One common pushback I get when talking to people about Haiti is something like:
Is your proposal for the world to not be involved and let Haiti sort itself out?
The very obvious answer there is "yes" but pushback to that is "what if the people of Haiti ask for help?" which is a question I don't have a great answer to. Obviously, if popular support is legitimate and not fabricated, is the answer that we should help them? Should other countries who don't have as disastorous of a record as the US help out?
And just to clarify another talking point, but the UN intervening is essentially the same thing as the US intervening, right? The latter is just a proxy for the former at this point, no?
There has been a running occupation of Haiti since fuxking 2004
And the US has intervened in Haiti over and over again for literal centuries
Foreign intervention is the whole fucking problem
Okay, but again, does "foreign intervention" mean exclusively the US or every country and all forms of intervention, both military and non-military?
Both, but particularly in Haiti's case the US has practiced extensive gunboat diplomacy to direct facilitate the latter.
Okay, so as I've asked on here before, would that include say, Cuba in the form of a non-military intervention?
Cuba isn't invading and plundering countries to enrich itself
Fair response. So really the answer to "Do you support any foreign intervention in Haiti?" is that it's A) Non-Military and B) Context dependent on who the country is?
This is a question of imperialism, and in examining history it becomes extremely obvious what constitutes imperialist vs anti-imperialist intervention.
“foreign intervention” is a specific term to mean military involvement and more often than not occupation