From Unity, 23 January 2010

“The poorest country in the western hemisphere”

by DMC

Following the earthquake in Haïti the news media reported, almost mantra-like, that Haïti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Apart from a few short articles, however, none have sought to explain why this should be the case. This silence, together with references to corruption and the detailed reporting of alleged widespread looting and lawlessness, invite the conclusion that the people have been largely responsible for the fact that Haïti is, in effect, a failed state. They have also by their actions made a disastrous situation even worse, if that were indeed possible.
     It would be impossible to do justice to an explanation of why this is a travesty of the truth in a short article such as this, but it is possible to highlight some of what brought Haïti and its people to the poverty in which they lived.
     You may recall that in 2004 the President, Aristide, having been elected with 75 per cent of the vote, was the victim of rendition by the US. He lives in exile in South Africa. He is a liberation theologian and had previously been the victim of another coup in 1991 by the Haïtian military, with US assistance. His party, Famni Lavalas, a leftist party, has been banned from taking part in the 2010 elections. FL still commands big support among the urban poor, and on 17 December 2009 thousands protested against this ban. This point should be borne in mind as you read on.
     Having deposed Aristide in 2004, the US established a multinational force (US, France, Canada, Chile), and then, three months and the deaths of many Famni Lavalas later, the US pushed through the UN a resolution authorising a peacekeeping force in Haïti. It is the only force in UN peacekeeping history to be deployed without a specific peacekeeping enforcement mandate. There had been no war in Haïti—just resentment that the US had deposed the elected president.
     Perhaps we have heard little of the history because of the role played by US governments and corporations in the impoverishment of Haïti. As Peter Hallward of Middlesex University said, “Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haïti’s people to move (in Aristide’s phrase) ‘from absolute misery to a dignified poverty’ has been violently and deliberately blocked.”
     Why is Port-au-Prince so overcrowded? Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haïti, says the people “were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities.”
     The US had previously rewritten the Haïtian constitution to make it more US and corporate-friendly—actually the job was given to FDR when he was Secretary for the Navy. Within a short time the old-growth mahogany and Caribbean pine had gone. Peasants were expelled from the land, and more than a million fruit trees were destroyed in a flawed attempt to replace them with rubber plantations.
     What we are witnessing now is another example of what Naomi Klein calls “shock doctrine” capitalism. The disaster will be used, in the words of the Heritage Foundation (a leading advocate of the shock doctrine), to ensure that the US response “offers opportunities to reshape Haïti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as improve the public image of the US in the region.” Kathy Robinson of Fortune 500 adds: “There is much we are planning as far as creating new and innovative ways of using international aid and government support to promote private investment.”
     On 14 January the IMF announced $100 million loans to Haïti, but this is to be added to existing debt of $165 million, with conditions “including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those on minimum wage, and keeping inflation low.” In 2003 Haïti spent $57.4 million to service debt. Foreign aid for education, health care and other services came to $39.21 million.
     So to the present crisis.
      Having signed over control of its airport to the US, US military planes are being given priority. France and Brazil have already complained. A plane carrying an inflatable surgical hospital for Médecins sans Frontières was blocked from landing in Port-au-Prince and had to reroute to the Dominican Republic and the hospital to be transported overland. This caused a 24-hour delay. A CARICOM (Caribbean Community) delegation to Haïti was refused permission to enter. CARICOM had expelled Haïti (later readmitted) after the coup in 2004.
     Hugo Chávez has said the US is occupying Haïti undercover in the name of aid, and, as the political complexion in the region has changed, having a US base in Haïti assumes greater importance. So we have thousands of US marines deployed for peace but armed for war, although a number of reporters have said there is little evidence of US troops “on the ground.” The deal struck is that US troops will secure incoming supplies and move them to four distribution hubs. UN troops will move aid to fourteen distribution locations. This raises the question why the US needs three thousand heavily armed marines to get supplies to four points.“The poorest country in the western hemisphere” by DMC Following the earthquake in Haïti the news media reported, almost mantra-like, that Haïti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. Apart from a few short articles, however, none have sought to explain why this should be the case. This silence, together with references to corruption and the detailed reporting of alleged widespread looting and lawlessness, invite the conclusion that the people have been largely responsible for the fact that Haïti is, in effect, a failed state. They have also by their actions made a disastrous situation even worse, if that were indeed possible.
     It would be impossible to do justice to an explanation of why this is a travesty of the truth in a short article such as this, but it is possible to highlight some of what brought Haïti and its people to the poverty in which they lived.
     You may recall that in 2004 the President, Aristide, having been elected with 75 per cent of the vote, was the victim of rendition by the US. He lives in exile in South Africa. He is a liberation theologian and had previously been the victim of another coup in 1991 by the Haïtian military, with US assistance. His party, Famni Lavalas, a leftist party, has been banned from taking part in the 2010 elections. FL still commands big support among the urban poor, and on 17 December 2009 thousands protested against this ban. This point should be borne in mind as you read on.
     Having deposed Aristide in 2004, the US established a multinational force (US, France, Canada, Chile), and then, three months and the deaths of many Famni Lavalas later, the US pushed through the UN a resolution authorising a peacekeeping force in Haïti. It is the only force in UN peacekeeping history to be deployed without a specific peacekeeping enforcement mandate. There had been no war in Haïti—just resentment that the US had deposed the elected president.
     Perhaps we have heard little of the history because of the role played by US governments and corporations in the impoverishment of Haïti. As Peter Hallward of Middlesex University said, “Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haïti’s people to move (in Aristide’s phrase) ‘from absolute misery to a dignified poverty’ has been violently and deliberately blocked.”
     Why is Port-au-Prince so overcrowded? Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haïti, says the people “were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities.”
     The US had previously rewritten the Haïtian constitution to make it more US and corporate-friendly—actually the job was given to FDR when he was Secretary for the Navy. Within a short time the old-growth mahogany and Caribbean pine had gone. Peasants were expelled from the land, and more than a million fruit trees were destroyed in a flawed attempt to replace them with rubber plantations.
     What we are witnessing now is another example of what Naomi Klein calls “shock doctrine” capitalism. The disaster will be used, in the words of the Heritage Foundation (a leading advocate of the shock doctrine), to ensure that the US response “offers opportunities to reshape Haïti’s long-dysfunctional government and economy as well as improve the public image of the US in the region.” Kathy Robinson of Fortune 500 adds: “There is much we are planning as far as creating new and innovative ways of using international aid and government support to promote private investment.”
     On 14 January the IMF announced $100 million loans to Haïti, but this is to be added to existing debt of $165 million, with conditions “including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those on minimum wage, and keeping inflation low.” In 2003 Haïti spent $57.4 million to service debt. Foreign aid for education, health care and other services came to $39.21 million.
     So to the present crisis.
      Having signed over control of its airport to the US, US military planes are being given priority. France and Brazil have already complained. A plane carrying an inflatable surgical hospital for Médecins sans Frontières was blocked from landing in Port-au-Prince and had to reroute to the Dominican Republic and the hospital to be transported overland. This caused a 24-hour delay. A CARICOM (Caribbean Community) delegation to Haïti was refused permission to enter. CARICOM had expelled Haïti (later readmitted) after the coup in 2004.
     Hugo Chávez has said the US is occupying Haïti undercover in the name of aid, and, as the political complexion in the region has changed, having a US base in Haïti assumes greater importance. So we have thousands of US marines deployed for peace but armed for war, although a number of reporters have said there is little evidence of US troops “on the ground.” The deal struck is that US troops will secure incoming supplies and move them to four distribution hubs. UN troops will move aid to fourteen distribution locations. This raises the question why the US needs three thousand heavily armed marines to get supplies to four points.

Home page  >  Publications  >  Unity  >  “The poorest country in the western hemisphere”
Baile  >  Foilseacháin  >  Unity  >  “The poorest country in the western hemisphere”