Group items tagged

The American bank, City Bank, responded and eventually offered Haiti a debt exchange with a lower interest rate and longer-term debt. Thus, the illegally extracted debt was not fully paid by Haiti until 1947.

The purpose of recounting this history is to demonstrate how deeply problematic it is to think that the US and France should play any role in the governance and internal policy-making of Haiti through the establishment of a UN Protectorate or any other meaningful form.

The US offered financial and military support for the Duvalier dictatorships because of their communist paranoia, which gripped the world during the Cold War (the Duvaliers were radically anti-communist, which at the time translated into Haiti enjoying the support of the US because of US fears of communism and another Cuba emerging in the Caribbean). The US also gave this support to protect the immense profits of American apparel and textile companies operating in Haiti. France similarly supported these dictatorships by colluding with the US to ensure that properties and businesses owned by French citizens and corporations in Haiti were protected. The Duvaliers, their cronies, family members and the Haitian elite that supported them actually frequented back and forth between Haiti and France, quite often holding much of the wealth they plundered from the Haitian people in France in the form of property and bank accounts. Further, it is now in France that Baby Doc Duvalier resides and lives comfortably. Moreover, in further consideration of the US and France's relationship to Haiti, it is interesting to note that when Baby Doc was forced from power in 1986 he was brought to France in and American Air Force aircraft.

There are also extensive publications and reports concerning neo-liberal policies that the US imposed on Haiti, the partial result of which caused Haiti, once totally self sufficient in terms of rice production, to become dependent on the rice of American farmers. American farmers have enjoyed massive subsidies from the US government and thus have been dumping their rice into Haiti since the 1990s.

Regardless of his recent mea culpa, Clinton had ample time to admit and remedy his wrongs during and after his presidency. It reeks of the vilest form of opportunism for him to come out now as a ‘friend of Haiti‘. It behooves us to ask, what is behind his about-face? Mr Clinton, why Haiti and why now and not before?

Moreover, despite what Mr Munnings writes, it is offensive to the history and spirit of the Haitian people to seriously state that, ‘this is not the time to talk of Haiti’s autonomy as a sovereign entity’, and that Haiti’s ‘survival’ should instead be our focus. From 1804 to present, Haitians have shown the world time and time again that if there is one thing they have absolutely no need for it is lessons from others on ‘survival’. In fact, they should probably be paid to give the people of the Western world lessons on just that considering how up in arms they are about current austerity measures (Greece, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, France, UK) and bailouts (Greece, US, Ireland) being used by their governments to safeguard their fragile economies.

A critical assessment of Haiti’s history and current affairs reveals that the one thing Haiti has never enjoyed is the right to govern itself and develop on its own terms without significant foreign intervention of all forms, economic, political, social. Thus, it is difficult to see how a UN Protectorate being made of Haiti would mean anything other than a re-packaging of more of the same that would result in furthering the underdevelopment of Haiti. Indeed, there are many other ways the UN, US and France can be involved in partnering with Haitian people. One such way is public-private partnership initiatives geared towards capacity building of Haitians in areas of farming, agriculture, construction, medical, health, education services and infrastructure development. These should be led and informed by Haitians legitimately selected by the popular masses. Business loans should also be made more accessible. The Haitian diaspora also needs to play an active role in this process, being deeply engaged in it and not just consulted after decisions have already been made.

Finally, It would be absolutely wrong, absurd and offensive to disregard the agency of Haitians and claim that they have played no part in creating a situation where, before the quake, 80 per cent of the population was living under the poverty line and 54 per cent of its people lived in abject poverty.

All of this is to say that the popular masses of Haiti deeply distrust the UN, and that recent history and current events demonstrate that they have more than ample reason for this disaffection. To be clear, I am not suggesting that the UN abandon Haiti totally, for there are many health and well-being services that the UN is providing that would likely be unavailable otherwise. Indeed, it is also clear that some military presence is needed at present. However, given the forceful opposition of the Haitian people to the UN since 2005 to present, it would be a flagrant assault on the principles of democracy to go as far as to make Haiti a UN Protectorate. Other forms of assistance may be welcome, but UN Protectorate status would not be

There are those from the progressive camp who argued that Obama did not do enough to mobilise the ordinary working people against the Republican position of tax cuts for the rich. However, Obama had surrounded himself with the ideologues from Wall Street so that he (like Toussaint) believed that supporting the super rich would be the way to recharge the US economy.

David Cay Johnson, explained in great detail the numerous subsidies granted to the capitalists. What David Cay Johnson did not elaborate on was that on top of the subsidies for insurance companies, banks, oil companies, telecommunications and pharmaceutical corporations, there was the major subsidy of the trillions of dollars spent on the military to protect this class.

As Barack Obama is trapped by the ideal of liberal economic theory, a major question is whether he can save capitalism. Even a more urgent question is, as Toussaint attempted to take Haitians back to the plantations, would Obama’s attempt to save capitalism not take ordinary people back to the era of ultra-Reagonomics along with the cowboy-like military adventures? What is the moral justification for trying to save a moribund system by pleasing the financial oligarchs at the expense of the working people and planet earth? A serious concern is that if Obama displeases the people to please the capitalists, and yet is unable to satisfactorily please them, he may end up like Toussaint L’Ouverture.