Haiti has a chance to recove against all odds

—by Tontongi

[It is with the humility of an outside observer, not living under daily gang violence and fear, that I write the following text, therefore far from me the pretention of teaching any lessons. In the last analysis, it’s incumbent upon Haitians in Haiti to decide how to deal with their security crisis and political process.]

Gang killing in Haiti —photo courtesy AF

Haiti’s current crisis has three overlapping dimensions that render any short-term solution immediately obsolete. Why? Because the root causes are ignored by the predominant power-brokers, both foreign and local, that are spearheading the crisis resolution process and which see any initiative that addresses its causality as contrary to their interests.

The three dimensions are: 1) the weight of historical background on the behavior of current actors; 2) the process of putrefaction and degradation of a political system in its failing stage; and 3) the interplay of the imperialist reflexes of foreign powers with both the reactionary politics of their allies from the traditional Haitian ruling elite, and the myopic views and interests of opportunist politicians from the lower middle classes—each of whom feels threatened by the popular protests demanding fundamental change.

The introduction of new, destabilizing actors in the political equation (i.e. the proliferation of armed gangs and militias, and the reemergence of Guy Philippe, hero of the neoduvalierist camp), who are taking advantage of the void created by a weak, inefficient and corrupt governing regime, has only exacerbated the state of affairs.

Adding to this combustible mix the anticipated Kenyan-led security force—notwithstanding the good will of the Kenyans and their sponsors—is a disaster we can see coming from afar. Not only because of the historically catastrophic result of foreign forces in Haiti, but also because of the perception that the Kenyans will be seen as mercenary tools of the US, France and Canada’s projection of their imperialist power, thereby annulling whatever good intention may motivate the CARICOM initiative. Let us remember that the Kenyan force idea is fundamentally a Core Group’s pet project, acclaimed and supported by the unelected Ariel Henry government, and almost entirely funded by US money.

The critical Haitian case of the moment demonstrates, once again, where imperialist desires for control by countries such as the United States, France, England and Canada in particular, end up when there is no counterforce to restrain them. Haiti is a sovereign nation, with its own interests. Whether or not there are foreign powers who may genuinely take to heart Haitian problematics, Haitians should not expect another nation, however sympathetic its president, king or prime minister, to come to “save” them. We have to remember the quip attributed to Charles de Gaulle: “States have no friends, they only have interests,” especially the great powers.

Recalling the historical precedents

On July 28, 1915, following the execution of 167 political prisoners ordered the day before by President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, a band of rioters burst into the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince and ransacked the place. Not finding President Sam, the rioters pursued and found him taking refuge nearby in the French legation. They hacked his body into many pieces, then paraded his mutilated corpse through the streets of Port-au-Prince. It is this incident and other acts of violence committed by the rebels and the political parties that supported them that the Woodrow Wilson administration used to justify the US intervention and ensuing military occupation of Haiti that lasted over nineteen years (1915–1934). Let us recall three historical, causal and immediate antecedents of the current Haitian crisis: the first one being the coup d’état of September 1991 that cut short the first freely and fairly elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and the nascent Haitian democratic experience in the process. A coup duly supported, if not spearheaded, by the administration of US President George Bush the father. Next is the second anti-Aristide coup d’état in February 2004 that discontinued efforts to restart the democratic process. The third antecedent is the US and UN’s manipulation and total disregard of Haitian electoral law following the earthquake of January 2010.

In February 2004, bands of armed opponents threatened Port-au-Prince, the national palace and the democratically elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Jacques Chirac, then president of France, exploited George W. Bush’s antipathy towards Aristide, considered too independent for the US president’s taste, to punish Aristide for daring to ask France to give back to Haiti the infamous indemnity it imposed for the so-called economic losses that Haiti’s liberation caused to former colonists and slave masters. The Haitian insurgents of 2004 did not need to invade the palace: the special troops of the United States and France carried out the coup in their place.

The United States and France were not guided by the virtue of philanthropy when they invaded Haiti in 2004, any more than in 1915 (in reality, when the US intervened in Haiti in that earlier year they took advantage of the confusion and weakness of Haiti caused by the civil war of 1902–1915 to implement a previously planned intervention project). Thus the duo Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush had no difficulty in forcing the overthrow of Aristide, who found himself undermined from within by both former comrades who reproached his solitary exercise of power, and by the right-wing paramilitary elements led by former police officer Guy Philippe. This was a terrible day for Haiti which opened the way to the litany of setbacks, upheavals, and politico-economic implosions that would be worsened by the earthquake of 2010—dragging in its wake other opportunities to humiliate Haiti.

Combining the diplomatic dexterity and ruthlessness of Edmond Mulet, the UN special representative for Haiti and former head of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, with US power and pressure brought to bear by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the two were able to simply discard Haiti’s electoral law. Finishing in third position (behind Mirlande Manigat and Jude Célestin) in the presidential election of November 2010, Michel Martelly—a musician and Hilary Clinton’s favored candidate—was arbitrarily placed second, thereby qualified for the run-off in which he was “elected” president. A total usurpation of power, and perversion of Haiti’s constitution. The current crisis is the consequence of all these malevolent interferences.

In his book L’échec de l’aide internationale à Haïti (2015), Ricardo Seitenfus, former special representative of the Organization of American States (OAS) in Haiti, reported that during a cocktail party for Edmond Mulet’s departure from Haiti, president “Martelly reminded the audience of a promise Mulet made to him during the presidential campaign, namely ‘that he would not leave Haiti before making me President of the Republic.’ And Martelly added euphorically: ‘And he kept his promise’1”

The example of the Obama administration’s behavior following the devastating earthquake of 2010 is very revealing in this sense, for Haiti did not need paternalistic charity from a benevolent Big Brother, but rather respect for its right to self-determination and to a development choice that would be specifically its own. Then as now, Haiti needs friends and countries that stand in solidarity with it, as Haiti itself once stood bravely in solidarity with people and nations around the world who were fighting for their freedom.

Towards a government of gangs?

Haiti is living currently in a conundrum of multiple entanglements and implications. Most urgent and gut-wrenching, how to honor the principled position against foreign intervention when bands of criminals armed with heavy automatic weapons maraud through much of capital Port-au-Prince, sowing terror, death and mayhem, often targeting its less fortunate citizens? Do you send cavalries of mercenaries—totally indifferent to the cause of justice and democracy—to quash them and impose the will of their patrons?

Those among the good-will actors who are committed to lead the country on a new democratic path must be willing to adhere to the principle of democratic tolerance, and to the civic imperative of placing the interests of the country before their own. In the midwifing of a new Haiti, to use the term of New York Times columnist Lydia Polgreen, what we really need today is not imperialist interference in Haiti’s affairs (however “humanitarian” one may want to portray it), but rather gestures of solidarity for Haiti’s enormous historical contribution to the liberation struggle of the other peoples—including the embryonic United States, Latin America, and even Greece.

Above all, France must return the equivalent of the 21 billion dollars in gold francs that it took from Haiti via the indemnity imposed on it in 1825 and whose balance of payment was passed to City Bank of New York following the 1915–1934 US occupation of Haiti, a scam which cost the young nation its entire development project.

Our beloved country is on the brink of collapse; those who are entrusted to its care must be imaginative. Just like in the United States, this sort of chaos and violence benefit a particular political milieu. Petty interests, capitalist greed and fascism generally thrive in such atmosphere, as we may see clearly in the past as in the present. These interests may constitute the most difficult obstacle to a legitimate democratic process.

Careful about over-idealization of criminals

It is reprehensible that the western media have presented Haiti as having governing choices that are equally problematic, namely: 1) Guy Phillippe, the coup leader that destroyed Haiti’s nascent democracy in 2004, turned money launderer then suddenly reemerged as Haiti’s presumed savior; 2) a hand-picked presidential council supported by a supposedly “Kenya-led” military intervention that is in reality maneuvered by the Core Group (that is the xenocracy composed of United States, France, and Canada—sometimes rejoined by England—that’s been pulling the strings since 2004); and, 3) the government of the armed, paramilitary gangs, the government of the Vandals.

Nor is it surprising that the coalition of the armed elements has demanded to be included in the Transitional Presidential Council concocted by CARICOM and the Core Group (with strong maneuvering by the United States who finally decided to drop Ariel Henry after three years of resisting popular demands to that effect). We have no illusion that the Transitional Presidential Council is anything more than a foreign-imposed formula to help put a fire out. In this this narrow sense, there would appear to be nothing in itself fundamentally wrong that some patriotic elements would want to join it. When your neighbor’s house is on fire, you’d probably intervene to help out. That’s normal and noble. The problem would be if after you helped put the fire out you make it your right to tell your neighbor who should take care of their business. Naturally, it would make it even worse if you contributed to setting the house on fire in the first place!

The precondition of acceptance of the “Kenya-led” force by a selected member in order to be included in the Transitional Presidential Council is an affront to Haitian sovereignty as a proudly independent country. It is this kind of arrogance that complicates matters. Why have so few people questioned the fact that a conglomerate of foreign powers and associated countries have come up with the idea of a Transitional Presidential Council with seven members and two non-voting observers? It is arrogant and paternalistic on the Core Group’s part to present a unilateral solution to the Haitian political problematic.

Why not instead accept the principle that only Haitians should be in charge of their affairs and determine their own fate. Why not accept propositions for a transitional authority that stem directly from Haitian organizations, for example the choice of the president of the Appeals Court as interim president as the Haitian constitution prescribes, or the 3-member council formula proposed by Moïse Jean-Charles and others, who call the CARICOM proposition a “seven-headed serpent” that would make matters worse?

The United States may have some legitimate concerns regarding a chaotic Haitian state on its southern flank, but it should not forget that the US was instrumental in the creation of this chaos and that the better solution, on its part, would be to get the f… out of Haiti’s political affairs. The US–French-Canadian neocolonialist attitude toward Haiti causes more harm than good, and should end.

Although the Haitian people’s multi-year political mobilization has played a large role in the undermining of Henry’s unelected government, it is undeniable that the depredatory armed gangs and vandalistic militias forced the resignation of the de facto government that everyone hated. However, the leaders of any transitional government should be careful in their dealings with these self-interested paramilitary groups. The Left must be wary of any romanticizing of criminals using political rhetoric to “launder” their newly-gained power. The armed Haitian maroons of pre-independence days, the Sierra Maestra Cuban rebels, the anti-colonialist Irish Republican Army, the Vietcong or even the 18th-century US independence fighters, didn’t take up arms just to fill their pockets. Nor did they rape, kidnap, burn, mutilate and kill people just for the sake of it. For example, Fidel Castro gave strict orders to the Cuban revolutionaries to treat their prisoners with leniency and humanity. They used force and violence as last resort, not as means to subjugate and dominate others.

It is nothing new under the sun that elements from the lumpen-proletariat and other alienated sectors of the population would want to fill the void left by the absence of a legitimate State government. What is new is their open ambition, as in the current case of Haiti, for the exercise of political power, and the willingness of so many of the established political class to lend them political acceptance. One of the great duties of political leadership is to assure the peaceful functioning of society, to assure that its vulnerable components are not, with impunity, kidnapped, raped, maimed or murdered at someone’s whim and sadism. One would assume that any political entity that comes to power through those means would be discredited and rejected. We should not want less for Haiti. The Haitian people didn’t fight against the Martelly-Moȉse-Henry regime and its supporters only to have it replaced by the armed gangs that this very regime sponsored in large part2.

It appears unlikely for Haiti to overcome its current quagmire without months of bloodshed until the last gang member or police officer falls. But, if the leaders are imaginative enough, they could take inspiration from South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to avoid entanglement in years of political violence and revenge while still pursuing accountability and justice. Indeed, following the model of South Africa in the late 1990s after the demise of the apartheid government, new Haitian leaders can offer reparation to the victims and conditional rehabilitation to those of the perpetrators who want to change course and make amends. It would be a matter of responsible, creative imagination of leadership for the sake and wellbeing of the country.

Military support for the national police to help establish and maintain public peace is justifiable only if it is not a maneuver to strengthen the repressive muscles of a hybrid, neofascist regime that is now dangerously possible, thereby helping to perpetuate the people’s oppression. The security imperative is certainly important for a people who suffer so much from the arbitrariness of bands of armed, bloodthirsty gangsters, but any assistance in this sense must be granted to a legitimate authority responsible for facilitating public order. Therefore, any security strategy must be an all-encompassing approach, taking place within the framework of a serious national discussion to validate the requirement of the Constitution. Failing this, any other approach would be just an artifice forged by foreign powers to deceive and strengthen their local puppets and servants to the detriment of a truer nation-building perspective, as History has unfortunately shown too many times.

With its great, vibrant, and rich culture, a national language spoken throughout the territory, an ever-resilient people, reportedly immense mining resources, a formidable diaspora living throughout the world, a generous history of solidarity with other oppressed peoples, Haiti has a great chance to recover, because Haiti, as I have long avowed, is the project of Being, one of the the founding countries of our modernity. She requires new, revolutionary politics and strategy to honor the grand vision of her original project.

—Tontongi, Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Review Tanbou and Trilingual Press

Notes