In the Giant's Shadow: Haiti and the United States

I am often asked why Haiti has not been able to break free of the cycle of poverty which has plagued the country since its founding. To outside observers, it seems inexplicable that Haiti should be so much poorer than all of the other countries in the Western Hemisphere, especially when a lot of other Latin American countries are also former colonies. In the case of Haiti, most of its issues have stemmed from its relationship to its more powerful neighbor, the United States. Economic, diplomatic, and military policies the US made toward the small island nation had far-reaching effects that were acutely felt by the country striving toward its goal of creating a black republic founded on the principles of equality and independence.

Immediately after independence Haiti’s first head of state, Jean-Jaques Dessalines, made overtures to the United States. Due to the US leaders’ reliance on slavery, the prospect of an independent country of former slaves terrified them, and they thought it would incite their slaves to revolt. Dessalines’ entreaties to President Jefferson failed, and Haitian merchants were prevented from visiting American shores.[1] Recognizing the profits to be made, the United States kept up trade with Haiti and ignored these laws until they were repealed. However, the United States would not grant the country of Haiti what it so desperately needed: a recognition of its status as a sovereign nation. This policy, also followed by the European nations, was disastrous for Haiti’s attempts at diplomacy and bid to gain respect internationally. The US continued to benefit from trade with Haiti, while refusing to give its government legitimacy. This hypocrisy was further illustrated by the Monroe Doctrine of 1825, which stressed the United States’ support for independence movements in Latin America, and stated that an act of aggression on newly independent nations would be seen as a hostile act against the United States. Haiti was excluded from this policy, even though it had won its independence from its former colonial overlords.[2] France finally recognized Haiti’s sovereignty in 1825, but the United States would not change its policy. This was due to the animosity of Southerners, and their terror at the thought of a black republic. Southern representatives extolled on the horror that would occur if black diplomats from Haiti were allowed in Washington, and what an image that might show the slaves in America. By the mid-nineteenth century, only the United States and the Vatican were among the major powers who did not recognize Haiti. The United States finally recognized Haiti in 1861 after the southern states had seceded from the Union, six decades after Haitian independence.[3]

Loan repayments made up the highest component of Haiti’s national expenditure. This prevented the development of infrastructure in the country. France had demanded indemnity payments for the loss of its colony, which Haiti did not finish paying off until after the Second World War. Loan repayments were crippling the economy, with over 67 percent of the state budget going to repayments in 1913.[4] Using these outstanding debts as an excuse, the US Marines entered the Banque Nationale d’Haiti and removed $500,000 in gold, loaded it onto their gunboat, and sent it to New York.[5] The bank passed into American control, and it did not bode well for things to come. The bank then refused to fund the government, leading to turmoil and dissension within the Haitian government. An insurrection occurred, and the United States had the excuse it needed to invade. On July 28, 1915 US Marines came ashore and the country was under US occupation.[6]

washingtonpost.com

Woodrow Wilson cited German influence in the region and used this excuse to justify occupation. These fears were mainly unfounded, and they do not explain why the United States occupied Haiti for nineteen years, from 1915 to 1934. The real reason for occupation had to do with business interests and the possibility of the establishment of profitable plantations. American investors argued for the need for political stability, which could come through military force, before capital could be investigated. Wilson ordered the occupation without consulting Congress, but opposition to the occupation was scarce. Prejudice abounded, and the general consensus was that the Haitians were incapable of governing themselves. Secretary of State Robert Lansing wrote, “The experiences of Liberia and Haiti show that the African race are devoid of any capacity for political organization and lack genius for government. Unquestionably there is in them an inherent tendency to revert to savagery and to cast aside the shackles of civilization which are irksome to their physical nature.”[7]

The occupation gave the US control of the Haitian treasury and customs houses. The US Marines were to establish a new military order in the country, and all nominations for government positions had to be approved by the American president.[8] Criticism was stifled, as newspapers were shut down for opposing the occupation. Haiti was under martial law, its sovereignty reduced under the pretense of preserving it.

A majority of the US Marines were southerners with the deeply-held prejudices of the American South. Reading the soldiers’ diary entries is quite shocking: they speak of the Haitians as “apes” and “savages” and employ every variety of racial slur too offensive to repeat. The diaries demonstrate a lack of recognition of the Haitians’ humanity. Accounts abound of widespread rape of Haitian women, burning of whole villages, and indiscriminate killings by the Marines.

In an echo of colonial slavery, the Marines rounded up Haitians to work on building roads. Men were rounded up forcefully, chained together, and forced to work on the roads without payment. Resistance would mean death.[9] Episodes of sadistic torture carried out by some Marines in charge of these labor forces give an idea of how little oversight the Marines had. They were able to exercise any violent inclination they had on a powerless population.

The US occupation of Haiti further impoverished the countryside and centralized the government’s authority. This would have ramifications in attempts at development after Haiti’s “Second Independence” when US troops withdrew in 1934.[10]

Following occupation, the government struggled to pay off debts incurred to the United States in the occupation era. Ever-changing political adminstrations tried both conservative and progressive economic solutions, but these failed due to stagnating levels of agricultural production, which accounted for almost all of the country’s gross national product. Haiti was suffering from soil erosion and deforestation, a problem that plagues the country to this day.[11]

This instability set the stage for the 1957 election of François “Papa Doc” Duvalier, who styled himself as a champion of the people and preserver of Haiti’s traditional culture. He claimed he was a repudiation of the elites in Port-au-Prince who had always held power. Duvalier’s brutal regime is estimated to have killed between twenty thousand to sixty thousand people at the hands of his security force, the Tontons Makouts.[12] Criticism of the regime was outlawed, and terror reigned.

Duvalier was able to remain in power due to his successful courtship of the US government, embroiled in the Cold War and desperate to prevent Communism from gaining hold in Latin America. His anti-Communist stance and suppression of leftist groups allowed him to find favor with the US. Financial aid poured into Haiti, and the Haitian military and Tontons Makouts were armed with American weapons.[13]

When Papa Doc died in 1971, his son Jean-Claude took over at the age of nineteen, swearing that “the United States will always find Haiti on its side against communism.”[14] Hundreds of millions of dollars poured into Haiti from the United States, and most of it was taken by Duvalier and his associates.

Increasing dissension and protests within Haiti finally led to Duvalier’s removal in 1986. Once again, the country was faced with having to form a new government and attempt economic development. The large military of the Duvalier era was determined to hold onto power, but eventually a constitution was passed which granted universal voting rights. Haiti had its first democratic election in 1990, electing Jean-Bertrand Aristide, a Catholic priest and advocate of the poor.[15]

The hope that was represented by Aristide’s election was not to be, and he was deposed in a military coup in 1991. Bill Clinton’s administration helped to put him back in power in 1994, but the Clinton administration required that protectionist tariffs be removed. This devastated the Haitian rice industry, and Haiti’s dependence on foreign imports remains to this day.[16] Aristide was exiled in 2004 with the help of US troops amidst much controversy.

Today, Haiti is referred to as the “Republic of NGOs,” a fitting name to describe the prevalence of foreign aid groups which have no oversight and often fail to coordinate efforts or directly compete against each other. This lack of coordination was particularly obvious following the 2010 earthquake, when over 300,000 Haitians were killed. Dizzying amounts of money were pledged in the relief effort, but there is still not much to show for it. The government of Haiti has little power in the face of these foreign entities, and it has been described by some as a new iteration of US occupation.

When they won independence in 1804, the former French slaves accomplished the impossible. They had thrown off the burden of slavery and were filled with hope for the future. The world was not willing to accept a black republic, and Haiti’s history has been the story of a proud nation attempting to assert itself in the international order and garner the respect it deserves. Though the shadow cast by its powerful neighbor, the United States, has been dark, the flames of freedom that were ignited during the Haitian revolution have not gone out.

[1] Laurent Dubois, Haiti: The Aftershocks of History (New York: Picador, 2012), 43.

[2] Ibid, 140.

[3] Ibid, 153.

[4] Ibid, 175.

[5] Ibid, 204.

[6] Ibid, 211.

[7] Ibid, 214.

[8] Ibid, 218.

[9] Ibid, 240.

[10] Ibid, 267.

[11] Ibid, 319.

[12] Ibid, 326.