The U.S. has supported many of the world's most ruthless dictators over the past century. This has been epitomized by the U.S. relationship with Haiti. The U.S. has consistently chosen the idea of stability over Haitian self-determination.
François Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude, headed a dynastic dictatorship that lasted nearly 30 years. François, known as Papa Doc and ruling from 1957-1971, outmaneuvered the U.S. into granted his administration aid by playing up its anti-Communist stance. Jean-Claude, known as Baby Doc and ruling from 1971-1985, offered cosmetic liberal reforms in extorting aid from the U.S.
Most of the aid given the Duvaliers was, simply put, stolen for their own personal use. Virtually none of the money helped the vast majority of Haitians. Papa Doc used the aid to enhance his personality cult. Baby Doc lavished his wife with the finest gifts available in the world. Meanwhile, people starved, unemployment rose, buildings crumbled, and the general condition of Haiti deteriorated.
U.S. warships watched as Jean-Claude, age 19, assumed power. The U.S. ensured the continuation of the brutal autocracy. When Jean-Claude was dethroned, the U.S. made sure he left safely. Both were in order to maintain what they considered stability. While the very top may have enjoyed so-called stability, the hungry masses suffered from this illusion.
Often when the U.S. gives aid, it goes directly into the pockets of rich autocrats. If the U.S. attempts to put conditions on aid, they are, with some justification, accused of stealing the receiving nation's sovereignty. The U.S. should refrain from policing the world until an acceptable method of helping the poor masses is conceived. When the U.S. becomes involved in political intrigues in other countries, the result is rarely positive for the nation it is supposedly helping. Staying out of other nations' business is a better policy.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Ignoring Success
Instead of supporting nations with nefarious dictators, poor records on human rights, and corrupt leaders, the United States should focus the bulk of its aid and effort on countries that are similar to Botswana.
Botswana, sometimes referred to as Africa's miracle, is not without its problems. While it has maintained a multi-party democracy since independence, the BDP has retained power throughout this entire period. In recent years, the president has retired to allow the vice president, the party's choice as successor, to take the reigns early. In addition, the Sans, a group from the bush, are treated less than equal. Botswana is also home to one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world.
Botswana is remarkable because its leaders have often put the health of the nation above that of their individual bank accounts. Its GDP per capita was $14,300 in 2007. The country also boasts of a lucrative diamond market. However, critics claim that Botswana's economy is too reliant on diamonds and is in need of diversification, an area where the U.S. could be of assistance.
Instead of giving billions of dollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, money that can find its way into the pockets of anti-American militants, those funds should reward nations with stable and functioning governments that are able to use them to improve the lives of their citizenry. Unconditional aid could benefit a place like Botswana.
Botswana, sometimes referred to as Africa's miracle, is not without its problems. While it has maintained a multi-party democracy since independence, the BDP has retained power throughout this entire period. In recent years, the president has retired to allow the vice president, the party's choice as successor, to take the reigns early. In addition, the Sans, a group from the bush, are treated less than equal. Botswana is also home to one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world.
Botswana is remarkable because its leaders have often put the health of the nation above that of their individual bank accounts. Its GDP per capita was $14,300 in 2007. The country also boasts of a lucrative diamond market. However, critics claim that Botswana's economy is too reliant on diamonds and is in need of diversification, an area where the U.S. could be of assistance.
Instead of giving billions of dollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, money that can find its way into the pockets of anti-American militants, those funds should reward nations with stable and functioning governments that are able to use them to improve the lives of their citizenry. Unconditional aid could benefit a place like Botswana.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Additional U.S. Troops Headed to Afghanistan
Adding 30,000 additional U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan is a mistake. First, it must be understood that the Taliban poses no threat to overtake the country once again.
The Taliban was able to capture 90% of the country at the beginning of the decade, before the American invasion. While they were able to enforce some outrageous laws in some high-profile places, they ruled most of the country in name only. The Taliban did not and will never truly rule over the majority of Afghanistan. They have some pull in the south of the country and the U.S. occupation has done nothing to diminish the Taliban's popularity in the Pashtun heartland. But most people in Herat and Kabul will always resent their presence. In Hazarajat and in the north, the Taliban will always be mortal enemies. The concern that the Taliban will sweep through the country if and when the U.S. leaves is unfounded.
The best case scenario for Afghanistan is for each distinct region to have its own system of government and to be loosely affiliated with one another. In this case, the best one can hope for, the Taliban would likely have some power in the south. Individual warlords would probably control the other regions of the country. Tax revenue would be collected and distributed locally. Individual regions would be allowed to determine how leaders are selected. The hope is that these warlords would be satisfied to hold onto power within their own areas and would refrain from engaging in violent forays into other regions in a bid to increase power. A central government may have some oversight powers, but, realistically, would likely end up being no more than the government of Kabul.
The U.S.'s intended goals however are to attempt to create a stable nation and turn over power to the Afghan government. This government, run by Hamid Karzai, is illegitimate on the heels of the stolen election held in August. Yet the U.S. plan is totally dependent on a government that has no credibility and has been widely regarded as ineffective and even corrupt. The U.S. has not only failed to learn the lessons of recent Afghan history, but those of ancient history as well. It continues to attempt to impose a strong central government on a society that has rejected its presence for thousands of years. The U.S. is pursuing a policy in Afghanistan that has no chance of success.
One concern is that if Afghanistan crumbles, Pakistan will follow. Unfortunately, Afghanistan crumbled thirty years ago, so that fear is outdated. In addition, Pakistani distrust of the U.S. pushes even moderate Pakistanis to the side of radical fundamentalists in opposition to the U.S. Should the U.S. military leave the region, it would likely increase the Pakistanis resolve to fight certain radical groups, because those groups would no longer serve their purpose as anti-U.S. forces. Pakistanis would perceive the fate of their nation to be at stake. So, in reality, the health of Pakistan might very well depend on a U.S. withdrawal.
The Taliban was able to capture 90% of the country at the beginning of the decade, before the American invasion. While they were able to enforce some outrageous laws in some high-profile places, they ruled most of the country in name only. The Taliban did not and will never truly rule over the majority of Afghanistan. They have some pull in the south of the country and the U.S. occupation has done nothing to diminish the Taliban's popularity in the Pashtun heartland. But most people in Herat and Kabul will always resent their presence. In Hazarajat and in the north, the Taliban will always be mortal enemies. The concern that the Taliban will sweep through the country if and when the U.S. leaves is unfounded.
The best case scenario for Afghanistan is for each distinct region to have its own system of government and to be loosely affiliated with one another. In this case, the best one can hope for, the Taliban would likely have some power in the south. Individual warlords would probably control the other regions of the country. Tax revenue would be collected and distributed locally. Individual regions would be allowed to determine how leaders are selected. The hope is that these warlords would be satisfied to hold onto power within their own areas and would refrain from engaging in violent forays into other regions in a bid to increase power. A central government may have some oversight powers, but, realistically, would likely end up being no more than the government of Kabul.
The U.S.'s intended goals however are to attempt to create a stable nation and turn over power to the Afghan government. This government, run by Hamid Karzai, is illegitimate on the heels of the stolen election held in August. Yet the U.S. plan is totally dependent on a government that has no credibility and has been widely regarded as ineffective and even corrupt. The U.S. has not only failed to learn the lessons of recent Afghan history, but those of ancient history as well. It continues to attempt to impose a strong central government on a society that has rejected its presence for thousands of years. The U.S. is pursuing a policy in Afghanistan that has no chance of success.
One concern is that if Afghanistan crumbles, Pakistan will follow. Unfortunately, Afghanistan crumbled thirty years ago, so that fear is outdated. In addition, Pakistani distrust of the U.S. pushes even moderate Pakistanis to the side of radical fundamentalists in opposition to the U.S. Should the U.S. military leave the region, it would likely increase the Pakistanis resolve to fight certain radical groups, because those groups would no longer serve their purpose as anti-U.S. forces. Pakistanis would perceive the fate of their nation to be at stake. So, in reality, the health of Pakistan might very well depend on a U.S. withdrawal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
