Barack Obama’s Motives in Haiti
From the first moments, the United States experienced the earthquake in Haiti and its horrifying aftermath almost as national disasters. The Americans’ deployment of humanitarian and military aid, and their fundraising efforts, are nothing short of extraordinary. With two former presidents—George Bush and Bill Clinton—getting involved, this is actually the first time Barack Obama has a bipartisan consensus to act without interference.
Without Washington’s ability to respond swiftly in support of the crippled country, getting international aid to the Haitian people would be an even more laborious task. Management of the Port-au-Prince airport, as well as essential security for rescuers and humanitarian workers, are guaranteed by Obama’s army, since the UN forces took a big hit initially. For the Haitians, it’s a godsend, and the massive response has probably helped to calm the situation. Who else but the United States could have done it?
History, the large Haitian community on its soil and the many American expatriates on the island help us to understand the alacrity of the U.S. response. If there is a justification for questioning the intentions and the limits of the American intervention in Haiti—and its possible ulterior political motives—as some are already doing in Latin America, following the lead of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, it should be remembered that Obama (if for no other reason than the color of his skin) is very popular on the island. On a brief visit to Port-au-Prince, American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton declared that the United States “will be here today, tomorrow and for the time ahead.” But she was careful to specify that this was at the invitation of President René Préval’s government and in cooperation with the UN’s partners.
If there were a political calculation on Washington’s part, it is more likely a matter of domestic U.S. politics than some sort of strategy for seizing control of one of the poorest countries in the world. The Democrats are committed to showing that they are different from the Republicans, whose management of Hurricane Katrina proved to be a catastrophe.
Without Washington’s ability to respond swiftly in support of the crippled country, getting international aid to the Haitian people would be an even more laborious task. Management of the Port-au-Prince airport, as well as essential security for rescuers and humanitarian workers, are guaranteed by Obama’s army, since the UN forces took a big hit initially. For the Haitians, it’s a godsend, and the massive response has probably helped to calm the situation. Who else but the United States could have done it?
History, the large Haitian community on its soil and the many American expatriates on the island help us to understand the alacrity of the U.S. response. If there is a justification for questioning the intentions and the limits of the American intervention in Haiti—and its possible ulterior political motives—as some are already doing in Latin America, following the lead of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, it should be remembered that Obama (if for no other reason than the color of his skin) is very popular on the island. On a brief visit to Port-au-Prince, American Secretary of State Hilary Clinton declared that the United States “will be here today, tomorrow and for the time ahead.” But she was careful to specify that this was at the invitation of President René Préval’s government and in cooperation with the UN’s partners.
If there were a political calculation on Washington’s part, it is more likely a matter of domestic U.S. politics than some sort of strategy for seizing control of one of the poorest countries in the world. The Democrats are committed to showing that they are different from the Republicans, whose management of Hurricane Katrina proved to be a catastrophe.
Next article![]( "Obama Loses His Supermajority")
