I wrote a long comment that Moveable Type found to be "questionable content." There were no cuss words, I promise. But just as well I didn't post a rant.

In short, my two cents: the neglect and cutting-off of aid have been strategic. I think the factions in Washington who have always hated Aristide and been friendly to Haitian military thugs are getting what they hoped for: watching Aristide removed without the bad press that goes with actually sponsoring a coup. The bad behavior of Lavalas-affiliated people have made things worse; there is real discontent with Aristide. But the true leaders of this coup are the ex-army FRAPH people, who killed thousands from 1991-95, and will do so again if some unlikely event doesn't stop them. Whatever the problems with Lavalas, this revolt is not an cure but a far, far worse disease.

I look toward Haiti and my jaw just drops. I wouldn't know what to do. It has always been an exclusionary zone, the unwanted off-spring of a slave rebellion, regarded as such even by the Dominicans. And its half of the island has been so stripped of tree cover as to be rendered an ecological catastrophe zone, with no prospect of sustaining its burgeoning, utterly immiserated population. Some sort of internationalized protectorate, effectively re-colonization, would seem to be the only reasonable hope, not just to restore "order" and establish working legal institutions, but to effect a massive public works/ reconstruction program to restore even a minimal level of habitability. But that would be costly and there is no apparent political will in the world for it. Certainly one can't rely on the Norte Americanos, whose intentions toward Haiti have always been malignant, varying only in degree. And I would include in that the Clintonoids tepid intervention, which took place only after holding Aristide at bay for several years, while the military putschists wreaked their havoc, and operated entirely in terms of neo-liberal "self-help" auspices. I don't know exactly how much Aristide has contributed to his own difficulties, though I'm sure his American neo-liberal betters have contributed mightily to misunderstanding him, and the niggardly aid and support for Haitian reform, combined with the cut-off of even minimal aid on pro-forma grounds, certainly amount to a policy of abetting the most malignant groups and forces at play in Haitian politics.

this is a very delicate issue. an invasion of haiti would have several drawbacks for obvious region. however any type of intervention is troublesome since aid and imperialism are easily confused in this situation. normally it would be the duty of the UN to decide what body forms the sovereign government of a country. however american "coalition of the willing"ism has so weakened this principle to make it almost a tool of imperialism. arguably the haitian rebels are now the sovereign goverment of haiti since they control a majority of the country.

There's really no question, legally, that Aristide's government is the sovereign, legitimately elected government. The slight irregularities in a few 2000 senatorial elections were not only minor, but have been corrected. Aristide has a better claim to legitimacy on paper than G. W. Bush, and there are two years left in his elected term.

One problem is that the U.S. (including, though to a less evil degree, the Clinton administration) doesn't support the government that the voters chose. Another is that Aristide's government may have embraced some of the street-level thugs and vigilantes who have given Lavalas a bad name -- though it's not clear to me that this is a fair charge. But, as I said, the rebels are killers who should be stopped. They are succeeding in large part because they have friends in Washington who have worked in their favor since the days of Baby Doc. The recent neglect has been deliberate, and it's paying off. As for going colonial and forcing Haiti to pacify, I don't know . . . that's what a lot of Americans thought we were doing there during the 1915-34 occupation, and the effects were brutal. I am also lost as to what solution is best. Part of me hopes that Caribbean nations and France go in with a lot of troops and stamp out FRAPH completely. But after that, I don't know what that violence would bring. Bob Shacochis's book _The Immaculate Invasion_ about the 1995 intervention convinced me that we should have gone against FRAPH as a hostile force, but also that the problems are so complex and intractable that a golden solution isn't going to come along.

Let the French do it. It is what the Liberals want anyway!