Sunday, January 17, 2010

Can't help but wonder if the situation in Haiti would be better or worse had the US never messed in their affairs

...

Aristide was re-elected in 2000. His second term was marked by accusations of corruption. In 2004 a paramilitary coup ousted Aristide a second time. (See 2004 Haitian rebellion.) Aristide was removed by U.S. Marines from his home in what he described as a "kidnapping", and was then briefly held by the government of the Central African Republic (to which the U.S. had decided to fly him). Aristide obtained his release and went into exile in South Africa.

...

It's like every country the US gets involved with now has an alternate history from its natural, self-determined history. For better or worse, we've changed Haiti's path. If we hadn't supported the coup in 2004 might they be in better shape to deal with the aftermath of this earthquake? Maybe not--but maybe so. There's no way to ever know for sure how much better or worse we make a country compared to if we just leave well enough alone.

Am I an isolationist? Not really. I just think we should go where we are asked by ambassadors, not by corporations or lobbyists. Let countries determine their futures on their own. Then maybe when disasters happen they just might be able to support themselves.

Posted via web from thepete's posterous

No comments: