hopelessness...Haiti

the definition of western hemisphere futility

Few places on earth appear as prone to hopelessness as Haiti. The current dangerous escalation in gang violence and complete government inability to stem such trouble is heartbreaking if one has an ounce of compassion for the citizenry victimised and frightening.

Haiti followed the United States in achieving its independence from France through a slave revolt in 1804, but the western portion of Hispanola is prone to Mother Nature’s wrath through hurricanes and devastating earthquakes. Long an extractive export economy, various periods saw bauxite, gold, copper, and calcium carbonate reign as primary sources of income but these industries regularly fall prey to supply and demand changes as raw materials. Haitians, in turn, are susceptible to the effects of fluctuations in export income undermining governance by anyone. The Duvalier father-son dictatorship ruled through most of the Cold War, worsening conditions for all by their favoured friends but subsequent government further damaged societal trust by engaging in massive corruption and surrendering to violence throughout the society. The Catholic Church has been an enduring institution in concert with aid agencies and Portestant missions which now have substantial popular support but no systemic improvements the country resulted. Aid from many countries seems to land in pockets of the elite rather than in the hands of the desperately poor. Haiti retains the status as a complete mess, occasionally justifying international military interventions to prevent deterioration into complete chaos or to respond to a natural disaster.

It’s not as if Haitians have not tried to ameliorate their society. Optimism brimmed over at the end of the Cold War as a democratic opening appeared under Jean Bertrand Aristide. By 1992, however, the Organisation of American States actually abandoned its deeply-held historic animosity towards members’ intervention in the sovereign affairs of another state to reinstate Aristide after his overthrow relatively soon after taking office. The former priest did return to the Presidential Palace two years later when the United States made clear its willingness to invade the island for that end but he too became accused of massive corruption before yet another overthrow ousted him in 2004.

Haiti’s poverty and paucity of any rule of law is crushing. Unemployment, according to official statistics, is above 15% but those numbers of dubious at best. Youth unemployment is perhaps 35%. Yet Haitians have to feed their families, they must locate even the poorest of housing, and they need to find the basic measures to sustain themselves as a population of 11.5 million.

It is tempting to write off this gang violence which prevented Prime Minister Ariel Henry from returning to Port-au-Prince from overseas travel after he announced he would delay elections until this fall. The gangs liberated 4,000 prisoners from jails near the capital, exacerbating panic resulting from lawlessness. The use of all types of violence in the country roughly the size of Maryland is the norm rather than an exception. As a BBC reporter summed it up yesterday, Haitian police are ‘discouraged’ at the prospect of holding off these lawbreakers in all aspects of people lives across the country. I would put it as the gangs are likely far better armed than police so how many of the latters surrender to the formers?

The gangs, again according to the BBC, forced Prime Minister Henry to resign rather than return, arguing they would unleash ‘genocide’ should their demands be ignored. Genocide reminds us of the Rwandan civil war where more than half a million Rwandan Tutsi minority citizens died at the hands of their Hutu fellow citizens in that horrific hundred days between April and July 1994. The Haitian case appears to be gangs versus everyone else if the threats are to be believed, even though Henry resigned this week rather than risk the devastating violence.

The U.S. Embassy in Port-au-Prince asked for an enhanced Marine Corps presence to protect diplomats on the ground; Haiti is not a post for U.S. Embassy families so the Marines’ obligation to protect the Embassy itself is straightforward, if dangerous. Why not just shut the Embassy to let Haitians be Haitians without Americans involved?

That is an option but it’s not how diplomacy works. While the top representative right now is not an ambassador but is a Chargé d’Affaires, the U.S. government will continue monitoring events on the ground until the absolute worst possible conditions were to require some sort of evacuation. Embassies support U.S. citizens (often dual nationals) who live in Haiti or work there. We share support with other nations, many of whom are our allies and partners so we continue trying to assist them. But our government needs to know the conditions in Haiti as vital for U.S. national interests more than for any other reason.

Haiti is almost two thousand miles east southeast of Florida yet we have seen desperation through people becoming ‘boat people’ on flotillas to escape previous dangers on the island. I would predict we likely could see that occur again. Those acts are indeed desperate because the hurricane system begins in May with the Caribbean a theater for much bad weather in the era of warmed climate. But ‘boat people’ do not go exclusively to Florida: Cuba is much closer but something we would certainly monitor. They are fleeing for their lives so they likely see this as a better bet than being on the streets of their hometowns or even in their homes.

But the ‘boat people’ phenomenon raises a question in light of Americans’ deeply-held conviction that we are a caring, compassionate people. Would we watch with hands off should those fleeing increased chaos in the Haitian country should need assistance? Would we provide on-the-ground support to a new government trying to stabilise the situation? Would we help Havana should it need financial resources if a mass fleeing event occurred? Or would we say ‘so bad, so sad’ because it’s not our problem? Would we be concerned if China offered to assist Haiti in reestablishing civil conditions?

My questions are hypothetical but not out of the bounds of possibility. Thirty years ago I had an argument with one of my colleagues, a professor at the National War College who served there even longer than I did. He was so angry that we were deviating from what was in Clinton administration documents about where we would use our precious national assets to defend our interests to prioritise Haiti as an interest in 1994/5. He said we had no interests in Haiti so we had no reason we should care.

At the time, I pointed out that others, such as members of the Black Caucus in the House, disputed that we had no interests. These members advocated for U.S. involvement to assist this destitute country attempt to reestablish stability as well as incentivising reasons for Haitians to stay home rather than board rickety boats for the attempted crossing to Florida.

Americans generally say we have three primary interests, although the latter of the three wasn’t nearly as prominent in our thinking before Bush 43 came into office. I saw a decided shift in our thinking when we added ‘defending and exporting our values’ to defending the homeland and providing economic prosperity for Americans. I wonder how we feel about defending and exporting values in the face of such a horrible, sustained mess as Haiti.

Things could deteriorate or perhaps ousting Henry was the goal. Sadly, I see no indication someone else can provide much governance for a place so broken. What I don’t see, however, is much indication that we can assume Haiti will solve itself.

I welcome your thoughts as I am baffled by what we ought to do. I truly am not advocating a position but see the options, the trade offs, and the possible consequences. I welcome your ideas so please fire away.

Thank you for reading this column today. Thanks especially for subscribers who make this possible.

Be well and be safe. FIN