The "international community" is often cited as either a bulwark against US imperialism, or as a counter-force to sovereign states which butcher their own people. In Haiti, it managed to be complicit with both.
The invasion of Haiti was the joint production of Presidents Bush and Chirac - together at last. And this tells an interesting kind of story. It is a story about "multilateralism", international law and "humanitarian intervention. Consider: Spain is pulling its troops from Iraq, but is sending troops to Haiti . The EU was broadly against the invasion of Iraq, but will release sanctions on Haiti because its new "interim government" promises elections in 2005. The Carribean Community (Caricom) collectively opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, but it now wishes to recognise the government of Gerard Latortue and readmit Haiti to the Community. The French press overwhelmingly opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003, but were happy in 2004 to back their government's joint invasion of Haiti:
Chirac and Villepin had the virtually unanimous backing of the French media, from Le Figaro to Le Monde and L’Humanité, for military intervention in Haiti. Among the most feverish voices has been that of Libération, which held President Aristide—a ‘defrocked priest turned tyrant millionaire’, ‘the Père Ubu of the Caribbean’—personally responsible for the ‘risk of humanitarian catastrophe’ that was claimed to justify the invasion.
"Progressive" Latin American governments opposed the Iraq misadventure, but happily send troops now to support the putschists in Haiti. As Peter Hallward notes in the most recent New Left Review (May/June 2004):
Bush is entitled to take some comfort from the far more successful operation just completed in Haiti. No brusque pre-emptive strikes, domestic carping or splintering coalitions have marred the scene; objections from CARICOM and the African Union have carried no threats of reprisal. In overthrowing the constitutionally elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, Washington could hardly have provided a more exemplary show of multilateral courtesy. Allies were consulted, the UN Security Council’s blessing sought and immediately received. The signal sent to Chávez, Castro and other hemispheric opponents was unambiguous—yet it was not a bullying Uncle Sam but France that made the first call for international intervention in Haiti’s domestic affairs.
Continue:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_leninology_archive.html#108906241202136904
Chirac and Villepin had the virtually unanimous backing of the French media, from Le Figaro to Le Monde and L’Humanité, for military intervention in Haiti. Among the most feverish voices has been that of Libération, which held President Aristide—a ‘defrocked priest turned tyrant millionaire’, ‘the Père Ubu of the Caribbean’—personally responsible for the ‘risk of humanitarian catastrophe’ that was claimed to justify the invasion.
"Progressive" Latin American governments opposed the Iraq misadventure, but happily send troops now to support the putschists in Haiti. As Peter Hallward notes in the most recent New Left Review (May/June 2004):
Bush is entitled to take some comfort from the far more successful operation just completed in Haiti. No brusque pre-emptive strikes, domestic carping or splintering coalitions have marred the scene; objections from CARICOM and the African Union have carried no threats of reprisal. In overthrowing the constitutionally elected government of Jean Bertrand Aristide, Washington could hardly have provided a more exemplary show of multilateral courtesy. Allies were consulted, the UN Security Council’s blessing sought and immediately received. The signal sent to Chávez, Castro and other hemispheric opponents was unambiguous—yet it was not a bullying Uncle Sam but France that made the first call for international intervention in Haiti’s domestic affairs.
Continue:
http://leninology.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_leninology_archive.html#108906241202136904
Homepage:
