The Crisis in Haiti, and the Perils of Humanitarian Intervention
(Image Source: Getty Images)
By Mikayla (Miki) Pyke-Sharpe
Haiti is currently experiencing what is arguably one of the worst humanitarian catastrophes in the world, yet mainstream media has failed to capture the full gravity of the situation. This is especially apparent in the West, where conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza have siphoned attention away from Haiti. Since 2021, the nation has been in a state of political, social, and financial crisis. Conflicts began with the assassination of then-President Jovenel Moise, which led to opportunistic Haitian gangs taking advantage of the newly formed power vacuum by increasing their presence and power on the island, the effects of which are most prevalent in the nation's capital of Port-au-Prince. The conditions for political, social, and financial turmoil had existed prior to the assassination of President Moise, as seen with the political crisis which culminated in former President Martelly dissolving Parliament in 2015 and with Moise failing to hold elections in 2019. These tensions were amplified by other power struggles within the government, as well as an ongoing recovery from the 2010 earthquake and a cholera outbreak. This environment has allowed the gangs to create a humanitarian crisis on the island by blocking a key fuel terminal, resulting in shortages of basic goods such as food and water. Reportedly, there have been approximately 3,000 homicides, 1,500 kidnappings, and 200,000 displaced individuals since the gangs took control of Haiti.
After over a year of this crisis, the United Nations has approved a Kenyan-led police force to aid Haitian forces in combating rampant gang violence. This mission comes after repeated calls for action from interim Prime Minister Ariel Henry, the Organisations of American States, and the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Guterres. This mission is supported by US officials, as well as Caribbean nations (including Jamaica, Bahamas, Antigua and Barbuda). However, other UN member states disagree on the effectiveness of such a mission. Russian officials believe that such action, despite being requested by the interim Prime Minister, is an extreme measure. Furthermore, Chinese officials believe that such action requires in-depth consultations with Haitian officials, as well as an effective Haitian government which will oversee the mission. There have been discussions amongst the international community, most notably Russia and China, and Haitian non-governmental organizations such as the Montana Group on whether or not there should be humanitarian intervention in Haiti, given its negative history with such action. Many of the discussions have revolved around the assumption of Western countries that they are the “saviors” for crises in developing countries, and as such have not only the ability but also the obligation to undermine their sovereignty in order to assist in such issues.
According to the World Bank, Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere; this circumstance is often attributed to foreign and humanitarian intervention forcing countries to adopt structural adjustments plans and free trade policies as a requirement for their assistance, as well as introducing humanitarian and developmental aid to the nation, thus making it dependent on the international community. This circumstance isn’t exclusive to Haiti, but can also be seen in other former colonies such as Mali. Upon the massacring of its native population and its subsequent establishment as a French colony, Haiti has been impeded by foreign intervention. Since becoming the first independent Caribbean state in 1804, Haiti has been taxed by the French government and has been incurring debt since then. In this agreement to be taxed in exchange for their freedom, the French government also required that Haiti take out loans from French banks to repay the payments, resulting in a “double debt”. This debt has hindered the establishment of institutions and infrastructure needed for a prosperous, independent nation, resulting in the fragile Haitian state we see today. This fragility has been used time and time again to militarily intervene in the country, completely disregarding its sovereignty.
Sovereignty is the legal status that states possess when they are recognized by other states in the United Nations, thus reflecting their jurisdiction over a territory and the permanent population living there. Discussions with respect to Haiti's sovereignty are at the core of whether or not humanitarian intervention is the correct means to address the crisis the country is presently facing. Humanitarian intervention refers to the use or threat of military action within a country experiencing widespread human suffering. It must be approved by the UN Security council, which indicates that the intervention is political in nature. Presently in Haiti, widespread human suffering is illustrated through shortages in basic necessities, kidnappings, homicides, and displacement. Haiti has a negative history with humanitarian interventions in the country under the pretense of helping citizens. This negative history can be observed throughout the robust history of America’s military presence in Haiti, which begins with the 1916-1934 occupation of Haiti by US forces and the 1993 peacekeeping mission backed by the United Nations and led by the US. Perhaps the most definitive example was the “Uphold Democracy” mission of 1994, which was aimed to establish peace and restore democracy in light of the coup which took place after the first democratic presidential election, and as such reinstate the democratically elected President Aristide. The mission was successful in reinstating Aristide, but was contingent on Haiti entering a structural adjustment plan with both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. These many US-backed interventions in Haiti indicate that they have significant geopolitical interest in Haiti in an attempt to ensure that Haiti remains a democracy (especially considering its proximity to Cuba), but very often coming at the expense of Haiti’s own sovereignty. These interventions also illustrate that humanitarian intervention in the country has always been in the interest of foreign nations, or for the political interests of the sitting Haitian administration. In this, we see that a precedent was set that as long as the Haitian President is supported by the West and continues to implement free trade policies, that both the US and the international community will continue to turn a blind eye towards their actions. This phenomenon is exemplified by “structural adjustment plans,” which are known to negatively affect developing countries by leading to lower economic growth through the privatization of social safety nets, hampering desertification due to comparative advantages dictating what these countries trade, and leading to unemployment.
Development aid refers to aid aimed at alleviating systemic issues, such as poverty. It is meant to offset the saving of developing countries, as a means to allow for them to spend more on institutions and infrastructure whilst also building the financial reserves necessary to continue the processes built by said aid. However, what often happens is that corruption diverts the savings, and countries continue to receive aid despite not making any impactful changes to their country. Haiti is no exception to this phenomenon, illustrated by a 2016 report alleging that then-President Moise embezzled millions of dollars from a road rehabilitation program, as well as by a 2020 report from the Superior Court of Auditors and Administrative Disputes (CSCCA) revealing corruption amongst the government in a low-interest development loan program. Humanitarian aid is aimed at alleviating short term issues; since the 2010 earthquake, a total of $13 billion USD of humanitarian aid has entered the country. In January of 2021, the Biden administration announced that it would be sending an additional $75.5 million in development aid to Haiti, which is considered both a fragile state (ranking amongst the top 15 most fragile states in the world for the past decade) by the Fragile States Index.
Haiti was given this status due to its lack of good governance, political legitimacy, and access to most basic services related to health, nutrition, sanitation, education and security. This fragility is illustrated by government external debt rising to $2.2 billion in 2019, despite the majority of debts being cancelled after the 2010 earthquake. Furthermore, only 28% of the population had access to sanitation in 2015, and the centralization of the government has resulted in the inability of local officials to provide basic services. A large influx of humanitarian aid and developmental aid, not only since 2021 but also in years past, indicates that aid disincentives the creation of proper infrastructure and institutions needed for an effective and independent government. Such circumstances may be amplified by a Kenyan-led intervention in Haiti aimed at aiding Haitian forces with gang violence, which might undermine the peacemaking process necessary to create a prosperous country.
A disregard for the actions of Haitian leaders in exchange for their open support of the US government and a continuation of free trade policies can be seen with both the former President Jovenel Moise and the current interim Prime Minister Ariel Henry. Prior to his assassination, protesters were calling for Moise’s resignation due to anti-democratic and authoritarian practices, which were supported openly by the Biden administration and viewed as the only viable means to keep the nation stable. The desire to keep an authoritarian and anti-democratic leader in favor of perceived stability is evidence of the Biden administration acting in its own national interests, as instability in Haiti could result in a Haitian immigration crisis atop the preexisting immigration crisis the US is facing. In the case of Ariel Henry, both citizens and the gangs that are causing the crisis have been protesting against him. Many view his call for humanitarian intervention as an attempt to hold onto power. In both cases, we see the lack of legitimacy completely ignored by foreign governments (specifically the US government) in favor of calls for humanitarian intervention and a supposed opportunity to keep Haiti stable. Currently, we see that Ariel Henry's calls for humanitarian intervention have been met with a Kenyan-led and UN-backed force. What is to say that this humanitarian intervention will be any different from those previous? Even the most recent UN mission after the 2010 earthquake resulted in the resurgence of cholera, as well as the sexual exploitation of women and children at the hands of UN peacekeepers. Such issues bring into question the effectiveness of peacekeeping, especially given the power dynamics between peacekeepers and the civilian population, and questions of sanitation in countries that don’t have the sufficient infrastructure.
In this case, Haitians are divided on their opinion of humanitarian intervention. Many believe that it will bring strife to the country once again, while others claim that it is necessary to bring peace to Haiti. However, what is undoubtedly true is that gangs have been used by elites to sway politics within the country. Through funds and other means of support, political and economic elites have used armed groups to cement their own hold on the country by forcefully creating chaos or order, depending on whichever suits them the most. Gang membership is fueled by government inefficiency and low economic development, which pushes people to seek support from armed groups. However, gangs have been an integral part of the Haitian political environment since the inception of its “democracy.” This can be seen in the 1950s Duvalier regime implementing state sponsored violence to suppress opposition. This legacy continues in the present day, with these non-state armed groups now being found amongst the military and police forces. This can be seen with the leader of the G9 gang coalition (Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier, who is at the heart of the gang violence being faced by Haiti) being a former police officer. This indicates that the humanitarian intervention led by Kenya cannot be superficial, as gang affiliation is webbed in the fabric of the country.
Who is to say that the present Kenyan-led mission will not be another failed intervention, allowing a cycle of ineffective governance and crumbling infrastructure to persist? Given Ariel Henry's support for humanitarian intervention, it can be assumed that he will be allowed to continue his role as Prime Minister. This amount of support from the international community could allow him the space to assume authoritarian practices, under the pretense that it is the only means to keep Haiti stable. What if this leads to more protests, which indicate the waning of Henry's legitimacy? What if political elites pay off gangs to create chaos, and then leverage this instability as a means to call on the international community for aid, allowing Henry to continue as Prime Minister by aligning with international processes? Who is to say that political elites won’t pay off gangs to create a coup? This coup could create a military/authoritarian rule, as seen in the 1900s in Haiti. This military rule may then spawn into an oligarchy (due to a hereditary succession of power as seen in the Duvalier Regime of Haiti), democracy (due to citizens backing a political individual, most likely and elite, to represent them who overthrows the oligarchy), and then tyranny (due to the democratically backed politician assuming authoritarian practices as a means to hold onto power, due to the possibility of the former oligarchic attempting to regain power), creating a cycle that continues to perpetuate in the Haitian political sphere.
Ultimately, this begs the question: Why should we care about whether or not humanitarian intervention is pursued in Haiti, or the means by which it is pursued? Oftentimes, humanitarian intervention in developing countries completely ignores the lack of legitimacy of the sitting leader, because of said leader calling upon the international community for assistance. Let's say we assume that the majority of Haitians agree with humanitarian intervention, despite Ariel's waning legitimacy, due to the widespread human suffering. In that case, I believe that the only means by which humanitarian intervention in Haiti can be successful is only if it follows the precedent of successful interventions, specifically that of Liberia, rather than following the historical precedent in the country of backing any leader who agrees with intervention. Humanitarian intervention in Haiti will only be successful if there is disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration of gangs and their members, as it is generally understood that fragile states are breeding grounds for armed groups, as they provide basic necessities for its members that the state cannot. Effective intervention must also include free and fair elections overseen by an apolitical organization, an extension of civil authority, and innovative means to rejuvenate the economy through Haitian resources, rather than solely depending on aid.
Mikayla (Miki) Pyke-Sharpe is a freshman at New York University, planning to study Global Liberal Studies and economics. She is interested in developmental economics. In her free time she enjoys playing music and photography.
