnie Mandela, and
almost everyone else falls somewhere in between, as does Aristide.
Christopher's inexperience kept him from asking, "where's the benefit to
America? What do we gain? Why should I trust Aristide any more than FRAPH
or Baby Doc? WHY SHOULD WE GET INVOLVED AT ALL INSTEAD OF LETTING HAITI
SORT IT OUT ITSELF?". The questions that Christopher ignored were crucial.
No answers were ever really given, and why? What did Bill Clinton see
America's role as?
> However, when he DID return he did what needed to be done to prevent
> further coups and further need for foreign military involvement, he GOT
> RID OF THE HAITIAN ARMY, which historically has been used to oppress the
> people and effect coups and not to protect the country from foreign
> invaders.
You also forgot the historical role of the Haitian army in EVICTING
THE PRESIDENT OF HAITI FROM POWER. How could Aristide forget when it
happened to *him*? Removing your own obstacles to power and giving it a
populist spin; it's very shrewd, and it's amazing you forgot the angle
unfavorable to Aristide/Lavalas. No more military, no more military coups.
That's certainly easier than reshuffling generals, Duvalier style.
It also leaves an unbearable de-facto American responsbility to
*protect* Haiti from foreign invasion, in the name of "peacekeeping" and
"nation building". I never said Aristide was stupid; I will say America
is. You get rid of your historical political rivals, and lean on America
for protection. It's straight out of "The Prince".
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> " Perhaps if you learned to express yourself clearly, you'd leave less
> room for muddled interpretation of your ideas."
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> ;) right. I will let you save face here. But I never have been accused of
> not expressing myself well before...still, it could happen.
You leave some room for confusion. It happens to the best of us.
> As I said before, we look at the world differently and nothing we say
> here will shake the other's beliefs. What is it Robert Kennedy said?
"FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT DOWN THE GUN YOU ARAB BASTARD!"
It's the only thing I'd have believed at face value from Robert
Kennedy, or for that matter almost any other politician. The instincts
for self-preservation outweigh the truth.
> "Some people look at how things are and say "Why?" I look at how they
> should be and say, "Why not?"
That's the same kind of political pie-in-the-sky bullshit pandering to
the electorate that has kept the beloved state of my birth a Kennedy
family political heirloom, a fiefdom, passed down from generation to
generation of cynical aristocrats who get rich saying they understand the
problems of the poor, but never actually wind up helping them in any real
way. Our own "royal family" of wealthy men (and women, now) who pimp
poverty for self-aggrandizing political ambitions! What a surprise that
you buy into their incredibly over simplistic hot air! I wonder who else
reminds me of the Kennedys, stuffing their pockets while crying crocodile
tears for the poor? Decorum prevents me from stating the obvious, especially
in *this* thread about Lavalas and America.
It would have been better to ask: "What is America's role, and what are
her obligations to her people, neighbors, and enemies around the world?".
It was a question presciently asked by John Adams, and even less than
entirely savory political figures like Henry Kissinger asked, but the
question crossed their minds, and they answered. Part of Adams' equation
was to tip the balance of power in the Carribean by arming Haitian rebels
against the French - a move that paid dividends for America. Part of
Kissinger's equation was orchestrate the move to pull out of Vietnam, and
play China against the Soviet Union, another move that shifted the balance
of world power and security to America.
John and Bobby Kennedy, like Bill Clinton who later aped their every
move, never took time to ask: when does America throw it's weight around
in a way that actually benefits America? Vietnam was a result of this
muddled thinking, and frankly, he should have known better. Clinton's
failure to ask the questions one needs to ask in *any* diplomatic
relationship were more troublesome.
Like John and Bobby Kennedy, Clinton's "I feel your pain" posturing (it
never got around to actually benefitting the people who were actually
hurting - but it sure sounded good) was mirrored in a defective foreign
policy. As most countries learn in the wake of a US invasion, what is a
minor military move for America has a MUCH bigger impact in their own
nations, and a lingering aftertaste that stays for years and years after
America has forgotten all about them.
Just as Kennedy felt South Vietnam's "pain", Clinton felt Haiti's
"pain" - he just never thought of whether or not America was the right
doctor for Haiti's political injuries, or why America should never, ever
use the prospect of personal and political prestige in foreign policy
moves.
> My vision is fine.....I just see things that you can't see.
Oh, the savage, savage irony. This from someone who boldly declares "I
can see fine when things are either all black or all white - the shades
of grey are a trick". Why do you run away from them? Who does that help?
> LaKat~
kafou
Mysteries wrote:
> << And as for propaganda, you didn't know about Cuba's aid to Haiti
> so how are you figuring that?
>
> LaKat~
> >>
>
> be careful. cuba does nothing altruistically.
Actually, that is not entirely true. When Castro took over, he was from the
Elite, yet the
first thing he did was land reform. While his Dad was a land owner, he (Castro)
was more
driven by this sense of fair play and altruism.
> look at the misery of its own
> people.
Well, if you were any small country that had been boycotted for close
to fifty years, you would be miserable too.....
Kafou
The One - Orgasmatron
> Well, if you were any small country that had been boycotted for close
> to fifty years, you would be miserable too.....
Not everyone boycotted Castro, Kafou. He made his bets, but in the
long term, he backed the wrong horse politically. The Soviets kept Cuba
afloat for decades, paying Castro ten times the open market value of Cuban
sugar in exchange for cash, food, and oh yes, weapons.
And to this day, Castro uses the excuse of the United States to justify
Cuba being in a shambles. I remain unconvinced. Every other western nation
on earth does business with Cuba - what's so irreplacable about American
money?
Mysteries
Elite, yet the
first thing he did was land reform. While his Dad was a land owner, he (Castro)
was more
driven by this sense of fair play and altruism. >>
not historically accurate Kafou. He took in a lot of well meaning Liberals.
Just talk to some who went through it. And the blush of that origianl
revolution was not one to last.
There are so many Cuban children with bones like mush from lack of protein etc.
You can't even get aspirin or the simplest antibiotics in Havana but Castro is
distributing medical help in Haiti? Caveat emptor. He will do anything to
make the big slob to the North look bad.
I romanticised Cuba for so many years till I began meeting non-right wing
anti-castroites and heariing the stories.
What you are saying is like only looking at Duvalier as the man who eliminated
yaws in Haiti.
R.
The One - Orgasmatron
> What you are saying is like only looking at Duvalier as the man who
> eliminated yaws in Haiti.
That's a pretty good analogy. Castro is a run of the mill brasshat
dictator. You could spin the wheel of ideology, and come up with the same
dictator with many different faces: Trujillo, Duvalier, Castro. One
militarist, one populist, one socialist. The realities are the same no
matter what face they show to the public.
kafou
Mysteries wrote:
> What you are saying is like only looking at Duvalier as the man who eliminated
> yaws in Haiti.
>
What are 'yaws', in the Haitian context? How come I have never heard of them
before?
Kafou
Dan Craig
http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=Yaws&action=Search+OMD
Recently, I came across a narrative report on Yaws in Haiti, complete with graphics,
but unfortunately I no longer have a link to it.
kafou
Dan Craig wrote:
The medical definition can be found here:
http://www.graylab.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=Yaws&action=Search+OMDRecently, I came across a narrative report on Yaws in Haiti, complete with graphics,
but unfortunately I no longer have a link to it.
Thanks.... Well, back home we call it "pian".... I would have never guessed....
Kafou
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>Then perhaps you should change your screen name...;) I kind of enjoy calling
>> you that, without the guilt of name calling.
>My name is hidden in plain sight in my .signature file. If you can't
>find it, I'd be glad to point it out. I'm helpful like that. The name used in
the "from" line of my usenet posts is a reference to the English metal band
"Motorhead".
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is the only part of your post I feel like it's relevant to answer....the
other stuff is your values bumping heads with my values and it's pointless to
keep beating this dead horse with you. I know what your given name is, I don't
feel like honoring you by calling you that name so I give you the name you
freely chose to represent yourself to others online. I have a "thing" about
names we give ourselves. I think it speaks volumes and I take your word for it
that it means something to you. If you don't like being called that, then you
should change it to something you would love to be called......like Zarathustra
or some other cool reference.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>You see Aristide as a saint of
>some kind. I see him as an intelligent politician, who knows exactly which
>buttons to push, and when.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
It may be my very poor writing skills again.....but you are so wrong about what
I see and don't see. I too see him as an intelligent politician who knows
exactly which buttons to push, and when.....and not at all a saint. But you
seem to have been bitten by the black and white bug yourself.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>"FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT DOWN THE GUN YOU ARAB BASTARD!"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ahhhhhhhhh now I get you. ;) so you reveal yourself at last. I was wondering
what drives you and now I see. Or is that supposed to be funny? Maybe for a
callow pseudo intellectual who wasn't born then, it seems funny to make a joke
out of his assassination. You are so out of touch with things I believe, that
honestly there is no point in continuing. I do not like your style at all.
You have as much right to post here as anyone and of course you should feel
free to continue to kiss Kafou's ass, but I am sure he would prefer it if you
were female. We have a parting of the ways....and to those of you who are
witnessing this from afar (I will refrain from telling you what I think of your
distance and reluctance to comment on this thread) does anyone see the contempt
with which this poster sees Haitians? I don't like it. I don't like this tone
at all. If you all believe that he has made valid points fine...then maybe I
am sitting on the wrong Haitian forum.
kat~
El Hombre
(LA KAT47) wrote:
> We have a parting of the ways....and to those of you who are
> witnessing this from afar (I will refrain from telling you what I think
of your
> distance and reluctance to comment on this thread) does anyone see the
contempt
> with which this poster sees Haitians? I don't like it. I don't like
this tone
> at all. If you all believe that he has made valid points fine...then maybe I
> am sitting on the wrong Haitian forum.
>
> kat~
To be honest, Kat, I couldn't get through any of his posts. I'd start
reading, feel a little bored, then scroll down... and down... and realize
that I had thirty minutes to read USENET, and didn't want to spend it
reading one post.
So, whatever he said, I wouldn't look at it as tacit agreement by the
multitude or whatever.
--
pick out the anchovies to reply
Mysteries
witnessing this from afar (I will refrain from telling you what I think of your
distance and reluctance to comment on this thread) >>
whoa! Incoming mood swing.........
R
LA KAT47
>From: el*hombre@spring*mail.com (El Hombre)
>To be honest, Kat, I couldn't get through any of his posts. I'd start
>reading, feel a little bored, then scroll down... and down... and realize
>that I had thirty minutes to read USENET, and didn't want to spend it
>reading one post.
>
>So, whatever he said, I wouldn't look at it as tacit agreement by the
>multitude or whatever.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Good point.....I was having a bad day and felt like the lone ranger for a
minute. Thanks for bringing me back down to earth...;)
kat~
LA KAT47
>From: myst...@aol.com (Mysteries)
>whoa! Incoming mood swing.........
>
>R
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
and look out.....i'm packin heat.
The One - Orgasmatron
>>Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>>Then perhaps you should change your screen name...;) I kind of enjoy calling
>>> you that, without the guilt of name calling.
>>My name is hidden in plain sight in my .signature file. If you can't
>>find it, I'd be glad to point it out. I'm helpful like that. The name used in
> the "from" line of my usenet posts is a reference to the English metal band
> "Motorhead".
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> This is the only part of your post I feel like it's relevant to answer....the
> other stuff is your values bumping heads with my values and it's pointless to
> keep beating this dead horse with you.
Translation: I surrender.
Quite frankly, that's ok. You admit to seeing things as being either
black or white, and to be honest, there's no changing your mind on that.
> I know what your given name is, I don't feel like honoring you by
> calling you that name so I give you the name you freely chose to
> represent yourself to others online.
Tsk tsk! Such manners. Then again, who am I to talk?
> I have a "thing" about names we give ourselves. I think it speaks
> volumes and I take your word for it that it means something to you. If
> you don't like being called that, then you should change it to something
> you would love to be called......like Zarathustra or some other cool
> reference.
It doesn't really bother me at all. I am simply saying there's no need
to be so formal!
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>You see Aristide as a saint of
>>some kind. I see him as an intelligent politician, who knows exactly which
>>buttons to push, and when.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> It may be my very poor writing skills again.....but you are so wrong
> about what I see and don't see.
Perhaps. The way you write about "Titid", I expect to ask you when I
can go see him walk on the water. I don't see him as hero or villain, just
another politician in a country where politics = chaos and the tradition
of kleptocracy is highly ingrained in politicians.
> I too see him as an intelligent politician who knows exactly which
> buttons to push, and when.....and not at all a saint. But you
> seem to have been bitten by the black and white bug yourself.
Where did I say that with regards to Aristide? I admit to being
cynical about him. And frankly, the cheerleading from Haiti Progres
carries less weight in my opinion than the observations of the OAS. I
admitted he would win by a fair margin, but tempered that with the comment
that outside observers noted a healthy amount of Lavalas fraud that padded his
"mandate" into being bigger than he claims it is.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
>>"FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PUT DOWN THE GUN YOU ARAB BASTARD!"
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> Ahhhhhhhhh now I get you. ;) so you reveal yourself at last. I was wondering
> what drives you and now I see. Or is that supposed to be funny?
It's supposed to reveal that I have no sacred political cows. I,
unfortunately, live in Massachusetts, and am expected by default to kowtow
to some "Camelot" ideal that doesn't really exist. I'll poke as much fun
at John and Robert Kennedy as I want, because I live in the state where we
pay the price for their cult of personality. It's extremely funny
how relevant that same cult of personality is in Haitian politics as well.
When people get burned out on revolving door governments, what else is
left for most people but a strong personality to latch on to?
> Maybe for a callow pseudo intellectual who wasn't born then, it seems
> funny to make a joke out of his assassination.
Just promise me you won't cry, La Kat. Honest to God! Do the
sepia-toned images of John and Robert Kennedy dragged out year after year
get you all misty eyed? Isn't it nice that iconography is the hook that
grabs people at the expense of an actual ideology? Do you remember the
Living Colour song "The Cult of Personality" be any chance? Bobby and Jack
are right up there with Mussolini, Ghandi, and Stalin. "Just follow me".
> You are so out of touch with things I believe, that honestly there is no
> point in continuing. I do not like your style at all.
Thank heavens for that. I'm further in the political center than you
think, but I have as little patience for the far left as I do the far
right. The reduction of Haiti's political problems to the tedious
anachronistic Marxist class struggle - or the liberation theology that
mimics it - misses the boat entirely.
> You have as much right to post here as anyone and of course you should feel
> free to continue to kiss Kafou's ass,
What can I say? Sometimes I have to wonder if he's the only one here
who's sane. He's avoided the sins of being a true believer of any
political extreme - and believe me, there aren't many people like that.
He gets nothing but praise for that from me, that's for sure.
> but I am sure he would prefer it if you were female.
Without doubt.
> We have a parting of the ways....and to those of you who are
> witnessing this from afar (I will refrain from telling you what I think
> of your distance and reluctance to comment on this thread) does anyone
> see the contempt with which this poster sees Haitians? I don't like it.
Oh please. Feel free to point it out. The contempt I express for
Haitian politicians goes without saying. I feel the same contempt for
American politicians, and I can't say I fault the Haitian populace for
their tradition of lousy politics than I blame Americans for ours.
You see, La Kat, you might be interested to know that a condemnation
of government or politics isn't the same as a personal condemnation. Or is
the tedious Marxist ideal that you can't separate "the masses" from
being part of "the struggle" that causes you to see two as one? Diss the
sacred cow politician and you diss his countrymen? Puh-lease.
> I don't like this tone at all. If you all believe that he has made
> valid points fine...then maybe I am sitting on the wrong Haitian forum.
Who are you pandering to? And who are you to say there's only one way
to think about politics? That sort of smarmy, holier-than-thou approach
is infuriating. I hate to flog political correctness, but damn, woman,
there you have it. What makes your politics any more or less immune to
criticism than mine?
The One - Orgasmatron
> Im not sure if you mean medical "topnotch" relative to LATAM or compared to
> Western.
Cuban doctors stack up surprisingly well anywhere, actually.
Considering how badly Castro's let the rest of Cuba rot, Cuban medicine
has been surprisingly good, and outstrips the United States in a few
areas, especially interferon production and immunization. Cuba has turned
vaccine production into one of their few remaining cash exports.
I guess it's better than "exporting the revolution" to Angola and
elsewhere.
The One - Orgasmatron
>>Re: Myths About Haiti
>>From: kaspa...@aol.comnojunk (Thomas )
>>I suggest you broaden your horizons by reading up on Cuba. Then perhaps you
>>would sound less sour and more knowledgeable.
> ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> LOL.......this from a pickle......ha!
Yet another icon that you diss in front of La Kat at your peril.
Aristide, Kennedy, Castro ... hmm!
Mysteries
Don't fight with her.
its self destructive. I been there. Just wait two weeks and yer friends
again.
You get more out of being friends with her than arguing. an d i have to stop
cause she doesnt like being talked about inthe third person.
By the way you make a lot of sense.
Especially about Kafou.
sometimes people forget there are no real answers.
r.
The One - Orgasmatron
> To be honest, Kat, I couldn't get through any of his posts. I'd start
> reading, feel a little bored, then scroll down... and down... and realize
> that I had thirty minutes to read USENET, and didn't want to spend it
> reading one post.
Would you like to offer stylistic tips to help me write things for
those with no time, or a short attention span? More monosyllabic words?
Pictures?
Help me help you.
kafou
LA KAT47 wrote:
Well, I stayed out of that thread for several reasons:
1- You and Roger were making points which require deep cogitation to reply, I
just don't
have the time these days; I am on usenet for the fluff, until I prove myself
at the new gig.
It is a tough crowd, they have just shortened my schedule by 3 weeks... It
doesn't seem
to matter that I have been toiling 70hrs/week....
2- I like you both, I find it very difficult to side either way, for there is
enough latitude
either way... Get my drift?
Kafou "Friday night; Remy and Tasso time." Lobo ;-)
kafou
LA KAT47 wrote:
> You are so out of touch with things I believe, that
> honestly there is no point in continuing. I do not like your style at all.
> You have as much right to post here as anyone and of course you should feel
> free to continue to kiss Kafou's ass, but I am sure he would prefer it if you
> were female.
Hello? What do I have to do with this thread? I virtually know Roger, he has very
little interest in kissing my ass, and I am not sure of your implications.
> We have a parting of the ways....and to those of you who are
> witnessing this from afar (I will refrain from telling you what I think of your
> distance and reluctance to comment on this thread) does anyone see the contempt
> with which this poster sees Haitians? I don't like it.
I confess once again, I have not been paying too much attention to this debate,
because I just don't have the time to contribute intelligently because of lack
of intellectual cycles, and time. I, however have read Roger's posts in the past; I
still
don't remember any contempt towards Haitians nor Haiti.
> I don't like this tone
> at all.
Once again, you are ahead of me.... He has always struck me as a man with a solid
sense
of humor..... Now that usenet archiving is back on line (Thanks, Google), I will
revisit
this whole thread and make a pronouncement.
By the way, I am not sure I like being put in this position....
> If you all believe that he has made valid points fine...then maybe I
> am sitting on the wrong Haitian forum.
Not at all.... But remember:
"Life is so imperfect, we are all bound to disagree with one another...."
Kafou
El Hombre
<el*hombre-2206...@user-33qt9po.dialup.mindspring.com>,
el*hombre@spring*mail.com (El Hombre) wrote:
> I don't think there's a solution to being longwinded.
Actually, I take that back. I may have found one:
http://hometown.aol.com/hnishigaki/index.htm
I'll give it a test drive and let you know how it works out. (Though
something tells me you might be able to tell by smell...) :-)
El Hombre
<philthy...@parrot.net> wrote:
> Also spracht El Hombre <el*hombre@spring*mail.com>:
>
> > To be honest, Kat, I couldn't get through any of his posts. I'd start
> > reading, feel a little bored, then scroll down... and down... and realize
> > that I had thirty minutes to read USENET, and didn't want to spend it
> > reading one post.
>
> Would you like to offer stylistic tips to help me write things for
> those with no time, or a short attention span? More monosyllabic words?
> Pictures?
>
> Help me help you.
It as nothing to do with that. Some people use ten words when one will
suffice. You use a hundred.
Case in point: compare the lines in your message today to La'Kat's.
I don't think there's a solution to being longwinded.
kafou
El Hombre wrote:
In his defense, Roger is no novice to usenet; as such, he must know
that brevity is an art......
Kafou "Calling the shots as I see them...." Lobo
annick regnauld de la soudiere
El Hombre escribió en mensaje ...
annick regnauld de la soudiere
qu'on se donne pour le quitter.
The One - Orgasmatron escribió en mensaje ...
LA KAT47
>From: The One - Orgasmatron philthy...@parrot.net
>The way you write about "Titid", I
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I don't call him by the affectionate nickname or perjorative, whichever way it
is meant. He is a man, nothing more, nothing less. I just feel he is Haiti's
best chance. And no one I have ever heard has come close to supporting the
kind of hopes and dreams for Haiti he has espoused. I am not trying to foist
my favorite candidate on Haiti.....I support the peoples' choice.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
" I don't see him as hero or villain, just
another politician in a country where politics = chaos and the tradition
of kleptocracy is highly ingrained in
politicians."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
And you assume that he is the same? Or you have knowledge that he is the same?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"...cheerleading from Haiti Progres
carries less weight in my opinion than the observations of the OAS."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Get with the program ROGER. Haiti Progres is hardly enchanted with Aristide at
this point. Or Lavalas for that matter. And the OAS is coming to see that the
convergence is the group holding up progress and not Aristide. OAS has
accepted Aristide's pledge to have new elections for the 8 seats in Parliament
by a deadline (up already). The convergence is highly pissed at the OAS,
saying they are toadies to Aristide.......how fortunes change.
So......if you are stung and scarred by the cult of personality, then you are
super sensitive to Aristide's popularity? Gee, and I thought it was all about
me! Apparently, it's all about you.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Just promise me you won't cry, La Kat. Honest to God! Do the sepia-toned
images of John and Robert Kennedy dragged out year after year... "
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Well aren't you a cold blooded piece of work. I never loved the Kennedy's, I
was an "I like Ike" girl, remember? I was devastated by their assassinations
though, because of what it meant about us as a people. It was the loss of
innocence for this country and the beginning of cynicism and greed. It is one
thing to criticize them for their politics but to mock their tragic deaths is
not attractive. It doesn't speak well of you at all.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"That sort of smarmy, holier-than-thou approach is infuriating."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How surreal.......I was just thinking the same thing about you.....smarmy and
all.
The One - Orgasmatron
> In his defense, Roger is no novice to usenet; as such, he must know
> that brevity is an art......
"Brevity is the soul of wit". However, sometimes it's called for, and
sometimes it's not!
LA KAT47
kafou
LA KAT47 wrote:
> orevwa...it was fun
Hey, what is up with that? They may as well shut this joint down....
Kafou
Kafou Lobo
Actually, I am surprised that LAKAT took this position..... I always
thought she was like me, a fighter..... While I understand she might
have felt abandoned in her fight against Roger, I personally could
not have taken one side or the other for several reasons....
I like you both, and it pains me that this sh*t has gotten so ugly....
To Lakat: I am on a sabbatical thru September, let's have more
idealogical fights on sch... You know you are my gUrl.... ;-)
To Roger: While you have made some excellent points, I also expect
a modicum of cavalry.... While LAKAT can withstand any thing,
I like it when we disagree, agreeably.....
So... general truce?
Kafou "Thanks to all......" Lobo
Safia369
this sounds juicy :-) I wish I knew what thread is this fight on. I
see
a Reverend Roger on the list here, is he Lakat's nemesis? Or was he
trying to convert her LOL :-)
Safia
Fr. Roger D. Hartline
Nah, its not me. In fact when I saw Roger I wondered who I had made angry
too, but its somebody else (thankfully). And, just for the record, I don't
convert anybody. I am more interested in the situation on La Gonave than in
the self-righteous chatter of that type of clergyman.
Cheers,
Roger Hartline+
--
The Rev. Fr. Roger D. Hartline
Guava Baby
> this sounds juicy :-) I wish I knew what thread is this fight on. I
> see
> a Reverend Roger on the list here, is he Lakat's nemesis?
No, Kat is fighting The One Orgasmatron.
Leigh
annick regnauld de la soudiere
Père Jean-Bertrand Aristide
La Chance qui passe ,la Chance à prendre
(novembre 1990)
LA CHANCE QUI PASSE
2.3.Définir la manière de contrôler les changements
Il se pourrait fort bien plus tard,quand tout aura été décanté que l'on ne
retienne pour grande nouveauté de la décennie 1980, que l'irruption du genre
féminin dans les analyses en sciences du social ,en Haïti comme ailleurs
.Une impasse quasi totale avait été faite sur ces questions et nous avions
progressé dans la connaissance du social en passant à côté de ce qui crevait
pourtant le décor: la place ,le rôle et la signification des genres
(masculin/féminin)dans l'allocation des tâches et des responsabilités
.Malgré le sérieux du déblayage réalisé ces dernières années,la plupard des
intervenants au pays sont encore en retard de cette prise de
conscience,parce qu'ils ne sont tout simplement pas plus informés des
nouveaux fronts scientifiques que formés à être attentifs.Cest d'autant plus
grave que l'ultime signification et la plus grande utilité de cette question
des genres est de fournir ,dans le procès de développement et le processus
de démocratisation,la manière de contrôle que nous cherchons tous ,à
l'échelle des Tiers Mondes ,sans pouvoir l'identifier jusqu'à présent.Ce
sera l'une des contributions majeures du cas haïtien ,car il ressort ,très
concrètement ,la découverte que la catégorie de sexe féminin est
l'agrégation la plus sensible en situation de misère et de pauvreté;d'où la
proposition d'en faire l'indice par excellence du contrôle de nos avancées
en développement et démocratie.
kafou escribió en mensaje <3B38CABA...@yahoo.com>...
annick regnauld de la soudiere
Kafou Lobo escribió en mensaje
<52ab26c9.01062...@posting.google.com>...
annick regnauld de la soudiere
d'orcherstre )