Haiti, 11 million inhabitants, occupies about half of Hispaniola, an island it shares with Santo Domingo. Today it is a country in the grip of a disastrous crisis but it is also something more. It embodies the paradigmatic history of a small state that paid a very high price for its attempt to emancipate itself from the great powers. First nation in the world to arise from slave revolt against the French exploiters, in 1804. France “punished” the affront for decades, then the USA took over. Unscrupulous dictators were financed and supported from abroad in exchange for Haiti’s submission to Western corporate interests. The Nixon administration supported the dictator Baby Doc (he fled the country on a US plane in 1986 with a loot of 500 million dollars), in exchange of the country’s opening to American investments, the maintenance of wages at some of the lowest levels in the world and the violent repression of any trade union activity. The Clinton administration demanded the elimination of tariffs on rice imports, opening the market to US producers. Just to mention two cases. Now, also due to the after-effects of the terrible earthquake of 2010, the country is in the abyss. The book “ is dedicated to this story and to doing justice to the people of HaitiAid State”written by the researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Jake Johnsoninterviewed by Ilfattoquotidiano.it.
In the title of your book there are the terms “aid state” and “disaster capitalism”, why do you use these two expressions?
“Aid State” counters the narrative of Haiti as a “failed state,” which we see repeated time and time again. That term has profound negative connotations, in particular it creates the impression that what is happening is all Haiti’s fault and that the country is incapable of governing itself. The reality, however, is much more complex. Indeed, powerful foreign countries, in particular the United States, played a huge role in destabilizing the country. The Haitian state today, and its failure, has more to do with foreign intervention than with the actions of the Haitian people.
What we have witnessed in recent decades is one total externalization of the State, where almost 80% of traditional public services such as health and education are in the hands of non-state actors and are highly dependent on external funding. Not only was this inefficient, but it also broke the bond between the population and its government: those who make decisions on behalf of Haitians are not actually accountable to Haitians.
Furthermore, along with all that help, it arrived economic reforms which further hollowed out the state and decimated local production – and here we enter the disaster capitalism part of the title. In times of crisis, powerful actors will use it as an opportunity to push for the changes they’ve wanted all along. And we have seen it several times in the aftermath of the earthquake. The flagship reconstruction project, for example, involved an industrial park that had been planned for years and built far from the area hit by the earthquake.
But not only public services and economic development have been outsourced, but also the very heart of democracy: elections. Votes in Haiti are funded by donors, election officials are trained by donors, and then those same donors turn around and determine the legitimacy of the vote. Coupled with multiple coups and overturned election results, this fuels the perception that foreigners and their allies in the local elite choose the political winners and losers, not the population. It is therefore not surprising that in the last elections the turnout was only 18%. And then we are surprised that an election in which the vast majority does not or cannot participate does not lead to political stability! The cycle must end.
Rich and powerful countries often take this approach towards weaker and poorer ones: they demand a total opening of borders to facilitate flows of useful and profitable production factors for companies based in strong states, while resisting requests for reporation. The case of Haiti is emblematic in this sense, what you tell is also the story of a country that has suffered great and repeated wrongs at the hands of very powerful nations. But why this fury towards a nation that is ultimately small and poor?
We cannot begin to understand the present if we do not look at what happened in the past. The one in Haiti was born from one victorious slave revoltthe first independent black republic, the first ad constitutionally abolish slavery. Haiti was seen as one threat from the imperial powers of the world, who still relied on the slave trade for their wealth. It took the United States 60 years to recognize Haiti. All this to say that Haiti paid a high price for its independence the hope he gave to oppressed peoples around the world.
Of course, this isn’t just a revolution that happened 220 years ago. The United States occupied Haiti for 19 years in the early 20th century not simply to punish Haiti for its revolution, but because of the United States‘ imperial ambitions in the hemisphere. The United States then supported the Duvalier’s brutal dictatorship during the Cold War as a regional bulwark against communism and Cuba. All to say that the interests and goals of foreign powers have changed over time, but in the end, policy toward Haiti has rarely, if ever, been about what it is in Haiti’s best interest. It is about the control and interests of imperial powers.
Another important factor is the connection between foreign powers and the local elite. It is this relationship that explains the continuation of a harmful foreign policy towards Haiti – which ultimately serves the interests of that elite and not the Haitian people. Although everyone knows Haiti as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, it is also the most unequal.
Among the large American companies, Monsanto has played an important role. Can you explain why?
Monsanto donated hybrid seeds in the aftermath of the earthquake, as part of a large USAID program to promote agricultural development. But it’s a case that shows the true end goals driving U.S. foreign assistance, namely opening markets for U.S. goods. This is not a conspiracy; even today it is stated openly on their website: “We promote American prosperity through investments that expand markets for U.S. exports.”
In 2021, President Jovenel Moïse was assassinated. Today Haiti is in the grip of anarchy, power is in the hands of rival criminal gangs. What are the possible ways out, if any? Do you expect an imminent US military intervention?
The assassination was not the beginning of the Haiti crisis. Even before that, parliament had become completely dysfunctional and Moïse ruled by decree without checks and balances. Armed groups already existed and had been spreading terror for years. It is also important to understand that anarchy, or the lack of state presence, it’s not abnormal. Indeed, for the vast majority of Haitians, the state has been totally absent throughout their lives. Rural Haiti, the poor neighborhoods of the capital… in these areas there has practically never been a real state presence even in the best times of the island. And this helps explain the situation today. These armed groups were formed in the absence of the state.
That said, how can Haiti get out of this situation? It won’t be easy and it won’t happen overnight. Fundamentally Haiti must establish a social contract between the state and the population. The only way to do this is through national dialogue, listening to those who have long been excluded from the state. In many ways, the revolution of 1804 remains unfinished, ongoing… but until local leaders will fall short of ideals revolutionaries who founded the nation, these cycles of instability will surely continue. The reality is that the status quo is inherently unsustainable and can only be maintained through force – whether paramilitary, in the form of armed groups, or through foreign military intervention. This is what we have seen repeatedly in the past, a foreign military intervention that ends up solidifying the status quo.
The United States is unlikely to deploy its troops on the ground on a large scale. From 2004 to 2017, thousands of foreign soldiers were stationed in Haiti as part of a peacekeeping operation under the auspices of the United Nations. Notably, it was US troops who first arrived in Haiti in 2004 ensure the success of the coup…but the US wanted to quickly hand over power to someone else so that they would not be the face of the occupation. A similar dynamic is occurring now, the United States has convinced the Kenya to lead a possible security intervention – but behind the face of Kenya they will be there US financing and logistics. The United States would prefer, if possible, to be able to maintain public distancing while remaining extremely influential behind the scenes.
Do you think that, as a country, Haiti would have the ability to stand on its own two feet? Will he ever be allowed to do this?
The Haitian people have surprised the world before and I have no doubt that they will do so again, with or without the support of foreign powers. Ultimately, an independent and successful Haiti should be in everyone’s interest, not just Haitians. But, as we have seen, policies toward Haiti are rarely in Haiti’s best interests. If foreign powers are to be part of the solution and not a constant barrier, they will be necessary serious reforms in Washington, Brussels, Ottawa and elsewhere.