The countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, with a few notable exceptions, have been critical of Israel’s ongoing campaign of genocide in Gaza. Perhaps more than any other region, they have expressed their solidarity with Palestine. Most recognize that the partnership between US imperialism and Israeli Zionism applies not only to Palestine, but also to Israel’s role as attendant to US domination in this hemisphere.
President Gabriel Boric of Chile condemned Israeli’s attacks on Palestinians in Gaza. The largest Palestinian population outside of the Middle East (more properly West Asia) resides in Chile. Belize and Peru, likewise, joined the denunciation of Israel. Bolivia, meanwhile, has severed diplomatic relations with Israel, while Honduras and Colombia recalled their ambassadors.
Cuba had cut relations back in 1973 and Venezuela in 2009. Except for Panama, almost all of the region’s states recognize Palestine. Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela all have sent aid to Gaza. Even Argentina, with the largest Jewish population in the region, censured Israel over its violations of international law when hostilities first flared up.
Samuel Moncada, Venezuela’s ambassador to the United Nations, addressed the General Assembly on November 23: “It is repugnant to see how, despite the cruelty…the government of the United States of America and its satellites aim to justify the unjustifiable.”
Cuba and Iran called for a global coalition to protect the rights of Palestinians on December 4, noting that the world community has failed to stop the US-backed genocide.
A month before the October 7 offensive by Hamas, President Gustavo Petro of Colombia had presciently taken the occasion of the opening of the United Nations session to call for a united world effort at achieving peace in Israel-Palestine (along with Ukraine).
Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador and ironically of Palestinian heritage, stood out in his support of Israel among the regional heads of state. That is, until the militantly pro-Zionist Javier Milei assumed the presidency of Argentina two months after the most recent eruption of aggressions.
Henchman for the hegemon
The head of Colombia publicly criticizing Israel would have been unthinkable until Gustavo Petro won the presidency in 2022. The former M19 guerilla turned center-left politician was the first president from the portside in the entire history of Colombia. Pre-Petro, Colombia was known as Washington’s closest client in the region, the largest recipient of US military aid, and the only NATO global partner in Latin America.
Back in 2013, then Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos reflected on his country’s status as the regional equivalent to the US’s proxy state in the Middle East. He proclaimed that he was proud that Colombia is considered the “Israel of Latin America.” Indeed, Israel had an extensive role as henchman for the US hegemon in Colombia. The right-wing linked Colombian military and paramilitaries had long been closely intermeshed with the Zionist state.
The United Self-Defenses of Colombia (AUC in its Spanish initials), a drug trafficking cartel with a reputed 10,000-20,000 combatants at its peak, was one of the largest paramilitary groups in South America. The AUC was used by the US-allied official Colombian military to do its dirty work against left campesino and worker organizations. AUC militaries were trained by Israeli operatives. Some fifty of its most promising cadre received “scholarships” to Israel. Operating out of Guatemala, the Israeli arms supplier GIRSA sold Kalashnikov rifles and ammunition to the AUC paramilitaries in Colombia.
Another Latin American country with a closely intertwined relationship with Israel was Nicaragua before the Sandinista revolution. During the long US-backed Somoza dictatorship, Israel maintained a “special relationship” with this dynasty of ruthless autocrats. In the last days of the dictatorship, the US cut off arms supplies in response to public revulsion over atrocities committed by Somoza’s forces. Undaunted, Israel continued to supply them with military equipment. Then, when the US instigated the counterinsurgency after the successful Sandinista-led national liberation, Israel again served as supplier of the contras. Paralleling the Somoza-Israel bond were the Sandinista-Palestine ties, which continue to this day.
Israel’s partnership with US imperialism in the region
For the 31st time in November, the UN nearly unanimously condemned the US blockade of Cuba for its devastating effects on civilians and as a violation of the UN Charter. The vote would have been unanimous except for “no” votes cast by the US and Israel along with an abstention from Ukraine. The latter, which is now essentially a US dependency, is a newcomer. But Tel Aviv, on the other hand, has consistently stood with Washington in support of its coercive and illegal economic measures that have created a dire crisis in Cuba.
In fact, Israel has served as Washington’s partner in training reactionary death squads and supplying repressive militaries throughout the region for decades. Al Jazeera reported that Israel has trained, supplied, and advised militaries in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, and Venezuela in addition to Colombia and Nicaragua.
Not only was Israel entangled with the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua, but it had a similar relationship to the 29-year Duvalier dynasty in Haiti, selling arms for the dictators’ repressive forces. Ditto for the 35-year dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner in Paraguay, the 17-year Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and the military dictatorships in Argentina and Brazil. Likewise, Israel was the supplier of arms and trainer of death squads in the “dirty” wars in Guatemala and El Salvador. In all these grisly ventures, Tel Aviv was joined at the hip with Washington.
The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) explains that many right-leaning Latin American countries see a “close military relationship with Israel as a political asset in restoring or maintaining military and political ties with Washington.”
When reactionary regimes in the region need coercive muscle for hire, Israel is a prime choice. After right-winger David Noboa won the Ecuadorian presidency last month, he called in Israel to help restore government control of its prison system, which had been taken over by criminal gangs. Israel is also being tapped to design maximum security prisons in Ecuador.
According to Israeli psychologist Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi’s The Israeli Connection, “Israel is generally admired in Latin American military circles for its macho image of firmness, ruthlessness, and efficiency…Latin American military establishment is where most of Israel’s friends are found and where Israel continues to cultivate support.”
Case in point is the far-right Javier Milei, who assumed the presidency of Argentina on December 10. He campaigned on the promise to realign the second largest economy in South America with the US and Israel and away from its largest trading partners Brazil and China. On his first trip abroad after his election victory, Milei went to the US where he made what was described as a pilgrimage to the grave of an ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbi and announced his intention to convert from Catholicism to Judaism. The self-described anarcho-capitalist had accused the Argentina-born pope of being a communist and a false prophet.
Palestine’s friends and foes
Support of Israeli Zionism is a unifying issue for the fractious far right in the region, where virulent antisemites buddy up with Jewish nationalists, wrapping themselves – literally as in the case of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro – in the Israeli flag.
When the now disgraced and exiled Juan Guaidó first got the nod from the US to self-declare himself “interim president” of Venezuela in 2019, he staged the announcement on a street corner in Caracas with an Israeli flag flying behind him. Just as the red flag has been adopted as the banner for the left, the pennant of Israeli has become the insignia of the right. That blue and white banner can be seen at right-wing political rallies and at market stands owned by evangelicals throughout the region.
A growing evangelical Christian movement views Israel as a crucial part of their theology of the “end times” and is becoming an influential political force in the electorates of Guatemala (42%), Costa Rica (26%), Brazil (25%), Venezuela (22%), and elsewhere. The evangelicals have yet to exert a significant pro-Zionist political influence in the region. But that potential should not be discounted as events unfold.
On December 12, the United Nations General Assembly voted on a ceasefire in Gaza. Only Guatemala and Paraguay in Latin America voted “nay,” joining the US and Israel, while Uruguay, Argentina, and Panama abstained. The rest of the region united with the world supermajority of 153 nations supporting the resolution.
For now, Latin America and the Caribbean remain a bastion of support for Palestinian freedom. Palestine’s cause is popular with countries striving for independence from the US. Factors contributing to that stance are large Arab diasporas in the region, small pro-Zionist Jewish populations, and no powerful lobbies like AIPAC. For many, the struggle to assert national self-determination under US hegemony finds a kindred affinity with the cause of Palestine.
A country broken by constant foreign interventions, its tyrannical regimes propped up by the back brace of the United States (when it wasn’t intervening to adjust it), marred by appalling natural disasters, tells a sad tale of the crippled Haitian state. Haiti’s political existence is the stuff and stuffing of pornographic violence, the crutch upon which moralists can always point to as the end, doom and despair that needs change. Every conundrum needs its intrusive deliverer, even though that deliverer is bound to make things worse.
Lately, those stale themes have now percolated through the corridors of the United Nations to renewed interest. The staleness is evident in the menu: servings of failed state canapes; vicious, murderous, raping, pillaging gangs as the main musical score; collapse of civic institutions as the dessert. It’s the sort of menu to rile and aggravate any mission or charity, and yet, military-security interventions continue to capture the feeble imagination.
Since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in July 2021, the constant theme in reporting from Haiti is that of rampant, freely operating gangs. Sophie Hills, a staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor, offered this description in October last year: “Armed gangs have immobilized the capital, Port-au-Prince, shutting down the already troubled economy and creating fear among citizens to even walk the streets.”
This October 23, the UN special envoy to Haiti, María Isabel Salvador, reported to the UN Security Council that the situation had continued “to deteriorate as growing gang violence plunge the lives of the people of Haiti into disarray and major crimes are rising sharply to new record highs.” These included killings and sexual violence, the latter marked by instances of rape and mutilation.
To add further complexity to the situation, vigilante groups such as the “Bwa Kale” movement have responded through resorting to lynching (395 alleged gang members are said to have perished in that gruesome way between April 24 and September).
Moïse’s opportunistic replacement, Ariel Henry, has served as acting prime minister, persistently calling for foreign intervention to right the worn vessel he is steering into a sunset oblivion. The past presidential elections were last held in 2016, but Henry has not deemed it appropriate to stage elections, preferring the bureaucratic formula of a High Transition Council (HTC) tasked with eventually achieving that goal. When the announcement establishing the body was made in February, Henry loftily claimed that this was “the beginning of the end of dysfunction in our democratic institutions.”
These weak assertions have not translated into credible change on the ground. The contempt with which the HTC has been viewed was indicated by the news from the UN envoy that its Secretary General had been kidnapped by gang members posing as police officers.
In September, Henry addressed the UN hoping to add some mettle to the Haitian National Police, urging the Security Council to adopt measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to “authorize the deployment of a multinational support mission to underpin the security of Haiti”.
The measure can be read as a stalling measure to keep Henry and his Haitian Tèt Kale Party (PHTK) ensconced. This is certainly the view of the National Haitian-American Elected Officials Network (NHAEON) and the Family Action Network Movement (FANM). In their September letter to President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, the organisations warned that, “Any military intervention supporting Haiti’s corrupt, repressive, unelected regime will likely exacerbate the current political crisis to a catastrophic one.” The move would “further entrench the regime, deepening Haiti’s political crisis while generating significant civilian casualties and migration pressure.”
In its eternal wisdom, the United Nations Security Council felt that an intervention force consisting of Kenyan police, supplemented by assistance from other states, would be required for this mission. Resolution 2699, establishing a Multinational Security Support Mission led by Kenya, received a vote of 13 in favour, with Russia and China abstaining. This would entail a co-deployment with Haitian personnel who have melted before the marauding gangs. Thus, history continues to rhyme (the US occupation, 1915-1934 and the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) from 2004-2017).
Armed gangs feature as a demonic presence in the UN deliberations, regularly paired with such opaque terms as “a multidimensional crisis”. It is telling that the cliché-governed reasons for that crisis never focus on how the gang phenomenon took root, not least those mouldering state institutions that have failed to protect the populace. Little wonder then, that the Russian representative Vassily Nebenzia felt that sending in armed elements was “an extreme measure” that unnecessarily invoked the provisions of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Undeterred by such views, the US representative Jeffrey Delaurentis noted that the mission would require the “inclusion of dedicated expertise in anti-gang operations, community-oriented policing, and children and women’s protection.” That Washington approved the measure can be put down to endorsing a policy which might discourage – if only in the short term – the arrival of Haitian asylum seekers which have been turned around en masse.
Despite claiming a different tack from his predecessor in approaching the troubled Caribbean state, President Biden has sought to restrict the influx of Haitian applications using, for instance, Title 42, a Trump policy put in place to deport individuals who pose a pandemic risk, in spite of any asylum credentials they might have. Within 12 months, the Biden administration was responsible for expelling more than 20,000 Haitians – or as many as the combined totals of three different presidents over two decades.
Resolution 2699 also suffers from another glaring fault. Kenya’s dominant contribution to the exercise has raised searching questions back home. Opposition politician Ekuru Aukot, himself a lawyer who had aided in drafting Kenya’s revised 2010 constitution, saw no legal basis for the government to authorise the Haitian deployment. In his view, the deployment was unconstitutional, lacking any legal backbone or treaty.
In granting Aukot an interim injunction, this point was considered by the Nairobi High Court worthy of resolution. Judge Enock Mwita was “satisfied that the application and petition raise substantial issues of national importance and public interest and require urgent consideration.” The judge accordingly issued a conservatory order “restraining the respondents from deploying police officers to Haiti or any other country until 24th October 2023.”
On October 24, Judge Mwita extended the duration of the interim order till November 9, when an open session is scheduled for the petition to be argued. “This court became seized of this matter earlier than everyone else and it would not make sense for it to set aside or allow the interim orders to lapse.” The whole operation risks being scuttled even before it sets sail.
On Oct. 2, the UN Security Council voted to approve a “multinational security support mission” in Haiti—ostensibly for the purposes of stopping gang violence and restoring law and order. Led by Kenya, this multinational force will be comprised of security forces from mostly Caribbean and Latin American countries. Despite receiving the blessing of the Security Council, this “security support mission” is not an official UN mission. Rather than being funded by the UN, the mission will be primarily funded by the US, which has already committed $200 million.
This latest military intervention, should it materialize, will be the fourth foreign occupation of Haiti in 30 years. While the UN Security Council, the Haitian elite, and the ever-obedient corporate media spread a lurid narrative of a country engulfed by bloodthirsty gangs, the real situation in Haiti—not to mention the true story of how it got there—is far more complex.
To understand the situation today, we must look back to the role of the US and other countries in the Core Group in dismantling Haiti’s democracy and sovereignty over the past thirty years of military interference. Dr. Jemima Pierre of UCLA and Booker Omole of the Communist Party of Kenya speak with The Real News to break down what’s going on with the latest foreign invasion of Haiti, and why Kenya of all countries has been tapped to helm the operation, at least officially.
Studio Production: Adam Coley Post-Production: David Hebden
Transcript
Ju-Hyun Park: My name is Ju-Hyun Park, engagement editor here at The Real News. Today we’re turning our focus to Haiti, where yet another military intervention is about to take place. This time led, at least officially, by the seemingly unlikely candidate of Kenya.
Yesterday, Oct. 2, 2023, the UN Security Council approved what it is calling a multinational security support mission to Haiti for the duration of one year. 13 out of the 15 members of the Security Council voted to approve this new mission while Russia and China abstained, thereby declining to wield their veto power to stop or at least stall this latest intervention. So far, Italy, Spain, Mongolia, Senegal, Belize, Suriname, Guatemala, Peru, Jamaica, The Bahamas, and Antigua and Barbuda have all pledged equipment, funds, or personnel to the mission. Leading the charge, at least officially, is Kenya, which has committed 1,000 of its police officers to deploy in Haiti.
While the cover of UN approval may give the impression that this intervention is less imperialist than the many interventions Haiti has suffered in the past, the devil is in the details. Officially, the so-called multinational security support mission is not a UN peacekeeping mission because it will not be primarily funded by the United Nations. Instead, funding will be provided by pledges from UN member states, with the lion’s share coming from the United States, which has already committed some $200 million, half of which will come from the Defense Department.
Haiti is no stranger to foreign intervention. As the first Black republic and the only successful slave revolution in history, Haiti has never been allowed to prosper. For two centuries, the Haitian people have fought off invaders from France, Britain, and the United States. Shortly after achieving independence, Haiti was forced to pay France an indemnity on its freedom under the twisted logic that by liberating themselves from slavery, the Haitian people owed reparations to their former masters. This debt and the accruing interest was not paid off in full until 1947.
For the past century, the United States has become Haiti’s primary tormentor. US Marines first occupied Haiti for 19 years, from 1915 to 1934, waging a war of counterinsurgency against the people that killed at least 15,000 Haitians. Since the 1990s, three more foreign interventions have taken place in Haiti: one direct US invasion under Clinton and another two coordinated through the United Nations.
The most recent UN occupation of Haiti began in 2004 after a US-backed coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected leader. This occupation lasted until 2019, although the UN continues to have an advisory presence in the country to this day. During this 15-year UN occupation, known as MINUSTAH, systematic violence against Haitian civilians by UN troops were documented, and troops are also known to have been responsible for an outbreak of cholera that claimed up to 30,000 lives. In investigations since the end of MINUSTAH, the UN has additionally admitted responsibility for 29 known cases of underage victims of sexual abuse at the hands of MINUSTAH troops.
It is this legacy that shadows the latest moves by the UN Security Councils to stage yet another armed intervention of Haiti. Under the cover of multilateralism and the willful cooperation of planned governments in the Caribbean, Latin America, and Africa, the US continues its role in masterminding the oppression of Haiti’s people.
Given the history of violent military intervention in Haiti, it’s worth asking why another invasion now? What are the true causes of the present security situation in Haiti? And is the security question really Haiti’s greatest problem or a symptom of something deeper? Is another foreign military intervention really the solution? And what on earth does Kenya have to do with any of this?
To answer these questions and more, I’m joined by Dr. Jemima Pierre of UCLA and Booker Omole of the Communist Party of Kenya. Jemima Pierre is a professor of African-American Studies and anthropology at UCLA and at the University of Johannesburg. She’s the author of The Predicament of Blackness: Post-Colonial Ghana and the Politics of Race, and numerous academic and public articles about Haiti, including a very recent essay, originally published in NACLA and now reprinted at The Real News, called “Haiti as Empire’s Laboratory.” Jemima Pierre is also a research associate at the Center for the Study of Race, gender, and class at the University of Johannesburg.
Booker Omole is the National Vice Chairperson and National Organizing Secretary of the Communist Party of Kenya.
Jemima, Booker, thank you so much for joining us, and welcome to The Real News.
Jemima Pierre: Thanks so much for having me.
Booker Omole: Thank you. And it’s a pleasure to at least have a moment to discuss in The Real News.
Ju-Hyun Park: It’s a pleasure to have you both.
I’d like to begin with some questions for Jemima as our expert on Haiti today, and I’m hoping you can start by giving us an overview of Haiti’s very recent history. In 2003, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically elected leader, demanded that France pay reparations of $21 billion for the indemnity that Haiti was forced to pay after independence. One year later, Aristide was overthrown in a coup and the UN MINUSTAH force was deployed to Haiti, ostensibly under the auspices of protecting peace and democracy.
Could you describe for us the real impact of the MINUSTAH occupation on the ground and what political purposes it really served in your view?
Jemima Pierre: Yes, the real impact is what we’re seeing today. One of the things that’s been distressing in seeing the news media report on Haiti is the focus solely on gangs, so-called gangs, and not the actual ongoing MINUSTAH occupation.
So thank you so much for giving this background on Haiti. I want to go back to 2003 where you started with this question, because in the winter of 2003, there was a meeting in Ottawa, Canada, and it’s called the Ottawa Initiative, and it was a meeting of leaders from the US, Canada, France, the Organization of American States. It was a secret meeting in Lake Meech in Ottawa where they decided to do something about the Aristide problem. And this was a secret meeting that was reported in one of the Canadian leftist newspapers. And that’s how we found out about it. And they said that they wanted to remove Aristide and replace a malleable government.
And so that was put into play Feb. 28, 29, the night of the 29 where US Marines landed in Haiti, landed and then drove with the US ambassador to the home of the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, put him and his aide on a plane, and flew them to the Central African Republic.
One of the things that people don’t realize is the way that the US has been using – And I think that’s why Haiti is a big laboratory – Multilateralism, the language of multilateralism, for its imperial ends. And so Haiti was one of the first places where, because France and the US have permanent seats on the Security Council, once they removed Aristide, there were already hundreds of French and US troops on the ground in Haiti by March 1, the next day. They then used their seats on the Security Council to call for an emergency Security Council meeting on Haiti in order to solidify the coup. And so it is through their positions in the UN on the Security Council that they were able to justify this coup and then get buy-in from the entire UN group to actually send military force to Haiti.
Now, the other part I wanted to talk about is the fact that the country that led the military invasion in Haiti with 12,000 soldiers was Brazil under Lula da Silva. And this is a leftist government, and I want to remind people of this because Lula’s back in power. And I’ve written a piece called “Brazil’s Haitian Training Ground” where we talk about how it is that it was Brazil’s soldiers that really created some of the biggest heinous crimes in Haiti: shooting into neighborhoods, murdering people left and right, protestors and so on.
And so what the US did with the removal of Aristide, and this is also the important thing, was the complete destruction of the Haitian state today, there are no elected officials in Haiti. When the US invaded, when the UN and the US invaded Haiti in 2004, we had thousands, thousands of regional local officials. We had senators, we had a Parliament. We have none of that today because they went systematically and dismantled the state. So what happens is they came in 2004, brought in a council of elders, set up the Core Group, which is a group of representatives from Spain, the European Union, the Organization of American States, the UN. And the Core Group, basically, from 2004, has been making every single political decision on Haiti.
So you have that, and then they said they called elections. But the reality is the US, in 2011, during the so-called Arab Spring, after the earthquake in 2010 that killed 300,000 people, the US forced elections and paid for these elections. And during the first round, they removed the most popular party, the Lavalas Party. They did not allow them to participate in the elections. And then they had three people run. Their chosen person, who was a US citizen. The Haitian Constitution does not allow foreigners to run for president.
They were able to change that, give him a Haitian passport to make it seem like he was a Haitian president, make him run for president, this is Michel Martelly, who was a Duvalierist, and Duvalier was our dictator for 30 years in Haiti.
And then Martelly did not win the first round of the elections. Hillary Clinton flew to Haiti from the Middle East and threatened the sitting president with exile if they did not allow them to change the result with the help of the OAS, the Organization of American States. So they changed the results of the first round of elections, and the guy who did not even make the first round of the elections, where we only had 21% of the people voting, supposedly he won the elections.
So once you have Michel Martelly put in place, you start having the dismantling of the state. Because he never ran regional elections, we start losing elected members. By the end of his term, which was marred by corruption and so on, we had lost half the elected officials and he was ruling by decree. And then Michel Martelly put in his puppet – And mind you, there’s always protests. Haitians have been protesting nonstop. You don’t see that because all you hear now is gang violence.
Then the US used the OAS to install Jovenel Moïse in 2016 under terrible conditions with the majority of the people not voting, and under him no more elections of regional and Parliamentary elections. And so we’ve lost everyone. And so by the time Jovenel Moïse was assassinated in July 2021, we only had three elected officials, and now they’re no longer in power.
And one more thing – And I know I’m talking so much, because there’s so much to say – One more thing is to say that when Jovenel Moïse was assassinated, Ariel Henry, the current prime minister, is implicated in that assassination. I have to tell you this, because he’s on record speaking to the main mastermind of the assassination. There was no prime minister because they were in transition. There was so much protest against Jovenel Moïse that he didn’t have a chance to put in a prime minister.
So what did the Core Group, which is our occupiers, our colonizers do? They sent a tweet announcing who the next prime minister would be. This is how Haiti’s supposed current government was chosen, by the Core Group, which has no Haitians in a bunch of outsiders.
So this original 2004 coup d’etat has left us under occupation, and it’s this occupation that’s completely destroyed the Haitian state, which is why we are where we are today. I’ll stop there.
Ju-Hyun Park: Thank you so much for that really expansive overview, and no worries at all about speaking at length. I think there’s a lot of information here to cover. We’re talking about many, many years of history. We’re talking about a very complex situation. So I just wanted to thank you for all of this context that you’re providing for our listeners today.
I think, from what it sounds like, what you’re describing is a process and a pattern where the language of multilateralism, the language of democracy is being wielded by the United States. But in fact, what is happening is really the stripping down of Haiti’s sovereignty. You’re describing a process through which actually existing democracy that was in Haiti under the government of Aristide is slowly being broken down through military force, through foreign intervention, through a process of installing puppet leaders blatantly breaking Haitian laws of acting as if Haiti has no right to decree laws for itself, and it needs to have laws imposed upon it from without. And I think that’s some really crucial context for us to understand how Haiti got to where it is right now.
And I think one other observation I would share is that this timeline we’re talking about, this occupation that begins in 2004 and, at least on paper, wraps up in 2019, that’s roughly parallel with the second Gulf War. And it seems that Haiti and Iraq have really had somewhat comparable experiences, at least in the 21st century. This experience of having their state completely destroyed, completely stripped down by a foreign power, and then having local power brokers empowered by forces from without who do not operate in the interest of the people, who effectively rule in a dictatorial fashion and openly flout the rule of law while you have outside forces claiming that there needs to be more intervention, there needs to be more meddling in the name of protecting peace and democracy.
I wanted to pivot us a little bit to understand a little bit better what the demands are from Haiti’s social movements and Haiti’s people. Because in the last five years, we have seen a growing social movement against foreign intervention, from the presence of foreign troops to the role of foreign NGOs. Can you tell us a little bit more about what these social movements in Haiti are actually demanding? What vision for society is driving them, and does it really gel with the narrative we are fed by the Western press, that all Haitians want is an end to the gang violence that is going on, and that ‘s the only problem in the country?
Jemima Pierre: Right. Well, the Haitian people, you would know. If anyone wants to know, just look at Twitter from 2018, 2019 when you had millions of people in the streets in Haiti demanding that the Core Group leave Haiti, that the UN leave Haiti, that the US stop its meddling in Haiti. So the Haitian people have been protesting no intervention, no meddling, and they want the Core Group to leave. That’s one of the first things that they’ve always said. They said, we don’t need the Core Group.
And the other thing, the most important thing right now is they want the US to take its prime minister that it imposed on us. The only reason Ariel Henry is still in power is because he’s protected by US special forces and the US upholds them in power. So the key thing is Haitians want to be left alone.
Haitian civil society came together in February 2021, and a lot of various groups came together and came up with an accord for a transition plan. This was before the assassination of Ariel Henry. One of the things that the US has decided is that they will not let the mistake that they let happen with Aristide getting popularly elected, they will not let that happen again in Haiti. So they’re going to control elections. I don’t know if even in the resolution, they’re like, we’re going to be there for a year and then we’re going to set up elections because they want to control the elections. And so the people don’t want Ariel Henry, they want the disbanding of the Core Group. They want to be left alone.
And back to the 2021 resolutions that the community groups came with, they had a two-year transition period that the US was completely dismissed and trampled on and supported Henry.
And I wanted to just say something quickly. In 1915, when the US first started occupying Haiti during the first occupation, because the US occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, those years are like World War I, the beginning of the League of Nations, Haiti was under occupation, but Haiti was one of the founding members of the League of Nations. And so the US called that sovereignty. They did not want the League of Nations to acknowledge that Haiti was under occupation because they said, well, we have a representative at the League of Nations. So I want to tell you, this goes back more than 100 years of us pretending that what they’re doing is for Haitian sovereignty and can claim that Haitians have sovereignty despite the fact that they’re under occupation. This is the exact same thing that’s happening now.
So anyways, what the people want, they want reparations from the UN for cholera. They want the US to stop supporting Ariel Henry. They want the US to stop dumping arms and ammunition, because we all know that the guns are coming from the US and from the Dominican Republic. There was a truckload of guns and ammunition found at the border of the Dominican Republic just last week.
And we all know that all the ports are owned by five families in Haiti, the oligarchs, the Haitian oligarchs, the non-Black Haitian oligarchs that own the ports, and they’re the ones that actually pay these young men, these paramilitaries to go in and shoot up the neighborhoods. And so they want an arms embargo, which is what China and Russia had asked for, an enforcement of the arms embargo.
And so all these things that people want, the first thing, they just want the US and the UN to get out, and then they want them to take Ariel Henry with them, and then they want them to stop dumping guns.
And I don’t know if people notice every time there’s about to be a UN vote on Haiti the past two years, the violence has swelled. The media, the machinery works on violence and gangs and so on and so forth. This almost as if it’s a planned action to make the world think that there’s nothing else that can help Haiti but more violence from foreigners.
Ju-Hyun Park: Right. The timing of everything is so convenient, and I think the point you made about the arms shipments is so true, because Haiti is not a country that is producing vast amounts of weapons on its own. The weapons must be produced somewhere. They must arrive in Haiti by some means. And I think the situation that you’re describing on the ground is really one where popular forces are demanding the sovereignty and the independence of their country, which is currently lacking, which has been lacking since the 2004 coup. And as you’re describing, has really led to a situation where those with the most wealth, those who control access to the ports, who are able to control not only the flow of commerce but ultimately arms, are able to manufacture situations that are very convenient for their own political aims and goals.
So thank you so much for that description and for really helping us break through some of the propaganda and the myth-making that has gone on around Haiti for so long. Because I think this narrative is something that comes up again and again, at least as rarely as Haiti ever gets mentioned in media, it’s always through this lens of uncontrollable violence, this narrative that for some reason this country is just so tragic. There’s some inexplicable reason for why this continues to happen again and again. When in fact, if we look into the history, we look into the actual conditions, there are very real explanations for why conditions in Haiti are as they are.
Before I pivot to Booker for a moment to talk about Kenya’s role, I wanted to actually circle back to what you mentioned about the role of Brazil and the role of Lula’s government in the original 2004 MINUSTAH occupation. You mentioned that it was Brazilian forces who comprised about 12,000 of those troops who committed some of the worst atrocities during that period of occupation. And I think you’ve pointed out elsewhere in your writing as well that many of these troops then returned to Brazil and ended up becoming Bolsonaro supporters, ended up becoming some of the people who are threatening Brazilian democracy to this day. So could you speak a little bit more generally about the role of anti-Haitianism in subordinating, not only Haiti, but other countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and also in Africa?
Jemima Pierre: I would leave Africa out of this in terms of the anti-Haitianism because I do think one of the things that we forget is how much Haiti is hated for its Blackness and for this revolution. Because part of it is the same way that people in Africa now believe that Haiti has a gang problem, it’s such a mess and we need to go help our brothers and sisters, they’re dying and so on and so forth.
The reality is the media onslaught of images of Haiti during the revolution, there are all these images… I printed out the way The New York Times described Haiti in 1890, especially right after the revolution. It said that they won the revolution by eating the whites, by killing every white person. There’s a New York Times headline that’s like, “A Haitian ate a US soldier,” things like that. This is a New York Times headline from what, 1919, during the occupation, so cannibalism. And then the religion of Voodoo, which the Haitians practice.
And so the Caribbean itself has a lot of anti-Haitian… The Caribbean did not become independent for years after Haiti. So you have the Francophone Caribbean really had bad views of Haiti because a lot of them are still French departments. And the Anglophone Caribbean never really liked Haiti. So CARICOM, which is the Caribbean Community of countries, did not even want Haiti as part of CARICOM until the 90s. And CARICOM just celebrated its 50th anniversary, and it was under P.J. Patterson that Haiti became a member of CARICOM. But the reality is they were always afraid of Haiti. They’re afraid of Haiti’s numbers. Haiti has 11 million people, so if Haiti joins CARICOM, they’re the largest component of CARICOM.
And then you have all the anti-Haitian migration laws in the Caribbean, the Black nation. The Bahamas have some of the worst laws and treatments of Haitians in the Caribbean followed by Jamaica, Barbados. So CARICOM has a way of travel among countries people can go except for Haitians.
And then you have Brazil, with its long history, with the largest Black population outside of Nigeria. They hate Black people already. They hate Haitians even more because our language is different. We speak the Creole, we don’t speak the French that the Francophone do. We don’t speak English. Our religion is different. We’re seen as more African and more Black.
So even Black people don’t like Haiti. And I think that pushes into the anti-Haitianism that you see even among the Black African countries. That’s why it’s so easy for the world to believe these stereotypes that Haiti is like a basket case, because the Black folks believe it about Haiti as well. And I think that’s important.
Brazil was in charge of this vote, this resolution vote. Brazil is in charge of the UN Security Council starting yesterday. And their first vote is on Haiti. This is the same Lula’s Brazil that led the other occupation that put us in this mess.
And so I do think it’s important because I think African countries, people on the continent need to understand how much hatred Haiti has gotten, not only from the white supremacist world, but also from the Black and Brown world. And I always say, in Latin America, people talk about the leftism of the Americas. There’s Lula, there’s AMLO, which is the Mexican government talking against imperialism. AMLO and Mexico were the ones pushing for intervention last summer against Haiti. They’re the ones that wrote the resolution last summer against Haiti. So everyone says, this is great, Lula, AMLO, the only two countries that have not talked against Haiti has been Venezuela under Hugo Chavez, and Nicaragua – And Cuba. I have to say three countries.
And so I think that is important too, because that’s why it’s so easy to turn off any feeling, any sense of solidarity with Haiti because there’s this long history. And this long history really goes all the way back to winning the revolution and destroying France, Spain, the British, and so on and so forth, and asserting our African identity in the Caribbean.
Ju-Hyun Park: Thank you so much for that really valuable framing. I think what you’re lifting up here is that this is really a hemispheric matter. The Haitian revolution sent shockwaves throughout all the countries of the Americas because all of those countries were slave countries, and they were terrified of the prospect that that experience could be repeated within their own nations.
And I think everything that you’re raising about Brazil’s complicity and role about the role of Mexico, even under so-called leftist governments, is really crucial, and indicates how far there really is to go towards achieving this kind of justice, this kind of vision of a more liberated America is that we say throughout the hemisphere that we want, but really has to deal with this question of Haiti’s independence, of respect for Haiti as a nation. And also, I would argue, gratitude for Haiti’s historical role in helping to be a light for the rest of the world and shine a path towards a better future for all, a debt that I think the entire world has yet to even acknowledge or begin to repay by any means. So thank you so much for that background for us.
Jemima Pierre: Thank you.
Ju-Hyun Park: I’m going to pivot now to Booker Omole, who is joining us from Kenya. And Booker, I’m hoping you can speak to us a little bit about the role that Kenya is playing here, and help us situate it within the context of the politics in Kenya at the moment. I think I speak for many people when I say that I was initially a little bit bewildered to hear that Kenya, of all countries, will be leading the charge on this UN intervention. So I’m hoping you can explain what’s the utility of Kenya playing this role from the perspective of the Core Group, and why is the Kenyan government going along with this? What does it stand to gain?
Booker Omole: First of all, thank you very much Ju-Hyun and also Jemima for giving that brilliant context with our solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Haiti.
First of all, it’s important for us to understand that in the history of Kenyan foreign policy, particularly its government, the ruling class in Kenya since the colonial period, we have not had what we call a progressive foreign policy, save for the last 10 years before this current regime. In fact, the government foreign policy, just like the United States foreign policy – Which for us we don’t consider that the United States even having a foreign policy because every time they actually act, it can only expose its bankruptcy in terms of articulating anything that regards a foreign policy.
But remember, the Kenyan government supported the apartheid regime. Remember the Kenyan government is the only government that did not support any liberation movements in Africa. And in fact, even the Kenyan government supported an attack on Uganda by the Zionist forces here. And even today we have seen the Kenyans are fighting war in Somalia and in other African countries, and even bragging of their so-called peacekeeping.
So when we look at the Kenyan situation, we must realize that there is the Kenya government, which is the ruling class, which is really a new colonial capitalist tribal system that dominates us today. But also there is the majority of the Kenyan people. Because the policy of the government is the policy of the minority, is actually the policy that reflects the ruling class in Kenya, which are mainly the comprador class. And this comprador class, they’re even so weak at home, so they have to form alliances of oppression abroad to be able to continue to further their repressive policies even to their local people here.
Now the Kenyan government has coined a policy which they call “economic diplomacy.” Economic diplomacy basically means that in President Ruto’s government, they have no principle. That what they’ll do is wait and see, and they’ll negotiate on how much they can exploit in terms of relating with other nations. They do not want to relate with other nations out of principles.
So such is the history we have. There was a little change in terms of our foreign policy in the last 10 years during the Jubilee administration. But at the moment, the young people that are in government today are, by and large, part of the failed dictatorship during the 1990s, because our current president today was the youth leader of the Moi dictatorship last time. So it’s his policies, or his government policies, are mainly going to form alliances with imperialism.
Now, in the case of Haiti, it also must be said that within the court of public opinion in Kenya, not many people support a deployment of the Kenyan police to Haiti, because they see it as a broader chessboard. Because now the current government, even in Kenya today, lacks its legitimacy at home. Because the purpose that this government actually exists, according to the majority of the people, is to advance the interests of the United States, both at home and abroad.
And the first recommendation even to justify that deployment of a police force of 1,000 people will be beneficial in terms of its economic content and also to provide employment. Because remember, the Kenyan government has been convincing the Kenyan population that they’re looking for jobs abroad instead of creating jobs at home. So you can realize that the particularity of the ruling class, especially within the African context, is that they’re looking for solutions to national issues from the people that control them, which is actually the dominance class in the Northern Hemisphere, the dominance class, particularly in the United States and their European allies.
Indeed, also, it is good to recall that the United States intervention, even within the African context, they keep changing the policy to make sure that they could get another country or even the local population to fight their own wars.
For example, of course, all of us remember the Black Hawk Down, where the United States soldiers were drugged in the streets in Somalia. From there, the policy has always been if we can use another African country to put boots on ground in Somalia.
In terms of Haiti, I also think that it is one of the policies of the United States that, for now, they were going to try to use some Black faces in Haiti to actually further their policy of intervention and to repress the Haitian people. So in our own context, we see that this is an imperialist intervention, and the United States is only using Kenya as a front to continue to dominate that country in terms of their political, social, and economic environment.
Ju-Hyun Park: Thank you so much for providing that really important background on the current Ruto government in Kenya. It’s very apparent that this is an extremely reactionary government. This is a government that serves the interests of a tiny minority who comprise a ruling elite who are really dependent on the power of outside forces. I think not unlike what we see in Haiti with Ariel Henry today.
I think the situation you described with the use of third countries to stage interventions on behalf of Western powers is very important and very cogent for the moment, not only in this case. We just wrapped an interview with the Thomas Sankara Center in Burkina Faso talking about the coups that have taken place in the Sahel, about the threat of the ECOWAS invasion that was very recent. And I think in that context as well we see that same dynamic playing out, where the main imperialist powers are no longer necessarily going to send their own troops on every occasion that they need to crush a peripheral country, but they will turn to these other neo-colonial actors who can then act on their behalf, who can then provide some cover for them in order to allow them to enact their political will, essentially, through violence.
I wanted to delve a little bit into what you were saying about the actual needs and the most pressing issues facing the working people of Kenya today. Because as you’re saying, the decisions that this government is making are not in line with the interests of the working people. And you are from the Communist Party of Kenya, which is a party that I really recommend that anyone listening or watching this check out if they can. The Communist Party of Kenya is doing some outstanding work, very connected to the working masses of that country. It really appears that there is also a lot of youth presence, which is always a really excellent thing to see.
So speaking from your particular position, could you inform us a little bit about what you would identify as some of the biggest problems facing the working people in Kenya today, and what the view of regular people of this intervention really is?
Booker Omole: First of all, most of the Kenyan problems, especially the problems facing the Kenyan working class, cannot be only analyzed within the context of the internal conditions in Kenya. Because I will say that from the 1990s, the policies that have been implemented within Kenya have been influenced mostly by the dominance class, particularly in the global North. So it basically means that the Kenyan masses have not had an opportunity to implement the policies that they see that are beneficial to them. Kenya has suffered heavily in the hands of neoliberal institutions, particularly World Bank and IMF, perfected by the United States.
So that has even exacerbated the problems of the Kenyan working class, because the unemployment rate in our country is rising every day. And in fact, at the moment, we have 60% of the youth population that do not know what to do when they wake up. Forget about meaningful employment. That means they go to school, and the schools are now being privatized, but they do not know what the future holds for them.
And the second element to it is that Kenya has been into a part of deindustrialization. That means the neoliberal policies that have been imposed upon the Kenyan people have reduced us only to a raw material exporter, and there is no meaningful job creation that is taking place. So that means most of the Kenyan jobs are being exported abroad.
And if you look at this President Ruto’s government, the Kenya Kwanza administration, they have been selling a rhetoric, but in terms of implementation, they’re implementing something else. For example, this government, more or less, President Ru’s campaign was anchored on a reality in the Kenyan masses, which was basically the war between the haves and the have-nots. And he made it clear to bring the young people on his side by saying that this country is dominated by a few families. Indeed, those few families have broken the Kenyan people’s future.
But himself, who he actually described himself as somebody who made genuine wealth through rising from poverty, and everybody else knows that he has been a beneficiary of state sponsored corruption. Just the fact that his parents are poor does not mean that, at the moment, he’s not part of the owning class that continues to oppress the Kenyan people. So in actual sense, this rhetoric of the bottom-up economic model that this government has been preaching is nothing but a fallacy.
In fact, they are implementing the trickle-down effect, the neoliberal policies. So every time they want to address the issue of unemployment. Remember a few months ago, the German chancellor was with us here, and they signed a pact to export the Kenyan youth to go and work in Germany. Now they’re saying that he was in the United States and he had a meeting with multinationals like Apple and all that kind, Microsoft. And he’s saying that the majority of the Kenyan people will get jobs abroad. That is the outward-looking policy that this government sees as a possibility to think that they can convince youth that they can provide dignity, including this embarrassment of exporting the Kenyan police to Haiti.
But in actual sense, what the Kenyan people need is a deliberate effort, first of all to address issues to do with land, which is at the core of the Kenyan activism. Because almost 75% of land in Kenya is owned by a few families, and mainly the rich people who continue to hold it on behalf of the multinationals. Once that has been rectified, then they can talk about agricultural land mechanization to go ahead and now start a deliberate policy towards industrialization.
But for now, the president talks about Pan-Africanism. He talks about the need for a new financial architecture. He also talks about the plight of the Black people, but it’s only a lip service. It is a total rhetoric. In actual sense, this government has failed at home and continues to fail abroad through even attacking the most vulnerable.
In fact, the Kenyan police, as we speak, majority of the poor people in Kenya die through extrajudicial killing, more than malaria, any disease that you can think of. So these police forces that they’re trying to deploy in Haiti are actually a killer squad. In fact, we call them thugs in blue here in Nairobi, because they wake up to murder innocent and poor Kenyans, trying to discourage them from even looking for their way of life.
Such a police force cannot say that they can be professionalized to go and have another imperialist intervention to help their Haitian people because the Haitian people all of a sudden have a gang problem, while Kenya’s gangs here are rioting every day, but the Kenya police are helpless. Why don’t they finish our gang at home here and the political militias before they can think of helping Haiti? And in the event that Haiti needed help, who is the Canadian government or the United States government to know who is good for what? Because the United States thinks that this world is their bucket and we are just children so they can move around and perfect and police the world only to their interests.
Ju-Hyun Park: Thank you so much for establishing that. And I particularly appreciate the point about the track record of Kenya’s own police force within Kenya itself. There’ve been a number of voices that have raised criticism, raised contention over this idea that Kenya can suddenly go from having many essentially documented human rights violations within its borders inflicted by its own police, and then suddenly this police force should be trusted to bring peace and stability to Haiti.
And I think another thing I really appreciate about your comments is the very clear parallels, actually, between Haiti’s situation and Kenya’s situation: You have the dominance over the state, the dominance over the economy by a handful of extremely wealthy, well-connected families. You have all these plans that are projected for improving these nations that really have nothing to do with developing them, really have nothing to do with investing in the social development of these countries or in the economic development of these countries, but really only provides the solution as more military intervention, more export of labor rather than the creation of economic possibility and opportunities within the countries themselves.
So I really appreciate the way that your response helps us to thread the needle on this and tie all these different facets together.
Now, to close us out, I’d like to turn back to Jemima for a moment. Could you help us understand how those of us who are not living in Haiti but want to be in solidarity with Haiti and the Haitian people, how can we support Haiti’s defense in this moment? What is most important right now?
Jemima Pierre: Well, what is most important is for people to come together and push back against this ongoing push for intervention in Haiti. I think there’s an onslaught against Haiti from all sides.
One of the things, just quickly, Ruto met with Luis Abinader, who is the president of the Dominican Republic, and it was clear with this meeting that Ruto knows nothing about Haiti. The Dominican Republic has had this fascist relationship with Haitian people because they don’t want to see themselves as Black. And so they’ve been killing Haitians.
In fact, what’s the saddest part about yesterday’s vote was it was the anniversary of the 1937 massacre of 30,000 Haitians by the Dominicans and throwing their bodies into the river, the Massacre River, the same river that Luis Abinader is using right now. And Ruto went and signed a deal with the Dominican Republic president in order for them to provide support for Kenyan troops when they’re in Haiti. Imagine how much of a slap in the face this is for Haitians watching this.
So I do think one of the things that we need to do is push back against the Western media narrative about Haiti around this vote. This vote was not a unanimous vote. It was abstained, the two major permanent members abstained. This is not a UN mission. I hope people go and tell people this is not a UN mission. It’s a US mission being given cover, which means that it’s a mercenary outfit. Kenyan police are acting as mercenaries in Haiti.
And I think people need to really push back against the media narrative about this gang violence. Sure, there’s gangs, but then Mexicans have cartels. No one’s calling right now to send a UN mission to Mexico or Jamaica, which has a bigger gang problem. And I actually think the biggest gangsters in Haiti are the Core Group and the US and BINUH, they’re the biggest gangsters because they’re the ones that are basically acting like gangsters ruling Haiti as if they can get away with everything.
And so I think we need to push back against the narrative. I think we need to talk to our brothers and sisters on the African continent, the masses, and tell them what’s really been going on in Haiti for the past 20 years: that Haiti’s under occupation, that the US is using the UN to push this multilateral imperialism. I think we need to change the narrative and we need to talk to our friends. We need to read, we need to see what’s going on. I think that’s the best thing.
And the most important thing, I think people need to ask their members of Congress to stop funding the Department of Defense, stop funding another imperial intervention using our tax dollars. The US is already losing in Ukraine using all this money, because it’s a proxy war, and we need the US to stop these proxy wars. And we need people to look at Haitians as human beings, not the savages that people present in the media.
Those are the key things. And I think if we did not treat Haiti as so exceptional, we would see the parallels of what happened with Iraq and Haiti. What happened with Libya. The last time China and Russia abstained from a vote, NATO was able to destroy Libya, right? We need to stop exceptionalizing Haiti and see Haiti as empire’s biggest laboratory. And if we see that, then we can see ways we can form solidarity and push back against the US empire.
Ju-Hyun Park: Well, thank you so much for that response. I think that’s a really helpful way for our audience to get a little bit of footing to understand where to go next. To add a little bit to your point, the United States also has something like 40,000, 50,000 gun violence deaths a year, I believe. Where is our UN peacekeeping mission? We can very easily say that any country, most countries around the world, really, have some kind of social problem that we could identify as a reason for intervention, and yet only some countries are repeatedly subjected to this treatment.
I want to pivot back to Booker for a moment. Booker, I’m hoping you can tell us a little bit about what the Communist Party of Kenya is currently doing to resist the Ruto government’s plans to intervene in Haiti. And what, if anything, those of us listening from outside of Kenya can do in order to support your efforts?
Booker Omole: Yeah, thank you very much. First of all, the deployment of the Kenya Police Service to Haiti is illegal even within the national laws in Kenya. So that means the president of the United States, including the president of Kenya, knows this illegality. So the first step is that the Communist Party of Kenya, of course, is going to challenge this within the legal framework of Kenya and to try and hold this government accountable and to expose its bankruptcy. Because every time that the people were saying that we were imposed upon a president, he denied to the hilt that he was never a puppet of the West. But now we can see he’s not just a puppet of the West, but what’s more, he’s only being asked how high he can jump when the West speaks.
The second is, of course, the most powerful court: the court of public opinion. We must continue to prosecute the Kenyan police’s crimes here in the court of public opinion. And also to tell them that probably the issues they’re dealing with here in our country are much more simpler than the Haiti situation. Because I can assure them that it is not going to be a walkover, because Haiti has a long history of resistance. So maybe they could carry more body bags as they head in that direction. And with a very minimal support base at home, the chances of success abroad will be non-existent. And in fact, the issue around the insecurities in Haiti are only going to be worsened by the arrival of a foreign military or a foreign police force on that ground.
So we also, the Communist Party of Kenya is quite happy to join, in fact, to join international solidarity movements against the intervention of the Core Group in Haiti, and also to continue to mount more pressure through street action here at home, and to bring out – And I know for a fact that when the casualties start to arrive from Haiti to Nairobi, there will be a big media to try and downgrade it.
But for us, we think that the Kenyan people should know the truth, that this war that is going to be abroad is actually also to advance the… The imperialists do not like Haiti, for one fact, because without the first slave revolution, probably they would have not inspired more movements across the globe. So the Communist Party of Kenya will just call upon that we are more than willing to be an internationalist party, and we will want to be in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Haiti, and to tell them that the Kenyan masses are with them. And the ruling class, for a fact, the Communist Party of Kenya do not hide its intentions that our fight here at home is actually to overthrow those people who continue to actually sell out our country, to sell out the local majority population to the interest of capital, mainly the interest of the United States and imperialism.
Some comment also I wanted to make, which I might have forgotten, comrade, is the issue of coups in Haiti. Because we have been talking about coups, but now the United States supports coups in Haiti, but they say they cannot support coups here in Benin, Burkina Faso. Even here in Chad, they support another coup. They support a coup in Libya. So it’s interesting, the hypocrisy of the United States, because for a fact, we know that there are coups that enjoy the popular support of the people, but there are coups that are supported only from external purposes to oppress the general population.
So for us, at least, it’s clear from the Communist Party of Kenya that the United States is a degenerating empire. So they have to choose how they want to fall, because all empires shall fall. So do they want to fall with dignity in a [inaudible] disaster, or do they want to fall by actually accepting that the crimes they have committed is unforgivable, and they try to mend fences with the people they have brutalized for many generations?
That is how we see it. And for the people who think that the United States will continue to hold their hands to oppress their people, like the current Kenya Kwanza regime in our country, we will promise them that they will need more policemen here in Nairobi than to take them to Haiti. Because we are not going to keep quiet to make sure that even the Kenyan people see what actually is the true picture of their Haiti-African relations. Because we cannot be talking about the question of Haiti only on other platforms. But when it comes to our own towns here in Nairobi, we continue to support a backward policy that can only continue to worsen our relationship between our brothers and sisters in other places.
Ju-Hyun Park: Well, thank you both so much, and absolutely amen to that. Empires fall whether they like it or not, and it’s always a matter of time. And those at the seat of empire can always choose if they want to go with a whimper or with a bang, as it’s said.
I want to express really profound gratitude to you both for bringing such extensive knowledge and insight into this conversation. I think this is going to be very, very valuable for our listeners. To wrap us up, where can our audiences keep up with you? What’s the best way to stay abreast of both of your activities? Jemima, maybe you could begin, and Booker can wrap us up.
Jemima Pierre: Oh, yeah. Well, I’m one of the editors for the Black Agenda Report, so that’s where we publish a lot on Haiti. I’m on Twitter, it’s not under my name, but I’ve been outed, so at this point I can say it’s @grosmorne, which is G-R-O-S-M-O-R-N-E. That’s where most of my information, most of my things on Haiti. And of course I publish quite a bit on Haiti, so you could just look on YouTube under my name, and a Google search, and whenever something comes out, you’ll find it. Thank you.
And I have to plug the Black Alliance for Peace, the Haiti Americas Team, which has been the one group that’s kept Haiti on up in conversations, even when all the leftist organizations forgot about Haiti. So I just want to really plug in our organization and our work on Haiti, and I think it’s important for us to continue that work.
And I have to say one quickly for the audience, we have a resource page on Haiti that can actually trace the whole history of Haiti and also the beginning of this time. It’s blackallianceforpeace.com/haiti. And so there’s a page with all, we have a Haiti syllabus, we have zines, we have videos, we have everything that can bring you up to date on what’s happening in Haiti. We have that on that page.
Ju-Hyun Park: Awesome. Well, once again, thank you both so much for taking the time. I’m hoping that we will be able to continue these discussions as needed, and really appreciate having you both on. Thank you so much and have an excellent rest of your days.
Jemima Pierre: Thanks so much for having us on. Really appreciate that. And thanks so much for putting up Haiti, in solidarity with Haiti.
The United Nations Security Council has approved an international armed force to address spiraling gang violence in Haiti, where street battles have paralyzed the capital Port-au-Prince since the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse in 2021. The U.N. mission, which came at the repeated request of Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry, is being led by Kenya, marking the first deployment of…
This story originally appeared in NACLA on Sept. 26, 2023. It is reprinted here with permission.
In December 2019, President Donald Trump signed into law H.R.2116, also known as the Global Fragility Act (GFA). Although this act was developed by the conservative United States Institute of Peace, it was introduced to Congress by Democratic Representative Eliot L. Engel, then chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and cosponsored by a bipartisan group of representatives, including, significantly, Democrat Karen Bass. The GFA presents new strategies for deploying U.S. hard and soft power in a changing world. It focuses U.S. foreign policy on the idea that there are so-called “fragile states,” countries prone to instability, extremism, conflict, and extreme poverty, which are presumably threats to U.S. security.
Haiti has been and continues to be the main laboratory for U.S. imperial machinations in the region and throughout the world. It is no surprise, therefore, that Haiti is the first object in the United States’ latest rearticulation of a policy for maintaining global hegemony.
Though not explicitly stated, analysts argue that the GFA is intended to prevent unnecessary and increasingly ineffective U.S. military interventions abroad. The stated goal is for the United States to invest in “its ability to prevent and mitigate violent conflict” by funding projects that mandate “an interagency approach among the key players, including the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Departments of State, Defense, and the Treasury” amid collaboration with “international allies and partners.”
In April 2022, the Biden-Harris administration affirmed its commitment to the GFA by outlining a strategy for its implementation. As detailed in the strategy’s prologue, the U.S. government’s new foreign policy approach depends on “willing partners to address common challenges, [and] share costs.” “Ultimately,” the document continues, “no U.S. or international intervention will be successful without the buy-in and mutual ownership of trusted regional, national and local partners.” The Biden administration has also stressed that the GFA will use the United Nations and “other multilateral organizations” to carry out its missions. The prologue outlines a 10-year plan for the GFA that, according to the U.S. Institute of Peace, will “allow for the integration and sequencing of U.S. diplomatic, development, and military-related efforts.” Among five trial countries for GFA implementation, Haiti is the first target.
Hailed by development experts as “landmark” legislation and, as Foreign Policy reported, a “potential game-changer in the world of U.S. foreign aid,” the act seems to offer a reset of U.S. foreign policy in ways that shift tactics while maintaining the objectives and strategies of U.S. global domination. The act and its prologue clearly articulate that its main goals are to advance “U.S. national security and interests” and to “manage rival powers,” presumably Russia and China. In this sense, especially for governments and societies in the Western Hemisphere, the GFA can be seen as a revamping of the Monroe Doctrine, the 1823 U.S. foreign policy position that established the entire region as its recognized sphere of influence, shaping U.S. imperialism. The GFA deploys cunning language—tackling the “drivers” of violence, promoting stability in “conflict-prone regions,” supporting “locally-driven political solutions”—that hides the legislation’s real intent: to rebrand U.S. imperialism.
Haiti has been and continues to be the main laboratory for U.S. imperial machinations in the region and throughout the world.In their deliberations on the Global Fragilities Act, U.S. officials labeled Haiti as one of the world’s most “fragile” states. Yet this supposed fragility has been caused by more than a century of U.S. interference and a consistent push to deny Haitian sovereignty. Throughout a long history and complex—though blatant—imperialism,
In fact, a review of the actions of the United States and the so-called “international community” in Haiti from 2004 to the present demonstrates how Haiti has served as the testing ground—the laboratory—for much of what is encapsulated in the Global Fragilities Act. The GFA, in other words, is not so much a new policy as it is a formal expression of de facto U.S. policy toward Haiti and Haitian people over the past two decades. Without recognizing these uses and abuses of Haiti, the site of the longest and most brutal neocolonial experiment in the modern world, we cannot fully understand the workings of U.S. (and Western) hegemony. And if we cannot understand U.S. hegemony, then we cannot defeat it. And Haiti will never be free.
Sovereignty again denied
Since 2004, Haiti has been under renewed foreign occupation and lacks sovereignty. This is not hyperbole. Take, for example, a series of events and actions following the July 7, 2021 assassination of Haiti’s arguably illegitimate but still sitting president, Jovenel Moïse. The day after the assassination, Helen La Lime, head of the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH), declared that interim prime minister Claude Joseph would lead the Haitian government until elections were scheduled. Because of Joseph’s interim status, however, the line of succession was unclear. Days before his killing, Moïse had named neurosurgeon and political ally Ariel Henry as prime minister to replace Joseph, but he had not yet been sworn in.
A few days after Moïse’s assassination, the Biden administration sent a delegation to Haiti to meet with both Joseph and Henry, as well as with Joseph Lambert, who had been chosen by Haiti’s 10 remaining senators—the only elected officials in the country at the time—to stand in as president pending new elections. Despite these competing claims to power, Washington chose a side. The U.S. delegation sidelined Lambert, convinced Joseph and Henry to come to an agreement over Haiti’s governance, and urged Joseph to stand down.
A week later, on July 17, BINUH and the Core Group—an organization of mostly Western foreign powers dictating politics in Haiti—issued a statement. They called for the formation of a “consensual and inclusive government,” directing Henry, as the designated prime minister named by Moïse, “to continue the mission entrusted to him.” Two days later, on July 19, Joseph announced he would step aside, allowing Henry to assume the mantle of prime minister on July 20. The “new”—and completely unelected—government and cabinet was composed mostly of members of the Haitian Tèt Kale Party (PHTK), the neo-Duvalierist political party of Moïse and his predecessor Michel Martelly. In the wake of the devastating 2010 earthquake, the PHTK, with Martelly at the helm, was put in place by the United States and other Western powers without the support of the Haitian masses.
In line with its racist view that Black people do not have the capacity for civilization or self-government, Washington rationalized that it was necessary to teach Haitians the arts of self-government—a view that continues today.
After the U.S. Embassy, the Core Group, and the Organization of American States (OAS) released similar statements applauding the formation of a new “consensus” government, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken affirmed support for the unelected leaders. “The United States welcomes efforts by Haiti’s political leadership to come together in choosing an interim prime minister and a unity cabinet,” he said in a statement. In effect, Haiti’s true power brokers—or what I have called the “white rulers of Haiti”—determined the Haitian government’s replacement through a press release.
Meanwhile, the international community’s decision-making process completely left out Haiti’s civil society organizations, which had been meeting since early 2021 to find a way to resolve the country’s political crisis as Moïse, already ruling by decree, was poised to overstay his constitutional mandate. These groups adamantly rejected the foreign-imposed interim government and have criticized the international community’s actions as blatantly colonial.
Who and what are the entities making decisions for Haiti and the Haitian people, and how did they claim such prominent roles in controlling Haitian politics? Haitians are not members of the BINUH, OAS, or Core Group. But also central is the question of the country’s sovereignty—or lack thereof. Haiti has been under foreign military and political control for almost 20 years. But this is not the first time, of course, that Haiti has been under occupation.
Legacies of foreign control and occupation
Washington rationalized that it was necessary to teach Haitians the arts of self-government—a view that continues today.In the summer of 1915, U.S. Marines landed in Port-au-Prince and initiated a 19-year period of military rule that sought to snuff the sovereignty of the modern world’s first Black republic. During this first occupation, as I have written elsewhere with Peter James Hudson, “the US rewrote the Haitian constitution and installed a puppet president [who signed treaties that turned over control of the Haitian state’s finances to the U.S. government], imposed press censorship and martial law, and brought Jim Crow policies and forced labor to the island.” In line with its racist view that Black people do not have the capacity for civilization or self-government, Washington rationalized that it was necessary to teach Haitians the arts of self-government—a view that continues today.
But the most pronounced labor of the U.S. Marines was counterinsurgency. They waged a “pacification” campaign throughout the countryside to suppress a peasant uprising against the occupation, using aerial bombardment techniques for the first time. Dropping bombs from planes onto Haitian villages, the pacification campaigns left more than 15,000 dead and countless others maimed. Those who survived and continued to resist were tortured and forced into labor camps.
The United States finally left the country in 1934 after massive grassroots protests by the Haitian people. But one of the most consequential results was the establishment and training during the occupation of a local police force, the Gendarmerie d’Haïti. For years, this police force and its successors were used to terrorize the Haitian people, a legacy that continues today.
In the years after the 1915-1934 occupation, the United States continued to intervene politically and economically in Haitian affairs. The most notorious of these engagements was the U.S. support for the brutal dictatorship of Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. In the first democratic elections after the fall of the Duvalier regime, the United States unsuccessfully tried to prevent the ascension of the popular candidate, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. However, nine months after his January 1991 election, Aristide was deposed in a CIA-bankrolled coup d’état. The coup was not consolidated, though, because of continuous resistance from the Haitian people. By 1994, U.S. president Bill Clinton’s administration was forced to bring Aristide back to Haiti after three years in exile—with 20,000 U.S. troops in tow. Aristide was now a hostage to U.S. neoliberal policy. The troops remained until 2000.
Wildfires raged through Maui this month, leaving a wake of devastation as residents struggled to survive. More than 100 people are confirmed dead, while thousands remain missing. The wildfires began from multiple unrelated fires, some igniting because of power lines that were fanned by strong hurricane season winds. The emergency alert system didn’t activate, leaving residents unprepared.
A recent Reuters investigation reveals that more than 100 U.S. political leaders descend from slaveholders. This includes five living U.S. presidents, two Supreme Court justices, 11 governors and 100 legislators across party lines. Amid rising debates on slavery and its legacy, from school curricula to the movement for reparations, Reuters examined how politicians are reckoning with these…
As the repressive Trump-Biden Title 42 asylum policy ended on May 11, migrant rights advocates hoped that humane asylum rules would follow. Title 42, which allowed the U.S. government to expel asylum seekers with no due process, led to nearly 3 million expulsions since Donald Trump initiated the ill-conceived policy in 2020. The Biden administration, however, “has made it a practice of recycling…
This episode of System Fail highlights the tensions between Indigenous communities and the settler colonial state in Brazil. The lower house of Brazil’s congress passed a bill, PL 490, which aims to open up Indigenous territories for mining and capitalist development, subjecting established Indigenous land claims to legal challenges. The Indigenous communities have resisted the bill through blockades and protests.
Next we cover the Bwa Kale movement in Haiti, where residents take up arms against gangs terrorizing their communities, liberating their neighbourhoods and building up organization of community self-defense.
Lastly, riots erupted in Cardiff, Wales, following the deaths of two teenage boys who crashed their e-bike while being chased by police.
The United States government is spearheading an effort to reinvade and reoccupy Haiti. On May 4, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, led the latest diplomatic anti-Haitian assault traveling to Brasilia to try to convince the government of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to again lead the “multilateral effort.” Bogged down in a proxy war in Ukraine to the tune of $113…
As the planet faces more climate-driven disasters, we must prioritize the safety and wellbeing of populations most vulnerable to their effects. Extreme heat, droughts, floods and storms are becoming more frequent and intense worldwide while human industry, resource extraction, consumption and carbon emissions contribute to rapidly warming temperatures and rising seas. Amid this massive and…
The Haiti/Americas Team of the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) vehemently protests CELAC’s (Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños / Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) apparent support for multinational military intervention into Haiti, and strongly opposes CELAC including unelected Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry in its recent summit in Buenos Aires. We deem such acts as betrayals of the Haitian people as well as the democratic and anti-colonial forces in the region.
Founded in 2011, CELAC is a bloc of 33 Caribbean and Latin American countries. It has stated its mission as promoting regional integration and providing an alternative to U.S. power in the region, especially as that power is channeled through the multi-state entity, Organization of American States (OAS).
At the conclusion of the summit, CELAC members released the Buenos Aires Declaration, a 28-page, 111-point document covering environmental cooperation, post-pandemic economic recovery, food and energy security. Included in that document was CELAC’s endorsement of the development of the region as a Zone of Peace, free of nuclear weapons and committed to non-militaristic solutions to intra-regional problems.
Yet, CELAC’s commitments to peace as well as to other principles, such as “democracy; the promotion, protection and respect of Human Rights, international cooperation, the Rule of Law, multilateralism, respect for territorial integrity, non-intervention in the internal affairs of States, and defense of sovereignty,” are all directly undermined by its stance on Haiti. By inviting Henry, CELAC has legitimized an unpopular, Core Group-installed, de facto prime minister in Haiti. Henry has not only refused to hold elections, but he has presided over the departure from office of every single elected official in the country. Meanwhile, against the wishes of the Haitian masses and majority, he has begged for foreign intervention to shore up his power.
The Haiti/Americas Team affirms the words of Ajamu Baraka, chairperson of BAP’s Coordinating Committee, who stated, “Solidarity has to be reciprocal. CELAC must commit itself to supporting the democratic struggles in Haiti against an illegitimate U.S. puppet [government]. Inviting the Haitian government to CELAC is like inviting Juan Guaidó to represent Venezuela.”
Points 101 and 102 of the Buenos Aires Declaration directly address the situation in Haiti. Point 102 endorses the September 8 letter from the UN Secretary General to the President of the Security Council encouraging the organization of a “specialized multinational force” to intervene in Haiti. Nowhere in the Declaration do they mention the role of the international community in creating the current crisis in Haiti. Nowhere do they mention that the crisis is a crisis of imperialism, brought on by the United Nations, the Core Group (an alliance of countries as well as multilateral organizations, such as the World Bank), the United States, Canada, and other so-called “friends” of Haiti in the international community.
If CELAC supports non-intervention in the internal affairs of independent states, how can they call for foreign intervention in Haiti? If CELAC promotes a Zone of Peace, how can they demand foreign military intervention? If CELAC is for regional sovereignty, how can they support an imperialist design, driven by the United States and others? If CELAC is an advocate for the people of the Caribbean and Latin America, how can they so brazenly ignore the wishes and demands of the people of Haiti?
BAP’s Haiti/Americas Team suggests CELAC government leaders listen to the voices of the Haitian people, and their supporters in the region, as well as CELAC Social. This new entity of more than 200 organizations issued its own declaration demanding, in part, that the “region give its own response to the Haitian question, respecting the principle of non-intervention and the right of the people of Haiti to define sovereignly their destiny.”
CELAC’s position on Haiti is ill-informed and dangerous, representing an all-too frequent, reactionary “Haiti exception” when it comes to the “progressive” governments of the Americas. Peace and solidarity in the region cannot be achieved at the expense of Haitian sovereignty. CELAC must avoid contributing to Haiti’s current crisis—the crisis of imperialism.
The Biden administration has called the Trump-era Title 42 policy “obsolete” and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike it down, but on Thursday President Joe Biden announced a significant expansion of the migrant expulsion program in an effort to deny entry to Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans who arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.
NBC Newsreported that under the new policy, which rights groups and experts decried as a cruel attack on asylum-seekers, the Biden administration “will be sending up to 30,000 migrants from each of the three countries back into Mexico per month while allowing 30,000 asylum-seekers from each of the three countries admittance to live and work in the U.S. for two years.”
“Those accepted through the application process must show they have a U.S.-based sponsor to support them, much like Venezuelans and Ukrainians have done through programs the Biden administration established for those countries,” the outlet explained.
The Young Center, an immigrant rights group, called the changes “unacceptable” and argued that “cherry-picking people from specific countries undermines the rule of law that guarantees people, regardless of country, race, ethnicity, or language, the right to seek protection through a fundamentally fair proceeding.”
“This proposal, like the current program denying asylum to most Venezuelans, would cap the number of Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Haitian migrants eligible to seek asylum while expelling all others to Mexico,” the group added. “It is also a flagrant violation of all people’s right to seek asylum by excluding people from protection if they do not have a supporter with financial means in the United States or if they traveled ‘irregularly’ through Mexico or Panama to reach the United States… This proposal is discriminatory and dangerous.”
Karen Tumlin, an immigrant rights lawyer, agreed, calling Thursday’s announcement “a new low from the Biden administration with respect to protecting the legal right for those fleeing persecution to seek asylum.”
“Let’s be clear: Nothing requires the administration to expand Title 42 while it claims to be preparing for its ending.”
Biden and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unveiled the Title 42 expansion just weeks after the administration asked the Supreme Court to strike down the policy, which uses the coronavirus pandemic as a justification to rapidly expel migrants.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that Title 42 must remain in place until it hears arguments next month in a case brought by Republican-led states hoping to uphold the program, which the Trump and Biden administrations used to deny millions of people regular asylum proceedings.
In a press release, DHS said that in addition to the Title 42 expansion—which the agency acknowledged could soon be struck down—it is “increasing and enhancing the use of expedited removal under Title 8 authorities for those who cannot be processed under the Title 42 public health order.”
Speaking to reporters Thursday, Biden said, “I don’t like Title 42, but it’s the law now and I have to operate within it.”
But immigrant rights advocates noted that although Title 42 is still in effect, the Biden administration is under no obligation to expand its scope.
“Title 42 expulsions were already an unjustifiable misuse of the public health laws; this knee-jerk expansion of Title 42 will put more lives in grave danger,” said Jonathan Blazer, director of border strategies at the ACLU. “Let’s be clear: Nothing requires the administration to expand Title 42 while it claims to be preparing for its ending. There is simply no reason why the benefits of a new parole program for Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians must be conditioned on the expansion of dangerous expulsions.”
“President Biden correctly recognized today that seeking asylum is a legal right and spoke sympathetically about people fleeing persecution. But the plan he announced further ties his administration to the poisonous anti-immigrant policies of the Trump era instead of restoring fair access to asylum protections,” Blazer continued. “And previously, President Biden explicitly condemned Trump’s asylum ban against people who travel through other countries and made a campaign promise to end it and restore our asylum laws. But today the White House announced that he plans to bring a version of that ban back.”
Amy Fischer, Amnesty International USA’s advocacy director for the Americas, also expressed outrage over the administration’s policy announcement, calling it an “attack on the human right to seek asylum.”
“Today, the Biden administration fully reversed course on its stated commitment to human rights and racial justice by once again expanding the use of Title 42, announcing rulemaking on an asylum transit ban, expanding the use of expedited removal, and implementing a new system to require appointments through a mobile app for those desperately seeking safety,” said Fischer. “Amnesty International previously found that the cruel treatment of Haitians under Title 42 subjected Haitian asylum seekers to arbitrary detention and discriminatory and humiliating ill-treatment that amounts to race-based torture. The United States has both a legal and moral obligation to uphold the right to seek asylum, and over the holidays, we once again saw communities mobilize to welcome asylum seekers with dignity.”
“The Biden administration must reverse course and stop these policies of exclusion, and instead uphold the right to seek asylum and invest in the communities that are stepping up to welcome,” Fischer added.
This post was originally published on Common Dreams.
Haiti is in crisis. After more than ten years of rule by a corrupt, violent, U.S.-backed regime, the country’s government has essentially collapsed. Gangs—operating with the support of politicians and elites—control many regions of the country, terrorizing civilians with kidnappings and massacres of entire communities. This gang rule has led to shortages of food, water …Read More
The Biden administration is again pushing for military intervention in Haiti, in part due to the fear of Haitian immigrants coming to the United States, but also as a result of an imperialist mindset that is focused on physically controlling Haiti. The U.S. mainstream media constantly present Haiti as a country that is collapsing without presenting geopolitical, colonial and structural contexts…
The US has long considered Latin America and the Caribbean to be its “backyard” under the anachronist 1823 Monroe Doctrine. And even though current US President Biden mistakenly thinks that upgrading the region to the “front yard” makes any difference, Yankee hemispheric hegemony is becoming increasingly volatile. A “Pink Tide” of left electoral victories since 2018 have swept Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Honduras, Chile, Columbia, and Brazil. At the same time, China has emerged as an economic presence while tumultuously inflationary winds blow in the world economy.
In this larger context, the socialist triad of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua are addressed below along with the importance of Haiti.
Henry Kissinger once quipped: “To be an enemy of the US is dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal.” He presciently encapsulated the perilously precarious situations in the “enemy” states targeted for regime change by the imperial power – Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua – as well as the critical consequences for Haiti of being “friended.”
Out-migration from Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua
While accommodation and cooption by Washington may be in order for social democracies such as the new administrations in Colombia and Brazil, nothing but regime ruination is slated for the explicitly socialist states. Looking pretty in pink is begrudgingly tolerable for Washington but not red.
The Democratic Party speech writers may lack the rhetorical flourish of John Bolton’s “Troika of Tyranny,” but President Biden has continued his predecessor’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. The result has been unprecedented out migration from the three states striving for socialism, although the majority of migrants entering the US are still from either the Northern Triangle (consisting of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras) or Mexico.
US immigration policy is cynically designed to exacerbate the situation. The Biden administration has dangled inconsistent political amnesties jerking Venezuelan and Nicaraguan immigrants around. The Cuban Adjustment Act, dating back to 1966, perversely encourages irregular immigration.
With Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, the pull of economic opportunities drives people to leave in the face of sanctions-fueled deteriorating conditions at home. These migrants differ from those from the Northern Triangle, who are also fleeing from the push of gang violence, extortion, femicide, and the ambiance of general criminal impunity.
Socialist states red-lined
US sanctions, which have literally red-lined Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, are more lethal than ever. The electronic technology for enforcing the coercive measures has far advanced since the days over six decades ago when JFK first visited what is called the “blockade” on Cuba. Further, the effect over time of sanctions is to corrode socialist solidarity and cooperation. And in recent times, cyber warfare using social media is effectively wielded by the imperialists.
Natural disasters have a synergistic effect aggravating and amplifying the pain of sanctions. An August lightning strike destroyed 40% of Cuba’s fuel reserves. Then Hurricane Ian hit both Cuba and Nicaragua in October, while Venezuela experienced unprecedented heavy rainfall, all with lethal consequences.
The Covid pandemic stressed these already sanctions-battered economies, presenting the unenviable choice of locking down or working and eating. Cuba was forced to suspend tourism, which was a major source of foreign income. Venezuela chose an innovative system of alternating periods of lockdown. Nicaragua, where three-quarters of the population work in small businesses and farms or the informal sector, implemented relatively successful public health measures while keeping the economy open.
Venezuela has made remarkable progress turning around a complete economic collapse deliberately caused by the US sanctions, but it still has a long, long way to recovery. For example, poor people are getting fat in Venezuela, not because there is too much food, but because there is not enough. Consequently, they are forced to subsist on high caloric arepas made of fried corn flour and cannot afford more nutritious vegetables and meats.
Nicaragua is bracing for more US sanctions, while the situation in Cuba is more desperate than ever. But with international support and solidarity, the explicitly socialist states have continued to successfully resist the onslaughts of imperialism.
Haiti made poor by imperialism
Compared to Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, Haiti is suffering even more. It is the poorest country in the hemisphere, made so by imperialism. Few countries in the hemisphere have had as intimate a relationship with the hegemon to the north as Haiti…unfortunately. Presently civil society has risen up in revolt and for good reason.
Haiti achieved independence in 1804 in the world’s first successful slave revolt and the first successful anti-colonial revolution in Latin America and the Caribbean. For those Afro-descendants, the price of freedom has been stiff. The former colonial power, France, along with the US have been bleeding Haiti dry ever since. Over $20 billion has been extracted for “reparations” under the force of arms for the cost of the slaves and repayment of the consequent “debt.”
Under US President Bill Clinton – he has since apologized after the damage was done – peasant agriculture was destroyed with an IMF deal. Since then, Haiti has gone from being a net exporter of rice to an importer from the US. The consequent population shift from the land to the cities conforms to the designs for Haiti to be a low-wage manufacturing center for foreign capital.
The treatment of Haitian immigrants and would-be immigrants on the US southern border by the overtly racist and anti-immigrant Donald Trump has been even worse by his supposedly “woke” Democratic successor. Tellingly, Biden’s special envoy quit in protest because he found the administration’s policy, in his words, “inhumane.”
Haiti has been without an elected president. Ariel Henry, the current officeholder, was simply installed by the Core Group of the US, Canada, and other outside powers after his also unelected predecessor, Jovenel Moïse, was assassinated in July 2021. The Haitian parliament doesn’t meet, most government services are non-functional, rival armed groups control major swarths of the national territory, and cholera has again broken out.
The US has proposed a return of a multi-national military force like the previous disastrous MINUSTAH effort by the UN, which left the country in the state it is now. Little wonder that the peoples of the hemisphere aspire to alternatives to the US aiding their development.
Chinese tsunami and the Russian rip tide
China has emerged as an alternative and challenger to US dollar dominance of the hemisphere. China has provided vital life support for the socialist states targeted by US for regime change. During the Covid pandemic, China supplied the region with medical equipment and vaccines, literally saving lives.
The Chinese economic presence has been like a tsunami wave from the east building up as it approached the American landmass. In 2000, China accounted for a mere 2% of the region’s trade. Economic exchanges began to swell when China joined the World Trade Association in December 2001. Today, China is the number one trading partner with South America and second only to the US for the region as a whole.
China has expanded its political, cultural, and even military ties with the region, while Taiwan’s fortunes have receded. Over twenty Latin American and Caribbean countries have joined the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offering more diverse commercial and financial options.
Russia, too, has been a salvation as when Cuba was caught in the pandemic peak with the Delta strain and their oxygen plant broke down. Russia airlifted life-saving oxygen and later brought vital fuel after the fires at Matanzas crippled the Cuban energy grid.
To be continued…
• The inflationary blowback from western sanctions on some one third of humanity present an increasingly volatile global context.
• Part III concludes with the challenges ahead for countries striving for independence from US dominance.
Janine Jackson interviewed CEPR’s Jake Johnston about US intervention in Haiti for the November 4, 2022, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
CounterSpin221104Johnston.mp3
Janine Jackson: In July 2021, the Washington Post editorial board declared that the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moïse put the country “at risk of anarchy,” which, the paper explained to its readers,
poses an immediate humanitarian threat to millions of Haitians and an equally urgent diplomatic and security challenge to the United States and major international organizations. Swift and muscular intervention is needed.
In October, the Post ran an editorial headlined “Yes, Intervene in Haiti—and Push for Democracy.
A lot of seventh grade government students would pause at that point, and wonder how other countries’ “intervention”–a remarkably unexamined term–in a sovereign nation, much less their “muscular intervention,” could lead to democracy.
But the idea that the US, or an international community presumably guided by the US, is the monitor, arbiter and exemplar of something called “democracy” is a corporate news media staple.
And media observers know that once this country is at something it calls war, dissenting, critical views are ignored or worse.
So while the US is deciding how to involve itself in Haiti’s hardships right now, it’s important to think about what we know, what we should know, and what maybe we aren’t hearing about what would actually help Haitian people right now.
JJ: I just want to let you go with this. We’re very much in medias res as we record on November 3. There was a letter signed by CEPR and some 90 other groups, including the American Friends Service Committee, Church World Service, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti–and folks can also read Jane Regan’s piece on FAIR.org that points to opposition to foreign military intervention by many civil society and grassroots groups in Haiti.
So let me just start you with a big-picture question: Why are we seeing so many calls for Haiti’s problems to be addressed like a nail that can only be solved with a hammer? And why are corporate media so invested in that response?
JJ: Yeah, look, I think when you look at the situation in Haiti today–and make no mistake, the situation on the ground is extremely dire, right? People are facing serious hardships, from food insecurity, from violence and insecurity, a lack of fuel and basic supplies.
And I think there’s an approach that you see in the media, often, which treats this all as a recent development. The Washington Post editorial is a good example, saying that the assassination of the president last year is what has caused this situation, right? And so it’s looking at it in terms of a very short timeline.
And I think it’s far more useful to see this as a much larger phenomenon, something that has slowly developed and transpired over many, many years.
I think this is really key to understanding this call for foreign intervention as well, because the reality is, it’s easy to look at the situation and say, “Oh, Haiti must be this failed state that needs outside help.”
But if you take that longer view, you realize that the situation today on the ground is the situation because of so many prior interventions, right? We can’t separate these things, and you have to have that understanding to look into the future and say what’s necessary for the next steps.
JJ: This letter also notes foreign intervention has led to very concrete and documentable problems in Haiti caused by US troops. There’s a reason to just say, first of all, maybe this isn’t the first thing that we want to do, right?
JJ: Of course. And if you look at that legacy, you can look at some of the more concrete things, right?
The introduction of cholera by UN peacekeepers after the earthquake in 2010. You could look at many decades of sexual abuse, of rape, of extrajudicial killings, right?
I mean, the list goes on. But I think it’s also important to look at a different aspect of that foreign intervention, which is the political effects of it.
And looking at the situation in Haiti today, I think everyone agrees that many of these problems are at their core political. And so if we consider that, we look at the political situation, it is what it is largely because of the role of foreign powers controlling Haiti and Haiti’s democracy, right?
It’s not because the Haitian people have had a say in how their country has been governed for many, many years. And so that’s really important in terms of determining what comes next, and looking at what might be the implications of an intervention today.
And I think this is especially important, and you mentioned the piece from Jane Regan: I think it’s an excellent analysis, and making a key point, right? The request for foreign military assistance is coming from a de facto prime minister who has no real legitimacy or popular mandate, but, in fact, was made prime minister after a tweet from foreign embassies urging him to form a government, weeks after the assassination of the president.
And so this is a really important dynamic to understand. And I think it’s one reason why you’ve seen such opposition to this request for military intervention, is that it’s seen as an effort to continue to prop up this unelected de facto prime minister.
JJ: I feel like there are a lot of folks who are trying to be critical, progressive leftists in the US, and they just don’t know what the heck to think about Haiti. And it has to do with this idea of “The US must intervene, the US must do something, because of course the US has to do something.” And the idea of the US not doing something is completely off the page.
And I just wonder, what would a conversation look like about allowing Haiti to be Haiti? What would that even include? Whose voices would that include? Who would we hear that we’re not hearing? Who would we stop hearing from that we’re hearing?
JJ: I think you can go two ways with this. On the one hand, when we’re talking about this question of military intervention, I think there’s an assumption by those folks saying, “Well, the US must act.”
There’s also an assumption behind that that the US can act successfully, right? That they’re motivated for the right reasons, and doing this for the right reasons, and can succeed at what they’re saying those reasons are. But that takes a lot of assumptions that we’re making.
And I think it’s important to, first off, assess those assumptions. So when we look at the history of foreign intervention in Haiti, when does that usually happen? Yes, the situation might be chaotic and difficult on the ground, but it’s usually the elite calling in foreign troops to basically protect their interests.
And so we have to understand those power dynamics in terms of what’s motivating this today, and what’s motivating the situation on the ground. And I wrote a piece about this, but I think it’s naive to think that there aren’t actors in Haiti stoking violence and this humanitarian crisis in order to justify a foreign military intervention, which they see as their best way to maintain their power, status and influence over the political and economic system in Haiti.
Jake Johnston: “Actors in Haiti [are] stoking violence and this humanitarian crisis in order to justify a foreign military intervention.”(image: CGTN)
Now, what’s at the root of so much of what we’re seeing in Haiti, and it gets to your second question, this question of who has this say and who’s actually included in that state. And I think for a very, very long time, you’ve had a Haitian state which has not actually been inclusive and incorporated the vast majority of the population.
The most visible manifestation of this is just the turnout in the last presidential election, the last couple, which were 20% or lower.
But you also just look at what the government actually provides the citizens: The government’s not active in people’s lives.
And so, again, if you’re looking at what would a real Haitian solution look like, that’s what you want to see, is the majority of the population actually being included and listened to and incorporated into that state apparatus, in order to actually have a representative government.
And I think one real big concern is that the presence of foreign military troops makes that process much less likely. Rather, it would be there to basically provide the bandaid to continue with business as usual.
And I think, you talk to folks in Haiti, a solution is not a solution going back three months, before the fuel blockade and before cholera reemerged, right? That’s not a solution. That might be a temporary reprieve, but that’s not a solution.
And I just want to make one other point here, too, because I think there’s an assumption as well that, well, this is a situation in Haiti, and the US must act to help that situation.
Now, the other assumption there is that the US is not actively engaged in this situation today, already. And they are: politically, diplomatically, economically, any number of ways, right?
And so I think US action is necessary, but moving in a different direction. Not action to intervene further, but action to remove themselves from the situation, because their intervention is actively destabilizing the situation, right?
It is making that path forward less likely. And so it is important to call on the US to act, but they need to act in a very different way than what they’re discussing right now.
JJ: I’m going to end it right there. We’ve been speaking with Jake Johnston, senior research associate at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, and lead author for CEPR’s Haiti Relief and Reconstruction Watch blog.
Please do find their work at CEPR.net. Thank you so much, Jake Johnston, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
JJ: Thanks so much for having me. Always a pleasure.
This week on CounterSpin: In 2019, the New York Timesreported on Haiti’s hardships with a story headlined “‘There Is No Hope’: Crisis Pushes Haiti to Brink of Collapse.” The “no hope” phrase was a real, partial quote from a source, a despairing young woman in one of Haiti’s most difficult areas. And the story wasn’t lying about babies dying in underserved hospitals or schools closed or people killed in protests, or people with jobs going unpaid, roadblocks, blackouts, hunger and deep, deep stress in a country in severe crisis. But further into the story was another quote, from that young woman’s mother, who told the Times, “It’s not only that we’re hungry for bread and water. We’re hungry for the development of Haiti.” As we noted at the time, there’s a difference between “there is no hope” and “there is no hope under this system”—and to the extent that US news media purposefully ignore that difference, and portray Haiti as a sort of outside-of-time tragic case, and ignore the role that US “intervention” has played throughout history in order to push for the same sort of intervention again—well, that’s where you see the difference between corporate media and the independent press corps we need. We’ll talk to Jake Johnston from the Center for Economic and Policy Research about what elite media are calling for right now as response to Haiti’s problems, versus what Haitians are calling for.
Also on the show: Is racial discrimination over in the United States? Do universities and colleges already reflect the range of inclusion and diversity a democracy demands, such that they should stop even thinking about whether they’re admitting the sort of students they expressly excluded just decades ago? These questions are in consideration at the Supreme Court, though you might not know it from media coverage. Instead, you may have heard about a fair-minded white guy who just, in his heart, wants Asian Americans to get a fair shot at the Ivy League—against all those undeserving Black kids unfairly leveraged by affirmative action. We’ll talk about SFFA v. Harvard with Jeannie Park, founding president of the Asian American Journalists Association in New York and co-founder of the Coalition for a Diverse Harvard.
Foreign military intervention in Haiti is being talked up again in the press. On 15 October, it was being reported that the Biden administration was drafting a resolution to deploy forces to the Caribbean nation. The mainstream media tells us the Haitian crisis is a matter of violent gangs, fuel shortages and cholera. In response, for powerful imperialist nations, the military is framed as a cure-all. That’s despite the lessons from, to pick just two, Iraq and Afghanistan.
To the uninitiated, sending in the marines might seem like a sound idea, even in spite of the clamour of voices against it. In fact, 90 human rights and peace organisations signed a letter opposing military intervention. Published in Counterpunch on 1 November, signatories said the US government should:
reflect on the long history of international interventions in Haiti, and how those actions have served to undermine state institutions, democratic norms, and the rule of law.
Excluding the masses
The joint letter moves past simply blaming gangs to look at the deeper systemic issues at play. Fundamentally, Haiti’s poor are victims of a system which impoverishes them:
At the heart of the insecurity plaguing Haiti is the continuation of a political and economic system that excludes the vast majority of its citizenry.
It follows that the answer is not military intervention – better described as military interference – but a project of social uplift:
A long-term solution can only be achieved by addressing these underlying dynamics of inequality and exclusion and by providing for the population as a whole.
Crisis in Haiti
Interventionist arguments are seductive. That’s partly because they contain elements of the truth. There certainly is a crisis in Haiti which is harming people there. As the Guardian reported:
There is no question that Haiti is in a terrible crisis, possibly the worst in our lifetimes. The gang conglomerate has blocked the country’s main fuel terminal and brought almost everything to a standstill.
The fuel shortages affect every aspect of life:
Nothing functions without fuel. A big water bottling plant temporarily shut down. Hospitals have closed their doors or reduced capacity. The prices of basic commodities, like rice, have soared past most people’s grasp.
US allies such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau have called for intervention too. It’s easy to see why centrists and others with undeveloped politics could fall for the pro-interventionist argument. But ignoring Haiti’s historical and political reality is a prerequisite for making these arguments.
As journalist and former human rights lawyer Pooja Bhatia argues in the Guardian:
The view from Haiti is generally different: foreign intervention causes disaster. This idea can be counterintuitive and deeply uncomfortable to Americans, but it has the great virtue of being based on facts.
Bhatia, who lived in Haiti, reminds us that Haiti was a state born of slave rebellion. It has been subjected to repeated occupations since its people overthrew their French colonizers. Very often, this has been by the US, usually with a White Man’s Burden-type rationale. And in the end, military interference has mainly benefited US investors and local authoritarians.
Foreign constituency
Bhatia questions the suggestion that Haitians themselves, rather than just the current premier Ariel Henry, want US troops back in their streets and homes:
Headlines have reported that Haiti has requested intervention. This is inaccurate. It’s Haiti’s premier, Ariel Henry, who has requested it. Henry more or less appointed himself prime minister following last July’s assassination of President Jovenel Moïse.
Henry, she says, is barely even recognised as a leader by his ‘own’ population:
He has never had any sort of constitutional authority and indeed, is implicated in Moïse’s assassination. The people he claims to speak for revile him. His only constituency is outside the country.
Haitian futures?
Racism underpins interventionist arguments around Haiti and elsewhere. This rhetoric always flows from an assumption of Western superiority over people in the Global South. It only flourishes where people cannot make the links between colonialism and the current state of affairs in a given country.
Haiti is in crisis, certainly. But its crises stem from hundreds of years of colonialism and military interference. We must ask if more of the same will solve the problem. There is a lesson to be learned from former occupations like the one being suggested here. If the US Marines ‘liberate’ or ‘stabilise’ a country, they generally end up running it afterwards.
Coups-d’etat, U.N. “humanitarian” massacres, a President assassinated by U.S.-trained, Colombian mercenaries, earthquakes, cholera… and even the “aid” of the Clinton Foundation! Now, the country ravaged by decades of natural and man-made disasters braces itself for a new “humanitarian” military invasion.
*****
In a recent speech, Josep Borrel, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, explained to the world how “Europe is a garden”, while the rest of the world is a “jungle” that “could invade the garden”. This is his solution:
…gardeners have to go to the jungle. Europeans have to be much more engaged with the rest of the world. Otherwise, the rest of the world will invade us, by different ways and means.
In reality, racist “gardeners” have been invading the “jungle” for centuries, plundering and scheming genocidal massacres, and Haiti knows it better than most countries. Their “gardening” has also ensured that the so-called jungle remains underdeveloped.
In another recent speech, this time at the United Nations General Assembly, Colombian president Gustavo Petro apologized to Haiti. The first leftist head of state of the South American country – also ravaged by decades of hypocritical U.S. “war on drugs”– was referring to the assassination of Jovenel Moise during a July 2021 attack, perpetrated by a group of mostly Colombian ex-soldiers. It also included 2 Haitian-Americans. The foreign gang, trained in part by the U.S. Army, posed as a team of DEA officers to gain entry to the presidential compound.
Since then, social unrest has severely increased all over the country, and there’s an almost complete breakdown of the rule of law and many basic social services. The Haitian elite — including its U.S.-approved, de facto President, Ariel Henry — is calling for another foreign “humanitarian intervention” (a.k.a. “gardening”). Western corporate media argue that Haiti is calling for such an intervention. By “Haiti”, they mean its corrupted and U.S.-aligned political and oligarchic elite. What many people on the streets of the convulsed country really demand — besides the ousting of Henry — is that foreign forces stay the hell out of Haiti.
Regarding Western (U.S. and vassal states) support for Henry, who already received armored vehicles, let’s read what the U.S. representative to Haiti said after renouncing his post on September 22, 2021:
Last week, the U.S. and other embassies in Port-au-Prince issued another public statement of support for the unelected, de facto President Dr. Ariel Henry as interim leader of Haiti, and have continued to tout his ‘political agreement’ over another broader, earlier accord shepherded by civil society.
The embassies referred to in his quote, as Canadian writer Yves Engler explains, compose the U.N.-approved Core Group, “made up of ambassadors from Germany, Brazil, Canada, Spain, the United States, France, and the European Union.” The group, he adds:
…has heavily shaped Haitian affairs ever since American, French and Canadian troops assisted in the overthrow of the country’s elected government in 2004 and installed a United Nations occupation force.
What President Henry, himself a suspect in the killing of Moise, intend is for a foreign military or U.N. “peace-keeping” mission to enter the country and neutralize the gangs, particularly those not armed and directed by the government itself, as they currently control parts of the country and, most importantly, many vital highways and a sequestered oil refinery. Haitian gangs kidnap people to ask for ransom money, which then finances their criminal exploits, including the illegal trafficking of arms manufactured in the U.S. They have turned Haiti into the new kidnapping capital of the world. Murder and rape are widespread as well (more detail below).
Despite the many suspects arrested so far, the situation surrounding Moise’s killing remains obscure: there’s still no mastermind identified as responsible for ordering the assassination.
From the Brazilian Favelas to the Haitian Shantytowns
The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH, 2004-2017) was purportedly intended to ameliorate the chaos that overtook the country after the aftermath of the foreign coup against the first democratically elected President of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, which happened in February 2004, two hundred years after Haiti’s heroic independence from France. In 2004, as mentioned above, the U.S., Canada, and France collaborated in the ousting of the popular leftist politician and priest from the Fanmi Lavalas party.
Conveniently, a group of Brazilian Army generals, many of them tied to the dictatorship that controlled their country until 1985, were placed in command of the U.N. mission, which was quickly associated with a handful of civilian massacres, particularly in the overpopulated slums of Cité Soleil, in Port-au-Prince, where around 300,000 people live in extremely precarious conditions. Cité Soleil is also where thousands of Fanmi Lavalas Party supporters live. These criminal raids resembled police and military incursions into many Sao Paulo and Rio favelas. There, under the cover of fighting criminal gangs, racist state actors killed innocent civilians, including boys, and unleashed terror over thousands of mostly black men, women, and children.
While the Haitian massacres were occurring, as documents released through the Freedom of Information Act attest, the U.S. and its intelligence services were aware of the brutality being unleashed over Cité Soleil. On their part, the most important human rights organizations –like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Organization of American States– “remained conspicuously disinterested and silent about the evidence”.
Some of the pictures of the chaos and murderous actions of the MINUSTAH –comprised of soldiers from 13 countries– are too explicit to be shown here, but the reader can visit HaitiAction.net to understand the extent of the cruelty exerted by these “peace-keepers”, who didn’t care to shoot at women and children with high caliber guns, even from helicopters, another terrorist tactic used by Brazilian police and military over the favelas.
The idea behind raiding Cité Soleil and other shantytowns around Port-au-Prince in reality was to eliminate and terrorize Aristide supporters, rightly infuriated by the 2004 brazen postcolonial coup d’etat ordained and executed by the usual “gardeners”. They demanded the return of their democratically elected President, forcefully exiled to Africa. Those demands would be a regular feature for many years after the coup.
Only between July 8 and July 17 of this year, 209 people were murdered in Cité Soleil. Half of them were innocent bystanders, without ties to any gang, and the rest, according to the BBC, were gang members “or people with links” to them (whatever that means). Other sources refer to many of these gangs as “paramilitary forces”, a regular feature when the Western “gardeners” control a puppet third-world government immersed in violent conflict. Between January and March of this year, 225 persons were kidnapped, 58% more than during the same three months of 2021.
The U.N. mission in Haiti was also accused of unleashing a plague of cholera by dumping infected waste into the tributary of an important river, killing more than 10,000 people. The U.N. blue helmets also stand accused of raping Haitian girls and women –or trading food for sex– leaving behind many “petit-MINUSTAH” as their abandoned offspring is often referred to.
The Montana Accord
Last September 29, in line with the Western “gardener” tradition, U.S. ambassador Pamela A. White said before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, referring to Haiti, that her country must put “boots on the ground right now!”
If history offers any kind of lesson, her declaration should be more than enough to understand that nothing good is coming toward Haiti in the next months or years of foreign occupation, now a very probable outcome as the U.N. Security Council has unanimously adopted a resolution “demanding an immediate end to violence and criminal activity in Haiti and imposing sanctions on individuals and groups threatening peace and stability in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest nation — starting with a powerful gang leader.”
The gang leader referred to is the former police officer and “G9” gang boss Jimmy Cherizier, sanctioned by the U.S. and, now, also by the U.N. Despite the presence of many other gangs and their leaders, Cherizier, linked to various human rights violations he denies, is the only one to receive such sanctions so far. He is also the gang leader calling for revolution against the Henry regime.
The U.N. Security Council resolution (October 21) opens the door for a second resolution, already in the making by the U.S. and Mexico, to authorize a “non-U.N. International Security Assistance Mission”, which is what the “gardeners” are desperately pushing for.
The Washington Post Editorial Board, on its part, recently stated that the Montana Accord is “the right move for Haiti”. To be clear, the boots on the ground “right now!” option, in the form of a non-U.N. security mission, doesn’t exclude the Montana Accord, an assortment of Haitian political groups that include some shady characters. In fact, they are probably meant to work together, hand in glove.
The putative leader of the Montana Accord is Magali Comeau-Denis, Minister of Culture under Gerard Latortue, de facto President of Haiti from 2004 to 2006 (right after the coup that ousted Aristide). As Haiti Liberté reported, she was harshly criticized for starting unilateral negotiations –after the U.S. pressured her to do so– with Ariel Henry, which led to other participants leaving the Montana Accord. According to the leader of the Movement for Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity (MOLEGHAF), a revolutionary and progressive party from Port-au-Prince that left the coalition:
MOLEGHAF agreed to sign and join the Montana Accord because we were supposed to find this ‘Haitian solution,’ without bowing to the dictates of (then U.S. Chargé d’Affaires) Kenneth Merten, (and former) U.S. State Department officer and current head of the U.N. Office in Haiti, Helen La Lime, or the French, Canadian, and U.S. Embassies.
In other words, the accord supported by the Washington Post, a mouthpiece in the service of Western elites, marches on behind the façade of a “Haitian-led” solution but is nothing of the sort.
Certainly, the Haitian gangs –some of them substantially supported by the Haitian government as a way to control society, and armed with guns that the U.S. seems surprisingly incapable of controlling– must be stopped. But thinking that the way to achieve this is by allowing another occupation of the country goes stubbornly (and disingenuously) against, at least, a few hundred years of recorded history. The racist and colonial mentality of the “gardeners” imply that Haiti cannot rule itself, so it must be controlled from Washington.
“The only way to save Haiti is to put it under UN control,” noted a recent Globe and Mail headline. Robert Rotberg, founding director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Program on Intrastate Conflict, demonstrates a scarcity of imagination and knowledge in making his colonialist appeal.
Highlighting an openly colonial streak in Canadian politics, prominent voices have repeatedly promoted “protectorate” status for Haiti. In 2014 right-wing Quebec City radio host, Sylvain Bouchard, told listeners, “I would transform Haiti into a colony. The UN must colonize Haiti.” During the 2003 “Ottawa initiative on Haiti” conference to plan the ouster of elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide US, French and Canadian officials discussed putting the country under UN trusteeship while a 2005 Canadian Military Journal article was titled “The case for international trusteeship in Haiti”.
In a Canadianized variation of the protectorate theme, constitutional law professor Richard Albert penned a 2017 Boston Globe opinion titled “Haiti should relinquish its sovereignty”. The Boston College professor wrote, “the new Haitian Constitution should do something virtually unprecedented: renounce the power of self-governance and assign it for a term of years, say 50, to a country that can be trusted to act in Haiti’s long-term interests.” According to the Canadian law professor his native land, which Albert called “one of Haiti’s most loyal friends”, should administer the Caribbean island nation.
In a similar vein, L’Actualité editor-in-chief, Carole Beaulieu, suggested Haiti become the eleventh Canadian province. In an article just after the 2004 coup titled “Et si on annexait Haïti?”, she wrote “Canada should annex Haiti to make it a little tropical paradise.”
At the less sophisticated conservative end of the political spectrum André Arthur, a former member of Parliament, labeled Haiti a “hopeless” and “sexually deviant” country populated by thieves and prostitutes that should be taken over by France as in the “heyday of colonial Haiti” (“belle époque de l’Haïti colonial”). “There is no hope in Haiti until the country is placed under trusteeship”, bellowed the Quebec City radio host in 2016. “We will never dare to do it, political correctness, it would be racism to say: So you say to France: … ‘For the next thirty years, you are the owner of Haiti, put it right. Kick the asses that need to be kicked.”
In his Globe commentary Rotberg displays a startling level of ignorance about Haitian affairs. While writing that “Haiti needs to become a ward of the United Nations”, Rotberg fails to recognize that the UN and foreign powers have dominated Haiti over the past 18 years. Haitians widely view the head of the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH), Helen LaLime, a US diplomat, as colonial overseer. In 2019 BINUH replaced the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), which replaced La Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti (MINUSTAH) in 2017.
MINUSTAH was responsible for countless abuses during its 13-year occupation, which consisted of 8,000 foreign troops and 2,000 police. After helping oust thousands of elected officials in 2004, 500 Canadian soldiers were incorporated into MINUSTAH as it backed up a coup government’s violent crackdown against pro-democracy protesters between March 2004 and May 2006. The UN force also killed dozens of civilians directly when it pacified Cité Soleil, a bastion of support for Aristide. The UN force was responsible for innumerable sexual abuses. The foreign forces had sex with minors, sodomized boys, raped young girls and left many single mothers to struggle with stigma and poverty after departing the country.
Aside from sexual abuse and political repression, the UN’s disregard for Haitian life caused a major cholera outbreak, which left over 10,000 dead and one million sick.
The 2004 coup and UN occupation introduced a form of multilateral colonial oversight to Haiti. The April 2004 Security Council resolution that replaced the two-month-old US, France and Canada Multinational Interim Force with MINUSTAH established the Core Group. (Unofficially, the Core Group traces its roots to the 2003 “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” meeting where US, French, OAS and Canadian officials discussed overthrowing Haiti’s elected government and putting the country under UN trusteeship.) The Core Group, which includes representatives of the US, Canada, France, Spain, Brazil, OAS, EU and UN, periodically releases collective statements on Haitian affairs and meet among themselves and with Haitian officials. It’s a flagrantly colonial alliance. After President Jovenel Moise was killed 15 months ago, for instance, the Core Group effectively appointed Ariel Henry prime minister through a press release. Implicated in Moise’s assassination, Henry has overseen the country’s descent in chaos.
Those calling for foreign control of Haiti ignore its loss of sovereignty since the 2004 coup. By what standards was the usurpation of Haitian sovereignty successful? By basically any metric, 18 years of US/Canada, UN, Core Group influence in Haiti has been a disaster. But imperialists don’t simply ignore the damaging impact of foreign intervention. In a stark demonstration of how power affects ideology, the more Haitian sovereignty is undercut the more forthright the calls to usurp Haitian sovereignty.
As has been said, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
Military intervention into Haiti is in the air again.
And the East Coast establishment media—which have on occasion remembered that Haiti is a near neighbor and has been ravaged by anti-government demonstrations, a failing economy and gang violence—seem to be breathing a sigh of relief.
The Washington Post (10/11/22) ran an editorial: “Yes, Intervene in Haiti—and Push for Democracy.” That followed on the heels of a piece in the other big opinion-maker, the New York Times (10/7/22), whose tall title read: “Haiti Appeals for Armed Intervention and Aid to Quell Chaos.”
The New York Times (10/7/22) reports on Haiti’s appeal for foreign armed intervention. Thousands of Haitians have protested and spoken out against foreign intervention, which begs the question, who is “Haiti,” according to the paper?
Without going into the article, it’s fair to ask: Who or what is “Haiti”?
Is “Haiti” the current occupant of the prime minister’s chair?
The myriad and sometimes violent demonstrations against the illegitimate and unelected man suggest that, no, Ariel Henry is not “Haiti.” The New York University law clinic attorney and human rights advocate Pierre Esperance (Just Security, 7/22/21) called the Biden administration’s support for Henry, who stepped into power after President Jovenel Moise was assassinated, another “bad choice.” Instead, Esperance said, the US should back “a transitional government.” But that was over a year ago. And that did not happen.
Another reason Henry’s request for intervention does not represent “Haiti” is the fact that the idea seems to actually have been gestated afar. Organization of American States chief Luis Amargo put it pretty bluntly in a tweet on October 6: “I called on Haiti to request urgent support from international community to help solve security crisis and determine characteristics of the international security force.”
OAS Secretary General Almagro wants Haiti to “request” foreign military intervention, regardless of what Haitians actually want.
Henry issued “his” request on October 7.
Maybe that “suggestion” was already in the air?
Just a day before the Amargo admonition, a number of US lawmakers also asked the Biden administration to end its support for Henry and to support a transitional plan which takes into account “the voice of the Haitian people, including through groups such as the Montana Accord.”
Does “the Montana Accord” represent Haiti?
Arguably, at least partially. The Accord is the nickname for a broad coalition of many scores of political parties, unions, women’s and peasant organizations, chambers of commerce and Protestant and Catholic church organizations. The very day Henry asked for a “specialized military force,” the organization issued a statement opposing any foreign intervention, and calling Henry a “traitor.”
“History teaches us that no foreign force has ever solved the problems of any people on earth,” the press release reads.
Just a month ago, a member of the anti-corruption group Nou Pap Dòmi—also a member of the Accord—was in Washington. Testifying at the House Foreign Affairs Committee (9/29/22), Velina E. Charlier rejected foreign intervention.
The US, she said,
has always followed a paternalistic and interventionist approach that often fails to serve the best interests of the Haitian people. Through its embassy in Port-au-Prince, the United States has continued to support leaders who have emerged from fraudulent elections or corrupt governments that have lost all popular legitimacy.
She noted that international intervention of all sorts “has greatly contributed to bringing Haiti to the brink of collapse.”
But since not all Haitians and Haitian organizations are represented in the Accord, maybe “Haiti” is the Haitian people who take to the streets to demonstrate? And those brave enough to risk possible repression to speak to local and foreign reporters? And those who just continue trying to live their lives in deteriorating economic, political and social conditions?
Since long before the current unelected and illegitimate government of Prime Minister Ariel Henry took power, people have been demonstrating against the government and against US support for both Henry and Moise. More recently, those marches and burning barricades have become more focused on denouncing any kind of foreign intervention.
On October 17, the 216th anniversary of the murder of founding father General Jean Jacques Dessalines, many thousands demonstrated against intervention in cities and towns across the country. The crowds also demanded Henry step down and denounced high gasoline prices and the continued rising gang violence.
Reyneld Sanon of Haiti-based Radio Resistance and the Haitian Popular Press Agency explained the ire in a statement quoted in the Real News Network (10/17/22). He rejected the ruling party’s decision “to request international imperialist forces to occupy the country for a third time.” He said that the decision insults “our ancestors, who fought to break the chains of slavery” and asserted that “in the case that the foreign military occupation force arrived in Haiti, all Haitians, progressive groups, popular organizations, and left-wing political parties, will stand to fight.”
The Washington Post editorial board (10/18/22) salivated at the prospect of an intervention that “dovetails with the United States’ own interests.”
In the New York Times article (10/7/22) mentioned above, journalists Natalie Kitroeff and Maria Abi-Habi flatly noted, “United Nations peacekeepers who were in the country between 2004 and 2017 committed sexual abuse and introduced cholera to the country, starting an outbreak that killed nearly 10,000 people, according to the World Health Organization.” This immediately followed their suggestion that “it is not clear how an international security force would be received by Haitians, who might see it as meddling in their affairs.”
The Post editorial board (10/11/22) went so far as to announce, without supporting evidence, that, “weighed against the cratering prospects of a failed state whose main export is asylum seekers, many Haitians would support—if with misgivings—the chance at restoring some semblance of normal life.” (The board has repeatedly signaled that the rights and interests of Haitians are of less importance than order at the US border—see FAIR.org, 10/14/22.) Revisiting the issue a week later (10/18/22), the board argued that a military intervention is “justified on humanitarian grounds and dovetails with the United States’ own interests,” neglecting to even mention Haitians’ perspectives.
In fact, it seems pretty clear to anyone who follows Haitian news sources like Radio Rezistans and Alterpresse, checks out what foreign academics and think tanks say or even peruses mainstream outlets like PBS and NPR, that foreign military intervention of any sort is both unwanted and likely to have only negative impacts. Some recent articles have headlines like “Intervening in Haiti, Again“ (Foreign Policy, 10/21/22) and “The Last Thing Haiti Needs Is Another Foreign Intervention” (Tricontinental.org, 10/20/22) and “De Facto Haitian Authorities Call for (Another) Foreign Military Intervention” (CEPR.net, 10/14/22). None are advising boots on the ground.
To top it all off, even Biden’s former envoy to Haiti, who resigned over what he called “inhumane, counterproductive” policy of deportations, has “slammed” the plan for an intervention, predicting it could lead to an armed uprising.
“It’s almost unfathomable that all Haitians are calling for a different solution, yet the US and the UN and international [institutions] are blindly stumbling through with Ariel Henry,” he said in an interview in the Intercept (10/19/22).
So, New York Times and Washington Post readers and watchers, has “Haiti” appealed for intervention?
In the last few days, the gang violence that has become a way of life in Haiti has worsened. With gangs controlling the streets, people are being prevented from leaving their homes. Haitians have lost access to food and water, schools are closed, and the UN estimates nearly 5 million people in the country are experiencing food insecurity. On Friday, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution, proposed by the U.S. and Mexico, to set up a “sanctions regime” to target gangs in Haiti.
Ariel Henry, Haiti’s unelected prime minister, came to power in July 2021 after President Jovenel Moïse’s assassination, with support from the U.S. and other foreign powers. On October 9, Henry called for foreign military intervention to help him curtail the gangs. Since then, the U.S. and Canada have sent armored vehicles and other military supplies to Haiti. However, many Haitians in Haiti and among the diaspora have protested this request, given the U.S.’s and UN’s track records of repeated military occupations since Haiti’s independence in 1804 (1915-1934; 1994-2000; 2004-2017), which have hurt Haiti and its people. Demonstrators have protested for weeks against Henry’s government over unemployment, ongoing violence and the high price of gas.
Even before Moïse’s assassination last year, Haiti was in a state of chaos. Haitians were already suffering due to corruption, gang violence, kidnappings, disregard for the rule of law and more than two centuries of exploitation by the close-knit 1 percent of elites who have long controlled the country’s economy — including through foreign meddling under the guise of help. During the last few weeks and months, however, the situation has been exacerbated. The prices of fuel and food are now extremely high, and gang leaders directly connected to business and political elites are running Haiti, including blocking major ports, thereby preventing basic supplies from entering the country. As if that were not bad enough, cholera is spreading.
Haiti is now in a state that could be called a civil war between civil society and the following groups: the countless number of gangs in the streets; the elites who are mainly parasites sucking the blood of average people yet who are supported by the U.S. and other powerful countries, including France and Canada; and the government. The gangs are being armed by both Haitian elites and foreigners who are the masterminds behind the scenes. These gangs are connected to international actors through money laundering, drugs and guns. Haiti does not produce guns. How is it that so many guns are able to enter the country, to the point that there are armies of gangs?
The English language lacks words to explain this horrific and complex situation. Haitian Creole, a language that emerged from revolution, contains more apt terms: Peyi lòk or peyi bloke refers to a movement to prevent the country from functioning on all levels. Sometimes it refers to a group of gangs who may be supported by the oligarchy (whether the government, the elite or both) or by a political opposition group. The intention of creating peyi lòk is to terrorize the population and prevent them from living. Peyi lòk contributes to a humanitarian crisis by undermining the economy. Schools are closed, government revenues are diminished, and it can be impossible to pay already underpaid civil servants.
I have colleagues who teach at the state university in Haiti who have not been paid for months. Meanwhile, already strained, understaffed, undersupplied hospitals have cut back on services due to the lack of fuel. Doctors are not able to go to work, pregnant people cannot reach hospitals to receive prenatal care, and children, some of whom only get a meal at school, are further malnourished. Banks and supermarkets have had to limit their hours. The situation also fosters gender-based violence as gang members use rape as a weapon.
Meanwhile, the leader of one of the largest gangs, former police officer Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizier of the “G9 Family and Allies” gang, claims that “his gang is more of a political community than an organized crime group,” and argues, “The gang in this country is not those men with guns you can see here. The real gangs are the men in suits. The real gangs are the officials in the national palace, the real gangs are the members of the opposition.” Despite this rhetoric, Cherizier and his followers behave like any other gang, orchestrating death and terror in an effort to win power. He is currently holding the nation’s largest fuel terminal hostage, demanding the resignation of acting Prime Minister Ariel Henry and $50 million in ransom.
Thus, Haiti is being annihilated as a result of injustice, inhumanity, greed and the unwillingness of the elites to share power. The majority of Haitians are not members of any gang, nor tied to elites. They want to be able to live their lives in peace.
Following Moïse’s assassination, the U.S. and other so-called “friends” of Haiti have helped Henry stay in power. This support for his government is enough to keep him in power because the U.S. and the Core Group — consisting of ambassadors from Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Spain, the European Union and the U.S., and representatives from the UN and the Organization of American States — are the ones calling the shots in Haiti. Despite allegations of corruption and economic mismanagement committed by members of Henry’s government, and Henry’s implication in Moïse’s assassination, the U.S. has continued to prop up his government.
And now Henry’s corrupt, illegal, immoral government has asked for help from the very colonizers who occupied Haiti, because he is both unable and unwilling to listen to the people, who want real democracy. Henry has completely refused a proposal from a coalition of civil society organizations to find a Haitian solution to the multiple crises that have been devastating the country for years and have worsened over the past 15 months. The coalition has a transition plan that includes full involvement of Haitians from all walks of life in creating a path toward democracy through negotiations, dialogue and political accountability. The plan includes proposals for dealing with the gang situation, which has disrupted the country’s economy at all levels. On October 17, the date that commemorates the assassination of independent Haiti’s first emperor, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, thousands of Haitians marched in various cities, including the capital of Port-au-Prince, Cap-Haïtien and Les Cayes, to protest the possibility of yet another foreign intervention. Dessalines must be turning over in his grave!
These events cannot be separated from Haiti’s history as a colony of France. The nation has been crushed by the debt that France forced it to pay after it obtained its independence in 1804 and abolished slavery. And this was precisely what France hoped to achieve. When the U.S. government refused to recognize Haiti’s independence, this — what we see in Haiti today — was, in fact, precisely what it hoped would happen.
When the U.S. occupied Haiti in 1915 — on the pretense of helping to create stability — it instituted forced labor, generated more violence and further destabilized the country. This was a crucial turning point that would determine future state institutions and patterns of U.S. control of Haiti throughout the rest of the 20th and 21st centuries, resulting in ongoing occupations. Now, we have neoliberal, neocolonial, capitalist, patriarchal vultures both within and outside of Haiti, those Haitians and non-Haitians alike who arm gang members in order to maintain control and destroy the people.
The UN, the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) and the Core Group have exerted control behind the scenes under the guise of support, diplomacy and helping to maintain stability in Haiti. In fact, their presence only exacerbates the challenges faced by the Haitian people. The UN has blatantly contributed to gender-based violence and poverty by refusing to deal with the so-called Petit MINUSTAH, hundreds of Haitian children born of sexual assaults by foreign UN peacekeepers on Haitians. It has refused to take real responsibility and pay reparations for the cholera outbreak tied to the UN peacekeeping mission, a tragedy that killed over 10,000 Haitians. The UN has offered only empty apologies.
Foreign intervention is dangerous because it is generally one-sided. When the U.S., Canada and other members of the Core Group support the power of an illegitimate government instead of the will of the people, Haiti and Haitians are rendered invisible in the eyes of the world. Haitian Creole has another word for this phenomenon: dedoublaj. A concept deeply rooted in Haitian history, dedoublaj refers to the idea of themilat elite (a Haitian creole term generally referring to light-skinned Haitians who hold the country’s wealth and power) who used dark-skinned presidents as figureheads. It is rumored in Haiti that Jovenel Moïse was killed in part because he refused to accept the role he was assigned in the dedoublaj.
The international community is playing the politics of dedoublaj; they say they want to support Haiti, but that support comes with many strings attached. What they actually want is to support the leaders who seek to exploit Haiti.
Former U.S. Special Envoy to Haiti Daniel Foote, who resigned from his post last year over U.S. deportation policies, has been blunt about U.S. foreign policy in Haiti. “American foreign policy still believes subconsciously that Haiti is a bunch of dumb Black people who can’t organize themselves and we need to tell them what to do or it’s going to get really bad,” Foote toldThe New York Times. “But the internationals have messed Haiti up every time we have intervened. It is time to give the Haitians a chance. What’s the worst that can happen? They make it worse than we have?”
In fact, Haitian civil society groups have created coalitions and proposed concrete steps to move forward. But the international community, Haiti’s so-called “friends,” have not recognized these efforts. During President Moïse’s last year and a half, the “Commission for the Search for a Haitian Solution to the Crisis,” composed of civil society organizations and political parties, was working on a national proposal. Weeks after Moïse’s death the commission produced the August 2021 Montana Accord, which proposed a transition period that would give Haiti time to organize elections. Likewise, the recent Manifesto for an Inclusive Dialogue Toward a Peaceful Transition to a Democratic and Prosperous Haitian Society, created by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the watchdog organization Observatoire Citoyen de l’Action des Pouvoirs Publics en Haiti (“Citizen Observatory for Action by Public Authorities in Haiti” or OCAPH), offers practical solutions that Haitians have generated to resolve the crisis. (The involvement of NED in supporting the Manifesto has drawn some scrutiny due to the group’s ties to U.S. interests, but this does not undercut the fact that many Haitian civil society groups are involved with the Manifesto and backing its recommendations.)
On the one hand, the international community is encouraging different political factions to find a national consensus to benefit the country, while on the other hand it is refusing to endorse the Montana Accord or the Manifesto. Without foreign nations’ support for concrete solutions, their pledges to allow Haitians living in Haiti to find a Haitian solution to the crisis are empty rhetoric.
If the international community respectfully, openly and honestly supported these proposals from Haitian civil society with no strings attached, Haitians in Haiti and the diaspora (which economically contributes to over half of the country’s GNP through remittances) could begin a national dialogue to address this layered crisis that includes security, political, economic and climate issues.
International interventions and occupations have never fostered stability in Haiti. Why not try something else? Change can only come if Haiti is able to decide for itself what happens next. This vision for the future must come from the Haitian people, and cannot be imposed by outsiders who do not understand Haiti’s culture, language or history, and are enmeshed in their own colonial, imperial histories.
At the United Nations General Assembly on 24 September 2022, Haiti’s Foreign Minister Jean Victor Geneus admitted that his country faces a serious crisis, which he said ‘can only be solved with the effective support of our partners’. To many close observers of the situation unfolding in Haiti, the phrase ‘effective support’ sounded like Geneus was signalling that another military intervention by Western powers was imminent. Indeed, two days prior to Geneus’s comments, TheWashington Post published an editorial on the situation in Haiti in which it called for ‘muscular action by outside actors’. On 15 October, the United States and Canada issued a joint statement announcing that they had sent military aircraft to Haiti to deliver weapons to Haitian security services. That same day, the United States submitted a draft resolution to the UN Security Council calling for the ‘immediate deployment of a multinational rapid action force’ into Haiti.
Ever since the Haitian Revolution won independence from France in 1804, Haiti has faced successive waves of invasions, including a two-decade-long US occupation from 1915 to 1934, a US-backed dictatorship from 1957 to 1986, two Western-backed coups against the progressive former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991 and 2004, and a UN military intervention from 2004 to 2017. These invasions have prevented Haiti from securing its sovereignty and have prevented its people from building dignified lives. Another invasion, whether by US and Canadian troops or by UN peacekeeping forces, will only deepen the crisis. Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, the International Peoples’ Assembly, ALBA Movements, and the Plateforme Haïtienne de Plaidoyer pour un Développement Alternatif (‘Haitian Advocacy Platform for Alternative Development’ or PAPDA) have produced a red alert on the current situation in Haiti, which can be found below and downloaded as a PDF.
What is happening in Haiti?
A popular insurrection has unfolded in Haiti throughout 2022. These protests are the continuation of a cycle of resistance that began in 2016 in response to a social crisis developed by the coups in 1991 and 2004, the earthquake in 2010, and Hurricane Matthew in 2016. For more than a century, any attempt by the Haitian people to exit the neocolonial system imposed by the US military occupation (1915–34) has been met with military and economic interventions to preserve it. The structures of domination and exploitation established by that system have impoverished the Haitian people, with most of the population having no access to drinking water, health care, education, or decent housing. Of Haiti’s 11.4 million people, 4.6 million are food insecure and 70% are unemployed.
Manuel Mathieu (Haiti), Rempart (‘Rampart’), 2018.
The Haitian Creole word dechoukaj or ‘uprooting’ – which was first used in the pro-democracy movements of 1986 that fought against the US-backed dictatorship – has come to define the current protests. The government of Haiti, led by acting Prime Minister and President Ariel Henry, raised fuel prices during this crisis, which provoked a protest from the trade unions and deepened the movement. Henry was installed to his post in 2021 by the ‘Core Group’ (made up of six countries and led by the US, the European Union, the UN, and the Organisation of American States) after the murder of the unpopular president Jovenel Moïse. Although still unsolved, it is clear that Moïse was killed by a conspiracy that included the ruling party, drug trafficking gangs, Colombian mercenaries, and US intelligence services. The UN’s Helen La Lime told the Security Council in February that the national investigation into Moïse’s murder had stalled, a situation that has fuelled rumours and exacerbated both suspicion and mistrust within the country.
Fritzner Lamour (Haiti), Poste Ravine Pintade, ca. 1980
How have the forces of neocolonialism reacted?
The United States and Canada are now arming Henry’s illegitimate government and planning military intervention in Haiti. On 15 October, the US submitted a draft resolution to the United Nations Security Council calling for the ‘immediate deployment of a multinational rapid action force’ in the country. This would be the latest chapter in over two centuries of destructive intervention by Western countries in Haiti. Since the 1804 Haitian Revolution, the forces of imperialism (including slave owners) have intervened militarily and economically against people’s movements seeking to end the neocolonial system. Most recently, these forces entered the country under the auspices of the United Nations via the UN Stabilisation Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), which was active from 2004 to 2017. A further such intervention in the name of ‘human rights’ would only affirm the neocolonial system now managed by Ariel Henry and would be catastrophic for the Haitian people, whose movement forward is being blocked by gangs created and promoted behind the scenes by the Haitian oligarchy, supported by the Core Group, and armed by weapons from the United States.
Saint Louis Blaise (Haiti), Généraux (‘Generals’), 1975.
How can the world stand in solidarity with Haiti?
Haiti’s crisis can only be solved by the Haitian people, but they must be accompanied by the immense force of international solidarity. The world can look to the examples demonstrated by the Cuban Medical Brigade, which first went to Haiti in 1998; by the Via Campesina/ALBA Movimientos brigade, which has worked with popular movements on reforestation and popular education since 2009; and by the assistance provided by the Venezuelan government, which includes discounted oil. It is imperative for those standing in solidarity with Haiti to demand, at a minimum:
that France and the United States provide reparations for the theft of Haitian wealth since 1804, including the return of the gold stolen by the US in 1914. France alone owes Haiti at least $28 billion.
that the United States return Navassa Island to Haiti.
that the United Nations pay for the crimes committed by MINUSTAH, whose forces killed tens of thousands of Haitians, raped untold numbers of women, and introduced cholera into the country.
that the Haitian people be permitted to build their own sovereign, dignified, and just political and economic framework and to create education and health systems that can meet the people’s real needs.
that all progressive forces oppose the military invasion of Haiti.
The common sense demands in this red alert do not require much elaboration, but they do need to be amplified.
Western countries will talk about this new military intervention with phrases such as ‘restoring democracy’ and ‘defending human rights’. The terms ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights’ are demeaned in these instances. This was on display at the UN General Assembly in September, when US President Joe Biden said that his government continues ‘to stand with our neighbour in Haiti’. The emptiness of these words is revealed in a new Amnesty International report that documents the racist abuse faced by Haitian asylum seekers in the United States. The US and the Core Group might stand with people like Ariel Henry and the Haitian oligarchy, but they do not stand with the Haitian people, including those who have fled to the United States.
In 1957, the Haitian communist novelist Jacques-Stéphen Alexis published a letter to his country titled La belle amour humaine (‘Beautiful Human Love’). ‘I don’t think that the triumph of morality can happen by itself without the actions of humans’, Alexis wrote. A descendent of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, one of the revolutionaries that overthrew French rule in 1804, Alexis wrote novels to uplift the human spirit, a profound contribution to the Battle of Emotions in his country. In 1959, Alexis founded the Parti pour l’Entente Nationale (‘People’s Consensus Party’). On 2 June 1960, Alexis wrote to the US-backed dictator François ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier to inform him that both he and his country would overcome the violence of the dictatorship. ‘As a man and as a citizen’, Alexis wrote, ‘it is inescapable to feel the inexorable march of the terrible disease, this slow death, which each day leads our people to the cemetery of nations like wounded pachyderms to the necropolis of elephants’. This march can only be halted by the people. Alexis was forced into exile in Moscow, where he participated in a meeting of international communist parties. When he arrived back in Haiti in April 1961, he was abducted in Môle-Saint-Nicolas and killed by the dictatorship shortly thereafter. In his letter to Duvalier, Alexis echoed, ‘we are the children of the future’.
Hundreds of thousands of Haitians took to the streets protesting the government’s request for foreign military intervention to resolve the gang-related crisis in Haiti. Tanya Wadhwa reports.
The notorious incident in Del Rio, Texas, where US border patrol agents on horseback were photographed apparently wielding long reins as whips against Haitian migrants, prompted widespread public outrage. But where Ukrainians seeking refuge in this country found a strong advocate in the Washington Post editorial board, their Haitian counterparts have received notably different treatment.
It’s a fair comparison: Migrants from both countries seek protection in the United States because they fear for their lives in their home country. While Ukraine is actively at war, Haiti’s violence and instability have ebbed and flowed for decades, a result largely of foreign exploitation and intervention, compounded in recent years by devastating earthquakes and hurricanes; neither can provide a basic level of safety for their citizens today.
All have the right under international and US law to seek that protection, including at the US border, where they are required to be given a chance to apply for asylum. Under Title 42—an obscure and “scientifically baseless” public health directive invoked under Donald Trump at the start of the Covid pandemic, and largely extended under Joe Biden’s administration (FAIR.org, 4/22/22)—that right has been violated, as Haitian (and Central American) asylum seekers have been summarily expelled without being screened for asylum eligibility.
One might imagine that this trampling of rights, more actively nefarious than the foot-dragging on resettling Ukrainian refugees, would prompt more, not less, outrage among media opinion makers. Yet the opposite is true for the Post editorial board, which has written about both situations repeatedly.
‘These could be your children’
A Washington Post editorial (3/4/22) in support of Ukrainian refugees calls attention to the fact that “these could be your children.”
When the Russian invasion of Ukraine sparked a mass exodus of refugees, the board (3/4/22) quickly and passionately urged the Biden administration to “welcome Ukrainians with open arms”:
The images linger in your mind: Ukrainian children pressed against the windows of a bus or train sobbing or waving goodbye to their fathers and other relatives who remain behind to try to fight off an unjustified Russian war on Ukraine. It’s easy to imagine this could be your family broken apart. These could be your children joining the more than 1 million refugees trying to flee Ukraine in the past week.
The board argued that accepting Ukrainian refugees would be a “way to truly stand with the brave and industrious Ukrainian people and our allies around the world”—and “also provide more workers for the US economy.”
Less than two weeks later, the Post (3/16/22) returned to the issue, forcefully demanding that Biden’s inaction on bringing Ukrainian refugees to the US “must change” and suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security “step up” and grant them entry under a humanitarian parole system. “At the moment, it’s hard to think of a cohort of refugees whose reasons are more urgent,” the board wrote.
A few weeks after Biden’s March 24 announcement that the US would admit 100,000 Ukrainian refugees, the Post (4/19/22) found the idea “heartening,” but called the lack of implementation “an embarrassment to this country.” This was at a time when, as the board noted, most Ukrainians who managed to make it to the US/Mexico border were being allowed entry under the parole system the Post had favored.
Later, the Post (6/22/22) celebrated that its exhortations had been followed: “The US Door Swings Open to Ukrainian Refugees.” In that editorial, the board explicitly highlighted that the Ukrainians who had thus far entered the US had done so “in nearly all cases legally.” They wrote:
That tens of thousands of them have successfully sought refuge in this country over about three months, with relatively little fanfare—and even less controversy, considering the toxicity that attends most migration issues—is a reaffirmation of America’s commitment to its values as a beacon to the world’s most desperate people. That commitment must be sustained as the war in Ukraine drags on, which seems likely.
But the Post board doesn’t want that beacon to shine too brightly for all the world’s most desperate people—such as Haitian asylum seekers.
‘Inhumane to incentivize migrants’
A Washington Post editorial (9/20/21) on Haitian refugees takes President Joe Biden to task for suggesting he would “relax the previous administration’s draconian policies” toward Latin American asylum seekers.
After the Del Rio incident, the board (9/20/21) expressed umbrage that “Haitian migrants, virtually all Black, are being subjected to expulsion on a scale that has not been directed at lighter-skinned Central Americans.”
Yet this was quickly balanced by the Post‘s indignation at Biden’s “on-the-ground leniency” toward migrants that “led many or most of [the Haitians at Del Rio] toward the border.” The board wrote that Biden had suggested he would “relax the previous administration’s draconian policies” for “others, especially Central American families with children, tens of thousands of whom have been admitted to the United States this year,” thereby encouraging Haitians to come but then expelling them by the thousands. “The policy is inhumane,” the board lamented; “equally, it is inhumane to incentivize migrants to risk the perilous, expensive journey across Central America and Mexico.”
To be clear, the Biden administration expelled migrants under Title 42 in more than a million encounters in 2021; however, a change in Mexican policy meant the US could no longer expel Central American families with young children (American Immigration Council, 3/4/22). What the board is suggesting here is that the policy of sending away migrants who have a right to seek asylum in the US, and will almost certainly face a dire situation upon arrival in their home country, is equal in its inhumanity to reducing the use of that policy—because that incentivizes more people to exercise their right to seek asylum.
So what’s the answer to this conundrum? Ultimately the board pinned the blame on “partisanship in Congress” that has “doomed” attempts at comprehensive immigration reform. Setting aside the absurdity of the idea that both parties are equally at fault in stymying immigration reform, that analysis implies that any sort of immediate relief for actual Haitians is not a priority for the Post editorial board, regardless of their suffering.
After the Del Rio incident, the Biden administration cleared out the migrant camp the Haitians were staying in, and most were flown to Haiti or fled to Mexico to avoid that fate. Many Democrats criticized Biden for the treatment of the Haitian migrants, but the Post (10/13/21), in its next editorial on the subject, argued that those critics “fail[ed] to acknowledge the political, logistical and humanitarian risks of lax border enforcement.”
The headline of that editorial, “How the Biden Administration Can Help Haitian Migrants Without Sending the Wrong Message,” clearly signaled the board’s priorities; when advocating for helping Ukrainians, the Post never betrayed any concern that such help might send the wrong message.
While it’s “easy to sympathize with the impulse behind” calls to end Title 42, and to grant Haitian refugees asylum if they are judged to have a “reasonable possibility of fear,” the board wrote, “the trouble is that it would swiftly incentivize huge numbers of new migrants to make the perilous trek toward the southern border.”
They argued that their concern wasn’t theoretical; it was “proved” by the “surge” of Haitian asylum seekers “driven in large part by the administration’s increasingly sparing use of Title 42″—implying that the human rights of Haitian migrants must be judiciously balanced against the supposed threat of a “surge” of them at the border. The board members concluded that “Americans broadly sympathize with the admission of refugees and asylum seekers, but a precondition of that support is a modicum of order in admissions.” First comes order, then come the Post‘s sympathies.
Two months later (12/30/21), they argued that the mass expulsion of Haitian migrants was “deeply troubling,” quoting a UN report that Haitians are “living in hell.” And yet they found themselves unable to forcefully condemn the Biden administration’s continued use of Title 42 to prevent Haitians from exercising their right to seek asylum, arguing that the policy is “politically defensible,” since “Americans do not want to encourage a chaotic torrent of illegal immigration.” The strongest umbrage they could muster was to call the situation “worth a policy review, to say the least.”
‘Main export is asylum seekers’
The Washington Post (5/7/22) calls for a “vigorous US policy” to oppose Haiti “chaos.”
The Post editorial board is clearly very aware of the plight of Haitian refugees. As they pointed out in an editorial (5/7/22) calling for a “concerted, muscular diplomatic push” to address the Haitian government’s lack of legitimacy, they wrote that for those deported to Haiti, their “chances of finding work are abysmal, but the possibility that they will be victimized amid the pervasive criminality is all too real.”
The board has been vocal (7/7/22) about calling for US policy change toward Haiti to reduce the “human misery”—and the “outflow of refugees”—arguing that “deportation is a poor substitute for policy.” Recently, it has ramped up its rhetoric, even suggesting (8/6/22) the idea of a military intervention in Haiti; in its most recent call for intervention, the board (10/11/22) argued:
It is unconscionable for the Western Hemisphere’s richest country to saddle the poorest with a stream of migrants amid an economic, humanitarian and security meltdown.
But it’s the country, not its people, at the center of concern here. At no point in the piece are those people, or the impact of US policy on them, described. (Certainly it’s never suggested that “these could be your children.”) Worse, the board calls Haiti a “failed state whose main export is asylum seekers,” reducing those asylum seekers to objects. (One might add that comparing Black human beings to “exports” shows a callous disregard for Haitian—and US—history.)
The board wants intervention in Haiti in part to relieve the “humanitarian suffering” in the country (9/22/22)—but it’s not ashamed to put “death and despair” in the same sentence as “a steady or swelling tide of refugees” as the two things the Biden administration should be seeking to prevent via such an intervention.
The source of the discrepancy between its position on Ukrainian and Haitian refugees seems to be that the Post editorial board sees them as fundamentally different problems. Ukrainians fleeing violence and instability are themselves at risk and need help; Haitians fleeing violence and instability are a risk to the US.
That framing of the problem was perhaps most clear in their editorial (2/10/21) condemning Biden’s support for Haiti’s “corrupt, autocratic and brutal” then-President Jovenel Moïse:
As with Central American migrants, the problem of illegal immigrants from Haiti can be mitigated only by a concerted US push to address problems at the source.
Haitian migrants are, to the Post, more a problem for the US than human beings with problems of their own.
And the editorial board’s use of the term “illegal immigrant”—a dehumanizing and inaccurateslur the widely-used AP style guide nixed ten years ago—is also telling. The board repeatedly refers in its editorials on Haiti to “illegal border crossings” and “surges.” But as mentioned previously, Haitians, like Ukrainians—and the Central American migrants the Post dreads in the same breath as Haitians—are legally entitled to come to the US border and seek asylum. In fact, to request asylum, migrants are required to present themselves on US soil. The only thing that makes their crossings “illegal” is Title 42, which itself is clearly illegal, despite judicial contortions to keep it in place. Yet it seems the moral (and legal) imperative to offer the opportunity to seek asylum must always be balanced, in the Post‘s view, with their fears of an unruly mob at the border.
‘An enduring gift to their new country’
Early in the Ukraine War, some journalists came under criticism for singling out Ukrainian refugees for sympathy, in either explicit or implicit contrast to refugees from non-white countries (FAIR.org, 3/18/22). CBS‘s Charlie D’Agata (2/25/22), for instance, told viewers that Ukraine
isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European—I have to choose those words carefully, too—city, one where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that, it’s going to happen.
“They seem so like us,” wrote Daniel Hannan in the Telegraph (2/26/22). “That is what makes it so shocking.”
Both journalists were white; it is perhaps worth noting that nine of the ten members of the Washington Post editorial board are likewise white. (Post opinion columnist Jonathan Capehart, who is Black, is the sole exception.)
The Washington Post (4/28/22) shows no fear of a “surge” of Afghan refugees.
And yet the differential treatment it accords migrant groups may go beyond racism or classism for the Post; in April, the board (4/28/22) published an editorial headlined, “Don’t Forget the Afghan Refugees Who Need America’s Support.” In it, the board asked, “Why can’t the administration stand up a program for US-based individuals and groups to sponsor Afghan refugees to come here, as it has done for Ukrainians?”
Earlier, the board (8/31/21) had argued that Afghan refugees “will become as thoroughly American as their native-born peers, and their energy, ambition and pluck will be an enduring gift to their new country.”
The Afghanistan case illustrates that the WashingtonPost doles out its sympathy on political, not just racial, terms: Afghans, like Ukrainians, are presented as victims of enemies the Post has devoted considerable energy to vilifying—the Taliban on the one hand, Russia on the other. The plights of Haitians (and Central Americans), by contrast, can in no small part be traced back to US intervention—something the Post has little appetite for castigating.
And Afghans, for the most part, have not been arriving at the US/Mexico border, which is clearly a site of anxiety for the board, with its fear of “surges” and lawlessness.
The humanization and sympathy the board offers to both Afghans, and especially the Ukrainians that “could be your children,” is never offered to Haitians. Their circumstances are described, sometimes in dire language, but they themselves—their “pluck,” their “children pressed against the windows of a bus or train sobbing or waving goodbye to their fathers and other relatives who remain behind”—remain invisible and, ultimately, unworthy.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the Washington Post at letters@washpost.com, or via Twitter@washingtonpost.
Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in the comments thread here.
Janine Jackson interviewed Haitian Bridge Alliance’s Guerline Jozef about Haitian refugee abuse for the September 30, 2022, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
CounterSpin220930Jozef.mp3
Janine Jackson: Listeners will remember the pictures: US Border patrol agents on horseback, wielding reins like whips as they corralled and captured Haitian asylum seekers along the Rio Grande.
Border Patrol agent assaults a Haitian refugee near Del Rio, Texas (photo: Paul Ratje).
The appalling images might have served as a symbol of the ill-treatment of Haitians escaping violence and desperation. Instead, elite media made them a stand-in, so that when the report came that, despite appearances, the border patrol didn’t actually whip anyone, one felt that was supposed to sweep away all of the concerns together.
Well, there are serious problems with that report, but we should also ask why we saw controversy about photographs foregrounded over the story of Haitians’ horrific treatment at the hands of US border officials—treatment that a new Amnesty report, echoing others, describes as amounting to race-based torture. And why were media so quick to look away?
The question is as vital a year on as reporters talk about other asylum seekers as political pawns and victims, but continue their relative disinterest in Haitians, tacitly sanctioning the harms of US policy.
Joining us now to talk about this is Guerline Jozef. She is founder and executive director of Haitian Bridge Alliance. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Guerline Jozef.
Guerline Jozef: Good afternoon. Thank you so much for having me.
JJ: Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus, announcing the results of the agency’s internal investigation in July, said, “Not everyone’s going to like all the findings, but the investigation was comprehensive and fair.”
He said that because the investigation said that there was no evidence that agents on horseback hit anybody with their reins. So it’s as if he’s saying, “I know you wanted there to be real cruelty here, but there wasn’t, so ha.”
But beyond that deflecting message, that some people just want to believe in cruelty, the problems with the CPB’s report about what happened in Del Rio—those problems are deep, aren’t they?
GJ: Absolutely. First of all, what they did with the report is that they took the lives of over 15,000 Haitians and people of African descent and Black asylum seekers, and they put that into a 30-minute period where that picture was captured.
But the reality is, if that picture wasn’t captured, they would have told us this never happened at all. But we all saw the pictures, and we understood the reality under the bridge.
And if you zoom into the picture, you will see the CBP officer on horseback, his hand holding and pulling the Haitian man by his shirt, and this man was only carrying food to his wife and child.
So the report is telling us this didn’t happen, but all you have to do is zoom into the picture and you will see the intent, and you will see the fear. You will see the power that this officer had upon the person of this asylum seeker.
Now, the report will tell you that they looked into it, and they found that he did not whip the gentleman. But you can clearly see his motion to whip him, and you can see the fear even in the face of the horse that almost trampled this man who was carrying nothing but food.
In addition to that, the report failed to interview or speak to any of the people who were under the bridge, any of the witnesses, and any of those who were actually experiencing the abuse.
We made available to them Haitian migrants who were under the bridge. We made available to them advocates on behalf of the people we saw in that picture, and the reality that the world finally witnessed under the bridge.
None of them were interviewed, contacted or even reached out to.
So in addition to that, they still had 15,000 people in their custody. Yet they didn’t even care to speak to any one of them about the treatment they received, the abuse that was witnessed. Nothing.
JJ: The idea of producing a report about what happened at Del Rio without talking to any of the asylum seekers, I think a lot of folks would find absurd on its face.
The Customs office maintains that this Border Patrol agent was merely “twirling…reins as a distancing tactic” (photo: Paul Ratje).
And I would just note that, in addition to the fear and the obvious violence that one can see in the picture, my understanding is that folks who were there say that there was, in fact—if this is what we’re going to talk about—in fact there was actual use of reins as whips, that that is something that actually happened, which perhaps we would know about if the report had interviewed any actual asylum seekers.
GJ: Absolutely. If they cared enough to find the truth, if they cared enough to have a report that reflected the reality of the people who were subject to that abuse, they would’ve been able to identify what exactly happened, but they did not care enough to look or interview. They did not care to get the truth.
What they cared about is, how do we tell the American people, the American public, how do we tell the world that what you saw never happened?
JJ: Now, is the supposed rationale for turning away Haiti asylum seekers, is it continuing to be Title 42, this supposed public health policy, is that the reason that the administration is still giving for turning away Haitians?
GJ: Yes. So at this present moment, the border is completely closed, due to Title 42. There is no way for people to have access. Nobody can just go to a port of entry and present themselves to ask for access to asylum.
As we are speaking right now, the border is completely closed due to Title 42, which is a health code that was put in place by the previous administration, under President Trump, that was created by Stephen Miller as a way to completely take away any avenue for people seeking safety, people seeking protection, people seeking asylum to have access to due process at the US/Mexico border.
JJ: Listeners will have been hearing about Republican governors flying people around and about. In that story, asylum seekers’ treatment is portrayed as obviously political. But Del Rio was just sort of official policy, if regrettably handled, you know.
We’re not supposed to think about there being politics there, or those people being pawns or victims in the same way, somehow.
GJ: Actually, it is, because, first of all, a lot of the people received false information that if they had gone to Del Rio, they would be given access to protection.
So 15,000 people did not just show up overnight by themselves. Now, the source of that information, or the source of that misinformation, must be investigated. And that is another thing we also asked for the government to investigate, the source of the misinformation that then guided people to where they were under the bridge.
I see also, that could have been a political plot; we don’t know how that happened. However, we saw the moment the people who were there were Black, were answered with violence.
Now, is it political? I’ll say yes, because our system is rooted in anti-Black racism, is rooted in white supremacy.
So, therefore, the moment the Black people showed up, we responded with violence and we deported them, including pregnant women and infants as young as just a couple of days old.
JJ: And it’s just not possible to consider that treatment, that reception of Haitian asylum seekers, out of context with the reception that we’ve seen given to other people. I mean, it’s impossible not to see that context.
Guerline Jozef: “The same way we are able to welcome the Ukrainians in crisis with compassion, love, dignity, humanity, it should be provided to people no matter where they are from.”
GJ: Absolutely, Janine. The reality is, one example, clear example, is how we as a country were quick to put a system together to respond and receive people fleeing Ukraine, right, with compassion, in respect, in love and dignity.
And what we are saying is that same system that was put together overnight to be able to receive 26,000 Ukrainians in less than two months should not be the exception to the rule, should be the norm.
It should be that while Haiti is in the middle of what the United States government is calling the verge of a civil war, putting Haiti on a high risk, right, saying that it is very close to a war zone, we still deported 26,000 Haitians to Haiti in the middle of the crisis, at the same time received 26,000 Ukrainians.
So what we are saying is that the same way we are able to welcome the Ukrainians in crisis with compassion, love, dignity, humanity, it should be provided to people no matter where they are from, their ethnicity, their country of origin, definitely should not matter whether they are Black or white.
JJ: We’re going to end on that note. We’ve been speaking with Guerline Jozef, founder and executive director at Haitian Bridge Alliance. Guerline Jozef, thank you so much for joining us today on CounterSpin.
As economic crises, climate catastrophe and war crimes become increasingly normalized, a creeping nihilism is starting to take hold.
In Lebanon people have had enough of rampant corruption, inflation and limits on bank withdrawals. Without any other options, they’ve resorted to robbing banks for their own money, to the cheers of supportive crowds.
Next up in Haiti recent fuel hikes have exploded in a powder keg of rioting and looting in the capitol city of Port Au Prince.
Finally in Mexico, some revenge for family members of 43 students who went missing in 2014 and a poorly named police station gets the attention it deserves from some Anarcha-Feminists.