Reply #4: Thanks for these links. [View All]

[Judi Lynn]

Just located this, from 2002, on US/Haiti relations:

Direct military assault is only one of several means which the U.S. employs to impose its will on nations throughout the Third World. Political destabilization, media demonization, proxy guerrilla harassment, diplomatic machinations, and economic sanctions are also weapons in Washington's arsenal. These are the tools of "low-intensity warfare," a topic on which Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is an expert. An assistant professor of Justice and Peace Studies at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, Nelson-Pallmeyer is the author of numerous articles and books on U.S. foreign policy including "War Against the Poor: Low Intensity Conflict and Christian Faith" (Orbis Books 1991); "Brave New World Order" (Orbis Books 1992); and "School of the Assassins: The Case for Closing the School of the Americas" (Orbis Books 1997).
(snip)

Nelson-Pallmeyer: Low-intensity conflict is a U.S. military strategy for intervention in non-traditional settings. It's primarily directed toward countries in the so-called Third World or Two-Thirds World. It's a type of warfare that implies, or involves, not direct combat between soldiers, not a high technology warfare as you see in the bombing of Afghanistan or Iraq.... It's implemented through diplomatic channels, through economic leverage through institutions like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank. It's basically designed to achieve objectives that are similar to war. You want a country to capitulate. You want a country to do what you want them to do, but you fight the war through non-traditional channels.
(snip)

In the case of Haiti, what you see is just an attempt to wear down the population by holding up key economic aid, trying to create disenchantment with the government whose inclination is to try to meet the needs of the people. All those are standard practices. But in more recent cases the U.S. has preferred to intervene through its economic leverage, trying to shape countries' economic policies in ways that the U.S. prefers, but which often has a very negative impact on people on the ground.
(snip)

Nelson-Pallmeyer: The U.S. objective is simply to control the economic decisions of a country. I argue in my writings that the preferred instrument of U.S. foreign policy from about 1945 to 1980 was military dictatorships. I would say that between 1980 and 1990 there were two tracks in U.S. policy. One was actually increasing support for repressive governments in Central America and elsewhere. But at the same time, you had a movement in the direction of utilizing debt as leverage, and, for the International Monetary Fund, structural adjustment programs became more important in the 1980s. Today, the U.S. prefers to exercise its power through economic channels. It wants a favorable investment economy. It wants to make sure that unions aren't strong. It wants to make sure that a country is not diverting its resources to the needs of its people, resources that are necessary for paying debt and doing other things. So what the U.S. wants is control, economic control, and it will use whatever leverage it has. (snip)

http://www.haiti-progres.com/2002/sm020102/ENG01-02.htm