Haiti: 20 Years and the Same Mistakes. What is Brazil's Role?
Neno Garbers has lived in Haiti since 2012, where he is a researcher, professor, correspondent and mediator of Non-Violent Communication. This article was written by Garbers especially for issue 113 of the WBO weekly newsletter, dated April 19, 2024. To subscribe to the newsletter, enter your email in the field below.
Brazil led the military component of United Nations Mission for the Stabilization of Haiti (MINUSTAH) for 13 years. Around US$ 1 billion (R$ 5 billion) annually was spent on this mission, which involved 36 countries and a very expensive structure, with work concentrated on the military aspect, which included the promotion of disarmament of the population, the dismantling of armed groups and gangs, and the restructuring and training of the Haiti National Police – objectives that, in my view, Haiti itself could have achieved.
Now, seven years after the end of MINUSTAH, there is once again talk of establishing a new foreign mission in Haiti. But first, we have to ask ourselves: how was it possible that a mission, with so many international agents, supported political groups linked to the USA, who use gangs to stay in power, bypassing a series of important, respected political agents with a history of democracy in Haiti?
More than that, MINUSTAH sent soldiers and forgot that every young person “separated” from armed groups needs a new “job,” investment, and reintegration. And, finally, investments in the Haitian National Police were meager.
First of all, Haiti's problems are infrastructure, work, health, and education. No gang co-opts young people who have options that value them more. The people know what kind of support they want. I've been stopped on the street countless times by people asking me, not for food, despite being hungry, but for payment of their children's school bills.
In recent months, we have seen, once again, Haiti being on the agenda of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an economic and political cooperation bloc in the region created in 1973, after the independence of several former European colonies and which today has 16 member countries and 1 observer country, Cuba. After listening to all the political groups present there in a search for mediation, the bloc now proposes a Provisional Presidential Council for Haiti, with 7 members from different political groups in Haiti. CARICOM’s proposal includes a clear point: that all members of this Council agree with the “non-UN” mission approved by the UN Security Council in October 2023.
It is an attempt for Haitian political agents to give approval and a free hand for a new mission to enter the country that has suffered so much from fill-in missions, one of the main reasons for the current situation. This mission proposal, in fact, was requested by a provisional prime minister, Ariel Henry, under US guidance, and considered illegitimate and demoralizing, as it did not achieve either of its only two objectives in its more than two years in power: improving conditions of the country's security and organizing elections.
In fact, it is worth remembering that Henry is accused of being linked to the same gangs that invaded the prisons and is seen as illegitimate and suspicious by a large part of society, as he was appointed by Jovenel Moïse, a former president who, at that time, whose term had already ended and continued in power until July 7, 2021. On this date Jovenel was mysteriously murdered, precisely three days after the appointment of Ariel Henry as Prime Minister, in a crime that has not been clarified to this day, with several signs of obstruction of justice and without having all of its possible perpetrators investigated.
Demanding that a Haitian must agree with the mission to be a member of the Council has a name: international blackmail and new political imposition. It is an attack on the sovereignty of these people, absurd anywhere in the world, normalized when it comes to Haiti. So far, no government in the world has publicly taken a stance against the imposition.
I once participated in a colloquium here, organized by Haitians, where more than 50 local and global organizations together analyzed MINUSTAH in depth, with the testimony of hundreds of victims. After the colloquium, a People's Court was organized where state crimes were judged. None of the bodies responsible for the mission were present.
Now, without evaluation, without accountability, without justice, without self-criticism, a new mission has been proposed, along similar lines, and perhaps worse, with a “non-United Nations” character. Would this be a way to avoid any future liability? It seems that the only conclusion that the UN learned from its experience in Haiti was to protect itself better so as not to be incriminated for its crimes. Why would the head of a foreign police force agree to work in Haiti, knowing that crimes have never been prosecuted here? What reporting, monitoring, and prevention mechanisms would a “non-UN” mission have?
Apparently, Prime Minister Henry's real mission was to direct the arrival of a security force. With this mission almost accomplished, this week he announced that he will leave his position as soon as this Council is established. Kenya, which had volunteered for the mission, suspended its participation after the CARICOM resolution.
The political party Pitit Desalin (Sons of Dessalines), a group historically opposed to the governments that have been in power since 2011 and which sought to be part of the agreement, decided, because of this clause, not to enter the Council and denounce its imposition. According to Jacques Adler, one of the party's members, the idea of the international community there, especially the United States, is that a new mission, along the same lines as the old ones, be imposed. He ends: ‘’a scalded cat is afraid of cold water.” Several groups have denounced that this measure was taken precisely to further divide Haitians, and then accuse them of not being able to reach a consensus.
It is noteworthy that Haitians were initially given 24 hours to decide whether they would participate in the Council and send the names of their representatives. Adler is categorical in saying that the idea of the international community is to “do everything in a hurry, to pass decisions that are not the popular will of Haitians.” The use of the idea of emergency so that measures are approved without the necessary reflection and political discussion raises even more suspicions that the USA, Henry, and the gangs are acting together so that the worsening of acts of violence becomes the main argument for the installation of a new mission.
More questions remain: Why are there no efforts to invite more important local political actors to the table? Today I woke up to a comment from one of them, who feels excluded: ‘’Have the seven international mind slaves already been chosen?’’ Does CARICOM believe that its decisions will be accepted by groups that were never included in the debate?
With this blackmail we see that, even when serious local politicians have some possibility of dialoguing in international decision-making spaces, this happens in a previously delimited, restricted, and manipulated way. What level of sovereignty and what democratic transition does the international community really expect for Haiti?
This all makes it clear how politicians in Haiti, including Henry, continue to look like pieces in a chess game that the United States, France, and Canada largely determine. In this game, Haitians seem to be pawns and the first to fall when they have finished providing their services in the name of the kings.
The current situation recalls 20 years ago, a period in which a president elected by a large popular majority, according to him, ''was kidnapped and deposed'' by external forces, replaced by a temporary president, who then requested a peace mission to this same external community. This mission, in fact, remained in the country for 13 years and brought us directly to today's catastrophe.
To date, Brazil has not expressed interest in participating in the new UN mission in the Caribbean country. Behind-the-scenes information says that Brazil does not evaluate MINUSTAH's results positively and, furthermore, it was this mission that was responsible for catapulting a series of military figures into national political life.
Brazil continues to have a certain local relevance for a reason: its place in the hearts of Haitians, despite everything. Brazil's support for legal migration with a humanitarian visa, among other cooperation projects in the country, is undeniable. But when are we going to act in an emphatic and planned way so that Haitians can stay in their country?
Since Brazil and the United States have different views about the first Black Republic and the character of these missions, doesn't Haiti deserve to be a point of contention, just as Palestine has been? Could Brazil not propose and lead other forms of South-South, anti-racist, and anti-colonial cooperation?
