The historical record is clear
The word democracy finds its roots in Ancient Greek, which starts with dēmos 'people' and Kratos 'rule.' Some of democracy's prerequisites include the guarantees of the rule of law, social justice, and free and fair elections. For democracy to take hold, the people must see its value and be willing to fight and die for it – in theory, and practice. The fight for democracy is a waste of time and resources if those prerequisites are absent.
In 2001, the United States of America – the world’s sole superpower – invaded Afghanistan. With the support of NATO and over 40 countries, what initially started as the War on Terror expanded to an obligation to bring freedom and democracy to the Afghan people.
According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs Costs of War Project, "since invading Afghanistan in 2001, the United States has spent $2.3 trillion on the war. This total does not include the United States government's obligation to lifetime care for American veterans. It also does not include future interest payments on money borrowed to fund the war."
After a 20-year engagement in Afghanistan, President Biden finally set August 31, 2021 as the deadline for ending the US combat role. The war in Afghanistan was the longest in U.S. history. Its costs in treasures and lives were devastating. The Associated Press provided a summary of the war’s human costs:
- American service members killed in Afghanistan through April: 2,448
- U.S. contractors: 3,846
- Afghan national military and police: 66,000
- Other allied service members, including from other NATO member states: 1,144
- Afghan civilians: 47,245
- Taliban and other opposition fighters: 51,191
- Aid workers: 444
- Journalists: 72
The Costs of War Project reported that more than 243,000 Afghans died as a direct result of the war.
One lesson is clear: despite the world's major powers' economic and military might, they could not impose democracy on the Afghans. Their attempts in Iraq and other countries from the middle east to Latin America failed consistently and often disastrously. Today, as the US contemplates participating in yet another intervention, this time in Haiti, one need not be Galileo to predict its failure. But as was the case with the Afghans, the Haitian people will bear the human costs. Moreover, the country will continue its backslide toward an authoritarian state.
Haiti has been there before
Haiti experienced a direct occupation by the U.S. between 1915 and 1934. Over the past 30 years, it has been an indirect one. The indirect occupation started with the United Nations Mission in Haiti (UNMIH) which lasted 13 years. This mission was rebranded to the Mission des Nation Unies pour la Stabilisation (MINUSTAH). The next one was the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH) in 2018. The latest mission is the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH).
On Sep 28, 2022, during a Security Council meeting, Haiti’s Minister of Foreign Affairs claimed that the situation in Haiti was "generally under control." Less than two weeks later, on October 7, 2022, the de facto regime sent a resolution signed by 18 members of the government, to request the immediate deployment of a specialized armed force, "in sufficient quantity," to stop the crisis across the country caused partly by the "criminal actions of armed gangs."
The same day, State Department principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters that the administration had received a request from the U.N. Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator Office in Haiti “for a humanitarian corridor to restore the distribution of fuel throughout Haiti.”
For many Haitians, this upcoming intervention is the outcome of a US strategy to control Haiti and its resources. This conclusion seems rational on its face. However, those who advance it must explain why the U.S. would take a hard path when an easy one is available. The hard path is to destabilize Haiti, which brings with it regional destabilization and internal political risks. One of those risks is the political challenge resulting from thousands of Haitians fleeing insecurity and making landfall on the Florida shores or crossing the US-Mexican border.
On the other hand, most Haitians believe that Haitian leaders are at best indebted to the U.S. and at worst controlled by it. Indeed, the WikiLeaks papers have shown the Core Group’s ability to pick winners and losers in Haiti. In 2010, with the help of the Organization of American States (OAS) experts, they changed the election results. They selected Mr. Michel “Sweet Micky” Martelly to compete in the runoff against Mrs. Manigat instead of Jude Célestin.
Given this context, the easiest path for the U.S. would be to demand and get the right to exploit Haitian resources – oil, iridium, and gold.
The US appears poised to come to the rescue of a murderous regime with a horrific record on human rights.
In February 2021, the US and its partners in the Core Group, which comprises ambassadors to Haiti from Canada, Germany, Brazil, Spain, the United States, France, and the European Union, as well as representatives from the United Nations and the Organization of American States, once again use their political influence to push out Prime Minister Claude Joseph for Ariel Henry.
Since that statement in July 2021, the Core Group has steadfastly stood by the de facto regime. They continue to support the Henry regime despite its incapacity to govern. Indeed, the de facto regime has not only shown its disdain for the population but its willingness to be as oppressive as previous regimes Haitians have known in the past. The US has documented links between high-level officials within the regimes in the gangs who have committed several massacres in the poorest neighborhoods. Yet, the US appears poised to come to the rescue of a murderous regime with a horrific record on human rights.
Haitians are divided on yet another Issue
Despite the misapprehensions, Haitian opinions of another invasion remain divided. Some maintain that Haitians can solve their problems – a claim that runs counter to the country’s current situation. The other camp believes that Haiti is already a failed state. The police force and the army are unable to take on the gangs that have divided the country in two and blocked access to its only fuel terminal. This camp believes only an international force can restore security.
A critical examination of the anti-invasion argument reveals a gap in their argument. This gap is an inability to bring coherence in their proposal to convince a majority of the population to stand with them. This is despite the commendable attempt by groups like the Montana Accord. A recent tweet by James Beltis, president of the “konsèy nasyonal de tranzisyon - KNT (national transition council), noted that the accord brought together “80 political parties, 500 civil society organizations, 200 popular organizations, 300 personalities.” The KNT held an election to the second degree (aka an indirect election). These resulted in the election of Mr. Fritz Jean as President and former Senator Steven Benoit as Prime Minister of a transitional government. To date, those two elected “representatives'' have also not shown the capacity to bring a coherent plan around which the citizens could coalesce. More recently, Mr. Jean astutely recognized the necessity to negotiate with the forces that control the levers of power. Unfortunately, he did so without consulting his base within the Montana Accord. As a result, he had to disavow those talks.
The pro-invasion's camp weakness is its narrow focus on the crisis, which is limited to gang criminality. They do so at the expense of other types of insecurities. These include food, shelter, education, and healthcare which are at the roots of the public safety crisis. Unfortunately, like a fever, the focus on public safety as the only crisis is akin to one's focus on a fever – the symptom – rather than the illness. The exclusion of the majority of Haitians from the promises of democracy is the principal cause of the country's interdependent crises.
What about the United States?
Haitians believe that racism is ingrained in US policies toward Haiti. Indeed, white supremacy is a central organizing feature of world politics. In their article "Why Race Matters in International Relations," Professors Kelebogile Zvobgo and Meredith Loken argue that the “big three” IR paradigms: realism, liberalism, and constructivism are dominant frames for understanding global politics. They further argue that these "frames are built on racist intellectual foundations, and rooted in discourses that center and favor Europe and the West."
These discourses are the default settings of Washington policymakers. To understand the policies coming out of Washington one must understand the state department and its cadre of civil servants. They have a normative approach in the way in which they engage other states. A deeper look at US engagement around the world shows a project that has the sole objective of expanding American political, economic, cultural, and media influence. In sum, the policymakers' biases are default features rather than specific hatred of Haiti.
States are self-interested and realistic. Unfortunately, this realism escapes most Haitians’ analysis of US-Haiti relations.
Nonetheless, realism and pragmatism undergird the American project. To the layperson who is not steeped in international relations, this simply translates to American hypocrisy. To illustrate, analysts point to the U.S. policymakers' position on Venezuela.
In a January 4 press release, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed that it continued “to recognize the authority of the democratically elected 2015 National Assembly as the last remaining democratic institution and Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president. We welcome the agreement reached to extend the authority of the National Assembly elected in 2015 and of interim President Guaidó as its president.”
Fast forward a few months later, as the Russian attack on Ukraine started to affect the price of oil on the market, the Washington Post reported that a “group of senior U.S. officials flew to Venezuela on Saturday for a meeting with President Nicolás Maduro’s government to discuss the possibility of easing sanctions on Venezuelan oil exports as the Biden administration weighs a ban on imports of Russian oil and gas, according to two people familiar with the situation.
Although this reversal is seen as an example of U.S. hypocrisy, many of the same critics want President Biden's head because the price of a gallon of gasoline rose to $4.01. Another example is the US back-channel negotiations with Russia. Even as the U.S. is engaged in a bloody and expensive proxy war with Russia, it has engaged in back-channel negotiations with them to trade Russian arms dealer, Viktor Bout for the release of basketball star, Brittney Griner. It is normal and expected for an elected government that is attuned to the needs of its citizens to adapt its policies. Its foreign policies reflect its ideology but are pragmatic in the short term.
What is next?
Many Haitians are furious about a de facto and illegitimate regime requesting the intervention of international force on Haitian soil. This anger is, of course, warranted as a matter of national pride and respect for the Haitian constitution. The reality on the ground in Haiti is a different matter that requires pragmatism. The Haitian army has 500 unprepared and untested soldiers. Barely a third of its police are active. Both forces lack the capacity and capability to challenge the gangs. On the policy-making end, the de facto regime is unwilling to prioritize security and make the necessary investments in public safety. The opposition leaders and other coalitions, like the Montana Accord, are unable to make a political offer that can rally and mobilize the population. As a result, they have been reduced to observer status and do not have any ability to affect the status quo. In this context, the realistic conclusion is that given the risks Haiti posed to other countries in the region, including the U.S., an intervention is inevitable.
Unfortunately, this intervention will be palliative. Like the nine other interventions before BINUH, it will not focus on the core issue of inequality. Like the ones before, the mission of the new force will be to break the gang’s stranglehold on the country. They may achieve some short-term successes. However, Haiti’s long-term problems will remain the same. The only strategy to tackle these challenges remains a Haitian-led solution.
There are many possible outcomes of international intervention in Haiti. Below are five that are the likeliest scenarios:
First is the hard occupation. The international community invades, imposes a solution, and maintains it by force.
Second is the soft occupation. The international community invades, imposes a solution on the political actors, and manages it via a shadow government.
The third is a full-fledged civil war among Haitians from which a strong leader emerges with a well-defined ideology. This could take the form of Otto von Bismarck’s top-down approach which led to Germany’s unification.
The fourth is Haiti’s somalization. This is a disaggregation of the Haitian states into three units: north, center, and south. This split would be similar to the post-Dessalines era when Haiti was split into two, with Pétion ruling in the south and Christophe ruling in the north.
The fifth is a Haitian consensus. This is a negotiated agreement through peace dialogues that bring together a plurality of “somewhat legitimate” political actors and political parties under the auspices of a trusted arbiter. This last option is aligned with the vision, Montana's President, Mr. Jean, is promoting. This option requires Haitian leaders to make short-term sacrifices which are necessary to overcome the distrust that has taken place among the political actors and the deep cynicism that has settled in the population.
The Haitian people adopted democracy as their model of governance. However, their leaders have so far been unable and, more often, unwilling to respect democratic principles. With rampant corruption and impunity, the population has but one choice. It is forced to turn to rebellion as the last method so it can be heard. As Haiti's story is written, the next chapter can be an invasion to bring public safety, a long-term occupation, a civil war that leads to its somalization, a dialogue that leads to peace, or a combination of these options. The expected invasion does not have to be the end of Haiti’s extraordinary story. Haitians deserve to experience a different narrative and enjoy the promises of democratic governance. This story can only be written if Haitians are willing to imagine it, believe it and take the pen to write it.
One virtue of democracy is that it reflects local history and traditions. Yet there are fundamental elements that all democracies share — freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly; rule of law enforced by independent courts; private property rights; and political parties that compete in free and fair elections. These rights and institutions are the foundation of human dignity, and as countries find their own path to freedom, they must find a loyal partner in the United States of America.
President George W. Bush, 2007 address to an International Conference on Democracy and Security in Prague
No comments:
Post a Comment