We’ve somewhat stopped talking about Haiti even though it continues to face one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world with 1.4 million Haitians internally displaced. The new UN Gang Suppression Force (GSF) may be able to change things but personally I’m still skeptical. It faces some issues previous intervention efforts have, such as funding issues that could hamper efforts. In addition, previous UN interventions like the one in 2007 did not go well to put it lightly. I think cooperation between the GSF and what remains of the Haitian government will be critical to rooting out the gangs terrorising the nation. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
Also
> He also called for international burden-sharing, stating that “the U.S. shouldn’t have to do all of this alone.”
It took until the US isolationist arc but they’ve finally figured out that sharing the burden of intervention is good.
bigwang123 on
I think everything is contingent on how many troops make it onto the ground: the more offensive mandate (which is likely appropriate for Haiti’s crisis) means that peacekeepers will sustain casualties. When push comes to shove, how many political leaders will be willing to take the potential backlash if their country’s soldiers are killed or maimed?
2 Comments
We’ve somewhat stopped talking about Haiti even though it continues to face one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world with 1.4 million Haitians internally displaced. The new UN Gang Suppression Force (GSF) may be able to change things but personally I’m still skeptical. It faces some issues previous intervention efforts have, such as funding issues that could hamper efforts. In addition, previous UN interventions like the one in 2007 did not go well to put it lightly. I think cooperation between the GSF and what remains of the Haitian government will be critical to rooting out the gangs terrorising the nation. Whether that will happen remains to be seen.
Also
> He also called for international burden-sharing, stating that “the U.S. shouldn’t have to do all of this alone.”
It took until the US isolationist arc but they’ve finally figured out that sharing the burden of intervention is good.
I think everything is contingent on how many troops make it onto the ground: the more offensive mandate (which is likely appropriate for Haiti’s crisis) means that peacekeepers will sustain casualties. When push comes to shove, how many political leaders will be willing to take the potential backlash if their country’s soldiers are killed or maimed?