Home Blog Page 3

Canadian Imperialism in Haiti

1
Canadian PM Justin Trudeau and U.S. President Joe Biden in March 2022. Photo: AP

This is part one of a three-part series by The Canada Files on Canadian imperialism in Haiti, versus the fight of the Haitian grassroots to free themselves from Western occupation.

On Apr. 2, a Haitian solidarity group named “Debout pour la dignité” (Stand up for Dignity) demonstrated in front of Prime-Minister Trudeau’s office in Montreal.

Their main demand is that Canada intervene in Haiti. The organization’s President, Wilner Cayo, spoke to the 200 demonstrators – all members of the Haitian diaspora. According to a Journal de Montreal report, he told the demonstrators that they want a “serious commitment” from the Canadian government” and that “Canada can make a difference.”

Joseph Flaubert Duclair, a member of Debout pour la Dignité told a Journal de Montréal reporter “we do not want a military invasion, but an operational force that intervenes on an ad hoc basis.” Duclair believes “Canada must do that, we don’t trust other countries.”

Debout pour la Dignité’s endorsement of a Canadian-led intervention in Haiti does not necessarily reflect the opinions of a majority in Canada’s Haitian diaspora. Only seven months ago, several leaders in the community told the Toronto Star’s Marisela Matador that they were against an intervention. Chantal Ismé, vice-president of community organization Maison d’Haïti and member of the Coalition haïtienne au Canada contre la dictature en Haïti, said most of Montreal’s Haitian community opposes foreign military intervention. Jean Ernest Pierre, owner and host of CPAM 1410 — a French-language radio station primarily serving the Haitian community in Montreal, echoed Ismé’s opposition saying “foreign military intervention and occupation have never helped Haiti and have only caused more harm.”

Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly in Ottawa in March 2022. Photo: Adrian Wyld

Reflecting the debate that is happening internationally, the Haitian diaspora have varied opinions on whether an foreign intervention into Haiti would help worsen the crisis there.

Understanding the framework for an intervention and occupation of Haiti

Following President Jovenel Moïse’s assassination on Jul. 7, 2021, interim Prime Minister Claude Joseph took power. Joseph’s successor, Ariel Henry, had already been appointed by Moïse, but was not yet sworn in at the time of the assassination. Washington and the CORE Group, of which Canada is a member, decided Dr. Ariel Henry ought to be the government’s head and installed him as Haiti’s de facto Prime Minister by a tweet on Jul. 17, 2021 that linked to a short statement by the CORE Group, which was dutifully posted by BINUH, the United Nations Office in Haiti.

The move demonstrated Haiti’s current status as a neo-colony, ruled by the American government and its CORE Group allies. Henry’s appointment by the neocolonial powers was in itself an intervention. It was also a holding action to allow Washington and the CORE group to organize a framework for intervention, while escalating the crisis of insecurity and poverty inside Haiti by way of Henry’s corruption and delaying tactics. Henry, who has no popular mandate, requested this intervention on Oct. 9, 2022. This request was supported by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

The framework offered by Guterres in an Oct. 8, 2022, letter to the Security Council offers two options. One, a “special military force” whose aim would be to establish order in Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince. Two, “support for the Haitian National Police (PNH)” in the form of “advisors”, equipment, training, weapons, and ammunition.

Efforts to simply invade and occupy Haiti were blocked at the Security Council by Russia and China. This followed concerted efforts by the Black Alliance for Peace and Haïti Liberté to lobby the governments of the two countries to block efforts by the U.S. and UN to send in a “Special Military Force.” These two organizations effectively relayed what the Haitian people have clearly expressed repeatedly: No to another foreign military intervention!

Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Mélanie Joly, confirmed this in a comment made during an interview with RDI’s Daniel Thibeault on “Les Coulisses du Pouvoir.” Joly lamented that “the problem with the UN at the moment is that the Security Council is paralyzed because China and particularly Russia are blocking any form of work that can be done via the Council.” This highlighted Canada’s diplomatic support for the de facto leader’s request for intervention, despite Henry’s lack of support and a popular mandate.

In an Oct. 8, 2022 letter to the Security Council, Guterres explains that “the Haitian National Police is spread thinly.” According to Guterres, “some 13,000 officers are reportedly assigned to law enforcement activities” in Haiti. Importantly, “only a third are believed to be operational and undertaking public security functions at any given time.”

The number of PNH officers is believed to have dropped to somewhere between 9,000-10,000. The UN calculates that Haiti has a ratio of police officers to the population of 1.06 police officers per 1,000 inhabitants. This is nearly half of the UN’s suggested international ratio of 2.2 per 1,000.

It is understood that significant numbers of the officers are beholden to criminal gangs, work as personal security for corrupt politicians, or collaborate with vigilance brigades outside of the PNH’s command structure.

an “international force” of 3,000-5,000 would certainly lead to foreign officers having a significant and direct effect on daily life in Haiti.

Inadvertently outlining the risks of imperialist “support for the PNH” in the Dec. 2, 2022 Washington Post, former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti called for the Biden administration to send “2,000 armed law enforcers” to Haiti. To avoid the optics of thousands of armed American law enforcers landing in Haiti, she proposes that the U.S. “send in a couple of hundred at a time, over six months, with little fanfare.”

If “support for the PNH” becomes a slow but steady flow of foreign officers and military personnel into Haiti, foreign officers could easily match or outnumber the current PNH personnel, leading to a foreign occupation by a different name. This “support” can be framed as Haitian-led, as a handful of PNH officers would surely have a symbolic role in “anti-gang” police operations.

The reality is that an “international force” of 3,000-5,000 would certainly lead to foreign officers having a significant and direct effect on daily life in Haiti. “Support for the PNH” is simply foreign military intervention by another name.

Minister Joly casually confirmed how purported support for Haiti’s police can function as political doublespeak for occupation and oppression. “Canada is always a leader on the issue of Haiti,” she said, having “helped train police officers for years.” Joly is either unaware or forgetting that the police training she is referring to involved the RCMP being brought to Haiti to train PNH officers immediately after the 2004 coup d’état against democratically elected President Jean Bertrand Aristide. Aristide won over 90% of the popular vote in the 2000 elections, while thousands of Fanmi Lavalas (FL) candidates were also elected to various government posts. Most of them were also deposed during the coup.

An investigation by authors Nik Barry-Shaw and Dru Oja Jay revealed that the RCMP “provided training and vetting to the new Haitian National Police, which brought back many of the members of the feared national army that had been disbanded by Aristide.” This followed Canada’s active role in the coup that “plunged Haiti into violence and chaos from which it has yet to recover.”

Their investigation shows that RCMP-trained Haitian police were “frequently accompanied by U.S and Canadian soldiers and later United Nations forces” as they “embarked on a series of forays into the poorest neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince.” The PNH “killed innocent civilians, imprisoned political dissidents without charge, and drove key Aristide supporters into hiding or exile.”

When it became clear to Washington and the CORE Group in late 2022 that any attempt at a military intervention would be rejected by the Haitian people and blocked at the Security Council, Guterres’ second option for intervening in Haiti was accepted: “Supporting the PNH” through sales of arms, military equipment, military vehicles, training, and military and police “advisors”. As Joly explained, “the situation in Haiti has worsened and justifies Canada’s approach of strengthening the National Police of Haiti.”

In other words, the CORE Group’s support for PM Ariel Henry has caused insecurity and armed gang violence to grow to such a degree that a foreign intervention in some form seems inevitable.

Who will lead the occupation of Haiti?

Washington and the CORE Group have struggled to find a national leader willing to lead an intervention into Haiti, with only a handful of Caribbean and African nations offering to provide personnel or soldiers to support the PNH.

Efforts by the UN and Washington to find a nation willing to lead an armed intervention have so far failed. Even Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has, so far, refused the role. Instead, he tried to find a CARICOM leader to do so at the organization’s recent biannual leaders summit. He did get some nibbles from a handful of Caribbean leaders, among them Jamaican Prime MinisterAndrew Holness.

While willing to implicate himself in negotiations with Ariel Henry and various rival political and civil society groups, Holness couldn’t muster enough personnel and expertise to lead the intervention.

“six-month[s] is really a bait on the end of a hook to any country that might lead or contribute to a force there…. We’re likely talking five to 10, 15 years because we’re talking about nation-building.”

A few weeks later, U.S. President Joe Biden made his first visit to Canada. At the top of the agenda was Haiti. Trudeau again eschewed the call to lead an intervention into Haiti. After telling the media “Canada is elbows deep in terms of trying to help,” Trudeau promised another $100 million for the PNH and deployed two Kingston-class warships to “do reconnaissance” along Haiti’s coast. This followed Canada flying a military spy plane over Haiti, purportedly to do reconnaissance on gang activity. In addition, Canada has organized the sale of some armored vehicles to the PNH, with more on the way. Canadian Ambassador to Haiti Sébastien Carrière summed up the moves as “a significant military deployment.”

The initial delivery of armored vehicles was instrumental in breaking the blockade of the Varreaux fuel terminal in November of 2022.

Canadian military leaders have made it clear that they don’t have the resources to lead a mission into Haiti, making that scenario unlikely.

Furthermore, the timeline proposed for an intervention into Haiti is unrealistic, with retired Canadian General Tom Lawson making this blunt assessment to Matt Galloway on CBC Radio’s The Current: “…six-month[s] is really a bait on the end of a hook to any country that might lead or contribute to a force there. We are not talking six months. We’re not talking a couple of years. We’re likely talking five to 10, 15 years because we’re talking about nation-building. We’re not talking about establishing a safe and secure area for the government now to get to its tasks. We’re talking about a non-functioning government… And that’s in terms of – like we’ve seen in Afghanistan and Iraq – decades.”

Lawson’s observations underline how “support” for the PNH is simply providing cover for what would become another foreign occupation of Haiti.

Leading an occupation force into Haiti for a decade or more, with a population hostile to foreign troops, against gangs who are integrated into the geography and populations of Port-au-Prince, is likely unpalatable to Trudeau, who must be aware of this assessment.

Trudeau has no doubt been briefed about the 2004-2017 UN occupation force MINUSTAH. Its original mandate was for six months but was extended for over 12 years.

PM Trudeau has enthusiastically created a list of sanctioned Haitian politicians, so-called gang leaders and “business leaders.” This sanctions regime has been entirely performative. The few sanctioned Haitians who have any money or property in Canada have yet to see these sanctions enforced. More importantly, the vast majority of the targeted Haitian leaders and politicians have their money and investments in the United States.

Prior to the announcement of Henry’s December 21 Accord last year, it seemed that these sanctions were designed to get the fractured Haitian political class and business sector in line with Washington’s dictates. These sanctions have not threatened Henry’s power. While visiting the CARICOM biannual leaders meeting, he explained to VOA Kreyol that the sanctions have been “helpful” to him.

Ariel Henry’s main political rival: the Montana Accord coalition

Leaders of another Montreal-based Haiti solidarity group, Solidarite Quebec-Haiti (SQH) have recently thrown their support behind the Montana Accord. In an interview with Le Journal de Montreal, SQH leader Frantz André explained that “there must be a tactical force that provides on-site support, in coordination with the Montana group.” In a separate interview, SHQ’s Jean Saint-Vil also offered support for the Montana Accord, as did feminist activist Chantal Ismé.

SQH recently invited the Montana Accord’s proposed interim President, Fritz Alphonse Jean, to speak to Montreal’s Haitian community on Apr. 22, 2023 at the Haitian Cultural Association Perle Retrouvée.

The Montana Accord was born in August 2021. It was a result of a consultative process that began months before Moïse’s assassination and included Haitian civil society organizations, peasant’s organizations, political parties, and religious groups. The Accord includes a two-year transition plan centered on a provisional government that would oversee elections.

Magali Comeau Denis (left) heads the Montana Accord coalition, the chief political rival of Haiti’s de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry.

They purportedly had the support of somewhere between 400 and 650 groups and organizations from various sectors of Haitian society.

While Fritz Alphonse Jean is currently touring and speaking on behalf of the Montana Accord’s coalition, two other individuals tend to speak to the media on the coalition’s behalf: Magali Comeau Denis and Jacque Ted Saint Dic. Denis and Saint Dic have led the coalition since its early days prior to the announcement of the Montana Accord.

Comeau Denis and Saint Dic are now Henry’s political rivals, but this was not always the case. Following the American- and Canadian-backed 2004 coup, a “Council of Sages” was formed (sometimes referred to as the Council of the Wise). This council consisted of academics, cultural leaders, and politicians who supported the coup. Among this council’s “cultural leaders” tasked with selecting the post-coup government’s leaders was Ariel Henry.

They worked to consolidate the coup while the Latortue – Boniface dictatorship led a bloody campaign against FL members and supporters.

Magali Comeau Denis was one of the members of Haiti’s bourgeoisie whom the Council of Sages selected for the coup government. She was made “Minister of Information & Culture” in defacto Prime Minister Gérard Latortue’s regime.

This followed her active role in undermining the FL in the run up to the 2004 coup. Comeau Denis co-wrote a letter signed by dozens of Haiti’s elite, calling Aristide’s government a “tyrannical power.” The declaration claimed Aristide’s government was experiencing a “totalitarian drift” in addition to “incompetence and corruption.” The declaration claimed that by withdrawing support from the government, they were showing “unity” with fellow Haitians who had overwhelmingly voted for Aristide and the FL.

Comeau Denis eagerly participated in the anti-Lavalas campaign, similar to “human rights defender” Pierre Espérance, who targeted FL Prime Minister Yvon Neptune with manufactured accusations of orchestrating a massacre in La Scierie. Comeau Denis also levied accusations of murder against another FL leader as part of a campaign to criminalize the overwhelmingly popular party and suppress dissent.

In 2005, a journalist named Jaque Roches was found dead near a Port-au-Prince neighborhood where the FL remained popular. Comeau Denis accused an FL leader, the Rev. Gérard Jean-Juste, of orchestrating the murder. No evidence was offered.

This led to Jean-Juste being attacked in a Pétionville Church at Roches’ funeral by members of the Group of 184, a U.S.-backed “civil society” front. He survived the beating, only to be jailed for seven months by the regime. Upon his release, he was diagnosed with leukemia which he ultimately succumbed to a few years later in 2009.

Comeau Denis’ baseless allegations against Jean-Juste were part of a widespread propaganda campaign waged against FL, largely led by Pierre Espérance, the director of the National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH, formerly NCHR – Haiti).

Backed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), NCHR-Haiti engaged in a “close working partnership with Latortue’s dictatorship.” According to Richard Sanders, a Global Fellow at the Wilson Center’s Canada Institute, NCHR-Haiti “became, in effect, an arm of the illegal ‘interim’ government.”

Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH), described NCHR-Haiti as a “ferocious critic” of Aristide’s government and an “ally” of the illegal regime, formally called the Interim Government of Haiti (IGH).

According to Concannon, the Latortue regime “had an agreement with NCHR-Haiti to prosecute anyone the organization denounced.”

“People perceived to support Haiti’s constitutional government or Fanmi Lavalas, the political party of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, [were] systematically persecuted from late February through the present. In many cases, the de facto government of Prime Minister Gérard Latortue is directly responsible for the persecution,” Concannon explains. NCHR-Haiti “became increasingly politicized and, in the wake of the 2004 coup d’état, it cooperated with the IGH in persecuting Lavalas activists. The persecution became so flagrant that NCHR-Haiti’s former parent organization, New York-based NCHR, publicly repudiated the Haitian group and asked it to change its name.”

It is no surprise then, that Pierre Espérance, who continues to occupy the position of RNDDH’s director, is also a supporter of the Montana Accord.

Comeau Denis’ commitment to democracy and the Haitian constitution is not credible. She represents a sector of the Haitian bourgeoisie opposes PHTK rule but is in no way committed to democracy or Haitian sovereignty. Expecting a transitional government with Comeau Denis in a leadership role to rebuild a state, democracy, and maintain Haitian sovereignty, when she spent years destroying all three, strains credulity.

Rebuild a bourgeoisie or solidarity with the masses?

Ted Jacques Saint Dic, an economist by training, is one of the main spokespersons for the Montana Accord and, like Comeau Denis, has led the coalition behind the Accord since the beginning.

In September 2022, Saint Dic explained his mission “to lay the foundations for the reconstruction of a national bourgeoisie.” This was to be achieved by pushing for “a global consensus within the private sector” in Haiti.

Saint Dic doesn’t hide where his priorities are as a leader of the Montana coalition.Speaking on “Panel Magik” on Aug. 31, 2022, Saint Dic argued that the “political consensus needs to be broadened” and recommended reaching out to private sector leaders. “A united block of private sector leaders will have more political and social influence to find a solution to the crisis.”

Montana leader Ted Saint Dic said that the U.S. has a “powerful and important role in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.”

What followed on Dec. 8, 2022 was a statement from the business community in Port-au-Prince promising to “cooperate with a consensus transitional administration to develop and present a political, humanitarian, and economic roadmap towards a new Haiti.”

The statement was signed by many business leaders and oligarchs based in Port-au-Prince, including, Laurent Saint-Cyr, representing the Western Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Jean-Philippe Boisson, representing the American Chamber of Commerce of Haiti, Michelle Mourra, representing the Haitian-Canadian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Fritz Mevs, representing Association of Ports of Haiti, Eddy Deeb, the son of Haitian oligarch Reynold Deeb, and Reuven Bigio, son of Gilbert Bigio, a Haitian oligarch who is also the richest man in the Caribbean.

This seemed to indicate that Haiti’s oligarchs were siding with the Montana Accord. Following Ariel Henry’s announcement of a renewed accord and coalition on Dec. 21, 2022 (hence named the “December 21” Accord or “Karibe Accord” after the hotel where the announcement was made), a collective of Chambers of Commerce outside of Port-au-Prince seemed to understand this wasn’t the case. They published a statement on Dec. 30, 2022 refusing to support Henry’s new Accord. The statement also denounced what they deemed a “centralized” and “criminal economy” which “the vast majority of politicians and their beneficiaries in the Port-au-Prince business sector – the true kingmakers – have nurtured and strengthened for decades.”

In February 2023, Laurent Saint-Cyr was selected by Ariel Henry to represent the business community on his High Transitional Council (HCT), indicating that Haiti’s ruling business elite – Haiti’s oligarchs – continue to support Henry.

During the 16 month period between the birth of the Montana Accord and that of Henry’s December 21 Accord, Saint Dic was focused on appealing to Washington for legitimacy. In a Sep. 7, 2022 article for Just Security, Saint-Dic argued that “U.S. officials should do everything in their power to seize this fragile opportunity to support and create space for Haitians engaged in an extraordinary effort to rebuild democracy.”

Saint Dic said that the U.S. has a “powerful and important role in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.” Seemingly requesting a military intervention on behalf of the Montana group, he stated that: the “United States should use creative and aggressive tactics to intercept criminal activity in Haiti.”

These statements reveal Montana’s strategy for attaining power in Haiti: appealing to Washington for legitimacy and control of a transitional government. Comeau Denis and other Montana representatives met over, and over again with U.S.  diplomats and government officials. Every step of the way they were told to negotiate with Henry and to “broaden the consensus.”

They got nowhere. The impulse to appeal to Washington for legitimacy as a path to install a Montana-led transitional government eroded their support inside Haiti.

Saint Dic’s focus on getting support from Haiti’s oligarchs while appealing to the Biden administration is a sign of what Haitians can expect from an interim government led by Montana: a devotion to neoliberal policies and U.S. imperial domination, while offering occasional nods to the Haitian Constitution.

Considering Saint Dic’s enthusiasm for collaborating with Haiti’s oligarchs, it is unclear exactly why support shifted so quickly back to Ariel Henry after announcing the December 21 Accord and the HCT. Upon its announcement, Washington showed renewed enthusiasm for Henry and his HCT, while continuing to call for a “broadening of the consensus.”

The loss of support clearly surprised Montana’s leadership.

According to Alterpresse, Saint Dic responded to Washington’s renewed support for Henry by saying Haitians must have the sovereignty to choose their own leader, “not the white people who will name them or decide when they should leave by means of a tweet.” Saint Dic was referring to the tweet by BINUH on behalf of the CORE group that installed Henry as Prime Minister.

He also disingenuously stated in the interview that Montana is “an opposition force in relation to international power, in relation to American power.”

This reversal in rhetoric would have been significant in 2021, before the coalition behind the Accord began to unravel. Considering the circumstances, however, it appears to be little more than a burst of frustration from a leader who spent 18 months appealing to Washington with nothing to show for it.

(Part 2)


An earlier version of this article was first published by The Canada Files. Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Québec. He is also the co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project at canada-haiti.ca . Travis has written for Haiti Liberté, Black Agenda Report, TruthOut, and rabble.ca. He can be reached on Twitter.

Despite Washington’s Many Attack Fronts, Anti-Imperialists have So Far Foiled Another Military Intervention in Haiti

4
U.S. President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau after a joint press conference in Ottawa on Mar. 24, 2023. The U.S. did not convince Canada to take a stronger lead in Haiti. Photo: AP

A coalition of trade unions in Haiti recently published the “Ouanaminthe Declaration” after a two-day gathering by the Confederation of Haitian Workers (La Confédération des travailleurs haïtiens – CTH) and the Confederation of Public and Private Sector Workers (la Confédération des travailleurs et travailleuses des secteurs public et privé – CTSP).

The gathering was held in Ouanaminthe, Haiti — a Dominican-Haitian border town — on Jan. 25 and 26, 2023.

The declaration was drafted a month after the announcement of de facto PM Ariel Henry’s “December 21 Accord” – the National Consensus for an Inclusive Transition and Transparent Elections. It is a tacit rejection of Henry’s “new” coalition.

The Ouanaminthe Declaration calls for “international solidarity generally, and trade union solidarity in particular.” It also rejects international military intervention, stating that “any international armed intervention would go against Haitians’ right to self-determination.”

Haitian and foreign trade unionists during their January 2023 conference in Ouanaminthe calling for an end to foreign interference. Photo: CUPE

The Ouanaminthe Declaration doesn’t offer many details regarding governance. It does state that the signatories are “actively participating with other civil society actors.” Their aim is to “establish a transitional government, based on a broad national consensus of the representative forces of the country, which finally guarantees the conditions for the organization of legitimate, transparent, and democratic elections.”

The two-day meeting was also attended by representatives from trade unions in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Spain, France, Italy, Panama, Dominican Republic, and Sweden.

Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Regional Vice-President for Quebec, Richard Delisle, attended the meeting. Heeding the call for international solidarity between trade unions, Delisle said that “CUPE has written to Foreign Affairs minister Mélanie Joly calling on the Canadian government to respect Haitian democracy and self determination, and to stay away from military intervention.”

More calls for solidarity with Haitians against an intervention appeared soon after the Ouanaminthe Declaration.

It is unclear why Washington continued to support Henry as the leader for the transitional government.

On Feb. 14, 2023, a letter was published on Haiti Watch addressed to the leaders at the CARICOM biannual meeting. The leaders welcomed Prime Minister Ariel Henry to their biannual meeting. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was also invited. While Caribbean leaders refused to endorse a military intervention in Haiti, several leaders endorsed the framework of “supporting the Haitian National Police,” although no national leader has yet offered to lead such a mission.

The letter was signed by representatives from dozens of Haitian civil society and solidarity groups.

The letter calls out the “undeclared war which the imperialistic powers are waging against the Haitian people.” Explaining that this war “is entering its final stage of implosion, whereby the fundamental rights to security, freedom of movement, food, education, health and life itself are all being systematically denied to the Haitian people.” The letter refers to Ariel Henry as “the CORE group’s Prime Minister” and a “traitor.” The signatories accuse him of “high treason” for “requesting foreign military intervention on our national soil.”

The letter pleads with CARICOM, saying “ it is time for the Caribbean to stop being the amplifiers of the former colonial powers, who are today’s imperialistic powers, and instead rediscover the meaning of active solidarity.” The letter ends with a global call for solidarity with the Haitian people.

The Canadian Foreign Policy Institute published a statement of solidarity with Haitians a few days later. In the statement, the Institute’s director, Bianca Mugyenyi, points out that “Haitians have been calling for the U.S. and Canada to respect their sovereignty.” Mugyenyi argues that “if Justin Trudeau wants to help Haitians, he should withdraw Canada from the Core Group and stop propping up Ariel Henry who has contributed to the country’s crisis.”

Two days later, another call for solidarity with the Haitian people came from the Caribbean Organization for Peoples Empowerment. Their letter to CARICOM leaders argues that the calls for intervention have “nothing to do with protecting Haitian people from gang activity and everything to do with reinforcing the control of Haiti by the self-appointed CORE Group.” They claim that the goal of this intervention is to “shore up” the “CORE group imposed government of Ariel Henry’s Parti Haïtien Tèt Kale (PHTK) and suppress the struggle of the Haitian people against it.”

The letter demands that CARICOM leaders call for “the disbanding of the CORE Group and ending the interference of this group’s members in Haiti’s affairs.” The letter also demands CARICOM leaders demand Henry step down and “facilitate an all-inclusive dialogue between all sections of Haitian society.”

Competing Political Parties and Coalitions in Haiti’s Political Class

These declarations and statements all point towards the central problem of U.S. and CORE group policies towards governance in Haiti – their unrelenting support for de facto PM Ariel Henry.

A few months ago, it seemed like Washington was favoring the Montana Accord leadership as the next Washington-approved interim leaders of Haiti. Think-tanks, diplomats, journalists, and activists were promoting the Montana Accord as the best choice for leading a broad-based, “Haitian-led” interim government. Montana is Henry’s main rival in Haiti.

From right to left, de facto PM Ariel Henry, and the three members – Mirlande Manigat, Laurent Saint Cyr, and Calixte Fleuridor – of his High Transitional Council (HTC) at its Dec. 21, 2022 unveiling. Photo: The Haitian Times

It is unclear why Washington continued to support Henry as the leader for the transitional government. He is deeply unpopular in and outside Haiti. He also remains a prime suspect in the assassination of his predecessor, Jovenel Moise.

When Henry announced his “December 21 Accord,” Washington could have used that opportunity to shift support to the Montana Accord . Instead, it used this announcement as an opportunity to publicly renew their support for him.

Regional organizations like CELAC, the Organization of American States (OAS), and CARICOM also made clear they recognize Henry as leader. Recently, CELAC and CARICOM even “welcomed” Henry’s Dec. 21 Accord while the OAS called it an “important step forward.”

Henry also announced a new “High Transitional Council” (HTC), whose three members – Mirlande Manigat, Laurent Saint Cyr and Calixte Fleuridor – he appointed. They are tasked with organizing elections in a year’s time. He also recently appointed eight Supreme Court Justices by decree, in direct violation of the Haitian Constitution, cementing his role as a U.S. and CORE group-backed dictator.

On Jan. 30, a new declaration was published. Signed by eight political parties Pitit Desalin, UNIR, Kontrapèpla , OPL, MOPOD, LAPEH, GREH, and the PHTK – the declaration calls for continued mobilization and renews demands for Henry to step down.

A week before this joint-declaration was announced, PHTK president Line Balthazar stated on Magik9 that the PHTK thinks Ariel Henry’s bad policies have made Haiti ungovernable and is leading the country “straight towards disaster.” He argues that Henry’ “bad governance” has “put state institutions in danger.”

The PHTK previously had a vote on the Montana Accord’s National Transitional Council (CNT). As did UNIR, Pitit Desalin, MOPOD, and the OPL. This no longer seems to be the case.

The Montana Accord began losing support when the CNT began nominating two interim leaders – a transitional President and Prime Minister – back in 2021.

OPL general coordinator Edgar LeBlanc Fils, a signatory to the declaration, was a front-runner for the position of interim President, but the CNT elected economist and former Haitian central bank governor Fritz Alphonse Jean to the post.

Several Haitian trade unions – some of them signatories to the Ouanaminthe Declaration –  previously backed the Montana Accord when it was first signed in August 2021. Since then, some withdrew support. The declaration does not mention the Montana Accord but does call for a “transition de rupture”(transition through rupture), a phrase sometimes used by Montana’s signatories and proponents. The Ouanaminthe Declaration also mentions the need to build a “broad-based coalition” before moving onto elections, possibly signaling that the signatories don’t support Montana’s direction and leadership but do recognize the principle of a broad-based coalition on which it was predicated.

Commenting on withdrawing support from the Montana Accord, MOLEGHAF’s leader, Oxygène David, said Montana’s leadership “never believed in mass mobilization,” favoring bureaucracy instead. According to Oxygène, Montana’s claim to want a Haitian-led solution “was a lie which they fed to the nation so that they could cohabitate with their bosses, the U.S. imperialists.”

OPL leader Edgard Leblanc fils (above) worries that de facto PM Ariel Henry will try to negotiate “security assistance” from the U.S. under the Global Fragility Act. Photo: Philippe Leblanc/Radio Canada

Fanmi Lavalas (FL) departed the Montana coalition after withdrawing support for the CNT, accusing the CNT leadership of factionalism. Since then, Lavalas’ role in coalition-building seems to be nonexistent. The party continues to publish statements that are vague and offer no concrete proposals.

Their Feb. 28 statement, translated into English and posted on the Haiti Info Project’s Twitter page, states that “the problem of insecurity that worries Haitians” could be the “starting point for a dialogue that would make it possible to reach a broad and solid consensus for immediate actions, and guidance for the long term.”

FL representatives met with Jamaican President Andrew Holness, who led a one-day delegation to Haiti to meet with leaders from various political parties and civil society organizations on Feb. 27. This followed the biannual CARICOM leaders meeting. FL spokesperson Jodson Durogène declared it had “drawn the attention of CARICOM to the fact that the strengthening of the National Police of Haiti (PNH) should first be a Haitian initiative.”

FL is now in agreement with Ariel Henry and the Montana Accord leadership that international support for the PNH is required. They just do not, however, agree on who ought to be in leadership when the “support” arrives.

The risk in allowing Washington and the CORE group to have any role in supporting the PNH was made clear when former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Pamela White, in the Dec.2 Washington Post, explained her plan for the Biden administration to send “2,000 armed law enforcers” to Haiti. To avoid the optics of thousands of armed U.S. soldiers landing in Haiti, White proposed that Washington “send in a couple of hundred at a time, over six months, with little fanfare.”

“Support for the PNH” could easily evolve into a “special military intervention” by another name.

The Looming Threat of the Global Fragility Act

In a recent statement , OPL leader Leblanc warned that Haiti’s slide into authoritarianism has put the country at risk for partnership with the U.S. government under the Global Fragility Act (GFA).

Proponents of the GFA describe it as “an opportunity for the United States to posture itself to reduce violence and fragility in a manner that positions America to secure short-term interests.” Haiti was named the first “partner” under the GFA, which was signed into law under the Trump administration and has full bipartisan support, including Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

The GFA allows for the U.S. government to negotiate bilateral, 10-year-long “planned security assistance” deals with so-called “fragile states.” Fundamentally, the GFA fundamentally represents a repackaging of interventionist policies that will maintain U.S. hegemony over Haiti.

Canada also supports the GFA

Nou Pap Domi (NPD) is a foundational member-organization of the coalition that created the Montana Accord. One of its members and spokespersons, Emmanuela Douyon, recently offered support for the GFA at a Dec. 15 Alliance for Peacebuilding conference , along with Kalinda Magloire. Magloire is a “technical director for peace and stability” at Management Systems International (MSI), which implements USAID projects worldwide.

Douyon, previously worked for the National Democratic Institute (NDI), an arm of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which in turn is funded by the U.S. State Department and USAID. Later, she received an NED grant to found Policité , a “think tank” that conducts surveys and offers consultation services.

Nou Pap Dòmi leader Emmanuela Douyon, who previously worked for the National Democratic Institute, supports Haiti joining Washington’s Global Fragility Act deal.

Another guest speaker at the conference, analyst Jeffsky Poincy, said (rather prematurely) that he was “glad Haiti is part of the GFA.” Poincy is a program manager at Partners Global, a consultancy firm funded by the U.S. State Department, the Canadian government, the Open Society Foundation, and USAID.

As a general rule, people and organizations receiving funds from the U.S. government do not challenge the framework of U.S. foreign policy. Washington’s continued policy is to maintain Haiti’s neo-colony status. The GFA is one tool for doing that. Douyon’s comments can be interpreted as further compliance for U.S. imperialist domination of Haiti.

In contrast, Montana spokesperson Jacques Ted Saint Dic recently claimed to oppose “international power.” During a recent interview on Magik 9, Saint Dic did a complete reversal on his earlier claims that the U.S. has a “powerful and important role” to play “in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.” In the interview, he said Montana is “an opposition force to international power,” saying “the Americans hold the real power in Haiti” and that “Montana intends to seize power through negotiation, through social and citizen mobilization,” bravado which is belied by the evident shrinkage of and splits in Montana’s coalition.

Coalitions, Declarations, a Fractured Political Class, and Haitian Sovereignty

The proto-coalition of eight parties which signed Moïse Jean-Charles’ Jan. 30 declaration claim to be focused on gaining popular support and mobilizing citizens to prevent Henry from consolidating power and possibly negotiating “security assistance” under the GFA. They also claim to want to build a broad-based coalition.

In an interview posted Feb. 10 to Twitter, OPL’s Leblanc makes it clear that he rejects an intervention by a special military force. He explains that their view is that gangs are a consequence of the conditions generated by Ariel Henry and oligarchs who back the gangs. These conditions, Leblanc argues, have made an election a year from now – as the Dec. 21 Accord promises – technically impossible.

The political class remains fractured. A clear plan on how to address gang violence that doesn’t involve armed conflict in Haiti’s poor neighborhoods is elusive. Calls for amnesty, collaboration with neighborhood committees and vigilance brigades – any strategy for improving the security crisis and reducing gang violence – remains outside of public discourse.

The political class has presented no plan on how to actually remove Henry from power. No coalition yet seems prepared to challenge U.S. hegemony in Haiti, and Haiti will not break free from its current status of U.S. neo-colony unless Ariel Henry is expelled from power and a transitional government that represents the Haitian people takes power.

Leblanc’s public rejection of the GFA and its 10-year “security assistance” deal –  occupation by another name –  is a positive step. Encouraging public discourse on the GFA’s nature is also important.

As Kalinda Magloire explained during Alliance for Peacebuilding conference, the GFA still needs a “credible interlocutor,” a national leader, coalition, or organization who can successfully convince Haitians that the GFA is a good policy for Haiti. So far, U.S.-funded organizations like OCAPH, Kafou Lespwa, and Initiative de la Société Civile have been unable to generate enough attention to manufacture consent for the GFA in Haiti. But Washington’s efforts to groom sectors of Haiti’s political class, inside Haiti and in the diaspora, are ongoing.

Kalinda Magloire, who implements USAID projects worldwide, took part in a Dec. 15 Alliance for Peacebuilding conference to promote the Global Fragility Act.

Leblanc’s warning that Henry could negotiate a bilateral agreement with the United States under the GFA on his own is ominous. (Only an elected government is supposed to sign a GFA deal.) Henry  has already requested an intervention to address “gang violence” and shore up his deeply unpopular regime. He does enjoy diplomatic support from Washington, the CORE group, and many other leaders and regional groups.

For example, CARICOM on Mar. 6 stated that they have agreed to “work with the Governments of Canada and the United States as well as the UNDP [the United Nations Development Plan] on the ongoing issues” in Haiti. In addition, they promised to “approach” the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank “to ascertain what further assistance they could provide to Haiti.” CARICOM seems willing to assist in keeping Haiti trapped under Washington’s hegemonic control.

International Solidarity with Haiti

Solidarity activists outside of Haiti who are determined to assist Haitians break free from U.S. hegemony should heed the calls of the trade unions behind the Ouanaminthe Declaration. They also ought to continue calling for their leaders to withdraw support for Ariel Henry and look for opportunities to get the attention of leaders from regional and economic bodies like the BRICS, the African Union, and the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. Growing relations with representatives of the nations which are members of these regional and economic organizations opposing U.S. imperialism is a possible strategy for helping Haiti’s liberation.

It is understood that the flood of weapons gangs use to terrorize Haitians are coming through privately owned ports in Haiti. Port Lafito, Haiti’s largest port, is privately owned by billionaire oligarch Gilbert Bigio. Bigio is the target of Canadian sanctions and accused of supporting and arming gangs.

the U.S. and Canada’s efforts to recruit a CARICOM nation to lead a mission into Haiti to “support the PNH” seems to have foundered.

It is wishful thinking to believe that Washington will take serious action against the weapons smuggling that they have deliberately allowed to flourish in the region. Only large, regional, and international bodies can enforce an embargo and cut-off the flood of weapons into Haiti.

The series of sanctions slapped on Haitian politicians and oligarchs by the UN, Canada, and the U.S. have also failed to dislodge Henry or address gang violence. Henry, in fact, welcomes these sanctions, telling VOA news in an interview that they are “helpful.”

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) and Haiti Liberté accomplished two of the most effective acts of international solidarity in recent memory. They effectively helped to block U.S. efforts to occupy Haiti, under the guise of a “special military force,” at the UN.

BAP delivered an open letter to the Representatives of the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation in October titled “No to Foreign Military Intervention In Haiti! Yes, to Haitian Self-Determination!” Delivering a similar message, Haiti Liberté’s editor Berthony Dupont wrote an open letter to ALBA’s Secretary General.

On Dec. 21, Haiti Liberté journalist Kim Ives delivered a 15-minute anti-intervention presentation to the UN Security Council, prompting Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Vassily Nebenzia, to say that the “historical responsibility” for the current situation in Haiti “rests not only with Washington, which has repeatedly interfered in Haiti’s internal affairs, including by armed force, but also with Paris.”

These former colonial powers, Nebenzia explained, “have changed their methods, but their colonial approaches have remained the same. Interference in Haiti’s internal affairs occurs by means of imposing foreign solutions and putting in place political figures outside of Haiti’s legal mechanisms. Lasting international involvement in Haitian affairs have instilled in some local elites the feeling of dependency and permissiveness and made them think that their future would be contingent, not on a popular vote, but on the benevolence of external patrons and sponsors.”

This unusual and welcome development at the Security Council is a direct consequence of the efforts of BAP and Haïti Liberté. For the moment, the UN is no longer a vector for Haiti’s imperialist domination.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Canada’s efforts to recruit a CARICOM nation to lead a mission into Haiti to “support the PNH” seems to have foundered. Even Biden’s Mar. 23-24 visit to Canada to press Justin Trudeau to do U.S. bidding more forcefully in Haiti failed. Canada has only made some spy plane overflights, posted two frigates off Haiti’s coast, and sent a few police trainers.

Nonetheless, Washington has proven to be relentless in pursuing Haitian intervention in the past (e.g. 1993 and 1994) and should not be underestimated now. Anti-imperialists everywhere should continue to pressure regional organizations like CELAC and CARICOM , as well as their individual members which oppose U.S. policy in the region, to resist all North American efforts to further subjugate Haiti.


This is a slightly edited and updated version of an article first published by Black Agenda Report on Mar. 15. Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Québec. He is also the co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project at canada-haiti.ca . Travis has written for Haiti Liberté, Black Agenda Report, TruthOut, and rabble.ca. He can be reached on Twitter.

How the U.S. and Canada are Wooing Latin America and the Caribbean to Front for their Plan to Invade Haiti (3)

1
Jamaican PM Andrew Holness with de facto Haitian PM Ariel Henry in Port-au-Prince on Feb. 27, 2023. Photo: CMC

(Part 1) (Part 2)

A recent poll by the Haitian daily Le Nouvelliste found that “69% of Haitians support intervention,” but only 1330 Haitians were polled, the AP revealed. Therefore, only 917 Haitians endorsed intervention in the poll. Haiti’s population is about 11.5 million.

It is also unclear how this poll was conducted, but it is clear that the sample size was tiny and not necessarily representative at all of Haiti’s entire population. Protests clearly show that many thousands of Haitians reject any foreign military intervention.

Anthropologist Jessica Hsu argues that there is a disconnect between some politically active “civil society groups,” who largely oppose intervention, and a large part of the general population, which sees foreign intervention as the only hope of providing some respite from violence.

“The majority of people who want an intervention do not have hope in any government improving their lives,” Hsu said. “Many people have told me that they do not trust the Haitian state, that it’s been absent, negligent and even exploitative.”

Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, is the new president of CELAC. “Many Haitians do not recognize the present Haitian Government of Prime Minister Dr Ariel Henry,” he says.

Hsu’s views may reflect a growing desperation resulting from the constant gang violence and deprivation Haitians face daily. Indeed, it has long been argued that the growing influence of violent gangs, mostly in Port-au-Prince, is fueled by elite interests.    Oligarchs flood the nation’s capital with guns while backing gangs to carry out their political battles, settle scores, protect their property, and, as seems to be the case today, provoke another foreign intervention.

The Nouvelliste poll does reflect a general trend among Haiti’s fractured political class to find a consensus for some kind of foreign intervention. The two most prominent political coalitions do not condemn the options outlined by UN Secretary Antonio Guterres in his Oct. 8 letter to the Security Council. CELAC’s recent Buenos Aires declaration recommended members “study” the letter, in which Guterres describes two options: an advisory “multinational police task force” or a combat-ready “multinational special force.”

Recent statements by leaders of the two main political factions indicate a consensus on a path forward. On Dec. 23, 2022, Henry shared his hope for a “multinational support force for the PNH” to arrive in Haiti in 2023. This is a change from Ariel Henry’s original request for “a specialized armed force.”

The Montana Accord is often presented as the alternative to Henry and PHTK rule. When the Montana Accord was signed in August 2021, its coalition seemed to have broad support across Haiti, claiming support from over 600 political and “civil society” groups. Whatever support the coalition once enjoyed, it has clearly narrowed considerably. The Montana group does, however, continue to find enthusiastic supporters in Washington, including many U.S. diplomats and think-tanks.

In an article for Just Security in September 2022, Jacques Ted Saint Dic – a Montana spokesperson – wrote “the United States should use creative and aggressive tactics to intercept criminal activity in Haiti.” Clarifying that the United-States has a “powerful and important role” to play “in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.” Saint Dic followed up a month later, explaining that “the PNH needs technical support” from Washington.

During a Dec. 29 press conference, Fritz Alphonse Jean, Montana’s designated interim President, stated that Montana supports a change in leadership to facilitate a breaking of ties between individuals in the political class so the PNH can “absorb an adequate international assistance within the framework of cooperation that is defined and established by the new leadership” –  namely, himself.

The two factions now evidently agree on the nature of the impending foreign intervention in Haiti. It must come in the form of “assistance for the PNH.” It is understood that the terms “military” and “intervention” should not be uttered.

impending foreign intervention must come in the form of “assistance for the PNH.” It is understood that the terms “military” and “intervention” should not be uttered.

Other political parties in Haiti are on board with this framing too.

Fanmi Lavalas threw their support behind international support for the PNH. The caveat being that this support must be a “Haitian initiative.” Lavalas spokesperson Jodson Durogène made these comments in an interview with Alterpresse after meeting with CARICOM’s delegation to Haiti, led by Jamaican President Andrew Holness on Feb. 27. This delegation follows the recent CARICOM biannual leaders meeting held Feb. 15-17, 2023, where military intervention was rejected.

Meanwhile, Pitit Desalin leader Moïse Jean Charles, who recently announced a new coalition of 20 political parties and civil society groups, stated that Haiti needs “an army to control the territory” in addition to “a professional police to guarantee the safety of the population.” He made these statements upon arriving in Russia with the intent of “speaking to young people.”

Henry’s “December 21 Accord” Sets Back Montana

Henry and the Montana leadership have been vying for Washington’s approval since the Montana Accord was announced. While the enthusiastic support for Montana from many in Washington seemed to indicate that a transition away from Henry was imminent, his new Dec. 21, 2022 accord called the”Consensus National for an Inclusive Transition and Transparent Elections,” seems to have changed the calculus, or at least won him some time.

Both CELAC and CARICOM have “welcomed” Henry’s Dec. 21 Accord while the Organization of American States (OAS) calls it an “important step forward.”

CELAC and CARICOM both received Henry as Haiti’s legitimate leader at their meetings in January and February respectively. CARICOM met in Haiti with civil society groups and political parties, including Montana Accord leadership, a week later. Holness led the delegation that spent only one day in Haiti listening to the concerns of these groups.

The Dec. 21 Accord does not represent a real broadening of consensus. Henry’s own party, the PHTK, does not support it, along with other parties like Lavalas, its offshoot, the Pitit Desalin of former Sen. Moïse Jean-Charles, UNIR, GREH, MOPOD, LAPEH, Kontrapèpla, and the OPL.

On Jan. 30, Montana’s designated Prime Minister, Steven Benoît, resigned. Montana spokesperson Jacques Ted Saint Dic called Benoît’s resignation a “great sacrifice” that will “open up negotiation” so all parties can participate.

The move seems to have failed to gain Washington’s favor, and Montana spokesperson Jacques Ted Saint Dic seems to realize this. During a recent interview on Magik 9, Saint Dic did a complete reversal on his earlier claims that the U.S. has a “powerful and important role” to play “in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.” In the interview, he said Montana is “an opposition force to international power,” saying “the Americans hold the real power in Haiti ” and that “Montana intends to seize power through negotiation, through social and citizen mobilization.”

Is there any hope for solidarity with Haiti from CELAC and CARICOM?

The recent change in leadership at CELAC may work in favor of Haitians. Argentina’s President Fernandez was replaced by Ralph Gonsalves, Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Gonsalves has been adamant that “any intervention in Haiti must have the buy-in of Haitian stakeholders.” He also acknowledges that “that many Haitians do not recognize the present Haitian Government of Prime Minister Dr Ariel Henry.”

Gonsalves is reluctant to support any kind of intervention while Henry is in power. Commenting in December 2022 on the possibility of a CARICOM-led intervention he said “fundamentally, any CARICOM Mission in Haiti must first be predicated upon a political/governance solution crafted by the Haitian stakeholders consequent upon an inclusive dialogue between them.”

“Above all” Gonsalves continued, “Haitians must devise their solutions and lead the process themselves – representatives of all the Haitian people, not merely a government which lacks legitimacy and effectiveness.”

Gonsalves also hopes “to see the end of colonialism in our Caribbean.”

Gonsalves also hopes “to see the end of colonialism in our Caribbean.” His anti-colonial views are centered on a desire to see Caribbean nations still under the yolk of the British Commonwealth to embrace Republican-style government. Gonsalves said he wants to see that “all or most of the independent CARICOM countries will move from a monarchical to a republican system.”

Writing for Pressenza, Javier Tolcachier, a researcher from the World Centre of Humanist Studies, hopes Gonsalves’ focus on decolonization will facilitate a sense of urgency for “safeguarding the self-determination of the Haitian people, currently under attack by foreign intervention and Henry’s de facto government.” Tolcachier also sees Gonsalves as a potential advocate for Haitian sovereignty and democracy in Haiti.

Gonsalves first diplomatic visit as CELAC’s President is to meet with Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Venezuela and Cuba have traditionally supported Haitian sovereignty and democracy. Maduro’s statements at the CELAC Summit against interventionism will likely be amplified under Gonsalves’ leadership, along with the pleas of Haitians to the region for respect for their sovereignty and show solidarity with them.

In an open letter to CARICOM leaders, BAI director and human rights lawyer Mario Joseph wrote that Haitians “would be deeply saddened to see our CARICOM brothers and sisters come here to arbitrarily shoot, massacre and arrest protesters and support a repressive government at the behest of powerful countries that gained their status through the Atlantic slave trade.”

“We want CARICOM to insist once again that the international community stop supporting an unconstitutional and imposed regime and allow Haitians to find a democratic and lasting solution to our political crisis,” he continued.

Joseph said Haitians “do not want our CARICOM brothers and sisters to come with arms to help powerful countries impose a repressive regime on us. We want our sisters and brothers to come in solidarity, with respect and democratic principles.”

During Lula’s recent trip to Washington, DC, his discussion with President Joe Biden of “shared values” is ominous.

The risk in allowing Washington and the CORE group to “support the PNH” was apparent when former U.S. Ambassador to Haiti Pamela White, in the Dec.2 Washington Post, explained her plan for the Biden administration to send “2,000 armed law enforcers” to Haiti. To avoid the optics of thousands of armed U.S. soldiers landing in Haiti, White proposed that Washington “send in a couple of hundred at a time, over six months, with little fanfare.”

A small brigade of foreign “law enforcers” or “advisors” could grow exponentially to if they clash with Haitians.

The number of PNH officers has dropped below 10,000, with many more trying to emigrate out of Haiti. To further complicate the situation, one report estimated that over half of current PNH officers collaborate with gangs or vigilance brigades. Haitian police are also chronically underpaid, leading many to work for private security companies. In 2012, an estimated 12,000 Haitians worked form private security firms for wealthy Haitians who can afford to foot the bill. Since then, the number has grown.

Were a “multinational force” organized under the banner of CARICOM, the OAS, or a “coalition of the willing,” it remains unclear how that “support” would be staffed. The small number of Caribbean and Latin American countries who endorse a “multinational force” to “support the PNH” do not appear to have the resources or troops to accomplish the mission.

Who would lead the intervention?

This “multinational force” has no nation willing to lead it, as Brazil led the MINUSTAH. Holness’ leadership of the Feb. 27 CARICOM delegation to Haiti suggests that Jamaica might accept the role.

Washington understands the importance of having a Latin American or Caribbean front on an intervention in Haiti. In a recent interview with Devex, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said that Washington has not given up on the idea of an international force for Haiti and that it continues to urge countries to participate: “Once a lead nation is identified, we expect to work with them and Ecuador, our new UN Security Council partner on Haiti issues, to draft a UN Security Council resolution authorizing this mission.” Nonetheless, a Security Council veto from Russia is possible.

While a few CARICOM leaders have independently endorsed a military intervention in Haiti, Lula’s position might sway many others.

During Lula’s recent trip to Washington, DC, his discussion with President Joe Biden of “shared values” is ominous. Lula has, however, refused to support the escalation of Washington’s proxy war in Ukraine and called for peace, thus aligning with his BRICS allies. If Lula leans towards intervention in Haiti, Gonsalves’ position may work to counterbalance Brazil’s influence on the region’s leaders.


Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Québec. He is also the co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project at canada-haiti.ca. Travis has written for Haiti Liberté, Black Agenda Report, TruthOut, and Rabble.ca. He can be reached on Twitter.

How the U.S. and Canada are Wooing Latin America and the Caribbean to Front for their Plan to Invade Haiti (2)

5
Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau arriving in Nassau, Bahamas on Feb. 15 for the 44th CARICOM meeting. Photo: Adam Scotti/OPM

(Part 1)

At the behest of Washington, Canada has begun a “significant military deployment in Haiti,” according to Canadian Ambassador to Haiti Sébastien Carrière.

Despite U.S. pressure since last October, Canada played hard to get in accepting the responsibility for leading the third foreign invasion of Haiti in the past three decades. But now, it has relented.

“We took over,” Carrière told journalist Madeleine Blais-Morin on the program Les Coulisses du Pouvoir on Feb. 19. “We delivered armor. There have been two deliveries since October. There would be a third delivery in the next few days, and another one later in February. There is this CP-140 surveillance operation, intelligence sharing, there are ships arriving. Listen, it’s still military deployment in a significant way.”

Haiti’s de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry with Argentina’s President Alberto Fernandez at January’s CELAC Summit in Buenos Aires.

This deployment is justified by Haitian de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry’s request to the United Nations on Oct. 7, 2022 for a foreign “special military intervention” into Haiti to fight “gang violence.” But the Haitian people’s overwhelming hostility to this proposal can be understood by Haiti’s recent experience with UN military occupation.

 MINUSTAH – Haiti’s Occupation by a Brazilian-led UN Military Force

On the day that a U.S. SEAL team kidnapped President Jean-Bertrand Aristide from his home in the Port-au-Prince suburb of Tabarre on Feb. 29, 2004, the U.S., Canada, and France landed troops in Haiti, militarily occupying the country for the next three months.

Then on Jun. 1, 2004, they handed off the occupation to a much more cheaply paid multinational army called the UN Mission to Stabilize Haiti or MINUSTAH.

Although the force varied in size over the 13 years it was deployed in Haiti, MINUSTAH averaged about 9,000 military troops and 4,000 police officers from 56 mostly poor countries around the world. Brazil led the mission in which Latin American soldiers predominated, mostly from Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Uruguay. Ironically, most of these nations were then led by “pink tide” presidents who should have shunned collusion with Northern imperialist powers in policing Haiti after a clearly U.S.-backed coup, as Venezuela and Cuba did.

“MINUSTAH is how the U.S. has outsourced its control of Haiti.”

“MINUSTAH is how the U.S. has outsourced its control of Haiti,” author and activist Bill Quigley explained. The UN force helped consolidate the post-coup government of Washington’s puppet Gérard Latortue and committed multiple crimes and massacres against the Haitian people. In 2010, Nepalese UN soldiers introduced cholera into the country leading to over 10,000 deaths and hundreds of thousands were sickened. Meanwhile, MINUSTAH’s first commander, a Brazilian general, “complained of the pressure to use violence and resigned his position by fall 2005.”
MINUSTAH soldiers also committed hundreds of acts of rape and sexual assault on Haitian women and minors, even operating a child-sex ring. Multiple cases of rape and poverty-compelled prostitution left at least 265 children abandoned when MINUSTAH left Haiti.

The UN occupation effectively throttled Haitian democracy, helping to install the Haitian Bald Headed Party (PHTK) as the dominant force in Haitian politics in 2011. Under PHTK rule, state institutions have been dismantled or withered, so that today de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry rules without a single elected official.

A monument built in Port Salut to MINUSTAH’s victims captures the feelings of most Haitians: a pile of skulls with a UN blue helmet on top with the words “MINUSTAH, Kolera.” A Haitian man stands above, impaling the helmet with a flagpole flying the Haitian bicolor, his fist raised in defiance.

Opposition to CELAC’s Support for an Intervention in Haiti

A day before January’s CELAC Summit, Lula received a letter from “Mouvement Dialogo 2000” that was signed by two prominent Argentinians: artist, peace activist, and Nobel-Prize-winner Adolfo Perez Esquivel and long-time human rights activist and co-founder of “Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo”, Nora Cortiñas.

A statue in Port Salut, Haiti of a Haitian planting the Haitian flag in a MINUSTAH helmet.

“We particularly call on the Brazilian government, which you preside over, to support the Haitian people’s rights by rejecting any military intervention, by withdrawing from the ‘Core Group,’ and by working for its dissolution, and the closure of the UN trusteeship office (BINUH),” the letter reads.

“The Haitian people are rising up against the enormous social and political crisis they face and the threat of a new military occupation that the United States is openly promoting” and demand “the resignation of the de facto government of Ariel Henry – a government not elected by the Haitian people but imposed and supported by those powers through the disastrous ‘Core Group’ – and total respect for its sovereignty and self-determination.”

Movement Dialogo 2000, Esquivel, and Cortiñas also “categorically reject these new attempts at occupation and any interference.”

It is evident why many fear that Lula might again throw his support behind another foreign intervention in Haiti. He has never acknowledged or apologized for Brazil’s role in undermining Haitian democracy and sovereignty by leading MINUSTAH’s military force. His huge influence in Latin America could have a direct influence on whether a multinational “special military force” or “security assistance” will be assembled and sent to Haiti.

As the Black Alliance for Peace (BAP)  points out, nowhere in the Buenos Aires “declaration do they mention the role of the international community in creating the current crisis in Haiti. Nowhere do they mention that the crisis is a crisis of imperialism, brought on by the United Nations, the Core Group, the United States, Canada, and other so-called ‘friends’ of Haiti in the international community.”

The risk remains that Lula might “exceptionalize” Haiti again, as he did in 2004. “CELAC’s position on Haiti is ill-informed and dangerous, representing an all-too-frequent, reactionary ‘Haiti exception’ when it comes to the ‘progressive’ governments of the Americas,” BAP concluded.

Indeed, Lula’s February visit with U.S. President Joe Biden ironically focused on “supporting democracy” (which Washington has repeatedly sabotaged in Brazil) and included a discussion on “insecurity in Haiti.” It remains to be seen whether, as Dr. Jemima Pierre has observed, the leftism of the Americas “collapse[s] at the door of Haitian sovereignty” and betrays “a people that have given so much to the struggles for sovereignty and independence in the region.”

Gauging the Support for an Intervention of Haiti by CARICOM and its Members

CELAC’s receptiveness to a foreign military intervention in Haiti is shared by a few key Caribbean governments.

On the same day that CELAC published the Buenos Aires Declaration, CARICOM issued a statement that it had begun contacting “Haitian stakeholders over the past few weeks about their willingness to attend a meeting in a CARICOM country.” The regional body reiterated its desire to assist in bringing all stakeholders “together in their search for a consensus agreement.”

Despite “reaching out to stakeholders,” CARICOM only invited Ariel Henry to represent Haiti at their three-day 44th biannual meeting that began Feb. 15 in Nassau, Bahamas. Other political factions and civil society groups were not invited.

(Jamaican PM Andrew Holness led a CARICOM delegation to Haiti for a Feb. 27 visit. In addition to sitting with Haiti’s de facto prime minister and his new government, the delegation also met with the Montana Accord coalition, Henry’s principal rival for power. The CARICOM delegation “agreed to provide direct support to the Haitian National Police to help bolster security,” according to the Bahamian daily The Tribune.)

Haiti’s security crisis was top of the list for discussion in the bilateral meetings held between heads of government. This gathering also focused on the waves of Haitian migrants arriving on the shores of CARICOM countries as they flee poverty and worsening violence. Several members have complained about the expenses involved in housing and deporting these “migrants” – refugees fleeing violence and deprivation.

At the meeting, CARICOM, for the time being, rejected the call for military intervention. “Those of us on the periphery who might be calling in troops and so on, it’s a bit premature on our part,” said the CARICOM’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Amery Browne.

Canada’s PM Justin Trudeau with Bahamian PM Philip Davis at the CARICOM meeting in Nassau on Feb. 15. Photo: Adam Scotti/OPM

But, according to a CBC report, “both Jamaica and the Bahamas have said they are willing to contribute by sending members of their own security forces. Other Caribbean countries that have forces that could assist in such a mission include Barbados, Belize, Guyana, Suriname, and Trinidad and Tobago.”

Jamaican PM Andrew Holness had previously stated that “Jamaica would be willing to participate in a multinational security assistance deployment.”

The leadership of Guyana had also previously stated that they support a military intervention in Haiti.

The Bahamas’ Prime Minister Philip Davis sees the increased flow of Haitian refugees as “a substantial threat,” and said he “would send troops or police to Haiti as part of a peacekeeping force if asked to do so by the United Nations or the Caribbean Community.”

Nonetheless, Davis wants the leadership of his powerful northern neighbors. “What we in CARICOM have come to appreciate is that we do not have the resources to be able to deal with the Haiti problem ourselves, and we do need outside help and that help, we are looking to the North, to Canada and the United States, to come to the fore,” he said.

The Bahamian Foreign Minister Frederick Mitchell stated the matter clearly: “Canada has been asked to take the lead.”

Canada played a a leading role in the 2004 coup against democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Therefore, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accompanied by Ambassador to Haiti Sébastien Carrière, Ambassador to the UN Bob Rae, and his national security adviser Jody Thomas when they all attended CARICOM’s biannual meeting.  Trudeau announced that Canada will provide $12.3 million in new humanitarian assistance and $10 million for the International Office on Migration (IOM) to support migrants in the region.

Trudeau recently confirmed sending a Canadian military plane to surveil Haiti and support “anti-gang” operations. At the CARICOM meeting, he announced that Canada’s sending of two Kingston-class naval vessels to patrol the waters around Haiti. This is on top of sending many armored vehicles to the Haitian National Police (PNH) to “combat gangs.”

According to a statement on Trudeau’s website, he had bilateral meetings with the leaders of Barbados, the Bahamas, Jamaica, and Haiti, who all want foreign military intervention in Haiti.

A coalition of countries willing to back a military intervention in Haiti is forming. Trudeau has stated that Canada is not willing to lead a multinational “special military force” into Haiti, but has been trying to get a regional body – CARICOM, CELAC, or the Organization of American States (OAS) –  to take the lead. If this does not work, an ad hoc “Coalition of the Willing,” made up of a hodgepodge of Latin American and Caribbean nations may have to suffice.

Although today acting coy, Canada played a a leading role in the 2004 coup against democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide and has doggedly supported Ariel Henry, despite his illegitimacy and evidence of his involvement in Jovenel Moïse’s murder.

Meanwhile, the Caribbean’s most vociferous cheerleader for foreign military intervention into Haiti is the neighboring Dominican Republic, which is not a CARICOM member. In January, President Luis Abinader recently reiterated his call to “build a strong military force to help the Haitian National Police.” Over the past year, Abinader has expelled tens of thousands of Haitians and Dominicans of Haitian descent from the Dominican Republic, including pregnant women.

(To be continued)


Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Québec. He is also the co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project at canada-haiti.ca. Travis has written for Haiti Liberté, Black Agenda Report, TruthOut, and Rabble.ca. He can be reached on Twitter.

Comment la NED a saboté la démocratie et la souveraineté haïtiennes

1
La National Endowment for Democracy (NED) est la branche du soft power de la CIA. Elle a contribué au changement de régime passé en Haïti, et à celui qui est en cours aujourd'hui.

(English)

Haïti est inondé d’argent de la National Endowment for Democracy (Fondation nationale pour la démocratie).

La NED a joué un rôle direct dans le financement des forces d’opposition et des forces paramilitaires menant au coup d’État de 2004 contre le président démocratiquement élu Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Il est donc crucial d’explorer comment la NED influence actuellement Haïti en finançant des organisations “dirigées par des Haïtiens” à l’intérieur du pays.

La NED est ouverte en ce qui concerne les subventions qu’elle accorde et le financement qu’elle offre – vous pouvez simplement visiter leur site Web et effectuer une recherche. Cependant, l’organisation est rarement analysée et ses bénéficiaires sont rarement examinés.

La Fondation nationale pour la démocratie

La NED a été fondé en 1983. Le co-fondateur de la NED, Allen Weinstein, a été décrit par le Washington Post comme « celui qui assurait l’entretien des opérations manifestes ». Selon son site Internet, la NED « se consacre à favoriser la croissance d’un large éventail d’institutions démocratiques à l’étranger », notamment les partis politiques, les organisations professionnelles, les organisations de défense des droits de l’homme et les médias « indépendants ».

Le Groupe des 184, dirigé par l’industriel Andy Apaid Jr.

Weinstein a été plus honnête en décrivant le but de la NED lorsqu’il s’adressait au journaliste de WaPo : « Une grande partie de ce que nous faisons aujourd’hui a été fait secrètement il y a 25 ans par la CIA », a-t-il expliqué.

Dans Rogue State, l’auteur William Blum souligne que si la NED est censée avoir été créée pour “soutenir les institutions démocratiques à travers le monde grâce à des efforts privés et non gouvernementaux”, le Congrès américain fournit la quasi-totalité de son financement.

Blum soutient que si la NED prétend promouvoir la démocratie à l’étranger, il promeut en fait la politique étrangère américaine, souvent au détriment de la démocratie. La NED finance, entretient et fournit des groupes politiques de droite, des organisations civiques, des syndicats, des groupes d’étudiants, des éditeurs de livres et des médias «indépendants» pour promouvoir les intérêts américains à l’étranger.

Ces organisations financées par la NED cherchent à déstabiliser les gouvernements de gauche dont les politiques s’opposent aux intérêts américains ou empêchent les mouvements de gauche d’accéder au pouvoir avec succès.

On ne peut pas supposer qu’un bénéficiaire du financement de la NED est d’une manière ou d’une autre redevable ou idéologiquement engagé envers la politique étrangère américaine. On peut supposer, cependant, que les objectifs et les méthodes des organisations et des individus financés par la NED ne s’opposent pas à ceux de la politique étrangère américaine. Le gouvernement américain ne fournit pas de financement aux individus ou aux organisations qui s’opposent aux intérêts américains.

L’histoire du soutien de la NED aux réactionnaires en Haïti

La NED a financé des « groupes de la société civile » pour saper le président Jean-Bertrand Aristide dans les années qui ont précédé le coup d’État de 2004 qui l’a destitué, ainsi que des centaines d’autres, de leurs fonctions électives.

Aristide a remporté une majorité écrasante de 92% des voix lors des élections présidentielles de 2000. Son parti, Lavalas, a également remporté 80% des sièges à la Chambre des députés. C’est alors que la NED a commencé à financer des groupes d’opposition à l’intérieur d’Haïti.

Le Groupe des 184, dirigé par l’industriel Andy Apaid Jr.

Dans Damming the Flood, l’auteur Peter Hallward décrit comment la NED, par l’intermédiaire de sa filiale, l’International Republican Institute (IRI), a aidé à financer une campagne de déstabilisation contre Aristide.

Cette campagne de déstabilisation comprenait le financement d’une coalition de partis politiques anti-Aristide connue sous le nom de Convergence démocratique (CD). Fondée des mois après la victoire électorale d’Aristide en 2000, la NED a financé cette coalition de 200 groupes politiques qui voulaient le renversement de son gouvernement. Dirigé par l’ancien maire de Port-au-Prince, Evans Paul, la CD comptait parmi ses membres des industriels, des banquiers, des importateurs, des médias et des intellectuels.

De nombreux membres de CD ont ensuite rejoint une autre organisation anti-Lavalas financée par les États-Unis et représentant la «société civile» – le Groupe des 184, dirigé par l’industriel Andy Apaid Jr. Des gangs paramilitaires financés par Apaid qui ont terrorisé et assassiné les partisans de Lavalas, tandis que le fondateur de CD et agent de l’IRI, Stanley Lucas, a ouvertement parlé de l’assassinat d’Aristide dans des interviews à la radio.

Parmi les intellectuels de CD et du Groupe des 184 se trouvait Ariel Henry, l’actuel Premier ministre de facto d’Haïti, qui très tôt s’est conformé  avec la domination impériale de Washington sur Haïti. Magalie Comeau Denis, l’une des dirigeantes du Montana Group, une coalition politique rivale cherchant à le supplanter, était également associée à la CD.

Qui est actuellement financé par la NED en Haïti ?

Il existe actuellement plusieurs « groupes de la société civile locale » et « organisations de défense des droits de l’homme » directement financés par la NED en Haïti.

Les organisations de défense des droits humains basées en Haïti, le RNDDH (Réseau National de Défense des Droits Humains), les Défenseurs Plus, l’Initiative de la Société Civile et l’OCAPH (Observatoire Citoyen de l’Action des Pouvoirs Publics et des ONG) sont toutes financées par la NED.

Le RNDDH et son directeur, Pierre Espérance, ont joué un rôle déterminant dans la campagne de propagande qui a présenté Aristide comme un dictateur, bien qu’il ait remporté 92 % du vote populaire en 2000. En outre, le RNDDH a fabriqué des rapports qui ont qualifié le Premier ministre Lavalas Yvon Neptune d’avoir mené un présumé massacre à La Scierie, près de la ville de Saint-Marc en Haïti.

Les organisations «dirigées par des Haïtiens» financées par la NED ont pour objectif de créer un consensus au sein de la classe politique haïtienne sur l’objectif de politique étrangère du gouvernement américain en Haïti: une autre intervention dirigée par les États-Unis en Haïti

Espérance et le RNDDH ont travaillé en étroite collaboration avec la dictature de Latortue pour cibler et emprisonner des milliers de partisans Lavalas. Avant et après le coup d’État de 2004, la NCHR-Haïti (la Coalition nationale pour les droits des Haïtiens, ancien nom du RNDDH) avait un accord avec le procureur en chef de Port-au-Prince, par lequel tout individu accusé par Espérance et la NCHR-Haïti serait passible de poursuites. Selon un rapport du Conseil des affaires hémisphériques (COHA), “d’innombrables personnes, dont beaucoup dont le seul crime était une affiliation lâche avec le parti Fanmi Lavalas d’Aristide, ont été arrêtées par le gouvernement intérimaire sur la base de fausses accusations portées par la NCHR-Haïti”.

Brian Concannon, directeur de l’Institut pour la justice et la démocratie en Haïti, a fait remarquer à l’époque dans une interview avec The Jurist que NCHR-Haïti était un “critique féroce” du gouvernement d’Aristide et un “allié” du régime illégal.

Il a expliqué que « la persécution est devenue si flagrante que l’ancienne organisation mère de NCHR-Haïti, NCHR basée à New York, a publiquement désavoué le groupe haïtien et lui a demandé de changer de nom. [Il a alors] changé de nom [pour devenir] RNDDH.

Espérance et NCHR-Haïti ont reçu à l’époque des financements de l’USAID, de la NED, du gouvernement français et de l’Agence canadienne de développement international (ACDI).

La NED finance également plusieurs organisations médiatiques en Haïti telles que AyiboPost et Jurimedia. Le directeur général de Jurimedia est Abdonel Doudou, boursier à la NED. Il est également co-fondateur de l’Observatoire citoyen pour l’institutionnalisation de la démocratie (OCID), une autre organisation financée par la NED.

Dans les jours précédant le renversement d’Aristide, Evans Paul (en haut à droite) s’entretient avec d’autres dirigeants du Groupe des 184 Andy Apaid, Micha Gaillard et Marie-Denise Claude lors d’une conférence de presse le 25 février 2004.

L’OCID utilise son financement NED pour offrir un programme de formation en « suivi et évaluation des politiques publiques pour les cadres des partis politiques et des organisations de la société civile en Haïti ». Selon le site de l’OCID, ce programme vise également à « renforcer les capacités de 500 acteurs de la société civile et de la classe politique haïtienne dans les politiques publiques ».

En outre, l’OCID vise à “mobiliser l’engagement d’au moins 30 partis politiques et 200 organisations de la société civile pour plaider en faveur de l’optimisation des politiques et programmes publics, en particulier dans les secteurs de l’énergie, de la corruption et de la sécurité”.

La NED continue également de financer les programmes de l’IRI en Haïti. Le site Web de l’IRI affirme qu’ils « jettent les bases d’un nouveau programme de radio communautaire » dans des « régions cibles du pays ».

En bref, le gouvernement américain influence les organisations sur plusieurs fronts en Haïti. Y compris le secteur des droits de l’homme, les médias, les partis politiques et la société civile. Mais ce n’est que la pointe de l’iceberg.

La conférence de la NED : Construction de la paix et de la démocratie en Haïti

En juillet 2022, la NED a organisé une conférence où les intervenants ont partagé leurs opinions sur les crises auxquelles Haïti est confrontée. Parmi les intervenants figuraient Guy Serge Pompilus et Pierre-Antoine Louis de l’OCAPH, Carl Alexandre, ancien n°2 de la MINUSTAH, Fabiola Cordova, directrice associée de la NED pour l’Amérique latine et les Caraïbes, et Charles Clermont, le co-fondateur de Kafou Lespwa (Carrefour de l’espoir).

Comme OCAPH, Kafou Lespwa est un « partenaire » de la NED, selon les propos introductifs des modérateurs.

Fabiola Cordova a joué un rôle direct dans le financement de nombreux groupes affiliés à l’opposition anti-Lavalas comme le Groupe des 184 et le CD.

Le diplomate américain Carl Alexandre a été le chef adjoint de la désastreuse force d’occupation militaire de la MINUSTAH de 2013 à 2016.

Guy Serge Pompilus, le conseiller principal d’OCAPH, a présenté le « Manifeste pour un dialogue inclusif » de l’organisation lors de la conférence. La NED décrit ce manifeste comme le résultat “de leurs efforts collectifs pour concevoir des solutions innovantes pour une transition pacifique et démocratique en Haïti”.

Le Manifeste lui-même est vague et n’offre aucune stratégie ou solution concrète. Il pointe cependant deux « orientations » qu’il promeut pour Haïti : Kafou Lespwa et le Global Fragility Act américain.

Kafou Lespwa (KL) est dirigé par le co-fondateur Charles Clermont, un millionnaire en capital-risque  qui a occupé des postes de haut rang dans diverses institutions financières en Haïti.

L’équipe de l’organisation comprend un large éventail d’acteurs de la classe politique haïtienne, notamment des membres de PHTK, Lavalas, MTVayiti et la Coalition du Montana.

Deux membres notables sont Danielle Saint-Lôt, ministre haïtienne du Commerce, de l’Industrie et du Tourisme sous le régime Latortue, et Clifford Apaid, fils d’Andy Apaid Jr.. Andy Apaid Jr. a dirigé le Groupe des 184, l’ « opposition non armée » qui a travaillé de concert avec des groupes paramilitaires armés qui ont terrorisé Haïti avant le coup d’État de 2004 contre Aristide. Parmi les autres membres éminents de l’équipe figurent Fritz Alphonse Jean, le candidat du groupe Montana à la présidence provisoire d’Haïti, et Joël Edouard “Pacha” Vorbe, membre du comité exécutif de Fanmi Lavalas.

L’homme d’affaires Charles Clermont de Kafou Espwa s’exprimant lors d’une conférence organisée par NED pour promouvoir la loi sur la fragilité mondiale en juillet 2022.

Revoyons. La NED a choisi de réunir un haïtien millionnaire en capital-risque en partenariat avec la NED, deux représentants d’une organisation haïtienne de défense des droits de l’homme financée par la NED qui promeut l’intervention américaine, l’ex-représentant spécial adjoint du secrétaire général de l’ONU pour la MINUSTAH, un directeur de la NED qui a organisé le financement – avec l’argent des contribuables américains – des groupes d’opposition qui ont exécuté un coup d’État contre Aristide et des centaines d’autres élus.

La conférence a été organisée en partie pour lancer le Manifeste qui promeut le Global Fragility Act (Loi sur la fragilité mondiale) américain. Les représentants de ces organisations dirigées par des Haïtiens promouvant l’intervention américaine se tenaient sur la même scène que des agents impériaux comme Fabiola Cordova et Carl Alexandre qui ont directement contribué à la destruction de la démocratie et de la souveraineté haïtiennes.

Les organisations «dirigées par des Haïtiens» financées par la NED, telles que KL et OCAPH, ont pour objectif de créer un consensus au sein de la classe politique haïtienne sur l’objectif de politique étrangère du gouvernement américain en Haïti: une autre intervention dirigée par les États-Unis en Haïti. Cette intervention sera appliquée dans le cadre du Global Fragility Act.

Entrez dans le Global Fragility Act

Le Global Fragility Act (GFA) américain de 2019 décrit une stratégie de « consolidation de la paix » pour « stabiliser les zones touchées par les conflits et prévenir la violence et la fragilité ». L’administration Biden espère que la GFA fera des États-Unis un “partenaire de confiance – une force pour la paix et la stabilité dans le monde”. La GFA met l’accent sur l’établissement de relations avec la “société civile locale” en “renforçant la capacité des États-Unis à être un leader efficace des efforts internationaux pour prévenir l’extrémisme et les conflits violents”. Cette « capacité » comprend également « l’assistance à la sécurité planifiée » sur des périodes de dix ans.

La GFA a reçu le plein soutien des deux partis de la classe dirigeante – démocrate et républicain – et de pratiquement tous les groupes de réflexion américains qui se sont prononcés à son sujet. La Loi a également l’appui du gouvernement canadien.

« Partenariat » avec Haïti dans le cadre du Global Fragility Act

L’administration Biden a récemment annoncé qu’Haïti est le premier “partenaire” dans le cadre de la GFA.

Avant cette annonce, des articles soutenant la GFA s’y concentraient comme un outil vital pour empêcher “des adversaires tels que la Chine et la Russie d’étendre leur influence”.

La GFA a moins à voir avec « la prévention de la violence et de la fragilité » qu’avec le maintien des investissements chinois hors des États dits fragiles. Le gouvernement américain est ouvert quant à sa volonté d’empêcher la Chine – et la Russie – de s’assurer l’accès aux matières premières et de développer des relations diplomatiques et commerciales avec les nations sous la sphère d’influence de Washington. Plus précisément, en Amérique latine, dans les Caraïbes et en Afrique.

La poussée pour mettre en œuvre la GFA est la tentative du gouvernement américain de développer des relations bilatérales avec les États dits fragiles pour avoir accès aux matières premières clés et empêcher la Chine d’acquérir un « levier politique indésirable ». L’administration Biden veut s’assurer que les États-Unis maintiennent un « levier géopolitique » dans sa sphère d’influence, y compris Haïti, qui a été réduit au statut de néo-colonie depuis le coup d’État de 2004.

Haïti est maintenant un pion dans la guerre froide du gouvernement américain avec la Chine.

L’intention de la dépravation et de la cruauté prolongées et brutales que les États-Unis ont imposées à Haïti depuis l’assassinat de Jovenel Moïse est de créer les conditions nécessaires à une intervention américaine dans le cadre de la GFA. Cette intervention de 10 ans empêchera le commerce et les investissements chinois d’entrer en Haïti, tout en empêchant des alliés historiques comme le Venezuela et Cuba d’offrir aide et soutien.

Le rôle de la NED dans le financement de ces divers « groupes de la société civile dirigés par des Haïtiens » et « organisations de défense des droits de l’homme » est de créer un consensus au sein de la classe politique pour accepter l’ACM, ce qui conduira à un plan d’une décennie comprenant une « assistance à la sécurité » qui sera géré par le Département de la Défense sous la supervision du Département d’État américain et de l’USAID.

Autrement dit, une occupation d’Haïti.

Les termes «dirigés par des Haïtiens» et «groupes de la société civile locale» sont mis en avant par les divers groupes de réflexion financés par le gouvernement américain qui promeuvent la GFA.

Des organisations financées par la NED telles que l’Initiative de la Société Civile et l’OCAPH ont déjà approuvé la GFA. Au fur et à mesure que l’élan se renforce, davantage de groupes de la «société civile» financés par les États-Unis en Haïti sont susceptibles d’approuver l’AMC dans le cadre d’une solution «dirigée par les Haïtiens» à la crise en Haïti.

Créer un consensus pour un futur « partenariat » avec les États-Unis

Début octobre 2022, Ariel Henry a demandé l’assistance militaire des gouvernements des États-Unis, de l’ONU et du groupe CORE pour réprimer la révolte des citoyens contre son gouvernement non élu.

Les dirigeants de l’Accord de Montana Ted St. Dic et Magalie Comeau-Denis avec le secrétaire d’État adjoint du département d’État américain aux affaires de l’hémisphère occidental, Brian Nichols (centre)

Les chefs de l’Accord de Montana ont répondu, décrivant sa demande comme “un acte de trahison” et ont déclaré que “les troupes étrangères ne feraient qu’empirer les choses”, selon un rapport de Reuters. Après avoir rencontré le secrétaire d’État adjoint Brian Nichols lors de sa visite en Haïti avec sa délégation, Ted Saint-Dic a appelé à la démission du premier ministre Ariel Henry. Saint-Dic est porte-parole du Montana, en plus d’être l’un des leaders de la coalition.

« L’histoire nous enseigne qu’aucune force étrangère n’a jamais résolu les problèmes d’aucun peuple sur terre », ont déclaré les dirigeants du groupe du Montana dans un communiqué, ajoutant qu’Haïti avait plutôt besoin d’un soutien pour sa force de police. “C’est notre police haïtienne qui aura la capacité de résoudre une fois pour toutes les problèmes d’insécurité que connaissent les Haïtiens.”

Les dirigeants du Montana ne veulent clairement pas d’une force d’occupation militaire à l’intérieur d’Haïti sous le règne d’Henry. Les dirigeants étaient cependant heureux de participer à une séance photo après avoir rencontré Nichols. Des photos de Nichols, Comeau et Saint-Dic souriant et se serrant la main ont été partagées sur Twitter après leur rencontre. Blinken les a exhortés à « développer de toute urgence un consensus sur un accord ».

La déclaration des dirigeants du Montana peut sembler en contradiction avec un récent article de Saint-Dic pour Juste Securité. Dans l’article, Ted Saint-Dic soutient que “les États-Unis, les responsables doivent faire tout ce qui est en leur pouvoir pour saisir cette fragile opportunité de soutenir et de créer un espace pour les Haïtiens engagés dans un effort extraordinaire pour reconstruire la démocratie ».

Sans se référer directement à la GFA, Saint-Dic affirme que les États-Unis ont un « rôle puissant et important pour aider à remettre la démocratie sur les rails en Haïti ».

Saint-Dic va cependant plus loin, demandant apparemment une intervention militaire au nom du groupe Montana lorsqu’il déclare : « les États-Unis devraient utiliser des tactiques créatives et agressives pour intercepter les activités criminelles en Haïti ».

On peut supposer que, du point de vue des dirigeants du Montana, le problème n’est pas l’ingérence des États-Unis et du CORE groupe dans les affaires d’Haïti, mais seulement que cela se produit sous Henry.

Le «rôle puissant et important» du gouvernement américain, selon Saint-Dic, est de «mettre la démocratie sur les rails en Haïti» en reconnaissant le président par intérim Fritz Alphonse Jean et le premier ministre par intérim Steven Benoit choisis par le groupe du Montana. L’invitation de Saint-Dic aux États-Unis à “utiliser des tactiques créatives et agressives pour intercepter les activités criminelles en Haïti” est un signe clair pour l’administration Biden que s’ils reconnaissaient les dirigeants intérimaires de l’Accord de Montana, ils autoriseraient une sorte “d’assistance à la sécurité planifiée”. ”

Montana et la GFA

Henry devient de plus en plus non viable en tant que représentant des États-Unis et du CORE Group en Haïti.

Les différentes crises imposées aux Haïtiens par Washington et leurs alliés du CORE Group au cours de la dernière année ont affaibli la coalition de Montana. C’était probablement l’intention du soutien du gouvernement américain à Henry. L’aggravation de la situation en Haïti a également été utilisée comme justification par Henry pour demander une intervention militaire.

Les dirigeants derrière l’Accord de Montana, cependant, n’ont rien fait pour mobiliser un quelconque soutien populaire  à Montana et forcer Henry à quitter ses fonctions depuis la première publication de l’Accord.

Au lieu de cela, ces dirigeants se sont tournés vers Washington pour obtenir légitimité et soutien. Pendant ce temps, le soutien public limité dont Montana jouissait autrefois s’effondre.

En janvier 2022, Fanmi Lavalas a retiré son soutien à la direction derrière la coalition du Montana. La direction de FL a fait part de ses inquiétudes quant au fait que les dirigeants du Montana “poursuivaient le calendrier électoral sans attendre de parvenir à un consensus plus large et plus solide de la société civile”.

En mai 2022, le MOLEGHAF, un groupe communiste, a également retiré son soutien. Dans une récente interview, le leader du MOLEGHAF, David Oxygène, a déclaré qu'”après le départ du MOLEGHAF de la coalition de Montana, le syndicat CNOH (Confédération nationale des travailleurs haïtiens) est parti, et de nombreuses organisations populaires ne reconnaissent plus l’Accord de Montana”.

Oxygène soutient que Magalie Comeau Denis et d’autres dirigeants de la coalition du Montana ont été plus intéressés à « tenir des réunions à l’ambassade des États-Unis et même aux États-Unis, afin d’écraser le mouvement populaire ».

Une coalition du Montana affaiblie et docile répond aux critères de « groupe de la société civile dirigé par des Haïtiens » tels que définis dans la GFA. Si les dirigeants de Montana acceptent un plan décennal d'”assistance à la sécurité planifiée” des États-Unis au nom des Haïtiens, ce résultat est pratiquement garanti.

Le Montana et la GFA sont connectés

De nombreux dirigeants du Montana ont déjà montré une tendance à se conformer aux diktats de Washington. Cette conformité passée fait d’eux des candidats idéaux en tant que subordonnés à la domination impériale continue de Washington sur Haïti une fois qu’Henri aura survécu à son utilité et sera écarté du pouvoir.

Les organisations financées par la NED d’Haïti créent un consensus parmi les secteurs de la classe politique haïtienne. Ce consensus apparent sera suffisant pour convaincre les dirigeants étrangers – dont certains peuvent être sensibles au sort des Haïtiens ordinaires – que les Haïtiens veulent vraiment de l’aide dans le cadre de la GFA. L’ajout du soutien d’organisations « des droits de l’homme » comme le RNDDH, l’OCAPH, le Bureau des Droits Humains en Haïti et Défenseurs Plus cimentera davantage cette illusion de consensus.

Le gouvernement américain ne finance pas les organisations dont les intérêts s’opposent à leurs objectifs de politique étrangère. Et l’un des principaux objectifs actuels de la politique étrangère du gouvernement américain en Haïti est de former un partenariat en vertu du Global Fragility Act.

Ceux qui défendent Haïti devraient reconnaître que les organisations à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur d’Haïti qui reçoivent des fonds du gouvernement américain via la NED ou d’autres organisations impérialistes doivent être considérées comme prisonnières. Leurs intérêts correspondent ou ne défient pas les intérêts américains.

Dans un article de 2008, Nik Barry-Shaw a décrit les conséquences que les ONG soutenues par l’Occident ont eues sur la classe moyenne et intellectuelle d’Haïti avant le coup d’État de 2004 contre Aristide :

“Les énormes ressources dont disposent ces organisations ne peuvent qu’avoir un impact massif sur la scène politique, opérant dans un dénuement aussi extrême. Si vous voulez gagner votre pain quotidien, pourquoi s’embêter à construire un puissant mouvement socio-politique pour faire pression sur vos demandes à un État impuissant ?

Le désir décroissant de changement social transformateur rivalisait pour le cœur de la classe moyenne avec d’autres intérêts plus individualistes. Comme l’explique Robert Fatton Jr. : « Dans un pays où la misère est la norme et où les voies privées vers la richesse sont rares, la politique devient une vocation entrepreneuriale, pratiquement le seul moyen de promotion matérielle et sociale pour ceux qui ne sont pas nés dans la richesse et le prestige. » Ironiquement, les représentants politiques de la classe moyenne ont finalement fait le plus pour faire avancer les compromis néolibéraux imposés à Aristide.

Ces secteurs “se sont alors tournés vers… les généreux bailleurs de fonds de la ‘société civile’ du Nord”.

Nous devons également scruter les revendications de la classe moyenne et intellectuelle qui reçoit des fonds de la NED et d’autres fondations basées aux États-Unis et dans d’autres pays du groupe CORE. Nous devons également être prêts à reconsidérer les récits que les dirigeants et les représentants de ces institutions financées par la NED présentent concernant les individus ou les organisations marginalisés ou vilipendés à l’intérieur d’Haïti.

Nous devons interroger ces institutions financées par la NED et leurs divers rapports, manifestes et plans pour Haïti parce qu’ils servent en quelque sorte les intérêts de la politique impérialiste américaine en Haïti.


*Une version antérieure de cet article a été publiée par Black Agenda Report. Travis Ross est un enseignant basé à Montréal, Québec. Il est co-rédacteur en chef du Projet d’information Canada-Haïti. Ses articles ont été publiés dans Truthout, Haïti Liberté et Rabble.ca. Il est joignable sur Twitter.

 

How the NED has Sabotaged Haitian Democracy and Sovereignty

3
La National Endowment for Democracy (NED) est la branche du soft power de la CIA. Elle a contribué au changement de régime passé en Haïti, et à celui qui est en cours aujourd'hui.

(Français)

Haiti is awash in money from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

The NED had a direct role in funding opposition forces and paramilitary forces leading up to the 2004 coup against democratically elected President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. It is crucial, therefore, to explore how the NED is currently influencing Haiti by funding “Haitian-led” organizations inside the country.

The NED is overt regarding the grants it provides and funding it delivers – you can simply visit their website and search. The organization is rarely analyzed, however, and their grantees are seldom scrutinized.

 The National Endowment for Democracy

The NED was founded in 1983. The NED’s co-founder, Allen Weinstein, was described by the Washington Post as the “sugar daddy of overt operations.”

According to its website, the NED is “dedicated to fostering the growth of a wide range of democratic institutions abroad” including political parties, business organizations, human rights organizations, and “independent” media.

Weinstein was more honest in describing the NED’s purpose while speaking to the WaPo reporter: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA,” he explained.

The NED’s co-founder, Allen Weinstein.

In Rogue State, author William Blum points out that while the NED was supposedly set up to “support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, non-governmental efforts,” the U.S. Congress provides nearly all of its funding.

Blum argues that while the NED claims to promote democracy abroad, it actually promotes U.S. foreign policy, often at the expense of democracy. The NED finances, nurtures, and supplies right-wing political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, student groups, book publishers, and “independent” media to further U.S. interests abroad.

These NED-funded organizations seek to destabilize left-wing governments whose policies oppose U.S. interests or prevent left-wing movements from successfully achieving power in the first place.

One cannot assume that a recipient of NED funding is somehow beholden to, or ideologically committed to, U.S. foreign policy. One can assume, however, that the goals and methods of organizations and individuals the NED funds do not oppose that of U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. government does not provide funding to individuals or organizations who oppose U.S. interests.

The NED’s History of Supporting Reactionaries in Haiti

The NED funded “civil society groups” to undermine President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in the years leading up to the 2004 coup d’état that removed him and hundreds of others from elected office.

Aristide won an overwhelming majority of 92% of the vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. His party, Lavalas also won 80% of the seats in the House of Deputies. It was then that the NED began funding opposition groups inside Haiti.

In Damming the Flood, author Peter Hallward describes how the NED, through its subsidiary, the International Republican Institute (IRI), helped fund a destabilization campaign against Aristide.

This destabilization campaign included funding an anti-Aristide coalition of political parties known as the Democratic Convergence (CD). Founded months after Aristide’s election victory in 2000, the NED funded this coalition of 200 political groups which wanted his government overthrown. Led by former Port-au-Prince mayor Evans Paul, CD included industrialists, bankers, importers, media, and intellectuals among its members.

Many CD members went on to become part of another U.S.-funded anti-Lavalas organization representing “civil society” – the Group of 184, headed by industrialist Andy Apaid Jr . Apaid funded paramilitary gangs who terrorized and murdered Lavalas supporters, while CD founder and IRI operative Stanley Lucas openly talked about assassinating Aristide in radio interviews.

Among the CD’s and Group of 184’s intellectuals was Ariel Henry, Haiti’s current de facto prime minister, who established early on his compliance with Washington’s imperial rule over Haiti. Magalie Comeau Denis , one of the leaders behind the Montana Group, a rival political coalition seeking to supplant him, was also associated with the CD.

Who is the NED Currently Funding in Haiti?

There are several “local civil society groups” and “human rights organizations” directly funded by the NED in Haiti right now.

Haiti-based human rights organizations the RNDDH (Reseau National de Defense des Droits Humains), Defenseurs Plus, Initiative de la Société Civile, and OCAPH (Observatoire Citoyen de l’Action des Pouvoirs Publics et des ONGs) are all funded by the NED.

The RNDDH and its director, Pierre Espérance, were instrumental in the propaganda campaign that framed Aristide as a dictator, despite having won 92% of the popular vote in 2000. In addition, the RNDDH manufactured reports that framed Lavalas Prime-Minister Yvon Neptune as having led an alleged massacre in La Scierie, near the town of Saint-Marc in Haiti.

the U.S. government is influencing organizations on multiple fronts in Haiti, including the human rights sector, the media, political parties, and civil society. But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Espérance and the RNDDH worked closely with the Latortue dictatorship to target and jail thousands of Lavalas supporters. Before and after the 2004 coup, NCHR-Haiti (the National Coalition for Haitian Rights, the RNDDH’s former name) had an agreement with the head prosecutor in Port-au-Prince, by which any individual accused by Espérance and NCHR-Haiti would be subject to prosecution. According to a Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) report, “countless individuals, many whose only crime was a loose affiliation with Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas party, were arrested by the interim government based on false accusations entered by the NCHR-Haiti.”

Brian Concannon, director of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, remarked at the time in an interview with The Jurist that NCHR-Haiti was a “ferocious critic” of Aristide’s government and an “ally” of the illegal regime.

He explained that “the persecution became so flagrant that NCHR-Haiti’s former parent organization, New York-based NCHR, publicly repudiated the Haitian group and asked it to change its name. [It then] changed its name RNDDH.”

Espérance and NCHR-Haiti received funding from the USAID, the NED, the French government, and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) at the time.

The NED also funds several media organizations in Haiti such as AyiboPost and Jurimedia. Jurimedia’s executive director is Abdonel Doudou, a fellow at the NED. He is also a co-founder of the Citizen Observatory for the Institutionalization of Democracy (OCID), another NED-funded organization.

OCID uses its NED funding to offer a training program in “the monitoring and evaluation of public policies for executives of political parties and civil society organizations in Haiti.” According to OCID’s website, this program also aims to “strengthen the capacities of 500 actors from civil society and the Haitian political class in public policies.”

Furthermore, OCID aims to “mobilize the commitment of at least 30 political parties and 200 civil society organizations to advocate for the optimization of public policies and programs, particularly in the sectors of energy, corruption, and security.”

The NED also continues to fund the IRI’s programs in Haiti. IRI’s website claims they are “laying the groundwork for a new community radio program” in “target areas of the country.”

In short, the U.S. government is influencing organizations on multiple fronts in Haiti, including the human rights sector, the media, political parties, and civil society.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The NED Conference: Peace & Democracy Building in Haiti

In July 2022, the NED hosted a conference where speakers shared their opinions on the crises facing Haiti. The speakers included Guy Serge Pompilus and Pierre-Antoine Louis of OCAPH, Carl Alexandre, MINUSTAH’s former #2, Fabiola Cordova, the NED’s Associate Director for Latin America and Caribbean, and Charles Clermont, the co-founder of Kafou Lespwa (Crossroads of Hope).

Like OCAPH, Kafou Lespwa is a “partner” of the NED, according to the moderators introductory remarks.

Fabiola Cordova had a direct role in funding numerous anti-Lavalas opposition-affiliated groups like the Group of 184 and the CD.

Career U.S. diplomat Carl Alexandre was the deputy chief the disastrous MINUSTAH military occupation force from 2013 to 2016.

Guy Serge Pompilus, the Senior Advisor for OCAPH, introduced the organizations “Manifesto for an Inclusive Dialogue” at the conference. The NED describe this manifesto as the result “of their collective efforts in devising innovative solutions for a peaceful and democratic transition in Haiti.”

Businessman Charles Clermont of Kafou Espwa speaking at a NED-hosted conference promoting the Global Fragility Act in July 2022.

The Manifesto itself is vague and offers no concrete strategies or solutions. It does, however, point to two “orientations” it promotes for Haiti: Kafou Lespwa and the American Global Fragility Act.

Kafou Lespwa (KL) is headed by co-founder Charles Clermont, a millionaire venture capitalist who has held high ranking posts at various financial institutions in Haiti.

The organization’s team includes a wide array of actors from Haiti’s political class, including members of PHTK, Lavalas, MTVayiti, and the Montana Coalition.

Two notable members are Danielle Saint-Lôt, Haitian Minister of Commerce, Industry and Tourism under the Latortue regime, and Clifford Apaid, son of Andy Apaid Jr.. Andy Apaid Jr. led the Group of 184, the “unarmed opposition” which worked in concert with armed paramilitary groups which terrorized Haiti in the lead up to the 2004 coup against Aristide. Other prominent team members include Fritz Alphonse Jean, the Montana group’s candidate for provisional President of Haiti, and Joel Edouard “Pacha” Vorbe, a member of Fanmi Lavalas’ executive committee.

Let’s review. The NED chose to bring together a Haitian millionaire venture capitalist partnered with the NED, two representatives of an NED-funded Haitian human rights organization that promotes U.S. intervention, the ex-Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for MINUSTAH, a director at the NED who organized the funding – with U.S. tax dollars – of opposition groups who executed a coup d’état against Aristide and hundreds of other elected representatives.

The conference was organized in part to launch the Manifesto that promotes the American Global Fragility Act. The representatives of these Haitian-led organizations promoting U.S. intervention stood on the same stage as imperial agents like Fabiola Cordova and Carl Alexandre who have directly contributed to the destruction of Haitian democracy and sovereignty.

NED-funded “Haitian-led” organizations like KL and OCAPH serve the purpose of creating consensus among Haiti’s political class for the U.S. government’s foreign policy goal in Haiti: another American-led intervention in Haiti.

This intervention will be applied under the Global Fragility Act.

Enter the Global Fragility Act

The American 2019 Global Fragility Act (GFA) outlines a “peace building” strategy to “stabilize conflict-affected areas and prevent violence and fragility.” The Biden administration hopes the GFA will establish the United States as a “trusted partner — a force for peace and stability in the world.” The GFA emphasizes building relationships with “local civil society” by “strengthen[ing] the capacity of the United States to be an effective leader of international efforts to prevent extremism and violent conflict.” This “capacity” also includes “planned security assistance” over periods of ten years.

The GFA has received full support from both ruling-class parties – Democrat and Republican – and virtually all of the U.S. think-tanks which have opined on it. The Act also has the support of the Canadian government.

“Partnering” with Haiti under the Global Fragility Act

The Biden administration recently announced that Haiti is the first “partner” under the GFA.

Before this announcement, articles supporting the GFA focused on it as a vital tool for preventing “adversaries such as China and Russia to expand their influence.”

The GFA has less to do with “preventing violence and fragility,” and more to do with keeping Chinese investment out of so-called fragile states. The U.S. government is open about their desire to prevent China – and Russia – from securing access to raw materials and developing diplomatic relations and trade with nations under Washington’s sphere of influence. Specifically, in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Africa.

The push to implement the GFA is the U.S. government’s attempt to develop bilateral relations with so-called fragile states to gain access to key raw materials and prevent China from gaining “unwanted political leverage.” The Biden administration wants to ensure that the U.S. maintains “geopolitical leverage” in its sphere of influence, including Haiti, which has been reduced to neo-colony status since the 2004 coup.

Haiti is now a pawn in the U.S. government’s Cold War with China.

The intent of the prolonged, brutal depravation and cruelty the U.S. has imposed on Haiti since Jovenel Moïse’s assassination is to create the necessary conditions for a U.S. intervention under the GFA. This 10-year intervention will prevent Chinese trade and investment from entering Haiti, while also blocking historical allies like Venezuela and Cuba from offering aid and support.

The NED’s role in funding these various “Haitian-led civil society groups” and “human rights organizations” is to manufacture a consensus among the political class to accept the GFA, which will lead to a decade-long plan including “security assistance” which will be managed by the Defense Department under the supervision of the U.S. State Department and USAID.

In other words, an occupation of Haiti.

The terms “Haitian-led” and “local civil society groups” are emphasized by the various U.S. government-funded think-tanks who promote the GFA.

NED-funded organizations such as Initiative de la Société Civile and OCAPH have already endorsed the GFA. As momentum builds, more U.S.-funded “civil society” groups in Haiti are likely to endorse the GFA as part of a “Haitian-led” solution to the crisis in Haiti.

Creating Consensus for a Future “Partnership” with the U.S.

In early October 2022, Ariel Henry requested military assistance from the U.S., UN, and CORE group governments to suppress the citizen revolt against his unelected government.

The Montana group leaders responded, describing his request as “an act of treason” and said that “foreign troops would only make things worse,” according to a Reuters report. After meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Brian Nichols when he and his delegation visited Haiti, Ted Saint-Dic called for the resignation of PM Ariel Henry. Saint-Dic is a spokesperson for Montana, in addition to being one of the coalition’s leaders.

A weakened, compliant Montana coalition meets the criteria as a “Haitian-led civil society group” as defined in the GFA.

“History teaches us that no foreign force has ever solved the problems of any people on earth,” the Montana group leaders said in a statement, adding that Haiti instead needs support for its police force. “It is our Haitian police force that will have the ability to once and for all solve the insecurity problems that Haitians are experiencing.”

Montana leaders clearly do not want a military occupation force inside Haiti under Henry’s rule. The leaders were happy, however, to take part in a photo-op after meeting with Nichols. Pictures of Nichols, Comeau, and Saint-Dic smiling and shaking hands were shared on Twitter after their meeting. Blinken urged them to “urgently develop consensus on an accord.”

The Montana leaderships statement may seem at odds with a recent article by Saint-Dic for Just Security. In the article, Ted Saint-Dic argues that “U.S. officials should do everything in their power to seize this fragile opportunity to support and create space for Haitians engaged in an extraordinary effort to rebuild democracy.”

While not referring to the GFA directly, Saint-Dic says the U.S. has a “powerful and important role in helping get democracy back on track in Haiti.”

Saint-Dic goes further, however, seemingly requesting a military intervention on behalf of the Montana group when he states: the “United States should use creative and aggressive tactics to intercept criminal activity in Haiti.”

One can surmise that, from the perspective of Montana’s leadership, the problem isn’t U.S. and CORE group interference in Haiti’s affairs, but only that it is happening under Henry.

The “powerful and important role” the U.S. government has, in Saint-Dic’s view, is to “get democracy on track in Haiti” by recognizing the Montana group’s chosen interim President Fritz Alphonse Jean and interim Prime-Minster Steven Benoit. Saint-Dic’s invitation to the United States to “use creative and aggressive tactics to intercept criminal activity in Haiti” is a clear sign to the Biden administration that if they recognize Montana’s interim leaders, they would allow for some sort of “planned security assistance.”

Montana & the GFA

Henry is becoming increasingly unviable as a representative for the U.S. and CORE group in Haiti.

The various crises imposed on Haitians by the Washington and their CORE group allies over the past year have weakened the Montana coalition. This was likely the intent of the U.S. government’s support for Henry. The worsening situation in Haiti has also been used as a justification by Henry for requesting a military intervention.

The leaders behind Montana, however, have done nothing to mobilize support for Montana and force Henry from office since the Accord was first published.

Instead, Montana’s leaders have looked to Washington for legitimacy and support. Meanwhile, the limited public support Montana once enjoyed is crumbling.

The Montana Coalition leaders Ted St. Dic and Magalie Comeau-Denis with U.S. State Department’s Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Brian Nichols (center). Photo: Le Nouvelliste

In January 2022, Fanmi Lavalas withdrew its support from the leadership behind the Montana coalition. FL’s leadership stated its concerns that Montana leadership were “continuing with the election calendar without waiting to reach a broader and more solid consensus of civil society”.

In May 2022, MOLEGHAF, a Communist group, also withdrew support. In a recent interview , MOLEGHAF’s leader David Oxygène said that “after MOLEGHAF left the Montana coalition, the union CNOH (National Confederation of Haitian Workers) left, and many popular organizations no longer recognize the Montana Accord”.

Oxygène argues that Magalie Comeau Denis, and other leaders in the Montana coalition have been more interested in “holding meetings at the U.S. Embassy and even in the United States, so they could crush the popular movement.”

A weakened, compliant Montana coalition meets the criteria as a “Haitian-led civil society group” as defined in the GFA. If Montana leadership accepts a ten-year plan of U.S. “planned security assistance” on behalf of Haitians, this outcome is virtually guaranteed.

Montana & the GFA are Connected

Many of Montana’s leaders have already shown a tendency to comply with Washington’s dictates. This past compliance makes them ideal candidates as subordinates for Washington’s continued imperial domination of Haiti once Henry outlives his usefulness and is removed from power.

Haiti’s NED-funded organizations are creating a consensus among sectors of Haiti’s political class. This apparent consensus will be sufficient to convince foreign leaders – some of whom may be sympathetic to the plight of everyday Haitians – that Haitians truly want assistance under the GFA. The addition of support from “human rights” organizations like the RNDDH, OCAPH, the Bureau des Droits Humains en Haiti, and Defenseurs Plus will further cement this illusion of consensus.

The U.S. government does not fund organizations whose interests oppose their foreign policy goals. And one of the U.S. government’s primary current foreign policy goals in Haiti is to form a partnership under the Global Fragility Act.

Those who advocate for Haiti ought to recognize that organizations in and outside of Haiti which receive funding from the U.S. government via the NED or other imperialist organizations must be viewed as captured. Their interests either correspond with or do not challenge U.S. interests.

In a 2008 article, Nik Barry-Shaw described the consequences Western-backed NGOs had on Haiti’s middle and intellectual class in Haiti leading up to the 2004 coup against Aristide:

“The tremendous resources disposed of by these organization cannot but have a massive impact on the political scene, operating as they are amidst such extreme deprivation. If you want to get your daily bread, why bother building a powerful socio-political movement to press your demands on an impotent state?”

The waning desire for transformative social change competed for the middle-class’ heart with other, more individualistic interests. As Robert Fatton Jr. explains: “In a country where destitution is the norm and private avenues to wealth are rare, politics becomes an entrepreneurial vocation, virtually the sole means of material and social advancement for those not born into wealth and prestige.” Ironically, the political representatives of the middle class ultimately did the most to advance the neoliberal compromises forced on Aristide.

These sectors subsequently “turned to … generous funders of ‘civil society’ from the North.”

We must also scrutinize the claims of the middle and intellectual class who receive funds from the NED and other foundations based in the United States and other CORE group countries. We must also be prepared to reconsider the narratives that the leaders and representatives of these NED-funded institutions present regarding marginalized or villainized individuals or organizations inside Haiti.

We must interrogate these NED-funded institutions and their various reports, manifestos, and plans for Haiti because they in some way serve the interests of U.S. imperialist policies in Haiti.


An earlier version of this article was published by Black Agenda Report. Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Quebec. He is a co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project. His articles have been published in Truthout, Haïti Liberté, and Rabble.ca. He can be reached on Twitter.

Allons-nous vers de nouveaux déboires ?

0

(English)

Depuis quelques jours, on a l’impression d’assister à ce qui ressemble fort à un round d’observation au cours duquel l’impérialiste américain essaie de tester l’endurance de l’Accord de Musseau ou la pugnacité de celui de Montana.

Ce que nous devons comprendre enfin, les puissances capitalistes contrôlent les deux principaux Accords politiques. Si l’on prend en compte le dernier message à la Nation du Premier ministre de facto, Ariel Henry, l’un des signataires de l’Accord de Musseau exprimant son incapacité, sa faiblesse sur tous les points et la déclaration de l’ex- Représentante spéciale du Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies et cheffe de la Mission des Nations Unies pour l’appui à la justice en Haïti (MINUJUSTH), Susan D. Page,  affirme  que « les États-Unis doivent indiquer clairement  qu’ils tournent la page du passé et travaillent aux côtés des Haïtiens désireux de tracer leur propre transition », on a le droit de se demander vers quels horizons allons-nous ?

Après avoir tout fait pour déstabiliser le pays, les Etats-Unis peuvent à n’importe quel moment du jeu effectuer un remaniement du personnel politique en remplaçant l’équipe de Musseau par celle de Montana pour continuer sa politique de domination impérialiste. Cette situation hautement avantageuse pour les classes d’affaires inféodées à l’impérialisme sera vite approuvée et longuement applaudie car les oligarques ne misent que sur leurs intérêts et leurs privilèges.

changer d’outils ou d’un instrument n’implique pas pour autant qu’une quelconque page soit tournée

Si l’on s’en tient à ces protagonistes aucune volonté de décrispation ne se manifeste. Le Premier ministre de facto est en train de rêver en faisant des déclarations couronnées de mensonges. Son  gouvernement a déjà échoué. Il ne parviendra jamais à exécuter les réformes  pour lesquelles, il a été investi à la Primature il y a plus d’un an. Ainsi, pour tenter de démêler l’écheveau, sinon, pour mieux brouiller les cartes pour nous enfoncer davantage dans le chaos de la crise sécuritaire et institutionnelle, Mme Page dans le cadre du nouvel outil de Washington « le Global Fragility Act (GFA)», dont Haïti est une « priorité », suggère que « Les États-Unis devraient considérer l’Accord de Montana comme le point de départ naturel de leur nouvelle approche stratégique pour Haïti ».

En expliquant par la suite « le soutien américain existant dans ce domaine s’inscrit pleinement dans les domaines prioritaires du gouvernement de Transition définis par l’Accord de Montana ; mais étant donné les efforts infructueux du Consortium pour les élections et les procédures politiques (CEPPS) depuis de nombreuses années, les États-Unis devraient envisager d’autres initiatives plus créatives pour promouvoir la démocratie et la réforme électorale en Haïti ».

« De telles déclarations n’augurent rien de bon pour qu’Haïti rejoigne tout “partenariat” avec le gouvernement américain dans le cadre de la GFA » avait conclu Travis Ross.

Cette politique de subordination à l’impérialisme américain, n’est-elle  pas pareille à ces mêmes nuages épais qui réapparaissent à l’horizon ? Au cynisme et au mépris qui ont toujours caractérisé l’attitude américaine à l’égard d’Haïti, l’infâme est qu’il n’y a, en fait, aucune détermination à tourner la page honteuse et tirer une fois pour toute un trait sur le passé. Il s’agit toujours de nous administrer des pilules incompatibles avec le progrès, la modernisation et le développement.

En d’autres termes, changer d’outils ou d’un instrument n’implique pas pour autant qu’une quelconque page soit tournée, s’agissant de la même politique néocoloniale qui continuera avec d’autres visages de marionnettes à la direction de l’appareil d’Etat.

Fondamentalement, il n’y a là, aucun projet à mettre en question. Les rapports capitalistes d’exploitation générant la misère, la pauvreté, le chômage, la criminalité et l’insécurité ruinant le pays n’ont fait qu’augmenter considérablement ces derniers temps.

La classe politique traditionnelle haïtienne toutes tendances confondues veut s’orienter dans la voie d’une politique ayant le ferme soutien des classes dominantes et des puissances impérialistes avec un gouvernement porteur de l’ombre sinistre de l’extrême droite. Alors que les masses défavorisées ne cessent de revendiquer une autre politique capable de mettre en pratique ses aspirations correspondant aux intérêts fondamentaux du peuple. Telle est la signification de la crise actuelle dont le risque est de tomber dans les mêmes petites manœuvres mesquines, d’illusions électorales pour que rien ne change.

Travailleurs, paysans, militants, jeunes et chômeurs, les plus grands combats sont devant nous puisque de nouveaux déboires sont à l’horizon. Nous devons lutter pour une politique allant au-delà de l’électoralisme que prêchent les puissances tutrices et la classe politique moribonde, de sorte qu’on puisse mettre en cause le système en place. Par ce combat, nous pourrions, effectivement, ouvrir une autre voie menant à une transformation de la société pouvant imposer un gouvernement au service de la majorité populaire capable de nous affranchir de la domination américaine qui se renforce à travers le « Global Fragility Act », pour un contrôle plus efficace de notre pays.

Il importe de préparer notre avenir. Car le combat pour la libération nationale constitue notre seul rempart de défense à la paix, à la liberté, à la sécurité sociale. Elle seule pourra nous restituer notre dignité et rompre radicalement avec l’apartheid social, économique et politique qui caractérise le pays depuis le parricide de 1806.

Pour éviter au pays les nouveaux déboires que nous préparent nos agresseurs impérialistes, masses opprimées haïtiennes, organisez-vous et ne comptez que sur vous-mêmes ! Grâce à votre résistance et une parfaite mobilisation révolutionnaire viendra la vraie rupture contre toute continuité de la politique de soumission haïtienne à l’égard des Etats-Unis.

Is Washington Preparing to Change Horses in Haiti?

0
Ted St. Dic and Magali Comeau Denis, two of the principal leaders of the Montana Accord coalition.

(Français)

Over the past few days, the U.S. imperialists appear to be testing and judging the viability of the ruling coalition formed around the Musseau Accord, led by de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry, as well as that of its arch-rival, the Montana Accord coalition.

What we must understand is this: the capitalist powers control both of these two leading political accords. There are clear signs that Washington is pondering its options.

Take, for example, Henry’s last message to the nation on Sep. 11, in which he promised to hold elections in 2022. This is almost surely impossible as he has made clear his weakness and incapacity on every front. Despite being appointed and backed by Washington’s “Core Group” of ambassadors, he has miserably failed in his mission. Today, Haitians are engaged in another historic nationwide uprising demanding that he go.

Meanwhile, on Sep. 8, Susan D. Page, former U.S. diplomat, former Special Representative of the UN Secretary General in Haiti and former head of the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti (MINUJUSTH), wrote a telling article on the website of the U.S. establishment’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in which she acknowledged that “[m]istrust between the population and what it sees as incessantly meddling foreign powers – particularly the United States – is at an all-time high.” Then she points to the Montana Accord as “a broad group of Haitian citizens [which] has coalesced to form a roadmap to the restoration of democratic norms without the interference of foreign powers. For the United States, working in greater partnership with such organizations… could help restore Haitian confidence.”

Former U.S. diplomat Susan D. Page wrote an article for the Council of Foreign Relation’s that suggests that Washington may soon take a new tack in Haiti.

Thus Ms. Page concludes: “The United States needs to make clear that it is turning the page on the past and working alongside Haitians desirous of charting their own transition.”

Shouldn’t we now wonder what is on Haiti’s horizon?

After having destabilized Haiti with neoliberal reforms, coups, military occupations, dictators, and countless other intrigues, Washington is now mulling whether to reshuffle its Haitian political puppets by replacing the Musseau team by that of Montana to continue its imperialist domination of our nation. We can be sure that the subservient Haitian bourgeoisie will quickly approve and applaud such a change, since the latest peyi lòk (nation-wide shut down) is hurting their business interests and privileges.

Henry continues to dream that he is indispensable while making statements crowned with lies. His government is a disaster. It’s now clear to all that he will never be able to carry out the reforms and elections for which he was shoehorned into power more than a year ago. So Washington is calculating that it’s best to change things up before Haiti sinks any further into the chaos of its ever-deepening security and institutional crisis. Ms. Page has faith in Washington’s new bilateral tool, the Global Fragility Act (GFA), for which Haiti is a “priority” and pilot case, as our collaborator Travis Ross has written. Ms. Page clearly states: “The United States should view the Montana Accord as the natural starting point for its new strategic approach for Haiti…”

The CFR article also explains that “the United States should consider a major revision to its existing democracy, human rights, and governance program” in Haiti. Ms. Page explains that Washington has been working over the past five years through a so-called “the Consortium for Elections and Political Procedures (CEPPS)” but then points to its “unsuccessful efforts” and suggests that “the United States should consider other, more creative initiatives for promoting democracy and electoral reform in Haiti.”

So now the “Haitian-led” alternative coalition will provide the “creative” solution to ensure Haiti’s continued subordination to U.S. imperialism. Washington has always treated Haiti with cynicism and contempt. Have we no determination to turn this shameful page, to once and for all make a break with the past? Must we always swallow the pills they give us that are incompatible with progress, modernization, and development?

In other words, there will be no “rupture” but merely some new puppets, leaving in place the same neocolonial policies under a state apparatus that has only changed cosmetically.

Capitalist exploitation has generated ever-growing misery, poverty, unemployment, crime, and insecurity in recent times. This makes the situation very explosive.

De facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry has failed miserably in his mission, as evidenced by today’s uprising in Haiti and Washington’s search for an alternative.

The traditional Haitian political class wants to move forward with the firm support of the Haiti’s ruling classes and the imperialist powers in a government which casts the sinister shadow of the far right. The Haitian masses, the “wretched of the earth,” continue to long for and demand a social revolution, changing ownership of Haiti’s resources, means of production, and state apparatus. This is the danger of this current moment: we risk falling for the same petty little maneuvers, the electoral illusions, so that nothing will change.

Workers, peasants, activists, young people, and the unemployed, the biggest battles are ahead of us, and new challenges are on the horizon. We must fight for politics that go beyond the electoralism preached by the guardian powers and the moribund political class, so that the system in place can be changed. Through this fight, we can, indeed, open another path leading to a transformation of society that could impose a government at the service of the popular majority capable of freeing us from American domination which aims now to saddle us with the “Global Fragility Act” for a more effective control of our country.

It is important to prepare for our future, because the fight for national liberation is our only path to achieve peace, freedom, and social security. It alone can restore our dignity and break radically with the social, economic and political apartheid that has characterized the country since the parricide of 1806.

Let’s thwart the new tactics of the imperialist aggressors. Oppressed Haitian masses, let us prepare, organize ourselves, and count only on ourselves! Your resistance and a genuine revolutionary mobilization can break the never-ending nightmare cycle of Haiti’s submission to the United States’ strategies.

Le Global Fragility Act : le nouvel outil de Washington pour contrôler une Haïti indisciplinée

0
Lors d'une émission du 7 janvier 2020 sur la loi sur la fragilité mondiale, Nick Schifrin de PBS NewsHour, l'ancienne secrétaire d'État Madeleine Albright, le président du NDI Amb. Derek Mitchell et la présidente-directrice générale de l'USIP Nancy Lindborg à l'USIP.

(English)

Avec la Russie et la Chine de plus en plus affirmées et influentes dans le monde, Washington a récemment déployé son pari pour maintenir l’hégémonie mondiale et rassembler les anciennes colonies et néo-colonies sous son aile : le Global Fragility Act (GFA).

Le gouvernement américain a choisi Haïti pour être le premier “partenaire” du GFA dans l’hémisphère occidental. Le groupe pilote du GFA comprend également la Libye, le Mozambique et la Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée, ainsi que le Bénin, la Côte d’Ivoire, le Ghana, la Guinée et le Togo en Afrique de l’Ouest.

Le GFA a été largement applaudie par les commentateurs politiques et les groupes de réflexion américains comme quelque chose de nouveau et d’éclairé, mais il s’agit essentiellement d’une reformulation des mêmes anciennes politiques impériales de Washington sous une nouvelle nomenclature.

Qu’est-ce que le Global Fragility Act ?

Le GFA a été promulguée le 20 décembre 2019 par le président Donald Trump avec un soutien bipartisan total. Il est approuvé par l’administration Biden comme un moyen de “faire avancer les intérêts nationaux de l’Amérique sur la scène mondiale” à “l’aube d’une décennie décisive”. L’administration Biden espère que le GFA fera des États-Unis un “partenaire de confiance – une force pour la paix et la stabilité dans le monde”.

Le GFA décrit une stratégie de « consolidation de la paix » pour « stabiliser les zones touchées par le conflit et prévenir la violence et la fragilité ». Il met l’accent sur l’établissement de relations avec la “société civile locale” en “renforçant la capacité des États-Unis à être un leader efficace des efforts internationaux pour prévenir l’extrémisme et les conflits violents”.

Cette « capacité » comprend également « l’assistance à la sécurité planifiée ».

Un rapport sur le GFA par l’Alliance for Peace Building, une coalition d’ONG qui a plaidé pour l’adoption de le GFA, souligne également le «rôle critique du ministère de la Défense» dans la «mise en œuvre liée à la stratégie mondiale de fragilité» en «assurant une large éventail d’activités d’assistance à la sécurité » qui permettrait « aux États-Unis d’exécuter avec succès des objectifs militaires par, avec et à travers leurs partenaires dans les États fragiles ».

Le Global Fragility Act introduit à la Chambre des représentants des États-Unis en mars 2019.

Le financement est géré par l’Agence des États-Unis pour le développement international (USAID) et sa société mère, le Département d’État américain. (L’Afghanistan était un prototype de la nouvelle collaboration État/Défense où « le partenariat entre l’armée et l’USAID a été décrit comme “exceptionnellement étroit” », note le rapport.)

Patrick Quirk, directeur principal de l’International Republican Institute (IRI) du National Endowment for Democracy (NED), décrit le GFA comme “une partie intégrante de la stratégie de l’administration Biden pour le renouveau démocratique mondial” pour maintenir le “géo des États-Unis”. – position politique et économique. Selon Quirk, le GFA est “une opportunité pour les États-Unis de se positionner pour réduire la violence et la fragilité d’une manière qui positionne l’Amérique pour garantir ses intérêts à court terme” et “concurrencer ses rivaux géopolitiques”.

Bilatéralisme sur multilatéralisme

Le soutien bipartisan du GFA reflète un consensus général dans les deux ailes politiques de la classe dirigeante américaine – républicaine et démocrate – selon lequel les institutions multilatérales de Bretton Woods comme les Nations Unies ne suffisent plus à protéger les objectifs de la politique étrangère américaine et pourraient même les entraver. La Chine et la Russie ont montré une volonté croissante d’utiliser leur droit de veto au Conseil de sécurité pour empêcher les pays impérialistes – la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les États-Unis – d’avoir leur chemin avec l’organisme mondial.

Dans un discours prononcé l’année dernière, le secrétaire d’État Antony Blinken a décrit les principales priorités de politique étrangère de l’administration Biden, parmi lesquelles la rivalité des États-Unis avec la Chine. Il a décrit la Chine comme « le seul pays doté de la puissance économique, diplomatique, militaire et technologique pour défier sérieusement le système international stable et ouvert – toutes les règles, valeurs et relations qui font que le monde fonctionne comme nous le voulons ».

Un « monde fonctionnant comme nous le voulons » implique de veiller à ce que les multinationales américaines aient accès aux matières premières qu’elles souhaitent.

Dans un récent discours, la secrétaire américaine au Trésor, Janet Yellen, a déclaré « nous ne pouvons pas permettre à des pays comme la Chine d’utiliser leur position sur le marché des matières premières, des technologies ou des produits clés pour perturber notre économie et exercer un effet de levier géopolitique indésirable ».

L’incitation à mettre en œuvre le GFA est la tentative du gouvernement américain de développer des relations bilatérales avec des “États fragiles” pour avoir accès à des “matières premières clés” et empêcher la Chine d’acquérir “un levier politique indésirable”. Washington veut s’assurer que le « levier géopolitique » reste entre les mains des États-Unis.

Dans un article récent pour l’American Enterprise Institute, Katherine Zimmerman écrit que “le GFA est une opportunité pour conduire le changement nécessaire” qui empêchera “des adversaires tels que la Chine et la Russie d’étendre leur influence”.

Faisant écho au consensus bipartite sur les objectifs du GFA, Paul B. Stares, chercheur principal au Council on Foreign Relations et défenseur du GFA, a encouragé les autres partisans de la loi à « aligner nos priorités sur ce qui sera désormais au centre de la politique étrangère américaine aller de l’avant », surtout après l’invasion de l’Ukraine par la Russie : « contrer l’influence russe, l’influence chinoise et traiter avec d’autres acteurs malveillants sur la scène internationale ».

Pourquoi Haïti est-elle une « priorité » pour le GFA ?

Alors, où se situe Haïti dans ce cadre géopolitique de « contrer l’influence chinoise et russe » dans les soi-disant « pays fragiles » ? Selon Elizabeth Hume, directrice exécutive de l’Alliance for Peace building, Haïti représente « la première bouchée de pomme. Si tout se passe bien, à terme, chaque pays, chaque État touché par un conflit et fragile deviendrait un pays GFA.

De 2004 à 2017, le Nations Unies ont déployé des troupes multinationales en Haïti dans le cadre de la MINUSTAH. Aujourd’hui, Washington cherche à établir un accord de sécurité bilatéral dans le cadre du GFA. Photo ONU/Sophia Paris

Pendant ce temps, Frances Z. Brown, chercheur principal au Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, considère les «accords bilatéraux avec les États fragiles» de le GFA comme un moyen d’empêcher la Chine et la Russie de «s’attaquer à la faiblesse de la gouvernance».

Écrivant pour l’Institut américain pour la paix, Keith Mines affirme qu'”Haïti représente la définition même de la fragilité”, où un “vide stupéfiant de gouvernance prévaut”. Mines omet de son analyse que les États-Unis et leurs alliés du groupe CORE ont nommé de facto le Premier ministre non élu Ariel Henry et sont donc les principaux auteurs de ce « vide de gouvernance ». Néanmoins, Mines conclut que la décision du Département d’État américain de faire d’Haïti une priorité dans le cadre du GFA est à la fois “bienvenue et logique”. Mines est enthousiaste pour le plan décennal du GFA qui “permettra l’intégration et l’enchaînement des efforts diplomatiques, de développement et militaires des États-Unis vers l’objectif politique d’une paix durable et résiliente”.

Toute personne familière avec «l’aide» ou les «engagements» américains passés envers Haïti devrait s’alarmer de l’enthousiasme de l’administration Biden pour la mise en œuvre du «nouveau cadre» du GFA sur Haïti en tant que «partenaire».

Georges Fauriol, ancien vice-président du NED, est associé senior du Centre d’études stratégiques et internationales (CSIS). Il approuve le GFA, affirmant que c’est “ce qui est nécessaire pour aider Haïti à reprendre pied”. (Fauriol était l’un des stratèges de l’IRI qui a aidé à renverser le président Jean-Bertrand Aristide en 2004.) Il considère le fort soutien de Washington à Ariel Henry comme “ambivalent” et son rôle central dans les négociations soi-disant inter-haïtiennes comme “essentiel” pour la préservation d’Haïti ” structure de gouvernance ».

On serait sûr de supposer que cette “structure dirigeante” qui doit être préservée comprend des dirigeants dociles qui accorderont un traitement préférentiel aux capitalistes américains en Haïti en garantissant les droits d’exploitation des ressources minérales comme l’or et en dictant le salaire minimum dans les usines textiles à main-d’œuvre bon marché.

Du vin ancien, bouteilles neuves

Le GFA représente fondamentalement un reconditionnement des politiques interventionnistes américaines. Ses clauses encourageant la contribution des “groupes de la société civile locale” ne sont qu’une façade qui ne changera pas d’un iota la politique américaine.

Pendant plus d’un siècle, les États-Unis ont violé la souveraineté d’Haïti et sapé sa démocratie en lançant des invasions, en orchestrant des coups d’État et en soutenant des dictateurs. Ariel Henry reste un dirigeant non élu gouvernant par décret et diktat en raison du soutien diplomatique du gouvernement américain et de ses alliés du groupe CORE.

Haïti est un “partenaire” prioritaire du GFA car l’administration Biden veut y maintenir l’hégémonie américaine. Un accord pour mettre en œuvre le GFA en Haïti pourrait aider à faciliter une quatrième occupation militaire américaine du pays. Compte tenu de la croissance des groupes armés haïtiens au cours des dernières années, les troupes américaines seraient probablement confrontées à une résistance bien plus féroce que lors de leurs interventions de 1915, 1994 et 2004.

Avec sa résolution 2645 du 15 juillet 2022, le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU reste également «saisi de la question» concernant Haïti, bien qu’en vertu du chapitre 6 de la Charte des Nations Unies, et non du chapitre 7, qui autorise le déploiement d’une force multinationale de «maintien de la paix». . Bien que la Russie ou la Chine y opposent leur veto, il reste la possibilité que le Conseil de sécurité décide de déclarer Haïti « une menace pour la paix et la sécurité internationales » afin de déployer une autre MINUSTAH, la force de « stabilisation » de l’ONU qui a occupé Haïti de 2004 à 2017. Mais le GFA bilatéral peut éviter cette option.

L’administration Biden veut également empêcher Haïti de développer des relations diplomatiques et des liens économiques plus étroits avec la Russie et la Chine. Certains ont émis l’hypothèse que les États-Unis pourraient avoir donné leur feu vert à l’assassinat du président Jovenel Moïse le 7 juillet 2021 en raison de ses plans présumés de renforcement des relations avec la Russie. Pendant ce temps, Haïti reste l’un des 14 pays au monde à reconnaître Taiwan comme une nation indépendante, la soi-disant «République de Chine». La République populaire de Chine a cherché à courtiser Haïti pour qu’il abandonne Taïwan et établisse officiellement des relations diplomatiques avec lui, tout comme la République dominicaine voisine l’a fait en 2018. En 2017, la Chine a proposé de réviser l’infrastructure en ruine de Port-au-Prince avec une aide de 4,7 milliards de dollars si Haïti le reconnaissait et rejoignait son initiative « One Belt, One Road ». Jusqu’à présent, cela ne s’est pas produit, et le GFA vise à maintenir les choses ainsi.

De gauche à droite : le « président » taïwanais Tsai Ing-Wen en visite en Haïti et son homologue haïtien Jovenel Moïse en juillet 2019. Haïti accorde toujours une reconnaissance diplomatique à Taïwan, une position que la Chine aimerait voir changer. Photo: Pierre Michel Jean

Washington craint qu’Haïti, désespérée, n’approche les BRICS (une alliance du Brésil, de la Russie, de l’Inde, de la Chine et de l’Afrique du Sud), à la recherche d’investissements, d’aide et de commerce. La plupart des Haïtiens estiment que les conseils et l’aide du gouvernement américain ont eu des effets dévastateurs sur l’économie, le secteur agricole, les droits de l’homme et la souveraineté d’Haïti, et les considèrent au mieux avec scepticisme.

Il n’est pas étonnant que l’administration Biden cherche à éloigner les prétendants multipolaires – BRICS ou autres – en associant Haïti au GFA.

Qui peut légitimement négocier au nom d’Haïti ?

Il reste également difficile de savoir comment le GFA peut être mise en œuvre en Haïti de si tôt. Qui a le pouvoir de négocier des accords bilatéraux au nom des Haïtiens, enfermant Haïti dans des accords de « consolidation de la paix » dans le cadre du GFA qui pourraient durer une décennie ? Ariel Henry n’a certainement pas la légitimité ou l’autorité. C’est l’une des raisons pour lesquelles Washington pousse si obstinément pour des élections rapides.

Si Ariel Henry continue de faiblir dans sa mission de fournir un gouvernement élu, Washington pourrait se tourner vers l’autre secteur de la bourgeoisie haïtienne qui se dispute le contrôle du gouvernement, le groupe Montana Accord, dirigé par des personnalités comme Magali Comeau Denis et Ted Saint Dic, qui ont soutenu les coups d’État contre le président Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

L’Accord de Montana est vague sur sa position internationale, son article 45b spécifiant la nécessité d’une «réévaluation de la représentation diplomatique d’Haïti» sur la base d’une «feuille de route» élaborée par les organisations qui soutiennent l’Accord. Alors que le «Bureau de Suivi de l’Accord» (BSA) du groupe Montana a sélectionné des dirigeants intérimaires pour un gouvernement de transition – Fritz Alphonse Jean, ancien gouverneur de la Banque centrale d’Haïti, en tant que président et l’ancien sénateur Steven Benoit en tant que Premier ministre – ils ne seraient pas non plus élus au suffrage universel officiels et leur calendrier pour les élections est d’au moins deux ans, ce qui, selon Washington, est sûrement trop long à attendre. Bien que le parti de Jean-Bertrand Aristide, la famille Lavalas, et le groupe de base anti-impérialiste MOLEGHAF basé à Fort National se soient retirés, il reste des membres nominalement de gauche dans la coalition de l’Accord du Montana, ce qui peut également rendre Washington mal à l’aise.

Certains de ces groupes de la « société civile » ont signé une récente lettre ouverte au président Joe Biden. Les auteurs ont été clairs : « Le peuple haïtien exige avec force son indépendance confisquée, sa liberté de choisir désormais par lui-même et pour lui-même ses dirigeants ainsi que le orientation politique, économique et sociale à donner à leur pays ». De telles déclarations n’augurent rien de bon pour qu’Haïti rejoigne tout “partenariat” avec le gouvernement américain dans le cadre du GFA.


Travis Ross est un enseignant basé à Montréal, Québec. Il est co-rédacteur en chef du Projet d’information Canada-Haïti. Ses articles ont été publiés dans Truthout, Haïti Liberté et Rabble.ca.

 

 

The Global Fragility Act: Washington’s New Tool for Controlling an Unruly Haiti

18
The Global Fragility Act being introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in March 2019.

(Français)

With Russia and China increasingly assertive and influential worldwide, Washington recently rolled out its gambit to maintain global hegemony and gather former colonies and neo-colonies under its wing: the Global Fragility Act (GFA).

The U.S. government has selected Haiti to be the first GFA “partner” in the Western Hemisphere. Also in the GFA’s pilot group are Libya, Mozambique, and Papua New Guinea, along with West Africa’s Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, and Togo.

The GFA has been largely applauded by U.S. policy commentators and think-tanks as something novel and enlightened, but it is essentially a reformulation of Washington’s same-old imperial policies under new nomenclature.

What is the Global Fragility Act?

The GFA was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2019 by President Donald Trump with full bipartisan support. It is endorsed by the Biden administration as a means to “advance America’s national interests on the world stage”  at “the dawn of a decisive decade.” The Biden administration hopes the GFA will establish the United States as a “trusted partner — a force for peace and stability in the world.”

At a Jan. 7, 2020 program on the Global Fragility Act, PBS NewsHour’s Nick Schifrin, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, NDI President Amb. Derek Mitchell, and USIP President & CEO Nancy Lindborg at USIP.

The GFA outlines a “peace building” strategy to “stabilize conflict-affected areas and prevent violence and fragility.” It emphasizes building relationships with “local civil society” by “strengthen[ing] the capacity of the United States to be an effective leader of international efforts to prevent extremism and violent conflict.”

This “capacity” also includes “planned security assistance”.

A report on the GFA by the Alliance for Peace building, a coalition of NGOs that advocated for the GFA’s passage, also emphasizes the “critical role of the Department of Defense” in the “implementation related to the Global Fragility Strategy” by “ensuring a broad range of security assistance activities” which would enable “the United States to successfully execute military objectives by, with, and through its partners in fragile states.”

Funding is managed by United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and its parent, the U.S. State Department. (Afghanistan was a prototype for the new State/Defense collaboration where “the partnership between the military and USAID was described as ‘unusually close,’” the report notes.)

Patrick Quirk, a senior director at the International Republican Institute (IRI) of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), describes the GFA as “an integral part of the Biden administration’s strategy for global democratic renewal” to maintain the United States’ “geo-political and economic position.” According to Quirk, the GFA is “an opportunity for the United States to posture itself to reduce violence and fragility in a manner that positions America to secure short-term interests” and “compete with its geopolitical rivals.”

Bilateralism over Multilateralism

The GFA’s bipartisan support reflects a general consensus in both of the U.S. ruling class’ political wings – Republican and Democrat – that Bretton Woods multilateral institutions like the United Nations no longer suffice for the protection of U.S. foreign policy goals and might even impede them. China and Russia have shown a growing willingness to use their veto power at the Security Council to prevent the imperialist countries – France, Britain, and the U.S. – from having their way with the world body.

In a speech last year, Secretary of State Antony Blinken described the Biden administration’s top foreign policy priorities, among them the United States’ rivalry with China. He described China as “the only country with the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to seriously challenge the stable and open international system– all the rules, values, and relationships that make the world work the way we want it to.”

From 2004 to 2017, the United Nations deployed multinational troops in Haiti under the MINUSTAH. Today, Washington seeks to establish a bilateral security arrangement under the GFA. UN Photo: Sophia Paris

A “world work[ing] the way we want it to” includes ensuring that U.S. multinational corporations have access to the raw materials they want.

In a recent speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said “we cannot allow countries like China to use their market position in key raw materials, technologies, or products to disrupt our economy and exercise unwanted geopolitical leverage.”

The push to implement the GFA is the U.S. government’s attempt to develop bilateral relations with “fragile states” to gain access to “key raw materials” and prevent China from gaining “unwanted political leverage.” Washington wants to ensure that “geopolitical leverage” remains in U.S. hands.

In a recent article for the American Enterprise Institute, Katherine Zimmerman writes that “the GFA is an opportunity to drive the necessary change” that will prevent “adversaries such as China and Russia to expand their influence.”

Echoing the bipartisan consensus on the GFA’s goals, Paul B. Stares, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a GFA advocate, encouraged the act’s other proponents to “align our priorities to what will now be front and center in U.S. foreign policy going forward,” especially after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine: “countering Russian influence, Chinese influence, and dealing with other malign actors on the international stage.”

Why is Haiti a “Priority” for the GFA?

So where does Haiti fit into this geopolitical framework of “countering Chinese and Russian influence” in so-called “fragile countries”? According to Elizabeth Hume, the Alliance for Peace building’s executive director, Haiti represents “the first bite at the apple. If all goes well, eventually every country, every conflict-affected and fragile state would be a GFA country.”

“what will now be front and center in U.S. foreign policy going forward: …”

Meanwhile, Frances Z. Brown, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, sees the GFA’s “bilateral agreements with fragile states” as a way to prevent China and Russia from “preying upon weak governance.”

Writing for the United States Institute for Peace, Keith Mines claims that “Haiti represents the very definition of fragility,” where a “staggering void of governance prevails.” Mines omits from his analysis that the United States and its CORE group allies appointed unelected de facto Prime Minister Ariel Henry and hence are the primary authors of this “void of governance.” Nonetheless, Mines concludes that the U.S. State Department’s decision to make Haiti a priority under the GFA is both “both welcome and logical.” Mines is enthusiastic for the GFA’s 10-year plan that will “allow for the integration and sequencing of U.S. diplomatic, development, and military-related efforts toward the political goal of a lasting and resilient peace.”

Anyone familiar with past U.S. “assistance” or “commitments”  to Haiti should be alarmed about the Biden administration’s enthusiasm for implementing the GFA’s “new framework” on Haiti as a “partner.”

…countering Russian influence, Chinese influence, and dealing with other malign actors on the international stage.”

Georges Fauriol, a former NED vice-president, is a senior associate for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He endorses the GFA, claiming it is “what is needed to help Haiti regain its footing.” (Fauriol was one of the IRI strategists who helped overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 2004.) He views Washington’s strong support for Ariel Henry as “ambivalent” and its central role in supposedly inter-Haitian negotiations as “essential” for preserving Haiti’s “governing structure.”

One would be safe in assuming that this “governing structure” that must be preserved includes compliant leaders who will give preferential treatment to U.S. capitalists in Haiti by ensuring rights to exploit mineral resources like gold and dictate the minimum wage in cheap labor textile factories.

Old Wine, New Bottles

The GFA fundamentally represents a repackaging of U.S. interventionist policies. Its clauses encouraging input from “local civil society groups” are merely window dressing that will not change U.S. policies one iota.

For over a century, the Unites States has violated Haiti’s sovereignty and undermined its democracy by launching invasions, orchestrating coups, and backing dictators. Ariel Henry remains an unelected leader ruling by decree and dictate due to diplomatic support from the U.S. government and its CORE group allies.

Haiti is a priority GFA “partner” because the Biden Administration wants to maintain U.S. hegemony there. An agreement to implement the GFA in Haiti could help facilitate a fourth U.S. military occupation of the country. Given the growth of Haitian armed groups in the past few years, U.S. troops would likely face far fiercer resistance than they did in their 1915, 1994, and 2004 interventions.

With its Jul. 15, 2022 Resolution 2645, the UN Security Council also remains “seized of the matter” regarding Haiti, although under the UN Charter’s Chapter 6, not Chapter 7, which authorizes the deployment of a multinational “peace-keeping” force. Although Russia or China might veto it, there remains the possibility that the Security Council could decide to declare Haiti a “threat to international peace and security” so as to deploy another MINUSTAH, the UN’s “stabilization” force that occupied Haiti from 2004 to 2017. But the bilateral GFA may obviate this option.

The Biden administration also wants to prevent Haiti from developing closer diplomatic relations and economic ties with Russia and China. Some have speculated that the U.S. may have green-lighted President Jovenel Moïse’s assassination on Jul. 7, 2021 due to his alleged plans to strengthen relations with Russia. Meanwhile, Haiti remains one of only 14 countries worldwide which recognize Taiwan as an independent nation, the so-called “Republic of China.” The People’s Republic of China has sought to woo Haiti to drop Taiwan and formally establish diplomatic relations with it, just as the neighboring Dominican Republic did in 2018. In 2017, China offered to overhaul Port-au-Prince’s crumbling infrastructure with a $4.7 billion aid package if Haiti would recognize it and join its “One Belt, One Road” Initiative. So far that hasn’t happened, and the GFA aims to keep things that way.

Taiwan’s “president” Tsai Ing-Wen visiting with President Jovenel Moïse in July 2019. Haiti still gives diplomatic recognition to Taiwan, a posture China would like to see change. Photo: Pierre Michel Jean/AFP

Washington fears that desperate Haiti might approach the BRICS (an alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), seeking investment, aid, and trade. Most Haitians feel that U.S. government guidance and aid has had devastating effects on Haiti’s economy, agricultural sector, human rights, and sovereignty, and view it with skepticism at best.

It is no wonder that the Biden administration seeks to ward off multipolar suitors – BRICS or otherwise – by harnessing Haiti with the GFA.

Who Can Legitimately Negotiate on Behalf of Haiti?

It also remains unclear how the GFA can be implemented in Haiti anytime soon. Who has the authority to negotiate bilateral agreements on behalf of Haitians, locking Haiti into “peace building” deals under the GFA that could last a decade? Ariel Henry certainly doesn’t have the legitimacy or authority. This is one reason why Washington is pushing so doggedly for rapid elections.

If Ariel Henry continues to falter in his mission to deliver an elected government, Washington may turn to the other sector of Haiti’s bourgeoisie which is vying for control of government, the Montana Accord group, headed by figures like Magali Comeau Denis and Ted Saint Dic, who supported the coups against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The Montana Accord is vague about its international posture, with its Article 45b specifying a need for a “re-evaluation of Haiti’s diplomatic representation” based on a “Roadmap” developed by the organizations which back the Accord. While the Montana group’s “Monitoring Office” (BSA) has selected interim leaders for a transitional government – Fritz Alphonse Jean, a former governor of Haiti’s Central Bank, as president and former senator Steven Benoit as prime minister – they also would not be popularly elected officials and their timetable for elections is at least two years, which Washington surely feels is too long to wait. Although Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s party, the Lavalas Family, and the Fort National-based anti-imperialist grassroots group MOLEGHAF have withdrawn, there remain nominally leftist members in the Montana Accord coalition which may also make Washington uneasy.

Some of those “civil society” groups signed a recent open letter to President Joe Biden, The authors were clear: “Haitian people strongly demand their confiscated independence, their freedom to choose from now on by themselves and for themselves their leaders as well as the political, economic, and social orientation to be given to their country.”

Such statements do not augur well for Haiti joining any “partnership” with the U.S. government in the framework of the GFA.


Travis Ross is a teacher based in Montreal, Quebec. He is a co-editor of the Canada-Haiti Information Project. His articles have been published in Truthout, Haiti Liberté, and Rabble.ca.

POPULAR

Verified by MonsterInsights