The Good American in Haiti

[give her dixie]

Declan, run for cover....... you US hater you.....................

[Hardy]

Yes, more "hate speech" from Declan. Shame.

[mountainboii]

Why Washington Cares About Countries Like Haiti and Honduras
US interference in the politics of Haiti and Honduras is only the latest example of its long-term manipulations in Latin America

by Mark Weisbrot
When I write about US foreign policy in places such as Haiti or Honduras, I often get responses from people who find it difficult to believe that the US government would care enough about these countries to try and control or topple their governments. These are small, poor countries with little in the way of resources or markets. Why should Washington policymakers care who runs them?

Unfortunately they do care. A lot. They care enough about Haiti to have overthrown the elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide not once, but twice. The first time, in 1991, it was done covertly. We only found out after the fact that the people who led the coup were paid by the US Central Intelligence Agency. And then Emmanuel Constant, the leader of the most notorious death squad there – which killed thousands of Aristide's supporters after the coup – told CBS News that he, too, was funded by the CIA.

In 2004, the US involvement in the coup was much more open. Washington led a cut-off of almost all international aid for four years, making the government's collapse inevitable. As the New York Times reported, while the US state department was telling Aristide that he had to reach an agreement with the political opposition (funded with millions of US taxpayers' dollars), the International Republican Institute was telling the opposition not to settle.

In Honduras last summer and autumn, the US government did everything it could to prevent the rest of the hemisphere from mounting an effective political opposition to the coup government in Honduras. For example, they blocked the Organisation of American States from taking the position that it would not recognise elections that took place under the dictatorship. At the same time, the Obama administration publicly pretended that it was against the coup.

This was only partly successful, from a public relations point of view. Most of the US public thinks that the Obama administration was against the Honduran coup, although by November of last year there were numerous press reports and even editorial criticisms that Obama had caved to Republican pressure and not done enough. But this was a misreading of what actually happened: the Republican pressure in support of the Honduran coup changed the administration's public relations strategy, but not its political strategy. Those who followed events closely from the beginning could see that the political strategy was to blunt and delay any efforts to restore the elected president, while pretending that a return to democracy was actually the goal.

Among those who understood this were the governments of Latin America, including such heavyweights as Brazil. This is important because it shows that the State Department was willing to pay a significant political cost in order to help the right in Honduras. It convinced the vast majority of Latin American governments that it was no different from the Bush administration in its goals for the hemisphere, which is not a pleasant outcome from a diplomatic point of view.

Why do they care so much about who runs these poor countries? As any good chess player knows, pawns matter. The loss of a couple of pawns at the beginning of the game can often make a difference between a win or a loss. They are looking at these countries mostly in straight power terms. Governments that are in agreement with maximising US power in the world, they like. Those who have other goals – not necessarily antagonistic to the United States – they don't like.

Not surprisingly, the Obama administration's closest allies in the hemisphere are rightwing governments such as those of Colombia or Panama, even though Obama himself is not a rightwing politician. This highlights the continuity of the politics of control. The victory of the right in Chile, the first time that it has won an election in half a century, was a significant victory for the US government. If Lula de Silva's Workers' party were to lose the presidential election in Brazil this autumn, that would be another win for the state department. While US officials under both Bush and Obama have maintained a friendly posture toward Brazil, it is obvious that they deeply resent the changes in Brazilian foreign policy that have allied it with other social democratic governments in the hemisphere, and its independent foreign policy stances with regard to the Middle East, Iran, and elsewhere.

The US actually intervened in Brazilian politics as recently as 2005, organising a conference to promote a legal change that would make it more difficult for legislators to switch parties. This would have strengthened the opposition to Lula's Workers' party (PT) government, since the PT has party discipline but many opposition politicians do not. This intervention by the US government was only discovered last year through a Freedom of Information Act request filed in Washington. There are many other interventions taking place throughout the hemisphere that we do not know about. The United States has been heavily involved in Chilean politics since the 1960s, long before they organised the overthrow of Chilean democracy in 1973.

In October 1970, President Richard Nixon was cursing in the Oval Office about the Social Democratic president of Chile, Salvador Allende. "That son of a bitch!" said Richard Nixon on 15 October. "That son of a bitch Allende – we're going to smash him." A few weeks later he explained why:

    The main concern in Chile is that [Allende] can consolidate himself, and the picture projected to the world will be his success ... If we let the potential leaders in South America think they can move like Chile and have it both ways, we will be in trouble.

That is another reason that pawns matter, and Nixon's nightmare did in fact come true a quarter-century later, as one country after another elected independent left governments that Washington did not want. The United States ended up "losing" most of the region. But they are trying to get it back, one country at a time. The smaller, poorer countries that are closer to the United States are the most at risk. Honduras and Haiti will have democratic elections some day, but only when Washington's influence over their politics is further reduced.

Yeah but George Galloway... and Iran... and the Koran... therefore I think its obvious to everyone around here that I am right and this is America hater bullshit 

[muppet]

Yeah but George Galloway... and Iran... and the Koran... therefore I think its obvious to everyone around here that I am right and this is America hater bullshit 

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Explore that a bit and even the NeoCons admit that Israel could be handled better and that Iraq was a disaster.

You would think that alone would be justification for criticising US foreign policy but no.

It all means you must love georgeous George Galloway, you must all sleep with a book written over a 1,000 years ago, because I can only see the world in  black and white and in conclusion we need to invade more strategically located/oil producing counties because their lunatics need liberating more than the other lunatics.

[johnneycool]

I once read a book called;

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

   by William Blum


bought in JFK airport before i was flying back home.

Latin America gets a fair bit of attention from the CIA.

Certain sections are now online at

http://killinghope.org/

very good read.

[muppet]

I once read a book called;

Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

   by William Blum


bought in JFK airport before i was flying back home.

Latin America gets a fair bit of attention from the CIA.

Certain sections are now online at

http://killinghope.org/

very good read.

Just ordered it. Nice one Johnny.

[Tyrones own]

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Same tired spin.. If you go back 20 pages you'll find that the reason
for that label was simply due to the reluctance and inabilty to say anything
remotely positive about the US be it foreign policy, domestic policy or charitable
aid across the globe...what's the name of this thread again?
Keep digging why don't ye....no one's noticing

[muppet]

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Same tired spin.. If you go back 20 pages you'll find that the reason
for that label was simply due to the reluctance and inabilty to say anything
remotely positive about the US be it foreign policy, domestic policy or charitable
aid across the globe...what's the name of this thread again?
Keep digging why don't ye....no one's noticing

Read my 1st post on this thread.

[Tyrones own]

Declan, run for cover....... you US hater you.....................

Jaysus you are still here....I see, just holding off to let a few pages go by and
hope some here will forget what it is you're really about..Meow

[Tyrones own]

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Nope...I've already covered that! it's the rest of the antagonistic horse shit piled on top of it!

Explore that a bit and even the NeoCons admit that Israel could be handled better and that Iraq was a disaster.

Yep....think we've settled that one also, so what's the excuse now with the continued bitterness and animosity?

in conclusion we need to invade more strategically located/oil producing counties because their lunatics need liberating more than the other lunatics.

Leave the Lunatics in Mayo out of this

[muppet]

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Nope...I've already covered that! it's the rest of the antagonistic horse shit piled on top of it!

Explore that a bit and even the NeoCons admit that Israel could be handled better and that Iraq was a disaster.

Yep....think we've settled that one also, so what's the excuse now with the continued bitterness and animosity?

in conclusion we need to invade more strategically located/oil producing counties because their lunatics need liberating more than the other lunatics.

Leave the Lunatics in Mayo out of this

You seriously expect people to like murdering liars such as the NeoCons?

[Tyrones own]

Funny that. Criticise US foreign policy and you are a US hater.

Nope...I've already covered that! it's the rest of the antagonistic horse shit piled on top of it!

Explore that a bit and even the NeoCons admit that Israel could be handled better and that Iraq was a disaster.

Yep....think we've settled that one also, so what's the excuse now with the continued bitterness and animosity?

in conclusion we need to invade more strategically located/oil producing counties because their lunatics need liberating more than the other lunatics.

Leave the Lunatics in Mayo out of this

You seriously expect people to like murdering liars such as the NeoCons? Dictatorship regimes what's the difference actually...right?

Fcuk, Finally.... 22 pages later you f i n a l l y break down and admit that you do
indeed have underlying antipathy toward this Country in having such a vitriol point
of view... which evidently has overflowed to other aspects of what the US is about!
Shame really to go through life carrying such virulence for anyone or anything that doesn't
think, speak or share in your opinions!
Yet you have the audacity to call yourself a Pacifist

[Tyrones own]

Yes, more "hate speech" from Declan. Shame.

Is there any way possible that in your collective attempts to somehow strengthen your biased views of the US
that ye could quote and post articles that aren't written by biased progressive Liberals not to mention
a self confessed fan of the Great Hugo Chavez's policies.    Mark Weisbrot, are you kidding me!
Seriously, the love and support of Dictators on this board is actually scary
If what ye believe is right on the money then FFS do yourselves a favour and quote an impartial writer for once
..I might actually enjoy reading it.

[Declan]

strengthen your biased views of the US

Biased - that's ironic coming from you TO. In fact I do have view of the States - I think it's a wonderful country full of fantastic people that have allowed themselves fall into a collective sleepwalk and to be manipulated by very powerful people with a dangerous view of how the world should be ordered.

aren't written by biased progressive Liberals

That's because any of the articles that are written by conservative journalists don't support the facts as out lined in that article - Is there anything not true in it by the way?

the love and support of Dictators on this board is actually scary

Don't think I've ever expressed love or support for any Dictators in any of my posts. You mention the bould Hugo there. I'd disagree with a lot of his policies particularly him wanting to change the constitution etc but the fact remains that all impartial reviews of the elections have shown that he has won them fair and square and I don't recall him being involved in any regime changes or wars since he came to power.I'd agree with his policies on the nationalisation of the natural resources though and his policies on health and education.

Don't know what an impartial writer is as everyone in the political sphere writes from a particular philosophy but you stick up a few articles that contradict the one I posted and I'll gladly read it and let you know my opinion on it.

Keep her lit

[Zapatista]

Yes, more "hate speech" from Declan. Shame.

Is there any way possible that in your collective attempts to somehow strengthen your biased views of the US
that ye could quote and post articles that aren't written by biased progressive Liberals not to mention
a self confessed fan of the Great Hugo Chavez's policies.    Mark Weisbrot, are you kidding me!
Seriously, the love and support of Dictators on this board is actually scary
If what ye believe is right on the money then FFS do yourselves a favour and quote an impartial writer for once
..I might actually enjoy reading it.

Isn't that a contradiction in terms?