Hidden Haiti.

[Black Dog]

In strife-ridden Haiti, we've seen a democratically-elected leadership overthrown by mobs of armed thugs. Yet the Western press has been curiously recitent when it comes to digging into the story, while the usual self-styled champions of democracy and freedom have been silent. Well, it turns out the whole affair was another made-in-Washington special.

An interesting analyisis from CounterPunch.

And another from that notorious lefty rag, the Financial Times.

[Pellaken]

its odd, bush canceled millions in aid.

the rebels were mad cause recently, millions of dollars were cut from the budget

bush steps in, looking like jesus, and "saves" haiti, by finding millions in aid.

[d4dev]

It's the same old thing the Americans have been doing in South and Latin America for the past century. I don't think they will ever stop 'championing the cause of freedom and democracy' as they call it.

[NDP Newbie]

Many Castro-haters fail to release that his predecessor was even worse.

I compromise and dislike both Castro and Batista, as I do with Bush and Chirac. :-P

[FastNed]

To claim that this was a "democratically elected Government" is absurd. Both the Carter Center and the OAS alleged massive fraud in the last election.

Everyone turned off International Aid as they were unwilling to fund this government which became no better than those which preceded it. US aid funds were sequestered; i.e., while authorized, they were withheld for appropriate cause. With the departure of Aristede (?) some funds were released by the US and other Nations will or have followed suit.

Years ago, Clinton listened to the Democratic Black Caucus and put Aristede back in power by force with results quite obvious - note that Rangle (D-NY) wanted Bush to do the same thing.

What would you have America do? Stand by and watch this turn into another Liberia - althou it wasn't too far from that situation! US Marines have been sent in to keep a lid on things until Canada and other UN participants can pull it all together and take over as peacekeepers. Do you object to that? Again, what would you have America do - if we do nothing (see Liberia) you damn us and when we try to hold things together until the UN or someone else arrives, you also damn us. Heads we loose, tails you win!

[Black Dog]

To claim that this was a "democratically elected Government" is absurd. Both the Carter Center and the OAS alleged massive fraud in the last election

Read the articles I posted:

The second instance of media negligence was the near-universal acceptance of the idea in the English-language press that Aristide's government had lost all popular legitimacy due to reported irregularities in the 2000 parliamentary elections. This is an extraordinary leap given the monkey business plaguing U.S. elections of the same year. According to Tom Reeves, the admittedly poorly-attended elections were not the stuff of grand vote larceny. "All sides," he wrote in a very fine article last fall in Dollars and Sense, "concede that Aristide won the presidential ballot with 92 percent of the vote. The sole disagreement is over run-off elections for seven senators from Aristide's party who obtained pluralities but not majorities in the first round. The seven senators eventually resigned, making way for new elections."

Everyone turned off International Aid as they were unwilling to fund this government which became no better than those which preceded it. US aid funds were sequestered; i.e., while authorized, they were withheld for appropriate cause. With the departure of Aristede (?) some funds were released by the US and other Nations will or have followed suit.

Again, this is addressed by Williams:

Allegations of fraud were used to permanently block the release of $400 million in already-approved loans from the Interamerican Development Bank. The IMF, World Bank, and European Union were also pressed to cut off crucial lines of credit. Meanwhile, Haiti was brutally taken to task for its external financial obligations, emptying its coffers in July 2003 to pay $32 million in debt service arrears. As a final blow, Haiti's ability to conserve any remaining foreign reserves was foreclosed by agreements signed with the U.S. government under President Clinton in 1996. These obliged Haiti to abolish tariffs on U.S. imports in the name of what was curiously called "free trade" but was in fact commodity dumping by U.S. exporters. Under threat of huge fines, Haiti was obliged to accept the import of foodstuffs priced far below the cost of production. (Direct subsidies to U.S. farmers since the mid-1990s have averaged over $30 billion a year.) In a nation where the majority of the population works in agriculture, this all but shut down production in the rice-producing northwest of Haiti, as well as among livestock producers throughout the country. Under these conditions, it stands to reason that no government could dodge the discontent of the population.

What would you have America do? Stand by and watch this turn into another Liberia - althou it wasn't too far from that situation! US Marines have been sent in to keep a lid on things until Canada and other UN participants can pull it all together and take over as peacekeepers. Do you object to that? Again, what would you have America do - if we do nothing (see Liberia) you damn us and when we try to hold things together until the UN or someone else arrives, you also damn us. Heads we loose, tails you win!

Your missing the point completely. This isn't a matter of "should the U.S. intervene to restore stability or not". The question is what role did the U.S. play in overturning a democratically elected (and yes, heavily flawed) regime. Both articles I originally posted detailed this point of view in great detail.

Another view.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FastNed,

What would you have America do? Stand by and watch this turn into another Liberia -

Actually the US supported the 'murderous dictator of Liberia' to protect their economic investments there. It started in the 80's, to the best of my recollection. (I could look it up in my World Human Rights Guide if you want exact dates).

[August1991]

You would have me believe that George W. Bush spent time thinking about how to overthrow Aristide because, well, because Aristide was, well, you know...

Do you have any idea what life in a place like Haiti means? Do you have any idea what concerns a US president?

The idea that Bush, two months ago, spent even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide strikes me as absurd.

On the other hand, I realize that the question is not Haiti or Aristide at all. It's Bush. The dislike of this man in some circles borders on irrational, wanton, phobic hatred. Borders? No, it's crossed some pathetic line. Whatever happens in the world, Bush must have been nefariously involved.

Well, you know what? Bush'll probably get re-elected precisely because his opponents are foaming at the mouth. MOR Americans will see these rabid anti-Bushites and say, Kerry's ok but his supporters are nuts.

[Black Dog]

You would have me believe that George W. Bush spent time thinking about how to overthrow Aristide because, well, because Aristide was, well, you know...

Do you have any idea what life in a place like Haiti means? Do you have any idea what concerns a US president?

The idea that Bush, two months ago, spent even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide strikes me as absurd.

No one mentioned Bush. Bush's personal stake in Haiti is neglegible. However, again if you'd bothered to read any of the links, you'd see that top figures in this administration's State Department have been gunning for Aristede's head.

Finally, no one has asked questions about the wildly partisan officials in U.S. State Department now running U.S. policy in the Caribbean and Latin America. These include such Blast-from-the-Past supporters of Reagan era highjinks in Central America as Otto Reich, John Negroponte, Elliot Abrams, and (before his ignominious departure last summer) John Poindexter. The most visible in recent weeks on Haiti has been Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roger Noriega, a man who has had Aristide in his gunsights for over a decade. As senior staff member for the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate, and advisor to Senator Jesse Helms and John Burton, he was party to a three-year campaign to prevent to defame Aristide and prevent his return to power; all the while CIA-backed thugs left carnage in the streets daily in Port Au Prince. In his capacity in the State Department since 2003, and for two years before that as the U.S. Permanent Representative to the OAS, he has aggressively advertised his intention to oust Aristide a second time. For example, in April of last year, speaking at the Council of the Americas conference in Washington, he linked U.S. policies in Haiti to those in Venezuela and Cuba. He congratulated the OAS for overcoming "irrelevance in the past years" by adopting the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Article 20, he said, lays out a series of actions to be takenin the event that a member state should fail to uphold the essential elements of democratic life. He added the "President Chavez and President Aristide havecontributed willfully to a polarized and confrontational environment. It is my fervent hope," he added ominously, "that the good people of Cuba are studying the Democratic Charter."

Furthermore, it's certainly not absurd to suggest that the U.S would have a strategic interest in a country which lies right on its doorstep, a country that it has a 200 year history of intervention in, dating back to President John Adams and continuing through to Clinton.

The fact that you would think that a U.S. president, even one of Bush's poor calibre, would not spend "even 5 nanoseconds thinking about Haiti and Aristide" demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge of the situation in Haiti, its historical context and foreign policy in general.

On the other hand, I realize that the question is not Haiti or Aristide at all. It's Bush. The dislike of this man in some circles borders on irrational, wanton, phobic hatred. Borders? No, it's crossed some pathetic line. Whatever happens in the world, Bush must have been nefariously involved.

Well, you know what? Bush'll probably get re-elected precisely because his opponents are foaming at the mouth. MOR Americans will see these rabid anti-Bushites and say, Kerry's ok but his supporters are nuts.

Uh no. Again, Bush was barely mentioned at all. If anything, he's merely continuing a longstanding U.S. policy of protecting U.S. interests abroad by any means necessary. In other words, on this, Bush is acting like any other President in U.S. history.

However, let's not get sidetracked by a meta argument concerning the bile that Bush elicits in many opponents, but keep the discussion focused on the continuing tragedy that is Haiti.

(edited to add) the original FT link isn't working, but here's a pdf of the article:

Don't fall for Washington's spin on Haiti

[August1991]

It is unthinkable that the State department officials mentioned would do anything of this magnitude without direct instructions from the White House, meaning Bush.

And what I mean is that Bush, or the US government if you will, doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the situation in Haiti. As a previous US president once famously said, "There ain't a vote in it."

Your final point however is good. Haiti is an absolute tragedy. The Haitian-Dominican border is visible in satellite photos because of deforestation. Haiti is not the poorest country in the world, but it's the poorest in the western hemisphere. Why?

To blame Bush (or the US government) for this tragedy is simply silly. To do so says much more about your opinion of Bush (and the US government) than it does about your opinion of Haiti's tragedy.

[Black Dog]

It is unthinkable that the State department officials mentioned would do anything of this magnitude without direct instructions from the White House, meaning Bush.

Oh, I'm sure Bush had a hand in it. But in the White House, policy is very much driven by the unelected officials who advise the President (folks like Paul Wolfowitz and so forth).

And what I mean is that Bush, or the US government if you will, doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the situation in Haiti. As a previous US president once famously said, "There ain't a vote in it." 

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. May I sugest you do a little reading on the subject of past and contemporary U.S. global interventionism? Statements like this aren't worth the time it takes to refute them.

Your final point however is good. Haiti is an absolute tragedy. The Haitian-Dominican border is visible in satellite photos because of deforestation. Haiti is not the poorest country in the world, but it's the poorest in the western hemisphere. Why?

To blame Bush (or the US government) for this tragedy is simply silly. To do so says much more about your opinion of Bush (and the US government) than it does about your opinion of Haiti's tragedy.

Again, when did blame Bush for Haiti's state of affairs?Granted, past administrations in the U.S., as well as countries like France and Canada, have played a big role in Haitis poverty through their past support of the corrupt and repressive Duvalier regimes and brutal economic measures imposed under the guise of free trade, including the blocking of millions of dollars in aid.

Really, all the articles I've posted above have considerable background on the whole Haiti issue, including the reasons for its crushing poverty. I would suggest you actually read up on the subject rather than hurling accusations that this is merely a vehicle for peddling hatred of Bush.

If anything, the crushing silence from the neo-cons on this issue is telling. One year ago, we were told that the U.S. had to invade Iraq, first based on the no discredited WMD story and then on the basis of humanitarian intervention. And yet, the same hawks (both in the world and on this board) who touted th einvasion and occupation of Iraq as a means of bringing freedom and democracy to a downtrodden people say nothing when a crisis of democracy and humanity occurs in its very backyard. At best, the U.S. et al is guilty of doing nothing to preserve a democratically elected regime, allowing it to be overrun by thugs, many with ties to dictators of the past. At worst, the U.S aided and abedted what amounts to a coup against Aristide.

[Black Dog]

Sachs (who, it should be noted, is a former guru of neoliberal economic policies) has more on the U.S. administrations involvement in the coup.

From his first day in office, Bush was ousting Aristide

There are several tragedies in this surrealistic episode. The first is the apparent incapacity of the U.S. government to speak honestly about such matters as toppling governments. Instead, it brushes aside crucial questions: Did the U.S. summarily deny military protection to Aristide, and if so, why and when? Did the U.S. supply weapons to the rebels, who showed up in Haiti last month with sophisticated equipment that last year reportedly had been taken by the U.S. military to the Dominican Republic, next door to Haiti? Why did the U.S. cynically abandon the call of European and Caribbean leaders for a political compromise, a compromise that Aristide had already accepted? Most important, did the U.S. in fact bankroll a coup in Haiti, a scenario that seems likely based on present evidence?

Only someone ignorant of U.S. history and of the administrations of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would dismiss these questions. The United States has repeatedly sponsored coups and uprisings in Haiti and in neighboring Caribbean countries.

[August1991]

Background quotes from previous posts:

August1991: And what I mean is that Bush, or the US government if you will, doesn't give a tinker's cuss about the situation in Haiti. As a previous US president once famously said, "There ain't a vote in it."

BlackDog: That's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. May I suggest you do a little reading on the subject of past and contemporary U.S. global interventionism? Statements like this aren't worth the time it takes to refute them.

To be 'The Man', to stay "in the bubble", Bush needs every vote he can get, buy, manipulate. I simply don't see how he'll get these votes by encouraging a coup, 'regime change' in Haiti.

The Jeffrey Sachs article(s). Wow!

Did you notice how non-Americans blame America for the situation in Haiti? (I suspect you're not American BlackDog and you were at pains to explain that it's the US government, not Bush, organising the coup in Haiti.) Sachs, on the other hand, as an American, blames Bush. Of course, Sachs can't blame America because then Sachs would be, well, unAmerican.

All of this has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with Bush and America.

The first Sachs' article I saw criticised the Bush Jr. Administration because it cut aid to the Aristide government but said nothing about arming rebels... (IOW, I decide no longer to give money to a beggar on my street. The impoverished beggar now falls into dire poverty. This is my fault?)

The next Sachs article I read (BlackDog, thanks for the link to the LA Times article) suggests by question only that the US supplied weapons to the rebels. Gawd knows.

Sachs?

a) Sachs with his big ego and penetrating wisdom (have you ever met him?) is really angry that he met Aristide recently, decided Aristide had popular support and then watched when Haitians got rid of Aristide or

b ) Sachs really hates this Bush Administration and realises this is a way to make Bush look like an amateur in Foreign Policy, the only thing Bush has to get re-elected.

(Advice to Bush-haters? The key Kerry question: Have these past four years made you better off? What about the four years before that? Now, think and make your choice - Democrat or Republican.)

Really, all the articles I've posted above have considerable background on the whole Haiti issue, including the reasons for its crushing poverty. I would suggest you actually read up on the subject rather than hurling accusations that this is merely a vehicle for peddling hatred of Bush.

My final idea about the tragedy of Haiti? Have you ever read the novel "The Comedians" by Graham Greene? Greene was no American apologist. Read his book and then we'll post comments about Haiti - not about Bush, the US government, or America.

[Black Dog]

All of this has nothing to do with Haiti and everything to do with Bush and America.

By continuing to play the anti-Bush angle, you're ducking the real issue, while the key questions Sachs asks in both articles remain unanswered.

Did the U.S. summarily deny military protection to Aristide, and if so, why and when? Did the U.S. supply weapons to the rebels, who showed up in Haiti last month with sophisticated equipment that last year reportedly had been taken by the U.S. military to the Dominican Republic, next door to Haiti? Why did the U.S. cynically abandon the call of European and Caribbean leaders for a political compromise, a compromise that Aristide had already accepted? Most important, did the U.S. in fact bankroll a coup in Haiti, a scenario that seems likely based on present evidence?

These are all legitimate questions. I find it telling that you never once attempt to deny or disprove allegations of the U.S.'s involvement in Aristide's overthrow.

[Black Dog]

The Ouster of Democracy

The US supports democracy when democracy supports the US. When it is inconvenient, as in Aristide's case, Washington will turn its back on it in a heartbeat.

The Haiti situation is a prime example of the realities of U.S. foreign policy. Liberty, freedom and democracy are mere platitudes to be mouthed, even as they are trampled upon by their self-proclaimed defenders.

[Galahad]

I just have two words to add to this debate:

CUI BONO?

What in God's name does anyone think that the most powerful country on earth would gain from intervention in one of the poorest nations on earth (sorry US haters...no oil there).

The need to provide even MORE aid?

The need to repel even MORE refugees?

[udawg]

It seems obvious to me that the United States and Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Haiti before and during the recent problems there. And I have been called, on this very forum, an anti-Bush America-hating liberal.

But seriously, the only reason that the US is even in the same sentence as Haiti is because they were dragged into it by the media. I'm quite sure that the White House would like nothing more than to be able to turn off CNN and ignore the entire situation. They have nothing to do with it.

The media, however, has made it necessary for the United States to respond to the situation, and by shaping public opinion, forced the US to send Marines over and actually get involved. None of this would have happened but for CNN and all the other news services running Haiti as their headline story.

Nobody in the WH gives a damn about Haiti, they are merely required to take a stand on it what with the media badgering them about it. I can only credit the opposing argument on an incredibly futile attempt to pin another international incident on Bush and his 'warmongers'. To think that the US is any further involved than this is absurd.

[Black Dog]

What in God's name does anyone think that the most powerful country on earth would gain from intervention in one of the poorest nations on earth (sorry US haters...no oil there).

The need to provide even MORE aid?

The need to repel even MORE refugees?

"U.S. policy towards Haiti has essentially vacillated between a not-so-benign neglect and a rather active and indeed very-long-running interventionism."

-U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Timothy Carney (2002)

Holy crap. Do you even bother reading any of the links I've put up? I can't believe that, in spite of ample historical evidence of U.S. interventionism in Haiti, the current allegations of U.S. complicity in Aristide's overthrow and the reams of other evidence indicating the U.S. has a long standing strategic interest in Haiti, that you simply stick your head in the sand.

It seems obvious to me that the United States and Bush had absolutely nothing to do with Haiti before and during the recent problems there.

Okay, what are you basing this on? There's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

But seriously, the only reason that the US is even in the same sentence as Haiti is because they were dragged into it by the media. I'm quite sure that the White House would like nothing more than to be able to turn off CNN and ignore the entire situation. They have nothing to do with it.

I'm sure that's what the White House wants the rest of us to do. "Move along folks, nothing to see here...."

The media, however, has made it necessary for the United States to respond to the situation, and by shaping public opinion, forced the US to send Marines over and actually get involved. None of this would have happened but for CNN and all the other news services running Haiti as their headline story.

First: only a fool would think that the media shapes U.S. foreign policy. It's more like the other way 'round. Second: there's not been a massive public outcry for the U.S. to step in to Haiti. In fact, Aristide begged for foreign intervention in the crisis, which was refused until after he "fled" the country. Oh,and god forbid the news networks actually cover the news.

Nobody in the WH gives a damn about Haiti, they are merely required to take a stand on it what with the media badgering them about it. I can only credit the opposing argument on an incredibly futile attempt to pin another international incident on Bush and his 'warmongers'. To think that the US is any further involved than this is absurd.

You haven't read a damn thing about this, have you? Do you have a remotely credible argument as to why the U.S. was not involved? I've posted a number of views which point to U.S. involvement in the overthrow and the media's complicity in reporting the official line only. All you've managed are dismissals.

So prove me wrong, kids.

[Black Dog]

An excellent piece on Haiti by Chomsky.

There is much solemn discussion today explaining, correctly, that democracy means more than flipping a lever every few years. Functioning democracy has preconditions. One is that the population should have some way to learn what is happening in the world. The real world, not the self-serving portrait offered by the "establishment press," which is disfigured by its "subservience to state power" and "the usual hostility to popular movements" - the accurate words of Paul Farmer, whose work on Haiti is, in its own way, perhaps even as remarkable as what he has accomplished within the country. Farmer was writing in 1993, reviewing mainstream commentary and reporting on Haiti, a disgraceful record that goes back to the days of Wilson's vicious and destructive invasion in 1915, and on to the present. The facts are extensively documented, appalling, and shameful. And they are deemed irrelevant for the usual reasons: they do not conform to the required self-image, and so are efficiently dispatched deep into the memory hole, though they can be unearthed by those who have some interest in the real world.

The basic contours of what led to the current tragedy are pretty clear. Just beginning with the 1990 election of Aristide (far too narrow a time frame), Washington was appalled by the election of a populist candidate with a grass-roots constituency just as it had been appalled by the prospect of the hemisphere's first free country on its doorstep two centuries earlier. Washington's traditional allies in Haiti naturally agreed. "The fear of democracy exists, by definitional necessity, in elite groups who monopolize economic and political power," Bellegarde-Smith observes in his perceptive history of Haiti; whether in Haiti or the US or anywhere else.

As usual, Chomsky steps outside the mainstream press and "conventional wisdom" to nail down the motives behind almost two centuries of American intervention in Haiti.

[d4dev]

Excellent piece, BD!

[Galahad]

An excellent piece on Haiti by Chomsky.

Talk of desperation...resorting to Noam Chomsky.

Now THERE'S a guy who hasn't had a lucid thought since Tomothy Leary was dropping LSD ( Leary also stepped outside of "conventional wisdom").

As for "intervention"...yes the US has stepped in frequently. But for the same reasons as it did this month...just to stop the Haitians from chopping each other into bits like Rawandans, not because they will benefit in any way.

Or do you think they want their sugar? Haiti first...next we take Madagascar for the cloves!

CUI BONO?? You have not answered that first of legal precepts!

[Black Dog]

Talk of desperation...resorting to Noam Chomsky.

Now THERE'S a guy who hasn't had a lucid thought since Tomothy Leary was dropping LSD ( Leary also stepped outside of "conventional wisdom").

Can you actually refute Chomsky's views? I guess not: all you can do is deny deny deny. I've not seen anyone pin the man down, which drives right-wingers absoultely batshit.

As for "intervention"...yes the US has stepped in frequently. But for the same reasons as it did this month...just to stop the Haitians from chopping each other into bits like Rawandans, not because they will benefit in any way.

Ah yes, the myth of the benvolant giant. Total crap, of course. the U.S. (nay, any nation) would seldom lift a finger were there not something to be gained.

Even though you can't be bothered to read the articles posted or even form a coherent argument against it, Chomsky details the link between historical U.S intervention in Haiti and the economic motivations thereof.

(I would also point out that you seem to have changed your view from when you stated:

What in God's name does anyone think that the most powerful country on earth would gain from intervention in one of the poorest nations on earth?

So your already contradicting yourself by saying the U.S. would not intervene unless it had something to gain, then saying the U.S intervened in the past in spite of having nothing to gain. So which is it?)

As for your question of Cui bono, again, read the articles. As usual, it boils down to money. America (specifically, American businesses) have benefited from Haiti's instability by turning it intoo a dumping ground for U.S. exports (since abolishing tariffs on U.S. goods was one of the preconditions of agreements signed with the U.S. government under President Clinton in 1996). Of course, it should also be mentioned that the U.S. has not been shy about coming down hard on western hemisphere nations that flout the Washington-backed neoliberal economic model, a model that favours U.S. multinationals above all else by creating, as noted above, dumping grounds for exports, ensure supplies of cheap labour and generally maximize corporate bottom lines, which pipe through the corridors of power on a daily basis.

The U.S. has, throughout its history, based foreign policy on the interests of wealthy elites and the business sectors. This latest chapter in Haiti's history is further evidence of that.

[udawg]

First: only a fool would think that the media shapes U.S. foreign policy. It's more like the other way 'round.

Only a fool would think that the media DOESN'T shape US policy, on virtually anything. Especially in an election year. Right now, nobody in Washington cares about anything except getting Bush reelected. After the election, then he'll start going to pick some more fights.

Republicans will vote for Bush, no question. But if he doesn't get involved in foreign issues, if he doesn't give the left another set of body bags to parade in front of the cameras, he may just be able to draw enough of the centre vote to win the election.

The US does not want to get involved in another bloodbath on foreign soil, does not even want to be mentioned, or even to be associated in any way to the suffering and violence in Haiti. It can only draw further criticism of Bush's foreign policy. The criticism and policy that will probably sway the election one way or the other.

[Black Dog]

Right now, nobody in Washington cares about anything except getting Bush reelected. After the election, then he'll start going to pick some more fights.

The US does not want to get involved in another bloodbath on foreign soil, does not even want to be mentioned, or even to be associated in any way to the suffering and violence in Haiti.

Haiti probably won't have any bearing on the campaign because (a) the U.S./Western media are in no way going to turn the question of U.S. involvement into a major issue. So far, they've dutifuly repeated the party line on the whole affair. ( There's no need for large-scale U.S. military involvement, as the proxy "rebels" have already done the dirty work of ousting Aristide. The fact is there are U.S. troops on the ground in Haiti right now. They are there to ensure the right guys (read: Washington's picks) get established and stability (which was compromised by the U.S.-backed factions in teh first place) is restored.

[udawg]

Black Dog, March 11

The fact is there are U.S. troops on the ground in Haiti right now. They are there to ensure the right guys (read: Washington's picks) get established and stability (which was compromised by the U.S.-backed factions in teh first place) is restored.

Black Dog, March 10

America (specifically, American businesses) have benefited from Haiti's instability by turning it intoo a dumping ground for U.S. exports

Which is it? Does the US intervene to cause instability, which is good for American big business? Or does the US intervene to restore stability? You can't do both.