We should have done more to save Haiti from rebellion

[seemslikeadream]

By PAUL KNOX
Wednesday, March 17, 2004 -


....By sending troops to Haiti, the foreign powers would have been taking sides, all right -- in favour of peaceful dialogue under international constraints instead of violent overthrow, and in favour of their own power-sharing proposal. Instead, they effectively gave a veto to a band of armed thugs and scofflaws, and signalled to the non-violent opposition that its stand-pat tactics would succeed.

When the French and the Americans gave up on Mr. Aristide, should Canada have acted by itself? Militarily, the rebels weren't much -- a couple of hundred gangsters and former soldiers, most armed with vintage rifles and shotguns. (I asked one of them what kind of weapon he was carrying; he had to consult one of his comrades before answering.) A few hundred ostentatiously armed troops would have been enough to stall the rebel advance on Port-au-Prince.

But consider the difficulties. First of all, it's taken nearly two weeks for the Canadian Forces to start getting that contingent into Haiti. Second, the commitment would have had to be for two years -- enough for Mr. Aristide to serve out his term and hold elections. Third, the initial effect would have been to freeze the status quo of late February, dividing Haiti into a rebel-controlled north and a government-controlled south. (A much larger force would have been needed to force rebels to lay down their arms throughout the country.) It would be a brave Canadian government indeed that would mount such an expedition alone.

What Canada could have done, in that tumultuous week before Mr. Aristide was flown out of Haiti, is speak out. A strong, independent statement of support for constitutional rule might have galvanized support at the United Nations for intervention. At the very least, Mr. Graham might have said frankly that he had argued the case with Mr. de Villepin and Mr. Powell and had not prevailed, and that Canada would not or could not undertake intervention by itself.

That would have had the virtue of consistency and logic. I suspect it might even be close to the truth.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040317/COKNOX17/TPNational/Columnists

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Good morning seemslikeadream!

I moved this from LBN to Editorials because it's not actually a news story. It's a really good editorial, though (don't you wish US papers were more like the Globe & Mail?)

:hi:

[seemslikeadream]

2. Thanks for being so gracious

and good morning to you. :hi: alg0912

[peacetalksforall]

3. I don't think the thugs who we AND THE FRENCH set up

should be called rebels. Rebels imply the citizenship has organized. In this case we have burp-ups of old Papa and Baby Doc dictators who became criminals. Tags are dangerous.

These thugs were supported by the U.S., France, and the Dominican Republic. And Canada didn't peep on the world stage.

The Duvaliers were escorted out with the help of the U.S. and France in favor of democratic elections. Aristede won, then the same people tried to kick him out nine (?) months after he took office. He was reinstated somehow, then we decided we couldn't wait for his last two years and another democratic election. Because we have an agenda.

Isn't the Bush administration being hypocritical again - damning the French, then partnering with them on Haiti? What phonies. Well, they can call french fries, french fries, in Haiti!

The bankers and right wing Cubans are in Haiti and they are having a fit about Aristede being brought back to this hemisphere and his two young children.

Poor right wing imperialists.

[seemslikeadream]

4. Commentary: Can Aristide's tale be true?

streets of Port au Prince

By Carmen Gentile
UPI Latin America Correspondent
Published 3/16/2004 6:01 PM

In addition to the eyewitness testimonies, there is the fact that some 50 Marines were deployed to Port-au-Prince a couple weeks before Aristide left. While officially there to protect the embassy and other U.S. interests, a force that size would also serve well to surround the Haitian leader and convince him to board the U.S. charted plane bound for Africa -- no questions asked.


Suspicion in Washington has prompted some Capitol Hill lawmakers to call for an investigation into precisely what role the United States played in Aristide's departure. Any investigation won't likely get very far, particularly in the coming months as lawmakers will be busying themselves working to get re-elected. Coupled with the war on terror, the question of whether Aristide was yanked from power on the orders of Bush will likely fall by the wayside.

In the meantime, keep in mind that only a few months ago the world watched as a bearded Saddam Hussein was deloused and inspected by a military physician after his regime was forcibly overthrown by a U.S.-led coalition force.

Is it really so implausible that a Bush administration that never really liked Aristide decided to flex its muscle in its own backyard and frog-march Aristide right out of town?

His supporters at home believe Aristide's story. So does this reporter.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040316-045000-7354r

[AmericanErrorist]

5. I like Adam Felber's hypothesis...

...It was all a big misunderstanding. It's possible. Think of it: The last time a phalanx of armed marines came marching into your house and politely offered their services in the event that you should want to hop onto a plane and live out your life in African exile, did you jump to the conclusion that this was more of an order than a request? You probably did.


http://www.felbers.net/mt/archives/001736.html#001736