Reports are coming out that France is considering sending peacekeepers to Haiti. Not only does it have a clear interest in Haiti (2,000 French citizens live there, who will probably need to be evacuated soon), but it has the manpower already in the region…
The French Defense Ministry said it has 4,000 military personnel at two bases in the area, in Martinique and Guadeloupe.
Asked whether forces could be deployed quickly, De Villepin replied: “Absolutely. Many friendly countries are mobilized.”
So now the issue becomes less about whether a peacekeeping mission can be launched, and moves on to whether a peacekeeping mission will be launched. The US, it must be noted, still seems reluctant to support any kind of military intervention…
Washington said it wanted to see a political resolution to Haiti’s latest conflict.
“There is frankly no enthusiasm right now for sending in military or police forces to put down the violence that we are seeing,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told reporters, adding that he had spoken on the phone earlier with de Villepin.
February 18th, 2004 at 12:32 am
Not to mention issues connected to the Monroe Doctrine…
Sure, it’s been nearly 90 years, but the US has deployed troops to stop European intervention in the Americas before.
February 18th, 2004 at 7:32 am
You know, the Monroe Doctrine hadn’t even crossed my mind until you mentioned it. That really does complicate the issue, especially when you consider that France and the US are as near to mortal enemies as ‘allies’ can be.
I really do wonder, though, if the desire to prevent a French intervention will trump America’s desire not to intervene directly itself. As far as I can see, the US and France are the only two states with the potential to mount an intervention in a hostile environment. And I think there is a strong chance that the situation will become bad enough to almost force an intervention, if only to evacuate Western nationals. I’m sure the US & France both would prefer the Caribbean nations to do it for them but, realistically, I think they are underequipped and undertrained for the task, and they’d risk taking significant casualties.
February 19th, 2004 at 10:43 pm
Why, in your view, is Washington unenthusiastic to intervene militarily in Haiti? Is it a matter of being tied up elsewhere, a lack of political will, distinct disinterest, thinking the French will do it anyway / better?
February 20th, 2004 at 4:27 am
I think it is a combination of all those factors, in varying degrees.
The bottom line though, is that any forcible intervention designed to force the combatants to stop fighting carries with it significant risks for the intervening country. These can include taking casualties, a risk of being bogged down in the conflict, or the embarassment of complete failure. The current situation in Haiti doesn’t affect the US directly enough to make it in its interests to take those risks. France, as I noted, has 2,000 citizens living in Haiti, which gives it a somewhat greater incentive to intervene. Although, judging by past history, any French intervention is likely to have the limited objective of evacuating French citizens, rather than attempting to restore peace.
I think the only thing that will create an real incentive for a serious intervention, either by the US, France, or by Caribbean nations with US logistical support, is the threat of refugees overwhelming the region. As far as I can tell, that refugee crisis hasn’t happened yet, so the situation isn’t really seen as critical.
A mission launched after a peace has been agreed, on the other hand, is far less risky. It would involve monitoring a peace deal, and a ceasefire, rather than forcibly imposing peace on the combatants. At the moment, France, the US, and others are probably working pretty frantically behind the scenes to achieve this outcome.
February 27th, 2004 at 2:27 am
Thanks for your response. I’m still puzzling over this.
February 29th, 2004 at 11:51 pm
News about our ‘unwillingness’ to intervene militarily.