Jump to content

Where is the U.N. to deal with the Haiti crisis?


Recommended Posts

Haiti is a relatively small country.  But it is out of control with armed gangs causing anarchy and terrorizing everyone.  I'm sure there are countless people there suffering from hunger and in need of medical care and the place is covered with garbage.  As it stands it is not safe for medical staff or patients there.

Why is the U.N. not there with peacekeepers?  Why would Canada be expected to go in there alone?  Canada and other countries spend millions of dollars every year on supporting the U.N. and its various causes.  One would think peacekeeping for a small country like Haiti would be a relatively straightforward mission for the U.N. until a strong enough government can be elected and put in place to take over there.  It's time the U.N. did something useful for all the money it receives and get in there and bring law and order to the place.  End the suffering of the Haiti people.  Why have we not heard the Canadian government leaders talking about the U.N. going into Haiti?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why is the U.N. not there with peacekeepers? 

They'd be entering a fully hostile territory. Gangs have been allowed to go unchallenged, and a population fed up with it all, along with a deep distrust for their political leaders who have had a history of corruption.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why would Canada be expected to go in there alone? 

I don't think Canadians would have an appetite, for peacekeepers being killed by out of control and heavily armed gangs. Whether they had support, or not.

Gangs have overtaken the country. They won't let it go peacefully. This can only be done by force, or the usual way, via making a deal with those gangs, which involve heavy handed money.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

would be a relatively straightforward mission

You're dealing with gangs that have their hands on unprecedented weapons, bulletproof vehicles, and hordes of cash. I don't understand how this would be straightforward. It would be a bloodbath.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

End the suffering of the Haiti people. 

This is generational suffering. Generational corruption.

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

Why have we not heard the Canadian government leaders talking about the U.N. going into Haiti?

Sending ground troops would be a foolish move.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

You're dealing with gangs that have their hands on unprecedented weapons, bulletproof vehicles, and hordes of cash. I don't understand how this would be straightforward. It would be a bloodbath

Just skimmed through an article about the history of Haiti.  I has had a very complicated and troubled history.  It appears the U.S. has been the main country involved with Haiti for many years.  Haiti has a population of about 11 million people.  If the problems there are not eased somehow, many will continue to flee to other countries, including Canada where they can just walk in and claim refugee status.

So it is in the interests of America and Canada to see the problems in Haiti resolved.  I don't think it would necessarily mean a bloodbath for the U.N. to go in there or even the U.S.   I don't think Canada has the capability to do anything much there.  The number of armed gangs may be greatly exaggerated and there may be ways found to deal with them peacefully.  They would not gain anything by an armed conflict with the U.N. or the U.S.

Haiti’s Troubled Path to Development | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historically the UN avoids interfering in internal politics of a country if it can be avoided, unless one side or the other asks for help. They'll move to stop a war between two countries but to just randomly jump into a country's internal fighting without any lawful request for aid? That's called invading :)  And even with a request for military aid it's very dicey, you jusr don't want to enter an armed conflict inside another nation as a general rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Historically the UN avoids interfering in internal politics of a country if it can be avoided, unless one side or the other asks for help.

The U.N. failed miserably in Rwanda in the 1994 massacre.   800,000 moderate people were massacred by extremists in a three month period.  The U.N. failed to act to stop the massacre.  What does the world or U.N. do when there is no government in control or able to control what is going on with violent people running rampant?  Often there is no government in control to invite the U.N. in to restore order.  If there was a government in control then they might not need the U.N. or external help.

Yugoslavia war of the 1990s was another case where the Yugoslavia government was not in control and fighting was raging.  Outside forces from the west went in to take action.  The objective is to stop genocides and killing of innocent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

So it is in the interests of America and Canada to see the problems in Haiti resolved. 

How do you resolve generational corruption? 

Send money? 

Troops?

This is a country that has had a history of dictators using the gangs to terrorize opponents.

Coexistence was allowed,  simply because the gangs were paid and a blind eye was turned to their crimes, as long as they didn't spill past a certain point. There are levels of corruption in every single aspect of that society. Heavy handed levels.

My parents had so many stories, which paint the sheer brutality that they escaped.

My mother still remembered a woman being hacked alive with machetes and burned alive for being accused of witchcraft before her eyes.

I hope you never experience watching and hearing the screams of someone being engulfed in flames, or being dismembered while alive. I have, and that stuff sticks with you for life.

This is the level of brutality that you are working with, in sending ground troops to face Haitian gangs.

You don't just send ground troops dealing with people who would gladly use bodies as human shields.

What you think these gangs will drop their weapons?

Look at the Philippines. Rodrigo Duterte launched at all out assault on guerrilla gangs in his country's South side. 

He ordered an entire area of civilians to evacuate, as would be raining hell down onto the area.

What do you think gangs will do? Leave? Waive white flags, or break into civilian homes and holding them hostage, causing the death of thousands of innocent civilians?

If you guess the last one, you know why sending anything other than jntel would be foolish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blackbird said:

What does the world or U.N. do when there is no government in control or able to control what is going on with violent people running rampant?

Stay the eff out. The un is there to govern how nations deal with each other, it's not some sort of universal gov't police force. Close the doors, lock 'em in and let them fight till they get it sorted out someday.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justin is being pressured by Biden to do something, after he said Canada could contribute including manpower... todate we have sent some old armoured vehicles to help local police... Justin is hoping it will all go away...

This would turn very ugly in a very short time, if troops get involved.... it would make Afghanistan look like summer fest on the front lawn in Ottawa... It is not a mission for a couple hundred troops, it would be atleast a full brigade or more to make a difference and the carboards are bare at the moment... This is not a UN mission this would be a Peace making mission at the end of a gun barrel.

This is the exact mission we should avoid at all costs, the military is not equipped or trained to this level, the military does not have the support of the people so getting new equipment and training is not an option, this would devastate any head way the military has made in regards to budget as this entire affair would be cut from DND budget, it would throw them back another 10 to 20 years. 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

The U.N. failed miserably in Rwanda in the 1994 massacre.   800,000 moderate people were massacred by extremists in a three month period.  The U.N. failed to act to stop the massacre.  What does the world or U.N. do when there is no government in control or able to control what is going on with violent people running rampant?  Often there is no government in control to invite the U.N. in to restore order.  If there was a government in control then they might not need the U.N. or external help.

Yugoslavia war of the 1990s was another case where the Yugoslavia government was not in control and fighting was raging.  Outside forces from the west went in to take action.  The objective is to stop genocides and killing of innocent people.

Rwanda was a failure becasue the world sat by and refused to take action of any sort, Canada refused to send troops at the desperate request of one of our own Generals, UN forces there at the time were quickly overran , with the forces from Belgium being slaughtered in the streets, mostly becasue the Belgium forces treated the locals very poorly it was a case of karma.

What does the UN when things get out of control, they are suppose to leave... anything else ends up like Yugoslavia with UN troops forced to record war crimes for later prosecution, to which very few were brought to justice. Armed factions controlled the areas by force, with one exception the Medak pocket, where Canadians soldiers took on the Croat military to prevent more ethic cleansing, Croatians pulled back after multi day fighting and taking on to many casualties... Another battle honor for PPCLI and a heavy reserve component. That being said there were lots of failures in stopping war crimes by all that were there. It was not until NATO took over the mission that the fighting stopped, as NATO was not under the same mandate and NATO had already told all the sides it would use force to stop the fighting , and in a lot of cases did so...Yugo was a total UN failure, that victory goes to NATO and its peace making abilities.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

How do you resolve generational corruption? 

Send money? 

Troops?

This is a country that has had a history of dictators using the gangs to terrorize opponents.

Coexistence was allowed,  simply because the gangs were paid and a blind eye was turned to their crimes, as long as they didn't spill past a certain point. There are levels of corruption in every single aspect of that society. Heavy handed levels.

My parents had so many stories, which paint the sheer brutality that they escaped.

My mother still remembered a woman being hacked alive with machetes and burned alive for being accused of witchcraft before her eyes.

I hope you never experience watching and hearing the screams of someone being engulfed in flames, or being dismembered while alive. I have, and that stuff sticks with you for life.

This is the level of brutality that you are working with, in sending ground troops to face Haitian gangs.

You don't just send ground troops dealing with people who would gladly use bodies as human shields.

What you think these gangs will drop their weapons?

Look at the Philippines. Rodrigo Duterte launched at all out assault on guerrilla gangs in his country's South side. 

He ordered an entire area of civilians to evacuate, as would be raining hell down onto the area.

What do you think gangs will do? Leave? Waive white flags, or break into civilian homes and holding them hostage, causing the death of thousands of innocent civilians?

If you guess the last one, you know why sending anything other than jntel would be foolish.

Yes, sounds pretty bad there.   Too bad there are millions of civilians that just want to live in peace there.  The place is a hell hole.   Canada has a lot of immigrants from there and the former Governor General is from there.  Haiti also speaks French which means there is that added pressure from some French speaking people to help them.  So I imagine they are pushing for something to be done, but I don't know what can be done because as you say it is an extremely dangerous and lawless place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Rwanda was a failure becasue the world sat by and refused to take action of any sort, Canada refused to send troops at the desperate request of one of our own Generals, UN forces there at the time were quickly overran , with the forces from Belgium being slaughtered in the streets, mostly becasue the Belgium forces treated the locals very poorly it was a case of karma.

What does the UN when things get out of control, they are suppose to leave... anything else ends up like Yugoslavia with UN troops forced to record war crimes for later prosecution, to which very few were brought to justice. Armed factions controlled the areas by force, with one exception the Medak pocket, where Canadians soldiers took on the Croat military to prevent more ethic cleansing, Croatians pulled back after multi day fighting and taking on to many casualties... Another battle honor for PPCLI and a heavy reserve component. That being said there were lots of failures in stopping war crimes by all that were there. It was not until NATO took over the mission that the fighting stopped, as NATO was not under the same mandate and NATO had already told all the sides it would use force to stop the fighting , and in a lot of cases did so...Yugo was a total UN failure, that victory goes to NATO and its peace making abilities.

Off hand I don't know what the solution is for Haiti and if there is anything the world can do about it.   I am not sure doing nothing is a good option though.  I am not sure why the U.N. was incapable of being effective in Rwanda.  Perhaps it is bureaucracy that is unable to make decisions and do anything.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Off hand I don't know what the solution is for Haiti and if there is anything the world can do about it.   I am not sure doing nothing is a good option though.  I am not sure why the U.N. was incapable of being effective in Rwanda.  Perhaps it is bureaucracy that is unable to make decisions and do anything.

UN is a civilian organization, that has control over some military assets. Those assets are picked by the nations involved in the crises, so in Yugo, it was the Serbs, Croats, Muslims, etc they chose what equipment each UN nation could bring , including small arms... the next problem is the chain of command, at the top is a civilian structure so after 5 pm NY time the big guys go home and the juniors man the radios, to get permission to do anything you need permission for these big guys at the UN, and by the time they answer the crises is normally over.. they failed to understand how the military works or the urgency of troops in contact, meaning bullets were being exchanged...to them it was all diplomacy...The rules of engagement are very different, A soldier had to be directly targeted to fire back, and just that one soldier....to say during NATO operations if i felt my life or the life of my fire team was in danger i could use deadly force...

NATO on the other hand cut out most of the diplomacy and in doing so managed to get results on the ground through the use of force...

I did one UN peace keeping mission, it was a complete goat rodeo, the worst deployment of my career, where we did nothing to stop any war crimes, from murder to rape, we were ordered not to get involved just file reports or take video if we could...I and others for the first time felt ashamed of our country, UN for not being able to step in and stop some of the most horrific war crimes that i have seen or heard about, being a military historian of sorts that covered a lot of horrific incidents. To have to listen to the sobs and cry's of those victims begging for help while i stood by and did nothing but record with tears in my eyes will stay with me forever...Ask the Dutch how that feels like when they were forced by Serb military forces to hand over all males over the age of 12 in a UN protected refugee camp, they were boarded up on buses taken into the mountains and executed and  buried in a mass grave, and no one was held accountable...

Those things did not happen under NATO control... 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, blackbird said:

it is an extremely dangerous and lawless place.

My family is in politics there, so my relatives would have their own private armies, but even this can't save you. Jovenel Moise had a private army.

IE my blind aunt who's entire family have diplomat ties in the US and Haiti, decided to buy a Cadillac Escalade, ignoring warnings from her family. It wasn't bulletproof.

She was ambushed by dozens of masked gang members, who cut off her SUV.

Her saving grace? She was blind. They didn't kill her, and took her car and allowed her and her security detail to live. Something we saw as miraculous, as they kill all witnesses,  or kidnap for random

This was pre covid, just to give you an idea.

I still remember its beauty during my childhood, but we are talking decades of extreme corruption. 

I wouldn't go there unless heavily armed.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, blackbird said:

Just skimmed through an article about the history of Haiti.  I has had a very complicated and troubled history.  It appears the U.S. has been the main country involved with Haiti for many years.  Haiti has a population of about 11 million people.  If the problems there are not eased somehow, many will continue to flee to other countries, including Canada where they can just walk in and claim refugee status.

So it is in the interests of America and Canada to see the problems in Haiti resolved.  I don't think it would necessarily mean a bloodbath for the U.N. to go in there or even the U.S.   I don't think Canada has the capability to do anything much there.  The number of armed gangs may be greatly exaggerated and there may be ways found to deal with them peacefully.  They would not gain anything by an armed conflict with the U.N. or the U.S.

Haiti’s Troubled Path to Development | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)

Since the 1950's, gangs and other armed groups (such as the Tonton Macoute) have played active roles in politics. Politicians have used them as resources to intimidate political opponents and as a means of holding the army at bay. Today with an un-elected leader in place, a constitutional crisis, and an overall vacuum of power, these well armed gangs and groups (that outgun and outnumber the army and security forces) have decided to take over the country for themselves. It would be interesting to see if they would willingly hand back power to any future elected officials. What you're witnessing is a phenomenon, a product that took over 60 years in its making. Governments should work in cooperation with political opponents, and not make enemies of them.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, blackbird said:

Haiti is a relatively small country.  But it is out of control with armed gangs causing anarchy and terrorizing everyone.  I'm sure there are countless people there suffering from hunger and in need of medical care and the place is covered with garbage.  As it stands it is not safe for medical staff or patients there.

Why is the U.N. not there with peacekeepers?  Why would Canada be expected to go in there alone?  Canada and other countries spend millions of dollars every year on supporting the U.N. and its various causes.  One would think peacekeeping for a small country like Haiti would be a relatively straightforward mission for the U.N. until a strong enough government can be elected and put in place to take over there.  It's time the U.N. did something useful for all the money it receives and get in there and bring law and order to the place.  End the suffering of the Haiti people.  Why have we not heard the Canadian government leaders talking about the U.N. going into Haiti?

And send billions more money?

After the earthquake, Haiti has gotten nothing but help and money from the UN and many many other countries including military and RCMP form Canada and has become the most corrupt country in the world.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ExFlyer said:

and has become the most corrupt country in the world.

Main reason you don't send expensive gifts by mail. 

If people could understand the sheer level of corruption there, they would understand (sadly), why sending money is futile. 

For those who don't understand why it could be that corrupt, the term "money talks" sort of explains it.

A country without laws cannot function. 

Well, you have average police officers making around 200USD per month. Top officers making approximately 500USD per month.

Under equipped. Most, with no bullet proof vests.

Gangs can pay you heavy handed. Can also spare your life, if you let them roam. 

The legal system there is a joke. 

We are talking beyond archaic. Under staffed. You could shoplift and simply by not having a lawyer, wind up stuck in their system for life. 

Bribes, get you out way quicker.

We are mostly used to computers. They work via handwritten files, that must be mailed, filed and when you are dealing in the volume of criminals that they are, you can see how files can get lost.

This is just a slight view, but you are dealing with a broken system. 

Broken from the inside out. 

I just don't see how you fix something like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

 

I just don't see how you fix something like this.

You probably don't - over time eventually one group will come to dominate and become the gov't one way or another.

But while i feel for your family the best thing for us is to stay the hell out of it and let nature take it's course. Otherwise we'll just wind up with two fists and a foot stuck in that tarbaby and we'll get dragged down with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CdnFox said:

But while i feel for your family

Most my family fled the country in the 1970's, under Duvalier's brutal dictatorship to Canada and the United States.

My relatives still there, refuse to leave. That's out of my control, and while my family is very affluent there, your private army will be drowned by the firepower the gangs now have. I get it, 70k buys you a mansion and a villa over there. But I don't understand and never will, as sure fine, your house is gorgeous, but your environment is horrible.

Mind you, my family there is different. I mean, one of my aunts looks tiny and frail, but she's got a Glock in her purse, a Glock on a thigh holster, and learned self-defense. I would pity a would be kidnapper.

If I had no choice, I'd move to the coastal farming villages, where you'd have more safety than Port au Prince which is a write off (I come from a farming family). Most my family is from Jérémie, Jacmel and Port au Prince. I'd move to the first option, if it were up to me.

I just don't understand how fixing this is someone else's issue.

The US enslaved you financially. France did. But while free, corruption and fraud rang rampant. Vietnam were growth minded. China. If you only have corruption, its only a matter of time before you sink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haiti sounds like the kind of country that could be ripe for a Communist revolution or takeover.  An authoritarian regime led by someone like Fidel Castro that would appeal to the masses.  A brutal dictator might be preferable in the minds of many people to the endless anarchy we see now. Of course there would be no freedom or basic rights any more.  But that is what can happen when a country is in anarchy and lawlessness.  The evil dictators see it as an opportunity to grab power and rule with an iron fist.  Perhaps such a dictator will convince some of the gangs to side with him and help pull it off. 

It seems like countries that don't understand Protestant Judeo-Christian principles and beliefs, are ripe for Communist takeovers.  Countries that are heavily Roman Catholic also seem to lean toward Communism.   

The same mentality is playing out in France right now.  The government is raising the retirement age from 62 to 64 and there are massive demonstrations opposing that.  Yet, to keep the retirement age at 62 would push the country into massive debt and is not sustainable.  Many people don't care.  They have one of the lowest retirement ages in the world.  They just want the government to provide everything and are willing to burn down the place to try to get what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...