For more than 200 years, the United States has stuck its nose in other countries' business. We've sent off young army recruits into foreign lands, whether we were asked to be there or not.
In many cases, the presence of U.S. troops has only made the situation worse or even more violent. America has long been a meddlesome big brother to the entire world.
Yet, despite the government's enthusiasm for diverting global attention from its own faults and follies, this big brother's help is sometimes necessary.
This is perhaps the first time since becoming semiconscious of global politics that I possibly agree with or even (as implausible as it may seem) approve of the U.S. government sending military forces to restore order in another country. Right now Haiti is in the midst of a political upheaval, a revolution, a rebellion, a revolt. Rebels led by Guy Philippe have overtaken the capital of Haiti, Port-au-Prince, and several other cities along the way.
Bill Clinton sent 20,000 American troops into Haiti in 1994 to overthrow the military regime currently being reformed during this revolt and to reinstall Jean-Bertrand Aristide as president. Haitians now accuse the former revolutionary priest of running a corrupt government (what is it with these priests nowadays?). Now Aristide is being overthrown and American soldiers went in to take out the man they helped put in. Aristide complains America has forced him into exile.
If Aristide wants to be suicidal enough to stay in his own country and be brutally slaughtered, that's his own business, and it's not our place to interfere with his death wish.
The people of Haiti are caught in gun battles between rebels and Aristide loyalists.
The death should be stopped. But who gets to call the shots when it comes to calming a rebellion: the people or the protectors?
Americans think that they are acting in the best interests of the Haitians. But how do Americans know anything but their own interests?
Even with the right intentions, it is still quite likely something can go wrong with any American master plan ÷ especially since troops are not typically sent out just to protect American citizens, but more to exert political influence on the rest of the world.
What will happen when a new president, an old dictator or Guy Philippe himself comes out on top, with help from the United States, and decides to abuse his newfound powers and send the country back to square one? Is it then time for the United States to send troops in? Again?
Next time maybe there will be a U.S. president who is more interested in domestic problems than foreign revolutions. Then, even though Haitians will expect the United States to come to their aid once more with military might and political power, no one will come to guide them.
Many Third World countries develop a dependency on the American military and United Nations troops to restore order and institute new governments.
Governments like Haiti's live or die by American say-so.
This takes away from the very meaning of an autonomous, self-governing country. Now that they have American military protection, there is less need to defend themselves and make their own political choices. Militant groups and violent protests can carry on indefinitely because outside groups are responsible for arbitrating and mediating the escalating situation. No one in the country need bother with rational, peaceful thought when that job belongs to foreigners.
Despite the sometimes violent expression used in rebellion, revolts need to be allowed to run their political course.
Of course not to the point of massacres ÷ people should be able to control their emotions to that point. This, and any other political uprising, expresses the people's political dissatisfaction and the need for change.
If leaders and governments are replaced without the public's say or approval after contemplation, another upheaval may immediately follow.
As proof that the United States means to exert influence over the political infrastructure in Haiti, the Department of State currently refuses to recognize Philippe as the nation's head of national police.
But how is Philippe's title America's problem?
If Americans are so insistent on putting in their 2 cents, they should start with their own problems, like bad presidents and upcoming elections.
Americans set a global example and should not be able to control the politics of other countries until they can bring their own domestic issues under control.
Sara Warzecka is nationally nosy. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.