(The following is an abridged version of an in-depth analysis done by COHA Research Associate Ethan Katz and Visiting Scholar Daniel Boscov-Ellen) OVER the last few months there has been a surfeit of talk in the international community over what should be done for Haiti.

However, in almost all of these discussions Haiti’s historical context is completely excised – it is almost as if the country had only come into being as a result of January’s earthquake. This collective amnesia is damning.

The hurricanes of 2008 and the recent earthquake brought unfathomable damage upon Haiti, but their effects have been greatly exacerbated by Haiti’s widespread poverty, lack of adequate public infrastructure, food insecurity and an utterly bleak horizon.

Unlike the hurricanes and earthquake, these are not natural phenomena. The devastating nature of these natural disasters cannot be understood apart from over two centuries of Haiti’s colonial and postcolonial subjugation, foreign occupation, economic exploitation and the degrading conditions faced by most of its population.

If one chooses wisely (and not selectively), one can learn from Haiti’s history in order to assure that this cycle of oppression, destitution, and destruction is not repeated. As a first step, providing Haiti with unconditional disaster relief on an urgent basis remains critical.

However, so long as the developed countries that played such a significant role in creating Haiti’s present ruinous political and economic conditions continue to ignore and evade their responsibility for Haiti’s impoverishment, the country will remain vulnerable.

Recognition of and restitution for past wrongs, coupled with an authentic commitment to end the sabotage and exploitation of this tortured nation, would be the best way to help Haiti achieve the stability and freedom to determine its own future.

Regrettably, such a recognition rarely can be found in the mainstream reporting on Haiti’s situation.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, “the facts are extensively documented, appalling, and shameful. And they are deemed irrelevant for the usual reasons: they do not conform to the required self-image, and so are efficiently dispatched deep into the memory hole…”

Earthquake and aftershocks

The January 12th earthquake was an unimaginable tragedy, the consequences of which will plague Haiti for at least a generation. The death toll now has surpassed 230,000, and President Rene Préval has suggested it could reach as high as 300,000.

The human destruction overwhelmingly has eclipsed the suffering caused by other more powerful earthquakes, like the one which recently rocked Chile (with a death toll likely to approach under 500 victims), or the 1994 Southern California earthquake of a similar magnitude which killed just 72 people.

In an editorial on Haiti (with the ‘unironic’ subtitle “The U.S. Military Will Provide Relief, as Ever”), the Wall Street Journal recently compared that California quake to the one in Haiti: “The difference is a functioning of a wealth-generating and law-abiding society that can afford, among other things, the expense of proper building codes.”

In a perverse way, this piece has some merit. It is true that the utter devastation wrought on Haiti is a direct result of its rank near the bottom of the global South, with its extreme poverty and seemingly eternal lack of political stability.

What the Journal fails to address, beyond the entire history of U.S-Haiti relations, is its own clear and direct complicity in this lamentable situation. Outlets like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, whose economic allegiances are quite clear, were all along instrumental in twisting reality and manipulating public opinion in the U.S. against Aristide and the bona fide interests of the Haitian people.

We must bear in mind the international community’s historical relationship with Haiti when we hear the media describe Haiti as a “failed state.” The implicit (and often explicit) message in such post-earthquake commentaries is often that Haitians lack the capacity to rebuild their own country.

For example, after discussing the inefficacy of macro and micro-development aid to reduce poverty, David Brooks of the New York Times suggests that perhaps Haitians, by virtue of their natural culture, are simply “progress resistant,” and the U.S. should therefore concentrate on exporting its “culture of achievement.”

For those familiar with the country’s history, this argument mixes bad history with a failed memory of how U.S. self-serving policy destroyed Haiti’s rural agricultural economy and deprived Haitians of their political voice.

The sad truth is that during the past two hundred years, some of the richest countries in the world have worked to destroy any hope of a politically and economically autonomous Haiti.

If the Haitian people were given the opportunity to freely determine their own future, the Haiti of the 21st century might have had a chance to be radically different from its recent past.

Capitalizing (on) disaster

In the months following the quake, many of the guilty parties – conservative think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation, media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, as well as ex-Presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush II (who apparently had proven his mettle for disaster relief in responding to Hurricane Katrina) – are offering their own visions for how, not to help Haiti rebuild, but how to help rebuild Haiti.

Immediately following the earthquake, the Heritage Foundation advised how to use the present opportunity for “reforms” in Haiti: “In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the U.S. response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti offers opportunities to re-shape Haiti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as to improve the public image of the United States in the region.”

The essay was quickly removed, edited, and reposted, as it was perhaps a little too distastefully forward in its avarice, even for Heritage.

This idea of pushing through extreme and unpopular, but artfully self-serving, policies after a disaster is, as the Heritage Foundation well knows, not a new strategy.

In fact, this model of change is perhaps one of the greatest legacies of University of Chicago Professor Milton Friedman, pioneer of fundamentalist free-market capitalism. In terms of implementing policy, Friedman believed that “only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change.

When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.”

This has been deemed “disaster capitalism” by Naomi Klein. In other words, “using moments of collective trauma to engage in radical social and economic engineering.” Friedman’s strategy of using settings that are characterized by mass disorganization and confusion to push through radical and unpopular policies has been employed in countries as diverse as Chile under Pinochet, Russia’s transition to a market economy under Boris Yeltsin, and the U.S. invasion and resulting reconstruction of Iraq (to name just a few of a number of examples).

Much of the international brainstorming for reconstruction, including the plan ironically offered by UN Special Envoy to Haiti Bill Clinton, has centered around the idea of increasing private investment.

But if history has taught us anything (which it apparently may not have in Clinton’s case), it is that promoting economic growth by exp
loiting the low costs of labour in international markets will do nothing other than further stratify a society that already is starkly divided along class lines and could worsen the plight of Haiti’s poor (if that is even possible).

As David Harvey shows conclusively in “A Brief History of Neoliberalism,” in nearly every instance, neoliberal policies have resulted in increasingly unequal distributions of wealth and dramatically weakened social programmes. More of the same is not an acceptable option for Haiti when its very survival is at stake. The continuation or expansion of neoliberal economic policies will only tee the island up for another disaster.

“Liberal communists”
Many of those who suggest encouraging the expansion of private investment as the most effective way to rebuild Haiti barely veils a desire to exploit the disaster for profit in the language of development and economic growth.

A less brazen and more socially acceptable approach could begin by advocating a mix of aid and debt forgiveness. Following the earthquake, US$1.2B of the roughly US$2 billion Haiti still owes to both foreign governments and international institutions was annulled. This is clearly a step in the right direction – toward allowing Haiti the space and opportunity to begin to construct new and authentic economic and political institutions. But it is just a first step, one which should not have required a catastrophe for the international community to take.

“Forgiving” the country’s debt sounds quite generous, until one considers the origins of this debt. Almost half of the money Haiti owed was ‘odious debt’ incurred under the Duvalier regime – about $844 million.

Some Haitian critics have asked why should the people of Haiti be responsible for the debt of past dictators like the Duvaliers, who were supported by the U.S. for their anti-communist agenda?

They forged a welcome environment for foreign business at the expense of the country’s poor majority and employed a ruthless paramilitary police force to terrorize this majority into obedience – hardly a legacy for which Haiti should be held accountable.

The Duvaliers and their thugs killed an estimated 60,000 civilians during their rule, while torturing countless others. For this service, it would be quite unseemly for the U.S. to demand payment, with interest.

In fact, does the very discussion of debt forgiveness not already pre-suppose a certain ideological viewpoint? Is not the wrong question being asked? Instead of asking how much is owed by Haiti, perhaps one should really be asking, what is the magnitude of our debt to Haiti?

In addition to the long history of military occupation, political manipulation, economic exploitation, and illicit lending, one would have to add to this already long list the debt arising from climate change.

The United States is by far the world’s biggest contributor to climate change, whereas Haiti’s impact on the climate has been truly negligible. Per capita, Haiti’s carbon emissions are just one percent of the United States’. Yet, as Naomi Klein points out, “Haiti is among the hardest hit countries – according to one index, only Somalia is more vulnerable to climate change.”

Complementing the annulment of debts, there was almost immediately a tremendous outpouring of donations of aid in the wake of the quake.

At the recent UN Donors’ Conference in New York, pledges of US$5 billion in short-term aid and US$10 billion in long-term aid were made by the international community, which will be allocated by a commission run by former-President Clinton and Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive.

Such aid is significant and will certainly help the afflicted Haitian people. But this mode of giving often simultaneously serves to conceal subtle forms of violence. Political philosopher and cultural critic Slavoj Zizek describes the agents of this process as “liberal communists,” those who “give away with one hand what they first took with the other.”

People like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush may be two prime examples of these “liberal communists,” and they played key roles in depriving the Haitian people of their political voice and running off with Haiti’s economy in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

Both Clinton and Bush helped to maintain Haiti as an excellent incubator for private investment for foreign industries by cultivating low wages and a basically unemployed population, kept in check by the terror of military or paramilitary forces as well as the firepower of the Brazilian-led MINUSTAH forces.

Therefore, when we see the two former U.S. presidents join forces to tell us that they “. . . are partnering to help the Haitian people reclaim their country and rebuild their lives,” in fact, to “build back better” (better for whom?), we must maintain a wider perspective of their roles in Haiti’s history. Here cause and cure unite as one, where “the thing itself [Bush and Clinton’s pledges of aid] is the remedy against the threat it poses [decades of manipulation and subjugation]. . . In liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation.”

In this sense, charity and aid, in a perverse way, can serve to further weaken a country. Looking at the historical correlation between the hegemony of neoliberalism and the dramatic rise of NGOs, David Harvey explains that the non-profits and aid groups usually step in to fill “the vacuum in social provision left by the withdrawal of the state from such activities . . . in some instances this has helped accelerate further state withdrawal from social provision. NGOs thereby function as ‘Trojan horses for global neoliberalism.’”

Haiti has more NGOs per capita than any other country in the world, with one NGO for every 3,000 Haitians.

Some estimate that 75% of the USAID money given to Haiti makes its way back to the United States through NGOs. Meanwhile, less than one cent of every dollar of U.S. disaster aid currently goes directly to the Haitian government. Prime Minister Bellerive, recently expressed his concern that “the NGOs don’t tell us . . . where the money’s coming from or how they’re spending it. Too many people are raising money without any controls, and don’t explain what they’re doing with it.”

Of course, one cannot minimize the care that must be taken that such funds given to the central government are not wasted by nepotism, corruption, or cronyism – admittedly no easy task.

Critics such as highly regarded Haitian specialist Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, have stressed that the Haitian people must be allowed to lead the way for their country’s rehabilitation.

If we are genuinely interested in helping the Haitian people, more money must be directed away from the NGOs and towards a legitimate and functioning government and organisations populaires, community based groups established in the 1980s to defend the poor majority from paramilitary violence while at the same time providing basic living necessities and social services.

Reconstruction or reoccupation?
Where the aid money goes and what it is used for makes a huge difference. While only a trifle goes to the Haitian government, a full third of U.S. money earmarked for the relief effort was allocated for defense and security.

When the U.S. personnel arrived in Haiti, several days after Venezuela and Cuba were already set up on the ground saving lives and providing assistance, the emphasis they placed on security and military aid at first compromised the distribution of humanitarian aid.

Groups like Doctors Without Borders and the UN World Food Program have complained that their shipments of aid were delayed at the
airport, even in some cases turned away, because the deployment of U.S. troops took priority over their incoming flights.

With so much U.S. money for Haiti being allocated to military funding, “security and defense” have eclipsed what should be the clear focus: importing and distributing humanitarian aid to a desperately needy population.

To many critics, the heavy military presence of the U.S. in Haiti and efforts to effectively bypass the Haitian government increasingly appear as the groundwork for a new “death plan.”

But the U.S. military presence may be less troubling than what is already starting to follow in its wake. Just as private security contractors profited from disasters in New Orleans and Iraq, these mercenary groups are now salivating at their current prospects in Haiti.

The International Peace Operations Association, a security contractor trade association, recently held a trade show in Miami, giving roughly 20 private security companies the opportunity to advertise their services to government representatives, IFIs, NGOs, private companies and other parties involved in the Haiti recovery effort. The modern-day, privatized equivalent of Wilson’s marines, they will no doubt ensure a hospitable environment for future foreign investment.

Even if the military presence is not meant to be the hallmark of renewed economic exploitation, the almost single-minded focus on security illustrates that the U.S. perception of Haiti has changed little since the days of William Jennings Bryan.

From many accounts in the mainstream media, one would think that since the earthquake, Haiti has become a vicious battleground for thieves, rapists, and murderers. While CNN’s Anderson Cooper described Port-au-Prince as a “frenzy of looting,” FOX News spoke of “small bands of young men and teenagers with machetes,” who “roamed downtown streets and helped themselves to whatever they could find in wrecked homes.”

This is an addition to 4,000 escapees from the capital’s main prison. U.S. troops and mercenaries have been sent to Haiti, in large part, to keep order and prevent looting.

This emphasis on looting should remind us of the reporting on Hurricane Katrina, where distinctions were often drawn between white families, who were “looking for food,” and black families, who were “looting.”

Even if the stories of wide-spread looting in Haiti were true, would that justify the militarization? Should the first priority of the U.S. be securing the private property of businesses from Haiti’s hungry and homeless, those who have already lost everything?

The question is entirely hypothetical – the reality of the situation is that, much like in the aftermath of Katrina, most of these reports have little or no basis in reality. The vast majority of Haitians, almost unbelievably, remained calm, even tranquil, in the midst of the utter destruction that surrounded them.

A group of reporters and academics recently there to assess conditions wrote that “while the US media has portrayed Haiti as a place of chaos and helplessness, we found just the opposite.”

In a week spent there after the earthquake, they encountered no gangs of roving bandits – instead, they found long but orderly lines waiting for food, water, and money transfers, and communities organizing “makeshift roadblocks to protect those sleeping in the streets from cars. In many cases, people stood guard over the sleeping.

After dark the most prominent sounds were dogs barking and roosters crowing. We heard no gunshots in the air.” The militarization of aid may reveal as much about our collective perception of the Haitian people as it does about our national priorities.

Breaking the cycle

One needn’t belittle the outstanding contributions of aid that have been given in the past months, or malign the good intentions of the millions of Americans who have donated money. But as Richard Kim argued in a recent piece published in The Nation, the dialogue in the international community must shift from discussing charity to demanding justice.

Justice for Haiti requires more than debt forgiveness and pledges of aid. It requires the creation of the conditions for self-sufficiency and self-determination rather than further subjugation and exploitation.

Rather than only appealing for foreign investment, creating sustainable and equitable growth in Haiti necessitates accomplishments like raising the minimum wage, improving a decimated and woeful natural environment, instituting agricultural policies that support local farmers, and rebuilding and constructing new public infrastructure, including schools, roads, hospitals, public utilities, and housing. If this is to occur, the Haitian people must be allowed to determine their own political future, and to provide the appropriate resources to help them rebuild their own lives – resources owed to them with interest.

This is not to say that the U.S. has no role to play in recovery efforts. In fact, Haiti needs help from the U.S. now more than ever. It is estimated that the cost for demolition efforts alone could run as high as US$1 billion.

Without commitments from the U.S. and the rest of the international community that it will avoid the advent of donor fatigue, the Haitian government will be effectively paralyzed. It cannot face these challenges alone. But the U.S. role in Haiti’s reconstruction must not be the same as it has been in the past – manipulating the political process and depriving Haitians of a voice, using USAID funds to prompt militias and studiously ignoring the use of terror against civilians.

Rather, the U.S. must pledge not to interfere in any democratic election in any self-serving way, including through selective funding. Once the Haitian people have chosen a representative in a free and fair election, the U.S., France, Canada, and the U.N. might begin to redress their shoddy treatment in the past and pledge to provide all the direct support that the new government requires to get back on its feet. They must also work with international economic institutions to ensure that no “austerity measures” are imposed on any further development aid to the country.

Up until this point, the U.S. has been successful in preventing Haiti from engaging in even an iota of economic and political self-determination.

What Washington cannot undo is its former misguided actions which brought great grief to the nation and its people. But by taking responsibility for its part in the disaster, the time may come where Washington can, for once, play a constructive role when it comes to Haiti.

PDF

(This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Ethan Katz and Visiting Scholar Daniel Boscov-Ellen

Over the last few months there has been a surfeit of talk in the international community over what should be done for Haiti. However, in almost all of these discussions Haiti’s historical context is completely excised – it is almost as if the country had only come into being as a result of January’s earthquake. This collective amnesia is damning.

“…In liberal communist ethics, the ruthless pursuit of profit is counteracted by charity. Charity is the humanitarian mask hiding the face of economic exploitation.”

From many accounts in the mainstream media, one would think that since the earthquake, Haiti has become a vicious battleground for thieves, rapists, and murderers. While CNN’s Anderson Cooper described Port-au-Prince as a “frenzy of looting,” FOX News spoke of “small bands of young men and teenagers with machetes,” who “roamed downtown streets and helped themselves to whatever they could find in wrecked homes.”

The dialogue in the international communit
y must shift from discussing charity to demanding justice. Justice for Haiti requires more than debt forgiveness and pledges of aid. It requires the creation of the conditions for self-sufficiency and self-determination rather than further subjugation and exploitation. Rather than only appealing for foreign investment, creating sustainable and equitable growth in Haiti necessitates accomplishments like raising the minimum wage, improving a decimated and woeful natural environment, instituting agricultural policies that support local farmers, and rebuilding and constructing new public infrastructure, including schools, roads, hospitals, public utilities, and housing. If this is to occur, the Haitian people must be allowed to determine their own political future, and to provide the appropriate resources to help them rebuild their own lives – resources owed to them with interest.