Why Haiti Has Never Been Allowed to Prosper
By Sean Fenley at Jan 20, 2010
Aside from the racism that the people of European descent and white majority countries have exhibited towards Haiti, Haiti, has not been allowed to prosper, because a country like Haiti (extremely poor, that has ‘never really had it together') cannot be seen (by other impoverished nations) to be successful. It's similar to Nicaragua and the revolution led there against the U.S. backed dictator Somoza; Nicaragua is the second poorest country, in the hemisphere. The abominable Ronald Reagan had to kill a socialist country like Nicaragua, because you cannot give any hope to such countries as Haiti and Nicaragua. If you give these nations and peoples ‘dignified poverty' as Aristide has called for in Haiti, others like them will get the same idea!
It's the same reason that the United States had to support insurrection against the government of Bolivia, and even support violent neo-fascist marauding gangs in that country. These vigilante groups beat up and even murdered dozens of indigenous Evo Morales supporters. Obama's equivalent in Bolivia, Morales, the first indigenous president of that country; wanted to 'share the wealth' of some of the more resource rich provinces with the rest of the nation. At the time he was the most popular president in the history of the country, but provinces run by the Bolivian white elite, could not stomach the will of the majority indigenous country being asserted there. A right-wing insurrection, in which U.S. ambassador Philip Goldberg was instrumental, was launched against the popular president. Thanks to the backing of leftist and center-left leaders in the region, and Morales expelling the U.S. ambassador and DEA authorities that were ostensibly fighting coca production in the country (but were at least as interested in aiding and abetting anti-Morales efforts); Morales was able to get past the U.S. backed violent insurrection against his hold on power.
Another recent instance of this same sort of practice occurred in the (now formerly) ALBA nation of Honduras. The Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, had been so bold as to align his nation with Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua. The U.S. has an important military base in that country, that it used during Reagan's support of the terrorist Contras, who targeted schools, hospitals and innocent civilians in their efforts at Central American ‘democracy promotion'. A key staging ground for U.S. interventionism, could not be ‘allowed to fall', concrete connections between the U.S. and the overthrow of Zelaya are still elusive at this stage, to my knowledge; but what is clear, is how jovial the U.S. government was to condone sham elections, to replace the ousted democratically elected leader of Honduras.
Honduras, in addition to Haiti, Bolivia and Nicaragua, lies towards the bottom of the scale of wealthier to poorer countries in the region. The United States, acting as a typical bully, seems to be a little more hesitant with countries (of course the U.S. tries to destabilize somewhat more powerful countries whose leaders/governments that it does not agree with as well, but the U.S. often uses more cloak and dagger type methods in those cases) that could put up a fight, but those that cannot are not allowed to chose a non-U.S. sponsored direction. Autonomy from the blueprints and dictates of what the U.S. has in mind for vassal countries, is not possible for some of the least materially wealthy countries. Of course, nations like Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran have been ‘pariahs' in the eyes of the United States government for some time. But countries like Haiti, Nicaragua, and Bolivia, will often be come down upon even harder, than nations who have more means at their disposable to resist U.S. neocolonial efforts.