Haiti: A Lesson for Supporters of NATO's Libya Campaign

The idea that the same three powers -- the United States, France and Britain - who have punished Haiti so mercilessly are now bombing Libya as part of a tireless effort to promote a "democratic transition" is absurd.

In 1823 Major General John Murray, the governor of a British slave colony in Jamaica, was confronted by a rebellion. In desperation, he promised the slaves 'reforms'. They rejected his bargaining - responding that it provided "no comfort". "Tired of being slaves", they demanded that "they should be free, and would not work anymore".

Such simple, and powerful, declarations of a right to liberty were common in the wave of slave rebellions of the 19th Century, and vindicate Immanuel Kant's dismissal of the idea that "some men are not meant for freedom".

The first successful slave revolt had come three decades earlier in neighbouring Haiti.

A Little Haitian History

Much like the Congo, Haiti was cursed by her wealth. In 1789, Haiti produced 40% of the world's sugar, 50% of its coffee, and led cotton production. She was by far France's most valuable colony, and as such, was subjected to extreme oppression. Aside from the unimaginable suffering inflicted on her people, Haiti's face was also irrevocably scarred by extreme deforestation. The ecological and economic consequences are still evident.

The Haitians were excluded from the liberté, égalité and fraternité declared in the French revolutionary constitution, but soon decided that they too had a right to freedom. Despite no mandate in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, in 1791 the Haitian push for freedom, equality, and brotherhood also flourished, written as it is on every human heart.

For this they have been severely punished. In 1804, Haiti established the world's first free, black, post-colonial nation (paid for with the lives of about 100,000 of its people).

France responded by demanding massive reparations from Haiti for the loss of revenue. This financially crippled her, and allowed French banks to reacquire large amounts of Haitian land.

One might be tempted to condemn the French for such an atrocity, and point out that it was they who should be paying reparations, were it not for the fact that this demand was supported by Britain, following a failed British attempt to take Haiti for the Empire between 1793 and 98. The military campaign to capture Haiti was a disaster. As Historian John Newsinger points out: "it was one of the greatest disasters in British military history", and therefore "hardly figures in histories [of the empire]".

Crushing Democracy

As is generally the case, the United States took over from the British and French Empires. On July 28th 1915, President Wilson (the renowned isolationist and "idealist") invaded and occupied Haiti. She remained under direct US control until 1934, when a US backed military Guard took over.

From 1957 to 1990, Haiti was ruled by the brutal Duvalier dictatorship, backed not only by the US but by the Catholic Church. In 1980, no less a person than Mother Teresa visited Haiti, and praised Baby Doc, who in 1971 won an "election" with 99.98% of the vote (a figure reminiscent of the recent Moroccan Referendum).

But in 1990 there was a free election in Haiti - now one of the poorest countries in the world. Following a great deal of popular organization, the Haitians legally, and fairly, elected Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The US-backed candidate, World Bank official Marc Bazin, got just 14% of the vote. The election should be remembered as the second time Haiti pioneered world democracy and independence, but alas cannot be, as seven months later Aristide was deposed in a CIA-backed coup, and forced into exile.

Aristide was allowed to return in 1994, under the condition that he adopt Bazin's policies, and after the population had been terrorised by militias that were, once again, backed by Washington. The US was evidently worried about the record of its proxy gangsters as in 1997 the Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch condemned the Clinton administration for stealing "160,000 documents, including photographs of torture victims, that the United States military seized from the Haitian Army and its paramilitary allies in 1994".

In 2001 Aristide was re-elected. But after opening up a trade relationship with Venezuela, he was once again deposed in coup backed by the CIA in March 2004. This time he was not only removed but kidnapped by US Navy SEALS and taken into exile in South Africa.

Wikileaks and an Earthquake

Aristide was then subjected to a campaign of calumny by the Vatican, which accused him of practising 'Voodoo', and said it had "no regrets" about his "departure". The Wikileaks cables on Haiti show us that the French saw the prospect of an Aristide return to Haiti as a "catastrophe". Thanks to Wikileaks, and the wonderful work of journalist Kim Ives, we even know that when Dominican President Fernandez suggested that Aristide should be involved in Haiti's future, he was told he was "wrong" and castigated by the US ambassador. The Ambassador claimed that Aristide was involved in drug trafficking. No evidence has ever emerged to justify this claim despite an expansive US 'investigation'.

In 2010 Haiti was hit by an Earthquake that killed 230,000 people in the capital Port-au-Prince, and in February 2011 Aristide vowed to return to his suffering nation. Barack Obama, who evidently disagrees with Kant, responded by asking South African President Jacob Zuma to delay his return, and Aristide's political party Fanmi Lavalas was banned from taking part in the planned election.

Wikileaks cables, again, help clarify this. They reveal that Washington viewed the idea of an Aristide return as "dangerous to Haiti's democratic consolidation". Aye there's the rub.

Aristide did return on March 17th 2011 to a hero's welcome. In a speech to the crowd that awaited him, he said: "In 1804, the Haitian revolution marked the end of slavery. Today, may the Haitian people end exiles and coup d'états, while peacefully moving from social exclusion to inclusion". No doubt to Washington, this was the real Earthquake.

Once you understand that the return of a democratically elected leader like Aristide is dangerous to democracy, the relevance of Haiti's history to the NATO 'intervention' in Libya becomes clear. The idea that the same three powers -- the United States, France and Britain - who have punished Haiti so mercilessly are now bombing Libya as part of a tireless effort to promote a "democratic transition" is absurd given the conception of "democracy" the Wikileaks cables reveal.

Close

What's Hot