Introduction p. 1

Chapter 1: History - the subjugation of a people p.4

Chapter 2and 3: The US - partners in peace or nemesis
The UN & OAS - independent organizations or US lackeys

Chapter 4 and 5: International Aid - saviors or enslavers
Conclusion

Appendix: Acronyms and Statistics

Introduction:

The internationally monitored elections held in 1991 were to have ushered in a new era of democracy and the rule of law for Haiti and for seven months it appeared like it might actually have a chance despite the island's violent history of coups, rebellions and revolutions. In the past 190 years the tiny island nation has had twenty-one constitutions, forty-one heads of state, seven of whom served longer than ten years and nine who declared themselves Presidents/Emperors for life and twenty-nine of these leaders had been assassinated or overthrown. The new era was short lived however, for on September 30^th, 1991, history repeated its cycle once more as there occurred a military coup under the leadership of Lt. Gen. Rauol Cedras which overthrew the popularly elected civilian government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

What followed were a series of ineffective embargoes and failed negotiations led by the US, the OAS and the UN culminating in a US led invasion of Haiti. The US government has played a large, and at times indefensible, role in the events that took place and they were backed by groups such as the CIA, the Pentagon and US backed international aid organizations like USAID. Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton both focussed constantly upon short range goals such as winning the election in 1993 and they were willing to sacrifice long term interests in the pursuit of these goals. The US would be far better served by a democratic, stable and prosperous Haiti than one that is mired in civil unrest and abject poverty. This was not the first time the US had attempted to impress its will upon the tiny nation and undoubtably it will not be the last.

The US called in international organizations to legitimize its actions. Specifically the OAS in 1991 and the UN in 1993. By using the UN the way it did, the US has given the impression that the UN is merely an instrument of the US and the UN policies are shaped in Washington. This reduces the legitimizing power of the Security Council and creates the image that the "UN issues the warrants and the US makes the arrests"⁽¹⁾ based, of course, on US interests. Despite this the UN has done a commendable job with the missions that were sent to Haiti to restore order following the US pull-out.

The international lending organizations, led by the IMF, the World Bank and USAID, have also played their part in the furthering of US interests in Haiti and have been for almost twenty years. They have moulded the future for the country through their actions which will have a continuing impact for decades to come, whether or not democracy can take hold.

This paper will thus examine the historical context of US intervention, their shifting diplomatic positions and efforts, the role of the OAS and UN, and the use of aid organizations by the US to further their economic goals.Chapter 1: History - the subjugation of a people

The role of history in Haiti has a major impact upon events today and cannot be ignored. "History is rarely a serious explanation- especially history that runs deep. Analysis that go back a decade, let alone a century, seem moot- at least until the latest exercise in myopia reveals a new disaster."⁽²⁾ The history of Haiti is that of opposing interests and competing visions of the uses of the state and the meaning of nationhood. The roles of this history and the class structure are at the roots of the current crisis in Haiti.

In August, 1791, the slaves of the French colony of Saint-Domingue revolted against their enslavers and after twelve bloody years of war they created the world's first black republic. This was the only successful slave insurrection in history.⁽³⁾ The new Haitian elites, composed primarily of the grown children of mixed marriages between French plantation owners and black slave women, instantly began to treat the rural peasant/slave masses in the same fashion as the French overlords had. They turned the fiscal and marketing systems into mechanisms that would allow them to siphon off the wealth produced by the peasants. They heavily taxed food and other necessities while leaving luxury items, which they themselves consumed, virtually untouched. The urban elite minority forced the rural majority to the political margins through systematic electioneering fraud and manipulation and the use of violent repression. It became obvious that the maintenance of the elites' lifestyle was more important to them than the actual survival of the majority of the population. The state thus became "inherently predatory."⁽⁴⁾ The elites made their fortunes buying and selling the goods made by the poor, not by actually growing or producing anything themselves. The countryside became a mere class colony of the urban elites.

It took almost sixty years for the US to recognize the new country of Haiti and only then because the North required cotton to help support their war against the South (1862 US Civil War), and of course the Southern slave owners ceased to have a say in the White House and Congress. Haiti was also important to the US as a possible dumping ground for freed slaves following the war (their reason for recognizing Liberia as well in the same year).⁽⁵⁾

The revolution was followed by almost 200 other revolutions, coups, insurrections and civil wars due largely to the fact that the new elites treated the rural peasants just like the French had before them. For example despite almost 200 years of independence "the government has yet to collect income tax from most merchants, civil servants or middle-class employees,"⁽⁶⁾ The taxation primarily comes from the poor who have been totally politically and economically marginalised.

In 1915 the US occupied Haiti "to protect Chase National Bank assets, to halt mob violence, or to prevent the German community there from extending its influence at a time when war with Germany seemed more and more likely."⁽⁷⁾ Which of these was the prime motivating factor is still a matter of debate. The occupiers undertook to develop Haiti by doing things such as road building ( using forced labour) which caused many deaths and a revolt against the US Marines which cost thousands of lives. On a more positive note they also built schools, hospitals and an agricultural school. Unfortunately these were coupled with the training of a new Haitian army created specifically to fight Haitians⁽⁸⁾, as well they created a new centralized state power structure. This was accomplished by the reinforcing of the fiscal and economic power of the capital, Port-au-Prince, through the centralization of the customshouses. This combination proved lethal to any hopes of a democratic system taking hold and it also removed the "tenuous right of the majority to revolt."⁽⁹⁾ In 1934, after Senate debate as to why they were really there in the first place, the US pulled out its troops, but this was not to be the end of US influence. The new military became the only way other than priesthood for the poor to rise within the society and it altered the political landscape completely.

Up to the present the Haitian Army (FAdH) has not fought anyone except the Haitian people. In this they have had a lot of practice. The cadets of the Military School, set up by the US Marines, ousted President Elie Lescot (1941-1946), nominated and removed his successor, Dumarsaus Estime (1946-1950) and finally put one of their own in charge, Paul Magloe (1950-1956). The FAdH had become the political arbiter of Haitian politics.

Francois 'Papa Doc' Duvalier was installed by the military as well but he had read Haitian history. He gradually dismissed most of the senior officers and closed the Military School in order to stave off a potential coup. Unfortunately for the Haitian people, the US kept its hand in Haitian affairs. In 1962 US Army doctors revived Papa Doc from a coma, thus prolonging the suffering of the people. This was the same year that US President Kennedy funnelled in large amounts of military aid and financed the Francois Duvalier International Airport in return for Haitian support in the Organization of American States (OAS) vote to expel Cuba from their ranks.⁽¹⁰⁾ In 1971 the US Ambassador to Haiti, Clinton Knox, personally supervised the transition from Papa Doc to his son Jean-Claude'Baby Doc' Duvalier. Both of the Duvaliers used the power of the centralized state to formalize a system of absolute individual power. It was a system where one man ran almost everything in the country from military training to the writing of school exams.

Papa Doc created the Tontons Macoute, a secret police force that acted as his own personal death squad, as well as the Volontaires de la Securite Nationale (VSN) to act as his personal militia that was more loyal then the FAdH to Duvalier. He also took control of exports, increased taxation and took control of the import and distribution of basic commodities such as oil, flour, matches and tobacco. He made "their personal fortune the very raison d'etre of state revenues."⁽¹¹⁾ Some of these fortunes came with the advent of American light manufacturers being successfully wooed by Baby Doc in the late 1970s and 1980s.

By 1986 the country was ripe for a popular revolution again, in spite of, or because of, massive state repression and human rights abuses. To avoid his own seeming demise, Baby Doc was whisked away to France on a US Jet on February 7^th, 1986. He passed the leadership baton on to the National Governing Council (CNG), a six man junta led by General Henri Namphy. Grassroots and peasant organizations sprang up immediately seeking to eliminate the brutal section-chief structure which had been used to such effect throughout the two Duvalier's regimes. As well students began to fight for the end of the state control of the University. By 1987 tensions between the revolutionary militants and the petite bourgeois merchant reformers began to tear apart their once united front. For the merchant bourgeois "democracy was a way to overcome the Duvalierists and at the same time channel the revolutionary anger of the slum dwellers and peasantry."⁽¹²⁾

The first post-Duvalier elections culminated in a massacre of voters by the FAdH. By 1990 the situation in Haiti had become almost completely untenable. The country had little to no natural resources left, little to export, the fertile soil had been destroyed by erosion caused by the cutting down of the forests for charcoal, there was an AIDs epidemic with the only medical care coming from foreign charities and the gap between the elite and the poor was getting ever wider with 90% of the countries wealth in the hands of 10% of the population in a system based upon "personal loyalties, opportunism and terror."⁽¹³⁾ The absolutely predatory nature of Duvalier's policies accelerated the environmental degradation.

Between the end of the brutally repressive Duvalier regimes in 1986 and the elections in 1990 Haiti had seen eleven governments come and go as well as having two coups and one fake election before the popular movement began to march again to remove General Prosper Avril. Following Avril's removal, the interim President Ertha Pascal-Trouillot, a Duvalierist, set up new elections to be held in 1991. The revolutionary segment of the popular movement was held in check by the merchant-bourgeois who wanted free elections and not a bloody revolution.

The initial candidates up for the UN supervised 1990 Presidential elections were Roger Lafontant: a former head of the Tonton Macoute (Duvalier's personal death squad), Marc Bazin: a former World Bank official whose campaign was financed by the US (to the tune of $36 million mostly from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)⁽¹⁴⁾) and Professor Victor Benoit: a compromise candidate with little popular support. Bazin was considered by the masses as a "front man for military and business interests."⁽¹⁵⁾ With these to choose from the electorate was looking at a US/Duvalierist government being formed and because of this Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a charismatic Salesian priest, entered the race in place of Benoit under the 'Lavalas' or 'flood' banner. This was a biblical reference conveying "the purifying and sweeping nature of the popular uprising that would rid the country of the twin evils of the Duvalierist terror and foreign domination."⁽¹⁶⁾ Within a week of Aristide announcing his candidacy the electoral rolls doubled.

Aristide's doctrine was a mix of democracy, nationalism and liberation theology. He was an enigma, making "vague metaphoric and mystical pronouncements."⁽¹⁷⁾ Aristide promised land redistribution and an end to favouritism, corruption and violence. He was an opponent of US economic 'cures' for Haiti such as privatisation of state-run enterprises, reduction of taxes and wages to help foreign investors, cutting social programs to insure debt repayments and creating an export economy. Aristide instead wanted to support national industry, create a self-sufficient land use system, cut contraband imports (especially the drug trade), raise the minimum wage and overhaul the government bureaucracy to root out corruption.

Aristide was supported by the merchant-bourgeois under groups such as the National Front for Change and Democracy (FNCD). As well he drew support from grassroots workers, peasant farmers, student organizations, ecclesiastical committees, labour unions and neighbourhood associations.

Haiti was "perhaps the greatest malfunction of all the US election engineering done since the early 1980s throughout Latin America."⁽¹⁸⁾ Their candidate Bazin (12% of the vote) and all other candidates lost to the landslide of support given to Aristide (67% of the vote).

Aristide's Presidency showed the lowest level of state sponsored human rights abuses in recent Haitian history but behind the scenes there was a major power struggle going on. After his election, Aristide made clear his intention to build an independent political structure around the mass support of the people and not around the FNCD. The embittered organization then preceded to actively undermine and destabilise the government.⁽¹⁹⁾ Added to this was the state of tension within Port-au-Prince with a nervous minority desperately trying to hold on to its privileges facing a huge majority of some 1.2-1.8 million people with little, if anything, to lose. There was the perception among the elites that Aristide "might not even try to control Port-au-Prince's masses if that human flood decided to take the law in its hands."⁽²⁰⁾ The security forces were especially afraid of reprisals by the mob led by Aristide due to their role in the numerous murders of his followers and the three attempts on Aristide's life.

Haiti's 'second independence' was short-lived however, as Aristide was only in power from February 7^th , 1991, to September 29^th , 1991. Lt. Gen. Rauol Cedras led a military coup which installed itself on September 30^th of that year. The coup successfully drove the masses away from the political arena. The attempts to get rid of Duvalierism by legal means had failed. The 1987 constitution barred Duvalierists from power but it was ignored and the 1987 elections were a massacre. The people finally were allowed to vote in a relatively free election and the results were overturned by yet another coup. It was into this situation that the US, the UN and international aid organizations entered in the Fall of 1991.

1. 'The Expanding Role of the United Nations and its Implications for United Kingdom Policy' 3^rd Report of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.vol.1, London: HMSO, June 1993.

2. Ramesh Thaker and C.A. Thayer (ed) A Crisis of Expectations, Boulder: Westview, 1995, p.46.

3. Robert Debs Heinl Jr. and Nancy Gordon Heinl Written in Blood. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1978.,p.6.

4. Michel-Rolph Trouillot 'Haiti's Nightmare and the Lessons of History' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol.XVII, no.4, Jan/Feb (1994), p.49.

5. Noam Chomsky 'Democracy Enhancement Part II: The Case of Haiti' Znet @ www.lbbs.org/zmag/articles/chom3.htm

6. Michel-Rolph Trouillot 'Haiti's Nightmare and the Lessons of History'NACLA Report on the Americas.vol XVII no 4 (Jan/Feb 1994).,p.47.

7. Sidney W. Mintz 'Can Haiti Change?'Foreign Affairs.vol 24 no 1(1995).,p.84.

8. Michel-Rolph Trouillot 'Haiti's Nightmare and the Lessons of History' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no. 4, (Jan/Feb 1994).,p.49.

9. Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Ibid., p.49.

10. Noam Chomsky 'Democracy Enhancement Part II: The Case of Haiti' Znet @ www.lbbs.org/zmag/articles/chom3.htm, p.4.

11. Michel-Roplh Trouillot 'Haiti's Nightmare and the Lessons of History' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no.4, (Jan/Feb 1994)., p.51.

12. Kim Ives 'The Lavalas Alliance Propels Aristide to Power' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no.4, (Jan/Feb 1994), p.18.

13. Pamela Constable 'Haiti: A Nation in Despair, A Policy Adrift' Current History.,(Mar 1994).,p.110.

14. Kim Ives 'The Unmaking of a President' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no.4, (Jan/Feb 1994), p.18.

15. Noam Chomsky 'Democracy Enhancement Part II: The Case of Haiti' Znet @ www.lbbs.org/zmag/articles/chom3.htm, p.14.

16. Kim Ives 'The Lavalas Alliance Propels Aristide to Power 'NACLA Report on the Americas. vol XVII no 4 (Jan/Feb 1994).,p.19.

17. Pamela Constable 'Haiti: A Nation in Despair, A Policy Adrift' Current History. (Mar 1994).,p.111.

18. Kim Ives 'The Unmaking of a President 'NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII no 4 (Jan/Feb 1994).,p.19.

19. Marx V. Aristide & Laurie Richardson 'Haiti's Popular Resistance' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no.4, (Jan/Feb 1994)., p.34.

20. Michel-Rolph Trouillot 'Haiti's Nightmare and the Lessons of History' NACLA Report on the Americas. vol. XVII, no.4, (Jan/Feb 1994)., p.51.