12008: Ewen: Re: 13003: Chamberlain: re 12999: State Department briefing (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Stephen Ewen <stephenewen@character4success.com>


> I appreciate Mr Ewen's partly-accurate reading between the lines of what
> Boucher said.  But what is this fantasy that Aristide and his government
> are some kind of dangerous infection or "example to others" that will, by
> implication, ignite revolution in the region?  That Washington is
trembling
> with terror at the prospect?

It has seemed to me in studying Latin American foreign policy that the U.S.
has been most reluctant to allow what I suppose we could call
reformist-minded governments to go on, where they might carry out things
such as significant land reform, nationalization of industries (or retention
of already national industries), wealth redistribution, etc., that might
cause the nation in question to not exactly be within the U.S.'s sphere of
influence any longer.  As I read the history of U.S. foreign policy in Latin
America, the U.S. foreign policy theory and fear has been that if regimes
carried out such reforms in what we might call "nationalistic" ways,
neighboring nations might become emboldened to do the same, then align
themselves at some point, and proclaim a relative break from being a subject
of the Monroe Doctrine (and its re-inventions and additions through the
years).  And those that did "succeed" were *made* (negative) examples of.
That is how I read the history of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America at
this point, anyway, as an academic exercise.  And as another such exercise,
I am trying to make sense of it all as applies to and as it has been applied
to Haiti.

In that vien, I think the argument would be that the Aristide regime, just
like, for example, the Arbenz regime elsewhere, did not have the chance to
become such an example, which was perhaps the U.S. foreign policy goal (or
at least their foreign policy goal *liking*) all along.  Hence the tutelage
that Aristide was put under as what has seemed to me as more or less a
prerequisite for his being returned to power by the U.S. to finish out his
first term.  As I read it, and as am presently fromulating my understanding
of it, Aristide left Haiti holding one ideology, which was what we might
call a strongly nationalistic and majority-oriented one.  But on his return,
it was pretty much standard neo-liberalism all the way.  Politique de
doublure marched on.  Later, when Haiti started backing away from standard
neo-liberalism, it was time for the regime to made an example of (e.g., the
relative embargo, etc.).  So, the argument would be that Aristide did not
really have a chance to become such an example, and when he tried, he was
made an example of.  As an academic excercise, and at this point, that is
the most plausible scenario I myself can formulate, anyway.

Stephen Ewen




----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Corbett" <corbetre@webster.edu>
To: "Haiti mailing list" <haiti@lists.webster.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 3:03 PM
Subject: 13003: Chamberlain: re 12999: State Department briefing (fwd)


>
> From: Greg Chamberlain <GregChamberlain@compuserve.com>
>
> > MR. BOUCHER: The answer is not [overtly] supporting the removal of
> > democratically elected
> > leaders [who are not in our interest and threaten to be an example to
> others
> > within our "sphere of influence."]
>
>
> I appreciate Mr Ewen's partly-accurate reading between the lines of what
> Boucher said.  But what is this fantasy that Aristide and his government
> are some kind of dangerous infection or "example to others" that will, by
> implication, ignite revolution in the region?  That Washington is
trembling
> with terror at the prospect?
>
> What is the feared "example to others"?  Has the material lot of Haitians
> improved under Aristide?  Has corruption decreased?  Are the streets of
the
> capital no longer clogged with mountains of garbage?  Is the electricity
> supply any better?  Are regime thugs and intimidation just a memory?
>
> No, no and no.  So how does any of this "threaten to be an example to
> others"?
>
>
>         Greg Chamberlain
>
>