David Salmon | The Caribbean’s Iraq

As murder, rape, kidnappings and torture become entrenched in the daily lives of average Haitians, CARICOM leaders descended on The Bahamas last week Thursday for their annual heads of government meeting. The top priority was to devise strategies to restore some semblance of order to the violence-ridden country.

Even though Haiti’s de facto prime minister has consistently appealed for the deployment of armed forces, so far Jamaica and The Bahamas are the only CARICOM members who have publicly pledged to support this endeavour. This is not surprising, as The Bahamas has borne the brunt of waves of Haitian migrants seeking to transit through its waters to the United States. While for Jamaica, Haiti is a major transshipment hub for the illicit drugs-for-guns trade.

Though it is commendable that the government has decided to explore ways it can support Haiti during this latest episode of instability, any intervention will inevitably face difficulties, given the intractable nature of the country’s problems.

QUESTIONS OF LEGITIMACY

Any proposed mission to Haiti will face questions surrounding its legitimacy. As it stands, Prime Minister Andrew Holness and a CARICOM delegation of leaders are currently in Haiti meeting with relevant stakeholders to determine a path towards consensus building for the restoration of political and security stability in the country. We cautiously await the outcome of this mission.

Currently, Haiti has no democratically elected office holder, as its last remaining senators vacated their office at the expiration of their term in January. Hence, no official request will be coming from the Haitian parliament any time soon.

Even though the United Nations Security Council has the authority to approve an intervention, there is simply no appetite to authorise another mission to Haiti. Additionally, this move would be universally unpopular, given the previous wounds inflicted on the country during prior international engagements. The absence of this decision would deprive Prime Minister Holness of the “appropriate jurisdictional parameters” needed to sanction such an intervention.

Compounding this quagmire is the fact that Haiti’s de facto leader, Ariel Henry, currently leads an unelected government that is desperate to cling on to power as the dream of elections grow ever more distant. As a consequence, Henry has no legitimacy and authority to request international intervention.

Moreover, he has even been accused of being involved in the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse and has sacked the chief prosecutor who called for charges to be laid against him. Henry subsequently applied that same political axe to his justice minister. These moves are taken directly from the dictator’s handbook.

If you don’t believe me, read the actual book entitled The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behaviour is Almost Always Good Politics. In this revealing publication, the book’s authors explained, “To come to power a challenger need only do three things. First, he must remove the incumbent. Second, he needs to seize the apparatus of government. Third, he needs to form a coalition of supporters sufficient to sustain him as the new incumbent.”

It is easy to see how a potential intervention serves the interests of the embattled prime minister. The first order of business from said intervention would be to secure key infrastructure such as the country’s main fuel terminal and other port facilities. Naturally this would make sense as securing these sites would be necessary to ensure essential supplies can be brought into the country.

However, the paper Social Origins of Dictatorships: Elite Networks and Political Transitions in Haiti notes that most of Haiti’s elites derive their wealth from imports and that there were more likely to support a coup to gain more wealth from this revenue stream. For an embattled leader who needs the support of these elites, intervening to protect import related infrastructure looks more like an effort to secure power rather than providing support to the public. Hence, military intervention will be playing into the hands of the same people who seek to maintain their power in the country.

This may seem like a cynical outlook but the paper also proved that there is a strong relationship with gangs and local elites as these armed groups serve their interests and have even been used to oust previous governments. Therefore, Haiti’s problems are directly linked to various elites attempting to wrestle control over the levers of power to capture state resources. Intervening to prop up the current government does not change this structure. Thus, any intervention on these terms would be a humanitarian misadventure.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Make no mistake, I am not opposed to Jamaica participating as a part of an international coalition that aims to provide humanitarian assistance. However, if we believe that providing this emergency support would solve Haiti’s long-term problems, then we would be making the same mistake as the Americans did in 2003. At the time, then President George W. Bush made his ill-fated “Mission Accomplished” speech where he declared the end of combat operations in Iraq.

In an attempt to transform the country, the US-led mission ignored the complexity of local circumstances. This in turn encouraged the emergence of even more radical groups. Two decades later the country is in a worse position than before the US invasion.

Haiti is the Caribbean’s Iraq and if we are not careful, it is easy to become bogged down in an attempt to pursue nation-building. If Jamaica is interested in truly stabilising Haiti, then the government must be committed to this objective in the long term.

PREVIOUS INTERVENTIONS

This would not be the first time Jamaica has offered to provide material, men and support to foreign missions. From as early as November 1965, then acting Prime Minister Donald Sangster moved a resolution in the House of Representatives pledging support, including the use of force, to put down Ian Smith’s rebellion in Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe).

A year later Cabinet expressed interest in providing technical assistance to Zambia, with The Gleaner reporting on November 23 that, “The Jamaican Cabinet has expressed sympathetic interest in the shortage at skilled personnel in Zambia, in spite of similar, although less shortage in Jamaica, and has expressed, a willingness to assist in this and in other development projects … particularly in the fields of community and youth development.”

Haiti needs a long-term commitment from the region to support its governance institutions. In a previous column, I explained that aid sent to the country has led to the hollowing out of its public sector capacity. As a result, the country did not have the opportunity to develop mechanisms to deliver social services as the international community provided this support. Therefore, technical assistance similar to the pledges made by the Sangster administration would be helpful.

The government must also avoid the perception of serving Washington’s interests. The US wants to stem the flow of illegal Haitian immigration but it also wants to offshore leadership of this mission to another country. Washington’s abnegation of foreign intervention means that any mission led by them is unlikely. Jamaica must be cautious it does not fall into the trap of Washington’s schizophrenic policymaking.

As it stands, the global community has looked at Haiti and has waved its hands in the air saying “not my problem”. In our exuberance, the Caribbean must not become tied down in Haiti.

The Gleaner Editorial published the day after the commencement of the Grenadian invasion best summarises what is at stake, “In international politics, success gets easy justification, but defeat and great loss of life lead to many explanations and to condemnation.”

David Salmon is Jamaica’s 2023 Rhodes Scholar. Send feedback to davidsalmon@live.com.