February 2, 2010 Special Issue

Haiti: The new colonialism

by Terrine Friday

Haiti was the first country in the world to abolish the slavery of peoples of African heritage and declare itself a republic.

That was in 1804.

More than 200 years later, Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere, reeling from over four years of natural disasters and the effects of deforestation.

Then came Jan. 12, 2010. Shortly before 5 p.m., the country was hit by a 7.0 magnitude earthquake, which devastated capital city Port-au-Prince and its surroundings, turning Haiti’s faulty infrastructure into rubble. Solid foundations need to be rebuilt literally and figuratively: not only does the country need new homes, but also a legitimate government for the sake of the country’s political—and historical—legitimacy.

International headlines allude to Haiti’s corruption, but with no context: upon Haiti’s independence, was the country not left to the devices of colonial vestiges? Upon what conditions were intergovernmental relations with western powers imposed on Haiti? And are not most western governments inherently corrupt, the result of a Darwinian survival tactic to keep the most apt political party in office? And what about the loopy “developmental programs” that western Europe and North America encouraged post-colonial countries to adopt?

Over 20 years ago, Haiti bought into a new program created by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund called the Structural Adjustment Program. The SAP, which was also adopted around the same time in other developing former European colonies like Jamaica and Guyana, was intended to boost Haiti’s economy to compete on a global level and thus increase production and profit.

But the SAP, which reduced trade barriers with western countries and opened the country up to foreign investment and control, actually threw Haiti into severe debt, which totaled almost $2 billion in 2008—which is $250 per capita, a little more than the average Haitian family’s yearly income. (In Canada, the debt per capita is close to $20,000 per capita while average family income is close to $65,000.)

Amidst cries of mercy for Haiti in the international community, the IMF cancelled $1.2 billion of the country’s debt last June, leaving them $800 million in the red.

Haiti’s political sphere is not out of reach of international strong-arms. Former Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was considered a “rebel” by the American government. He was forcibly removed from office in 2004—an operation in which the Canadian government was complicit—which not only undermined the Haitian government, but further bolstered foreign economic and social policies that crippled Haiti’s development.

In his academic paper called “The Messiah Returned to Haiti, but It Didn’t Help,” distinguished American author Herbert Gold gives heed to the “kidnappings, murder, arson, riots, epidemics of disaster rolling in, ebbing briefly and then flooding again, characterize a society that has moved from persistent stubborn crises to chaos.”

Gold goes on to say that the idea of the White Man’s Burden is fading, but this concept is being replaced by a perception of Haitian ungodliness, that non-governmental organizations and missionaries feel they must “offer ‘spiritual’ aid” in order to save the people from themselves.

But Gold argues that Haiti needs long-term goals, not short-term solutions that will make volunteers feel better about themselves. “The saplings donated by compassionate Americans grow nicely for about eight hours. Then they are cut down for kindling. So hey, nice do-gooders! Provide oil for cooking; educate the peasants about the value of trees [...]. Contributing rice feeds the hungry today; it doesn’t help Haiti grow its own for next year.”
But no one’s talking about it. No one’s talking about the lack of sustainable aid for Haiti. No one’s talking about the blatantly racist terms under which Haiti was reintroduced to western trade in the early 20th century.

Haiti, through exploitation of its land and people for almost 200 years, provided France with free goods to trade with the United States and Great Britain.
The Monroe Doctrine, an American policy which sought to limit European intervention in the Americas, was adopted less than 20 years after Haiti gained independence. Tony Fraser, journalist for Trinidad and Tobago’s The Guardian, called the Monroe Doctrine a ploy for Americans “to secure the American backyard and to make it known to the foreign powers they were not welcomed.” Suddenly, without reasonable cause, Haiti was subject to American occupation, which undermined its independence and reinforced its economic and political dependence on foreign money.

Although Haiti fought for its colonial independence in 1804, the “little country that could” must now fight its way out of its neo-colonial shackles.

For more information, read “Harming Haiti” at thelinknewspaper.ca.