By Macollvie J. Neel
NEW YORK—You’ve probably seen it. That viral clip of Joe Biden saying in a 1994 interview that if Haiti sunk to the bottom of the ocean, it wouldn’t matter much to U.S. interests. This video makes the rounds every time a crisis breaks out in Haiti, while the world lets it pass. But you know what? As much as his administration may be to blame for Haiti’s latest spiral, Biden is (mostly) right, then and now, about Haiti’s relevance in broader world affairs.
I know. It’s harsh to say and harder to accept. But you have to admit, it’s the truth. Biden didn’t once mention Haiti during his State of the Union, where he spoke about Ukraine and Israel-Hamas at length. But, since taking office, he has approved a slew of humanitarian parole and TPS policies, signaling the one aspect of Haiti valuable to the world: as a source of labor. That’s the reality us Haitians must accept instead of playing the blame game.
I bring up this Biden video now because it represents the myriad of mixed messages spreading about what Haitians want the U.S. to do. It’s a stand-in for all debunked theories that bubble up about Haiti, by the way. And by U.S., I mean the broader international community, including Caricom and Kenya, collectively.
The point of sharing clips like the Biden video is never quite clear to me. Some folks seem to want to show how much the U.S. does not care or has wronged Haiti. Others imply Biden’s statements are a reason not to vote for Democrats or to go to the polls at all in November. Still, others just want to complain about peyi gran puisans yo trampling on Haiti’s sovereignty when saying no occupation or invasion. They point at the poor record of past direct interventions and meddling such as the back-door deals involved in the Caricom proposal and the on-again, off-again Kenya MSS mission.
There are even those critics who see in these actions ‘proof’ that outsiders want to decimate Haiti, then swoop in for its resources – like vulture capitalists stalking distressed companies.
The finger-pointing goes on and on, with many more faces like the Clintons’ to blame.
Haiti’s needs versus its wants
Meanwhile, residents of Port-au-Prince are begging for some emergency relief. One man told The Haitian Times he wishes “a ship would come to take them to another country.” One visibly scared woman said she’d leave it to the U.S., Canada or France to take it over.
Looking at these developments as the death toll rises, my question is: After this week’s high-octane events, what do Haitians need the U.S. to do for Haiti, ultimately?
I’d like us to come to terms with what’s required, not what would’ve been ideal, to stop the carnage in Port-au-Prince after all this talk and maneuvering. Putting it out there:
- Do we need a shock-and-awe invasion — not a faux peacekeeping mission — to take out Barbecue and friends, while a new government is installed?
- Do we need these friends of Haiti to engage with Barbecue and his 6-page transition plan that calls for a 10-member departmental council representing Haiti’s various regions?
- Do we need the U.S./Caricom to broker an immediate truce with Barbecue in exchange for a transition period where gangs have a clear role? A role where they are given some of the millions being pledged to replace the funds extorted from the citizenry and state?
- How would Haitians live with feelings of shame and embarrassment from making a choice that might feel like throwing in the towel after 220 years?
Some of this might all sound extreme, yes. But it seems that any option like this Caricom deal would require a working government, which Haiti lacks. Anything that’s not immediate will simply drag out even longer while more Haitian lives are lost. So, which is it?
Let the soul searching begin, keeping in mind that whatever we want also needs to be worthwhile for the U.S. Also, keep in mind that a stand-off between the U.S. military and the gangs probably won’t happen, especially not in a presidential election year. I’d be surprised as anyone if the U.S. were to choose that option.
While pondering these options, remember the Haitians who’ve stood in the way.
Haitian transition groups’ hands are dirty too
We are so quick to point the finger at the international community, Ariel Henry, Jimmy Barbecue Cherizier and Guy Philippe, we often let the so-called political “opposition leaders” off the hook. They bear responsibility too.
For two years, for instance, the folks behind the Montana Accord and other transition documents couldn’t set aside their disdain toward Henry to compromise. Instead, with the backing of high-powered friends in diplomatic circles abroad, they waited in the wings for the U.S. to let Henry go. Instead of letting him stay on as Prime Minister, they blamed him for wanting the post. All this further frustrated Caricom mediators in several rounds of failed talks.
This foot-dragging tactic of waiting to become the “spoiled child” of the U.S., presumably, backfired as it also allowed the gangs to grow more powerful.
These are the same folks on the proposed Caricom council now. A classic U.S. move that would entrust Haiti to people playing from the same old political playbook of decades past. Not even the names and faces have changed much.
So let’s be honest with ourselves, Haitians. Putting blame aside for a bit, let’s take a good, clear look at the Haiti we have today. Instead of allowing Haiti’s noble origins to dictate what it ought to be by now, resenting the world for not doing more or releasing knee-jerk statements, let’s look at Haiti now — the good, bad and ugly — and its potential.
Then we can go from there with constructive critiques or clear asks of the world.
The choice: Permanent sideshow or world relevance
Yes, we can blame the march of Western imperialism and neocolonialism across the 19th and 20th centuries for Haiti’s false start toward democracy. These ‘isms allowed repressive regimes to rise to facilitate hegemonic U.S. interests. Yet, Haiti cemented its place in the canon of liberation movements across these eras – from abolition, negritude and pan-Africanism to anti-apartheid and Black Lives Matter.
That achievement won’t change no matter who helps Haiti now or how they do it. We can still rock our 1804 hoodies for another 220 years.
But here’s the thing: Cultural pride and political neighbor-shaming don’t stop stray bullets from striking people in their beds. They don’t compel goons to cease raping and pillaging, displacing families, or triggering suicides. Rather, they feed the “Haiti in crisis” story, turning it into a gawk-inducing sideshow in the midst of world affairs.
All this points to a reason for Haitians to expect and ask for what the world should and can give at this moment: an armed rescue mission.
‘Come to Jesus’ moment is at hand
Back in 2022, when Haitians thought they had hit a new bottom, many saw armed intervention as the solution.
Now, maybe if we admit to ourselves that’s the highest priority, then we can move past putting blame on “friends of Haiti” for not saving it sooner. Maybe then, we can stop hiding behind long-winded statements demanding Democracy building, trolling Elon Musk for retweeting debunked posts or feeling exasperated with curious coworkers who ask about Haiti.
Maybe if we accept the reality of Haiti’s diminished status in this current era, we can admit the country has run out of second chances one too many times. We might even free up brain space to support the nation-building work Haiti will require to become livable.
All this is doable if — first and foremost — the gangs are neutralized the way only an entity with greater military might can do. Whether that’s obliteration or dismantling, the world must step in forcefully. Waiting any longer would warrant new cause for blame.
That’s why it’s time to think and act differently instead of letting hubris cloud our views and play the blame game. Time to consider proposals that once seemed extreme. Time to elevate Haitian efforts toward a Haiti that could eventually be relevant to U.S. interests.
