[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
9214: Haiti is ransomed by neo-colonial wolves (Saint-Vil responds to Poincy) (fwd)
From: Jean Saint-Vil <email@example.com>
And here am I, agreeing with Poincy, as he wrote:
«I strongly believe that it is in the benefits of Ayiti
not to receive any of such financial assistance»
Ayiti would indeed benefit in the short and long run. But would it be to the
benefit of the «donors» not to be perceived to be providers of such
assistance? What would be the impact on the USA, if it closed USAID? Can
this neo-colonial system sustain itself as is without covert financing and
cover for the Toto Constant and Mobutus of our world?
Poincy wrote: «However, accepting to be in a contract forcing them to
serve their financial obligations while not allowed to use the loans
themselves is stupidity.»
I see nothing stupid about this. The U.S. and its neo-colonial associates
follow a foreign policy that fits perfectly with their logic of total
dominance. It is absolutely wicked but it is also very good for the «first
world»'s economy. First, you steal all they have, then you invest heavily in
socio-economic and political destabilisation of their country and to top it
all you come as a saviour and lend them money. Result: you make yourself
absolutely indispensable in every aspect of their life. I find nothing
stupid about this cynical strategy.
Economic punishment is when you close your market to a nation's produces.
Haiti is not under economic punishment, the Haitian people continue to be
ransomed. Haiti is under the cloak of blood-sucking neo-colonial enemies
torturing her with a big smile on their faces.
«Tell me would be happy in village ghetto land ? ~ Stevie Wonder»
----Original Message Follows----
From: Bob Corbett <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Haiti mailing list <email@example.com>
Subject: 9207: Re: 9201: Haiti's Economic Punishment : Poincy comments
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 02:24:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: "[iso-8859-1] Jean Poincy" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I can never grasp the concept of linking Ayiti's
economic "chance" to the external financial assistance
that it receives. Regardless the amount of financial
assistance, may it be loans or grants, that Ayiti
receives the result would be the same for the
1) Where feasible projects to promote structural
economic development lack, no amount of financial
assistance can relieve Ayiti from its economic
2) Provided there are projects, if the country fails
to show a capacity of sharing the costs or bear the
initial cost to get the projects going, it is less
likely that substantial external financial assistance
will fall through.
In the event that it receives assistance despite its
capacity to share the costs, such is tailored in a way
to benefit more the donors. The irony is it would
appear that the country is being helped.
3) In this juncture, the local authorities have
nothing better to do with whatever they receive, but
to pocket the money received while the donors suck up
This is quite rational on the part of the authorities,
because the insignificant financial assistance
received can hardly take the projects a quarter of the
way. Hence what's the sense of starting a project that
would stop right after it starts.
Nonetheless, to save face the authorities would
undertake some bogus projects which don't respond to
the country's need. There the "vicious cycle" of doing
the same project over and over takes roots.
All those considered, I found it absurd to blame
foreign donors for punishing Ayiti by refusing to
release funds. I think Ayiti is its own "bourreau",
not because of the political crisis, but because of
its authorities and the people's incapacity to
conceive feasible projects appropriate to their needs.
I strongly believe that it is in the benefits of Ayiti
not to receive any of such financial assistance.
However, accepting to be in a contract forcing them to
serve their financial obligations while not allowed to
use the loans themselves is stupidity.
However, it makes a lot of sense for the authorities
as they know the country or future generations are
responsible of the debts and not them. In the
expectation to receive the funds later during their
term in office, they don't mind staying in this biding
contract. Ultimately, they will pocket the money.
Ayiti has lived, lives and will live
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp