Haitian Earthquake

Before taking this class I never really read newspapers outside of the United States. However, after taking a course last semester by Professor Collings, I learned more about the work of journalist outside of the US doing journalism in the face of danger in countries like Russia, Mexico, China, etc. Since then I have become more interested on the point of views outside of the United States and the work of foreign journalists. I chose Argentina because it is a country that I am not very familiar with. Also, I am attempting to have a Spanish minor because one day I would really like to work abroad and it’s important to me that I learn more about the world.
Once I began reading articles from newspapers within the US such as CNN and the New York Times alongside with newspapers from Argentina and Venezuela, I began to notice some subtle differences in regards word choice used to describe the relief efforts for the Haitian Earthquake. The articles I read were discussing the role that the US troops in Haiti relief efforts and between the articles the words used to describe the US presence in Haiti changes.
“La Verdad” a Venezuelan online news organization talks about the how Fidel Castro views the US as using the earthquake as an opportunity not only to aide them but to also “occupy” Haiti. According to Castro, it is unclear the motive of the US of deploying thousands of soldiers to occupy Haiti and he feels that the US, along with the UN have not provided explanations for it. The “Buenos Aires Herald” of Argentina also addresses this fear of US occupation of Haiti, this time on part of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. Chavez stand point is that the US is “occupying undercover.” Chavez concerned was prompted by the high number of armed US troops that were being deployed to Haiti. “Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that's what the United States should send,” Chavez said.
However, “the New York Times” addresses this accusation by defending the US presence in Haiti. On their part, they describe the US Troops presence as “filling a void.” The troops are there to patrol and are sign of “growing international relief operation.” But NY Times in order to show acknowledge the allegations they did note that they understand the concern based on past “foreign intervention,” including an American occupation, as a basis for concern. According to news, the Haitian government is having trouble controlling the crisis and providing resources to aide its citizens.
CNN shares the same viewpoint of US presence in Haiti. According to an analysis article by Elise Labott, the goal of US intervention is to be the last time they have to do so. “To rebuild the country into a better-functioning, economically more stable nation that can withstand future setbacks without relying on international aid,” Labott said. The article even goes to comparing the world relief effort as comparable to the rebuilding of Europe after WWII.
I thought the differences between the newspapers’ word choice was very interesting in that it put a different spin on US presence in Haiti. Where we, in the US, see our efforts as an attempt to provide relief to a country can be seen as us being “opportunistic.” However, I do understand how this can be seen this way and must admit my knowledge in regards to politics of foreign intervention is limited.