User login
Navigation
Reporters' Notebooks
- Brenda Norrell
- Kristin Bricker
- Bill Conroy
- Dennes Longoria
- RJ Maccani
- Narco News
- Okke Ornstein
- Lorie Cavin
- Fernando León
- Jessica Davies
- Charlie Hardy
- Nancy Davies
- Miguel Contreras
- Erich Moncada
- George Salzman
- Christopher Fee
- Don Henry Ford Jr.
- Al Giordano
- Maggie Von Vogt
- Nick Cooper
- Delia Beatriz Martinez
- Benjamin Melançon
- Marc Van Riper
- Laura Carlsen
- Amy Casada-Alaniz
- Nora Callahan
- Joe Emersberger
- Raúl Romero
- Charles Faris
- Gurujiwan Khalsa
- Andrew Stelzer
- Allan Brauer
- John Viescas
- Gregory Berger
- Katie Halper
- John Slade
- Diana Barahona
- Romina Trincheri
- Jay J. Johnson-Castro Sr.
- Mark Smith
- Daniel Fleming
- Dan Feder
- Stephen Peacock
- Laura del Castillo
- Charles Mostoller
- Jeb Sprague
- David B. Briones
- Aaron Shuman
- John Bruning
- Marcos Meconi
- Keith Yearman
- Jonathan Mills
- Cindy Lou Wilmore
- Sean Donahue
- Juan Trujillo
- Jeff Simpson
- Paul Henry
- Christopher Whalen
- Simon Fitzgerald
- Wim Dankbaar
- Diego Mantilla
- Shawn O'Bryant
- Christopher Hyde
- David Keating
- Rich Gibson
- Anthony Fenton
- Steve Young
- Richard Pilkington
- Tatiana Ovando
- Jeremy Gordon
- Ricardo Sala
- Randall White
- Luis Gomez
- Teofilo Ballve
- Ben Masel
- Walt Lyford
- Jeremy Bigwood
- John F. Eden
- Irene Roca Ortiz
- Ron Smith
- Kevin Skerrett
- Jean Friedsky
- Gissel Gonzales
- María Eugenia Flores Castro
- José Mirtenbaum
- Manuela Aldabe
- Kevin Gallagher
- Bill Weaver
- Justin Delacour
- Claudia Espinoza
- Reber Boult
- Colleen Glynn
- Mike DAllaire
- Jennifer Whitney
- Stan Gotlieb
- Alex Satanovsky
- Marcel Miranda
- Nate Johnson
- Richard Eramian
- Pablo Mamani
- Paul Silvester
- Franz J.T. Lee
- Chris Herz
- Andrei Tudor
- Julia Steinberger
- Fabio Mesquita
- Yasmin Khan
- Pablo Francischelli
- Baylen Linnekin
- Erik Siegrist
- Natalia Viana
- Amber Howard
- Linda Langness
- Kevin Okabe
- Sarah de Haro

Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Lula, Haiti, and Realpolitik
Submitted December 1, 2004 - 6:20 pm by Al GiordanoLarry Birns at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs put out a press release, "Powell Returns to Haiti Today to Witness Some of the Damage that His Policies Have Wrought," today noting that Colin Powell is visiting the island-bound nation:
It's not pretty. When one remembers that this was the scenario that Washington had attempted in Venezuela in 2002 and various times since - the kidnapping and forced exile of a democratically-elected leader and the imposition of an authoritarian regime, and all the attention that got regarding an oil-rich country - the lack of attention to Haiti by news organizations with resources is inexcusable.
So, what about Lula and Brazil's role in Haiti?
The story is one of realpolitik and conflicting goals. Three little-considered truths...
1. The Cuba Factor. Lula would not be placing Brazilian troops in the lead in the Haiti occupation without the expressed consent of Fidel Castro. What's that about? Cuba, obviously, is concerned that the geographic proximity of Haiti to Cuba could make it a launching pad for foreign invasion by that mentally-infirm trigger-happy little man in the White House. Many of Lula's top cabinet members and party officials - including Ze Dirceu, perhaps the most important of them all - would not be alive today had Cuba not offered them sanctuary years ago when a brutal military dictatorship controlled Brazil. Castro believes that Brazil taking the lead on the UN occupation of Haiti mitigates strongly against the country being used as a military launching pad against Cuba.
2. The Brazilian Military Factor. Like it or not, the military in Brazil remains a gigantic, oversized, really, institution. It has a brutal history of men like that General Heleno mentioned in the Counterpunch article, with ugly, indeed fascist, attitudes. By sending them somewhere else, Lula keeps them from sitting idly in Brazil where, as elsewhere, idle hands are the devil's garden. Lula does a lot of such pandering to the military brass... Buying them sleek new weapons while the country has no conflicts with any other... Keeping alive their dreams of Brazil becoming a nuclear power... Recently giving them the permission to shoot down drug-suspected flights... and sending them off to Haiti satisfies part of that agenda as well. Like it or not, indeed, the Lula people feel that the Armed Forces is a beast that must be fed lest it start dreaming nostalgically again of reasserting the old military dictatorship.
3. South American Union and Unity. Note that Kirchner's Argentina sent troops to Haiti, too. It's not just Lula on the left (and Kirchner, likewise, wouldn't do it without the blessing of Castro). The increased role of Latin American troops on the island sets other precedents, not all bad, from the longterm goals of South American unity. It will, in the future, make it more difficult for the UN to occupy any Latin American country without lead participation by troops from the countries down here.
There are, in my respectful opinion, a lot of presumptions and examples of "half-thinking" in the Counterpunch article.
The first question not asked is: If Brazil refused to send troops to Haiti (one gets the sense that it's what the author would like to see, although he doesn't say so overtly), would that change anything for Haiti's people?
In other words, would there then be no occupation?
No, of course there would still be an occupation. But it would be US, French and Canadian troops continuing to take the lead, behaving just as brutally (if not more so), continuing the precedent of outsider intervention in Latin America, and posing a greater military threat to nearby Cuba.
We have yet to see it play out. Brazil (and Argentina) taking the lead in the Haiti occupation may be part of a longer term strategy to hasten the return of Aristide and/or Lavalas.
Remember one other factor: the CARICOM nations in the Caribbean Community continue to stand tall refusing the recognize the Latortue regime in Haiti.
Things are moving under the water in the Caribbean. Lula and Brazil might or might not be part of a real game plan to extricate UN troops from Haiti faster. Nobody should be surprised that a military officer from Brazil behaves like a goon: a lot of them did for decades, the institutional culture does not end with the first presidential administration trying to grapple with it.
But I think it is very extreme "catastrophizing," typical in too many activist circles, to presume that because Brazil has troops there that the situation is worse or different than it would be if Brazil did not have troops there. I think it is also an example of demanding "purity" from governments of the Left when governments, by my anarcho definitions, are imperfect and impure by nature. In many ways it reflects a double standard.
Do I defend the occupation? Hell no. I think the UN should get out of there. But do I understand realpolitik, and that there are factors like the three above at play that might pan out as a longer term successful strategy to accomplish that goal sooner? Yes, I understand them.
I don't know if that's the case. But if it is, do the activist demands for "purity" work against a positive undertow, so far unseen, in the Caribbean sea and the future Latin American Union?
Questions and question marks... That's where all concrete answers begin.