Haiti e mais um Status Quo

No Liberdade de Expressão.: "Estados Unidos derrubam líder democraticamente eleito"

Vamos lá analisar estes mimos da coerência do internacionalismo, que saltita de status quo em status quo, e que por norma tem que ver com a força dos acontecimentos. Eu explico, se uma revolta é grande mas não muito grande, põe-se em causa a revolta, mas se for mesmo grande, dá-se um salto em frente procurando novas soluções, ou seja, um novo status quo. Querem ver?

"Even though Aristide had originally been genuinely elected, he held an unfair election in 2000 and uses armed gangs to repress the Haitian people. Recently, in the wake of violent opposition to Aristide’s repressive rule, the Bush administration’s policy has been muddled. First, the administration made known its desire that Aristide should step down, implicitly supporting an opposition supported by the dark forces from Haiti’s authoritarian past. Then the U.S. government reversed course and decided that Aristide should finish out his term in office, which ends in 2006, but allow the opposition to be part of his cabinet." Em Avoid the Temptation to Meddle in Haiti

Quantos aos últimos dias:

Dia 27:

"We cannot buy into a proposition that says the elected president must be forced out of office by thugs and those who do not respect law and are bringing terrible violence to the Haitian people," Powell told the BBC.

Dia 28

"I hope President Aristide will examine his position carefully and judgments will be made as to what is best for the people of Haiti at this most difficult time," Powell said. "He is the democratically elected president, but he has had difficulties in his presidency."

Dia 29

The White House on Saturday questioned President Jean-Bertrand Aristide's "fitness to govern Haiti." Earlier, thousands of the Haitian leader's supporters demonstrated here as the capital braced for a rebel assault. "This long-simmering crisis is largely of Mr. Aristide's making," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said in a statement.

E sobre Aristide:
"His own father was lynched as a voodoo shaman, and his rise to power included an incident in which, as a reaction against his pro-poor advocacy from the pulpit, opponents stormed his church and murdered 12 adherents. He has survived multiple assassination attempts, and was overthrown by a coup months after his first electoral victory in 1991. Clinton sent 20,000 US troops to restore him to office, with the proviso that he respect term limits and step down in 1995. "

O falhanço de cada intervencionismo, leva a concluir da necessidade de ainda maiores intervencionismos internacionalistas?

"According to Senator Bob Graham (D-FL):

"This is the latest example of the need for a U.S. or international capacity to respond effectively in nation-sustaining - even nation-building - after our military has successfully secured the territory. The failure to have such a capacity after the 1994 invasion is a primary reason why we are on the edge of the volcano in Haiti again - just 10 short years later."

Fantástica conclusão. Mais do mesmo. Agora com Villepein.

Qual devia ser a posição liberal, que devia ser sempre crítica em relação a este optimismo intervencionista?

"Becuase this crisis wasn't ended by settlement, but by a forced abdication that may prove unpopular with many influential Haitians, as well as with the French and other ostensible allies, the US again finds itself drawn into an unplanned, turbulent and dangerous civil conflict with no clear goal, no clear parties to negotiate with, no clear strategy, and no exit." Haiti: malign neglect

ou ainda em:

"The Woodrow Wilson administration, fearing German influence, invaded Haiti in 1915 and the United States occupied and ran the country until 1934. The Kennedy administration made a concerted effort to reshape Haiti through the Alliance for Progress from 1961 to 1963. And the Clinton administration made its own effort from 1994 to 2000.

Unfortunately, as Dempsey and Fontaine observed in their 2001 book, "Haiti is simply not ripe for nation building. It does not possess the human and physical capital or the natural resources to rise above extreme poverty. Nor does it have the political stability or legal institutions to inspire investor confidence, foreign or domestic. Few, if any, in the Haitian government favor a working market economy or even understand what the term means, and no widespread political culture prevails with widespread acceptance of the habits, beliefs, and values that sustain democracy or democratic institutions."

If anything, this is more true today, in the wake of the current unrest, than it was in 2001. Haiti's political and economic condition is unspeakably sad, even tragic. The impulse to want to do something to improve the country is understandable. But a realistic assessment suggests that the United States is more likely to make conditions worse rather than better through a military intervention, even one designed (or intended) to ameliorate the lot of the Haitian people."

Haiti: Resisting Imperial Temptation