I’m just glad for once the US is letting some other country take the lead. Let the Haitians hate Kenya for trying to stabilize their country. I’m sure the US will be seen and the puppeteer pulling the strings though.
Looks like they’re getting ready for whatever play they intend to make against the gangs and are trying to keep exacts on the hush hush to avoid the gangs being able to make preparations.
They’re called gangs in print but it’s worth remembering that these organizations have military training and equipment at their disposal far exceeding what you’d picture when someone says the word “gang”, at this point it’d be more accurate to consider them warlord bands.
I don’t have sources but I’ve heard tell the biggest gang right now is led by a guy who guys by BBQ, and his stated goals are basically a combination of Liberation rhetoric and demanding the government submit to his authority as the legitimate transitional executive.
Yes. Jimmy “Barbecue” Chérizier. Former cop. Alleged to have perpetrated massacres against the public killing dozens of people and burning down hundreds of homes. As a leader of G9 he publicly threatened genocide unless the prime minister of Haiti stepped down.
This is all information I got from Wikipedia. I don’t know the veracity of any of it. I don’t live in Haiti and don’t really follow the situation there. Whoever Jimmy is, he doesn’t have very good PR. That’s all I can say for sure about him!
By 2022, researchers estimated that about 200 gangs operated across Haiti. Of these, half were located in Port-au-Prince. The more influential gangs control large swathes of territory, including entire municipalities and communes.
There’s something off to me about the media exclusively referring to them as gangs.
It’s about fixing the narrative in the public mind. They do similar shit in almost every foreign news story, especially places, we are not supposed to like
According the the Haitian guy who comes in from time to time where I work his family had to leave due to the gangs. Its what he calls them so I think that is what I should call them.
This is very odd, but also very intriguing. The President met with Biden a month ago, so this tracks. I kinda hope this happens just to see how it plays out.
Edit: this will also be a great test of who reads past the headline. There are going to be a lot of knee-jerk “Murica Bad” comments.
Here is a combined list of wars and conflicts initiated or significantly supported by the United States, with the stated reason being the promotion or defense of democracy:
Barbary Wars (1801–1805; 1815)
Reason: Democracy.
Mexican-American War (1846–1848)
Reason: Democracy.
Spanish-American War (1898)
Reason: Democracy.
Supported Countries: Cuba.
Philippine-American War (1899–1902)
Reason: Democracy.
Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961)
Reason: Democracy.
Dominican Civil War (1965)
Reason: Democracy.
Lebanon Intervention (1982–1984)
Reason: Democracy.
Invasion of Grenada (1983)
Reason: Democracy.
Bombing of Libya (1986)
Reason: Democracy.
U.S. Invasion of Panama (1989)
Reason: Democracy.
Persian Gulf War (1990–1991)
Reason: Democracy.
Somali Civil War intervention (1992–1994)
Reason: Democracy.
Bosnian War (1995–1996)
Reason: Democracy.
Kosovo War (1999)
Reason: Democracy.
Afghanistan War (2001–2021)
Reason: Democracy.
Supported Countries: Afghanistan.
Iraq War (2003–2011)
Reason: Democracy.
Libya Intervention (2011)
Reason: Democracy.
Syrian Civil War intervention (2014–present)
Reason: Democracy.
Supported Countries: Syria.
Support to Israel
Reason: Democracy.
Supported Countries: Israel.
Support to South Korea during the Korean War (1950–1953)
Reason: Democracy.
Supported Countries: South Korea.
Support to South Vietnam during the Vietnam War (1960–1975)
I am very concerned about the situation in Haiti and the global public seems to have a very poor understanding of the situation. Media coverage of the crisis there has been very biased and superficial. This concerns me because the powers that be may not have Haitians’ best interests at heart and without public oversight these military solutions could end up creating further problems.
If anyone here lives in Haiti I would be very interested to hear any knowledge they could share of what is really happening and how they think it can be solved.
The whole framing of this conflict as a “gang” issue is very problematic in my view, since these warring factions are more of competing political actors seeking to control the country. While they may or may not be engaged in traditional criminal activity, their primary goals are political, not merely economic as with typical organized crime. Yet there has been essentially no attempt to explain who the various factions are and what their goals are. They are just described as gangs that are going on killing sprees for no reason. From my limited research on the topic, this is highly inaccurate.
That said, I really am not too knowledgeable about the situation there which is why I was hoping someone from outside of the US media ecosystem could share some real knowledge.
A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a Haitian native on this very topic. While I deleted my reddit account and no longer have access to that conversation, the gist was...
Americans don't seem to understand that every time they swoop in to 'save' Haiti, what they are really doing is enforcing the same colonial ideals that landed Haiti in the mess to start with.
There's no politician in play down there that isn't on the take. His opinion was just to leave it alone and let the gangs sort it out. Either they'll pull together a government or the last gang standing will.
His statement had a lot more anger and quite a few expletives.. They're just sick of all of us, y'all.
Americans don’t seem to understand that every time they swoop in to ‘save’ Haiti, what they are really doing is enforcing the same colonial ideals that landed Haiti in the mess to start with.
You might find the article reassures you on this point if you decide to read it!
The truth is that the United States outsourced the Haiti mission to Kenya. U.S. President Joe Biden has admitted as much: “We concluded that for the United States to deploy forces in the hemisphere just raises all kinds of questions that can be easily misrepresented about what we’re trying to do,” Biden said in May during a news conference with Kenyan President William Ruto, adding, “So, we set out to find a partner or partners who would lead the effort that we would participate in.”
Is there reason to think this is anything more than a fig leaf? The US is obviously heavily involved in directing this effort, even if Kenya is doing the dirty work.
I mean you read the article right? It’s all about how the US has created this multinational coalition but that it’s really calling the shots. It almost seems like your excerpt was deliberately chosen to omit all of the other information that supports what I’m saying.
So, I guess there would have to be a large accumulation of information that the US was not directing these efforts, despite members of congress and others having already confirmed that fact.
Kenya as far as I know has no experience in operations of this type — do you think it’s reasonable to expect them to do this alone? It makes sense that the US are helping to get this up and running. I expect a fuller handoff when whatever they’re doing is in place.
I’m not making a statement about Kenya, I’m saying I don’t trust the US’s intentions in this case based on their historical actions in Haiti. But no, I don’t think it would be good for Kenya to be involved unilaterally either. I would prefer to see a non-military solution.
First, I don’t accept that it can’t work, there are still holders of power in Haitian society, and if you get them to negotiate and agree to a peace then it will happen.
But even more importantly, having order imposed by force by hostile foreign governments is no more guaranteed to improve the lives of Haitians, and it could make things much, much worse. A real solution for Haiti needs to come from and be supported by the people. We’ve had a series of US imposed foreign puppets for about a century, and the current situation is the direct result of this failed policy. This medicine is already killing the patient, applying more won’t help.
A real solution for Haiti needs to come from and be supported by the people.
Of course, but it’s impossible for them to do that when the country is under the thumb of warlords. Having a successful former colonial state helping stabilize things makes a lot of sense. Kenya has been there and done that.
Not saying it isn’t, but does.kenya really have the ability to project peacekeeping and humanitarian efforts on another continent? It stands to reason they’d need a partner with the infra and equipment to actually make the mission happen. The US is literally best in the business on this topic, and is nearby.
That can be true, before and exclusive of US political meddling. (Which is for sure possible, I’m not discounting that, I’m just not addressing it here)
No of course not. But I don’t see how that’s relevant. Kenya is just a puppet here, they don’t matter at all other than as a tool for the US. Kenya has no interest in this issue beyond what the US directs. The two countries didn’t even have any diplomatic contact before this scheme was concocted.
To my understanding, Kenyans will be physically there. Kenya has interests. Thats pretty disrespectful of their commitment to suggest they " have no interest in this beyond what the US directs"
I’m just describing the situation as it exists. Whether it’s respectful to the Kenyan government or not is not my concern.
But I am curious what possible interest you think Kenya could have in this matter given that it is a regional power from the other side of the world that had almost no relationship with Haiti before last year. Besides, apparently, an interest in whatever the US is offering in exchange for this adventure.
I just did but you didn’t answer. But I guess we can skip that step. I am mainly curious if you are naive enough to accept the statements of these authoritarian leaders unquestionably. Do you really believe Kenya is doing all this just because they believe it’s the right thing to do? I suppose Putin really just wants to protect Ukrainians from Nazis and western imperialism, and Bush just wanted to bring democracy to Iraq too?
I just scanned our 1:1 chain and see no links or citations.
I’m not addressing your.other junk without moving past the last step. Equivocating Putin’s invasion of Ukraine with whatever is happening in Haiti is ludicrous.
America bad, if you need that for your checklist or something.
A lot of it is truthful information for sure. But sentences along the lines of “the west has never forgiven Haiti” are quite obviously biased and tell of a rather black-and-white view of the world. The west is not monolithic. Haiti is so far away from those countries that most of the west probably couldn’t care less about what’s happening in Haiti. Just like most South American countries couldn’t care less about what’s happening in Ukraine.
With the former colonial powers of Haiti, especially France, that’s of course a different case and they contributed a lot to the sad state of affairs in Haiti.
Or “if I were president of Haiti, first thing I would do is remove Haiti from Caracom”. Yeah… Okay why? Whatever the history was, why would someone think that less regional cooperation would improve anything for Haiti? Also what kind of undemocratic mindset is that? You could at least say “I would do a referendum.” Alright, she was probably joking… But she’s definitely far from unbiased or objective.
In any case I think if you asked the average Haitian what they would like to see in their country it’s probably the same thing people need and crave everywhere: Peace, and a good economical perspective to improve their livelihood. And for that it doesn’t matter if you’re part of an empire or not. You can very much be free and be part of an empire.
Ultimately you need stability to achieve peace and prosperity and the chances for that are often even higher when you’re part of an empire. Most people on earth would always prefer peace and stability over revolution if there’s any alternative to the latter.
Fair and Balanced was Fox News’ slogan for 20 years. They finally retired it because even they didn’t want to pretend it was true anymore. I was just making a joke to go with your opinion.
Indeed, Haiti is believed to have significant oil reserves. Recent findings suggest that these reserves could be even larger than those of Venezuela! The estimated untapped reserves include up to 941 million barrels of crude oil and 1.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas¹². Areas thought to be rich in oil include the Central Plateau, the bay of Port-au-Prince, Thomond, and the Cul-de-sac plain. Scientists attribute this potential to the tectonic activity where plates meet in the ocean, often harboring substantial hydrocarbon deposits ready for exploitation¹. While Haiti has not yet fully tapped into its oil resources, the discovery holds promise for the nation’s economy and the well-being of its population¹. Interestingly, the Oil Trade Journal of 1919 even hints at earlier oil seepages in Haiti, coupled with natural gas seepages that amazed local natives¹. So, yes, Haiti does indeed have oil potential! 🛢️💡🌎
I hadn't been aware of the collaboration with the radio station until I watched the show Evil (episode 12).
It's just a fun show, not political, but I'd recommend watching that episode. Not that it goes into great detail, but the acting and writing make it feel so much more understandable, how a radio host calling minorities cockroaches can really matter. Stochastic terrorism and all that.
I’m just getting into that show. I’d say it’s a lot more political (in a good way) than you give it credit for. And doesn’t shy away from its criticisms of Catholicism.
While I agree with the sentiment here, this is pretty 1-dimensional. For one, US support of Ukraine actually has little to do with democracy and everything to do with national sovereignty. One nation with imperial ambitions invaded another nation without pretense, US provides aid to stave off that invasion.
Hypocritical given US history of imperialism? Sure. But it’s NOT imperialism under the mask of democracy.
Similar arguments apply to various points on this list. Supporting NATO is about maintaining a military alliance against common enemies, not spreading democracy.
However, Wikipedia editors consider Media Bias/Fact Check as “generally unreliable”, recommending against its use for what some see as breaking Wikipedia’s neutral point of view.
Haha, I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. You’ll notice both MBFC and Ad Fontes were given that status primarily due to being Self-Published. However I wouldn’t consider MBFC or Ad Fontes to be the be-all and end-all perfectly authoritative source either.
When MBFC factualness ratings of ‘mostly factual’ or higher were compared to an independent fact checking dataset’s ‘verified’ and ‘suspicious’ news sources, the two datasets showed “almost perfect.”
I was trying to find the criticism you cited, but it must be buried somewhere under a mountain of praise. Could you explain what the nature of their complaint is? I’m out of the loop.
I clicked your link. Not only is the quote you provided not actually present in your source, but the sentiment isn’t even there. The article is mostly about how reliable and consistent the website is.
Huh, that’s so, it was there last January. It used to follow this paragraph (still there today anyway), which contains a similar criticism with citation:
It is widely used and has sometimes been criticised for its methodology.[4] Scientific studies[5] using its ratings note that ratings from Media Bias/Fact Check show high agreement with an independent fact checking dataset from 2017,[6] with NewsGuard[7] and with BuzzFeed journalists.
So if those are considered fact-based, there’s no need to delve further.
Yeah, no wonder it was removed - entirely without citation and low relevance. To be honest, the existing line “…been criticised for its methodology” is on shaky ground, I checked the citation and I would not characterise it as a critique:
“Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific.”
That is the entirety of what the source says, it doesn’t go on to mention it more in later paragraphs, just that one sentence.
CNN’s own source for that claim is a single tweet with no reactions to it whatsoever, which doesn’t feel very iron-clad to me.
Considering the massive incentive for powerful companies and individuals to cast doubt on the veracity of media bias/fact check, it seems irresponsible to interpret the source in that way and to spread that claim as though it’s entirely watertight.
Can I ask, why did you even post your original reply? Did you do your own fact check in January, see that paragraph, and decide to share it to discourage people from trusting the fact-checker?
foreignpolicy.com
Hot