Connect with us

World

What is the history of foreign interventions in Haiti?

Published

on

What is the history of foreign interventions in Haiti?

The proposal initially sparked an uproar. In October 2022, then-Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry and 18 top officials called on the international community to send a “specialised armed force” to help combat the spread of gang violence in Haiti.

But Haiti has struggled with a long, fraught history of foreign involvement — and the prospect of a new wave of outside interference was met with scepticism.

Now, experts say that public opinion is shifting in Haiti, as the violence continues to fester and Haiti’s already tenuous government is on the verge of yet another shake-up.

“In October 2022, most Haitians were against an international force,” said Pierre Esperance, executive director of Haiti’s National Human Rights Defense Network (RNDDH). “But today most Haitians will support it because the situation is worse, and they feel there are no other options.”

Still, the history of international involvement in Haiti casts such a long shadow that it continues to be a divisive subject — both among the Haitian people and the outside forces that would potentially be involved.

Advertisement

A new level of crisis

The instability in Haiti entered a new chapter this week when Prime Minister Henry — an unelected official who has been serving as de facto president — announced that he planned to resign

The announcement came after mounting international pressure, as well as threats from the gangs themselves. One of the country’s most notorious gang leaders, Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizier, told reporters that a “civil war” would erupt if the deeply unpopular Henry did not step down.

The calls for an international force to intervene arise from the acute nature of the situation, Esperance and other experts told Al Jazeera.

Gang violence has forced more than 362,000 Haitians from their home, largely in and around the capital of Port-au-Prince. The United Nations estimates that at least 34,000 of those have been displaced since the start of the year.

Armed groups have also taken control of roadways and other vital arteries around the country, limiting the flow of supplies. With high rates of poverty already driving malnutrition, the UN has warned the country is at risk of famine.

Advertisement

“The gangs control more than 95 percent of Port-au-Prince,” Esperance said. “Hospitals don’t have materials, there’s not enough drinking water, the supermarkets are almost empty. People are staying at home because it’s very dangerous.”

Will Kenya take the lead?

With gang violence at crisis levels and Haiti’s government in shambles, some Haitians are increasingly looking abroad for assistance.

An August poll released by the business alliance AGERCA and the consultancy DDG found that about 63 percent of Haitians supported the deployment of an “international force” to combat the gangs.

An even higher portion — 75 percent — said the Haitian police needed international support to reestablish order.

But countries like the United States and Canada have baulked at the prospect of helming such a force themselves, though they have offered to back other governments that might lead one.

Advertisement

In July 2023, Kenya announced it would be willing to deploy forces to Haiti and potentially lead a multinational security mission.

The UN Security Council threw its support behind the initiative, approving the Kenya-led mission. But the effort has since stalled, amid court challenges and other slowdowns.

In January, a Kenyan court ruled that deploying forces in Haiti would be “illegal and invalid”. And just last Tuesday, Kenyan officials said they would pause any deployment to Haiti until a new government was in place.

Jonathan Katz, the author of the book The Big Truck That Went By: How the World Came to Save Haiti and Left Behind a Disaster, told Al Jazeera that the international community’s hesitation to lead a mission to Haiti is a testament to the poor track record of past foreign interventions.

“These countries are saying, ‘We need to do this because we can’t think of any other solution,’” said Katz. “But nobody wants to do it themselves because every single one of these interventions throughout Haiti’s history have ended with significant egg on the face for everyone involved.”

Advertisement

‘A direct colonial occupation’

Since the early 1900s, there have been at least three direct interventions in Haiti, including a decades-long occupation by US forces.

That occupation lasted from 1915 to 1934 and was carried out in the name of restoring political stability after the assassination of then-President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam.

But during their time in Haiti, US forces oversaw widespread human rights abuses and the implementation of a “corvée”, a system of forced labour sometimes likened to slavery.

“Slavery it was — though temporary,” said US civil rights leader James Weldon Johnson, writing for The Nation magazine in 1920.

“By day or by night, from the bosom of their families, from their little farms or while trudging peacefully on the country roads, Haitians were seized and forcibly taken to toil for months in far sections of the country.”

Advertisement

US soldiers even removed substantial funds from the Haitian National Bank, carting them off to New York.

“This was a direct colonial occupation that began under US President Woodrow Wilson and lasted for five administrations, both Republican and Democrat,” Katz said of that period. “Later occupations were carried out with varying degrees of directness and indirectness.”

A hand in Haiti’s politics

For instance, the US would intervene again in Haitian politics during the Cold War, as it propped up governments friendly to its interests in the name of anti-Communism.

Positioning himself as an anti-Communist leader upon his election in 1957, Haitian President Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier actively courted US support, even as he led a brutal campaign of state violence against his own people.

Despite misgivings about Duvalier, the US offered him aid: US Ambassador Robert Newbegin, for instance, arrived in Port-au-Prince prepared to give Duvalier’s administration approximately $12.5m in 1960 alone.

Advertisement

One estimate puts the total US support given to Haiti under Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, at $900m. Meanwhile, the Duvaliers faced accusations of murder, torture and other violations.

The US also sent troops to intervene directly in Haiti. In 1994, for instance, US President Bill Clinton sent a contingent of about 20,000 troops to restore Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power after he was overthrown by the country’s military in 1991.

That deployment took place in parallel with a UN mission that ran from 1993 to 2000, also with the support of the US.

In 2004, Aristide was overthrown once more, but this time, the US encouraged him to step down, flying him out of the country and sending troops to the island alongside nations such as France and Chile.

That force was then replaced by the United Nations Stabilisation Mission in Haiti, known as MINUSTAH, which lasted from 2004 until 2017 and was led by the Brazilian military.

Advertisement

While MINUSTAH was tasked with enhancing security, it soon faced allegations of committing rape and other atrocities against civilians. A massive cholera outbreak that killed more than 9,300 people was also traced back to a sewage leak from a UN facility.

A Haitian-led future

Given its pockmarked history of Haitian intervention, the US has expressed wariness towards leading a new international mission to Haiti. Many are calling for solutions to be Haitian-led, instead of foreign-led.

“We need to give the Haitians time and space to get this right,” former US special envoy to Haiti, Daniel Foote, said in a recent interview with NPR.

“Let’s let the Haitians have a chance to mess up Haiti for once. The international community has messed it up beyond recognition countless times. I guarantee the Haitians mess it up less than the Americans,” he added.

For his part, Katz said the Kenya-led mission, with its UN backing, would have provided a buffer for the US and other powers that have a checkered history in the region.

Advertisement

In the 20th century, the US carried out these occupations of Haiti. Later, you get these outsourced occupations by the UN, which the US supports,” said Katz.

“But these always turn out poorly for the reputations of those involved, and they never leave the country on a better footing. So now with this Kenyan-led initiative, you have an almost double-outsourced intervention.”

A last resort

But with the Haitian government in disarray and violence rampant, some experts question what systems are in place to foster recovery.

President Jovenel Moise’s assassination in 2021 left a power vacuum in Haiti’s government, and no general elections have been held since. Katz argues the US made the situation worse by lending support to Henry, whose popularity has cratered amid questions about his commitment to democracy.

“Anybody paying attention has been saying for years that this was an unsustainable situation that was going to explode,” said Katz. “When there’s no legitimate democracy, it opens the door for people with the most firepower.”

Advertisement

Both Katz and Esperance point out that, while countries like the US have helped equip the Haitian National Police, the boundary between the officers and the gangs they are meant to combat is often porous.

The gang leader Cherizier, for instance, is himself a former member of the Haitian National Police’s riot control branch.

The result is that Haitians feel like they have no choice but to look abroad, Esperance explained.

“We need a functional government. An international force will not be able to solve the problem of political instability,” said Esperance. “At the same time, Haiti cannot wait. We are in hell.”

Advertisement

World

Iran closes Strait of Hormuz over ceasefire violations

Published

on

Iran closes Strait of Hormuz over ceasefire violations
Iran’s top joint military command, ​Khatam al-Anbiya Central ‌Headquarters, said on Saturday that the Strait ​of Hormuz would ​be closed to vessel ⁠traffic, citing ​alleged violations of a ​ceasefire agreement by the U.S. and Israel, Iran’s ​Mehr state ​news agency reported.
Continue Reading

World

Keir Starmer reportedly considering stepping down as PM and could announce timetable for departure

Published

on

Keir Starmer reportedly considering stepping down as PM and could announce timetable for departure

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is reportedly considering stepping down and could announce a timetable for his departure as early as Monday, according to a report published Saturday.

Advertisement

Britain’s Observer newspaper reported that Starmer was discussing his future with his wife at his Chequers country residence before making a final decision.

The outlet reported that senior Labour Party figures expect a statement addressing his future as early as next week.

A government source told Reuters that Starmer remains focused on governing and pointed to previous comments in which he vowed to remain in office.

AS EPSTEIN-LINKED APPOINTMENT SPARKS BACKLASH, UK PM STARMER FACES PARTY REVOLT AMID RESIGNATION CALLS

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer awaits Switzerland’s Federal President Guy Parmelin on the sidelines of the G7 summit, in Evian-les-Bains, France, Tuesday. (Isabel Infantes/Pool Reuters via AP)

Advertisement

Fox News Digital has reached out to the prime minister’s office for comment.

Pressure on Starmer has been building for months amid growing dissatisfaction within his party and concerns over the government’s handling of the economy and cost-of-living issues.

The political threat to Starmer intensified Friday after rival Andy Burnham won a seat in Parliament, positioning him to mount a formal leadership challenge.

LABOUR MP PUTS CABINET ‘ON NOTICE,’ THREATENS TO TRIGGER LEADERSHIP CHALLENGE AGAINST STARMER BY MONDAY

Britain’s Labour party candidate Andy Burnham speaks to supporters after the Makerfield by-election in Ashton in Makerfield, England, Friday. (Jon Super/AP)

Advertisement

Starmer congratulated Burnham following the victory, writing on X that voters, “chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate.”

When asked about Burnham’s apparent ambitions to replace him, Starmer insisted he intends to remain in office.

“I’ve said repeatedly I’m not going to walk away from that,” Starmer said.

UK’S STARMER JUGGLES TROUBLE AT HOME AS HE WALKS GEOPOLITICAL TIGHTROPE WITH TRUMP

Sir Keir Starmer is battling to save his position and refusing to stand aside despite dozens of Labout MP’s demanding he resigns. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Advertisement

Starmer has led the Labour Party since 2020 and became prime minister in 2024.

Calls for his resignation intensified last month, with more than 100 Labour lawmakers publicly urging him to step aside or set out a timetable for his departure. Several parliamentary aides also resigned in protest.

The internal revolt followed a series of disappointing local election results for Labour, which lost hundreds of council seats across England, surrendered long-held ground in Wales and fell behind political rivals in Scotland.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer speaks a news conference at Downing Street in London, March 5. (Tolga Akmen/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images, File)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

Starmer’s popularity has also declined amid a persistently high cost of living, sluggish economic growth and criticism over his acceptance of gifts from wealthy donors.

Fox News Digital’s James Cirrone and Emma Bussey, and Reuters contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

World

Trump vows Iran will not charge Strait of Hormuz tolls, but says US might

Published

on

Trump vows Iran will not charge Strait of Hormuz tolls, but says US might

United States President Donald Trump has pledged there will be no tolls for passage through the Strait of Hormuz, unless they are collected by his own country.

Trump’s statement, made in a Saturday afternoon post on Truth Social, is the latest sign that a recently signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) may be unravelling.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“There will be NO TOLLS in the Hormuz Strait for 60 days during the Cease Fire Period, and there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired,” Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America.”

Since the US and Israel launched a war against Iran on February 28, Iran has successfully used the Strait of Hormuz as a pressure point, closing the strategic waterway to traffic.

But under the terms of Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum, the strait is supposed to reopen for an interim period of 60 days. During that time, Iran is barred from charging vessels for passage.

Advertisement

On Saturday, however, Iran’s joint military command said it had closed the Strait of Hormuz, citing a “clear breach” of the memorandum’s commitments.

US Central Command (CENTCOM), the agency that oversees military operations in the region, denied that report and maintained that the traffic continues to flow through the waterway.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been a flashpoint in the conflict between the US and Iran. Nearly 20 percent of the world’s oil and natural gas is transported through the strait, as well as about 30 percent of the global fertiliser trade.

Closure of the strait has caused global fuel costs to soar and has tested agricultural sectors across the world.

Trump had responded to Iran’s chokehold over the strait by imposing a US naval blockade on Iran’s ports in the region.

Advertisement

But that naval blockade was lifted under the terms of Wednesday’s memorandum. The deal also paused fighting on all fronts in the regional conflict, including in Lebanon.

The memorandum, though, was not intended as a long-term deal. It serves as a launching point for negotiations on key issues, including the future of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Several points of divergence also went unaddressed in the memorandum. Nowhere does the memo say that future tolls cannot be collected from the strait after the 60-day period expires.

Before the war, there was no charge for passage through the strait. Trump himself said in an interview with The New York Times that the waterway should remain “permanently toll-free”.

But he appeared to reverse course in Saturday’s post, once again floating the possibility that the US could extract tolls in the strait, while barring Iran from doing so.

Advertisement

No fees should be levied, Trump wrote, “unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed”.

He explained that such a charge would compensate the US “for services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs”.

Trump used similar language in his New York Times interview earlier this week, floating the US becoming “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for 20 percent of its revenue.

Saturday’s post is not the first time Trump has mused about the US imposing tolls in the strait, either.

In April, for instance, he discussed the idea with reporters, saying, “What about us charging tolls? I’d rather do that than let them have them. Why shouldn’t we? We’re the winner. We won.”

Advertisement

 

There has been no indication that Trump’s plans have been officially presented to countries in the region, many of whom have struck a careful balance in their dealings with both the US and Iran during the war.

Iranian officials, meanwhile, have repeatedly said they will not rule out imposing tolls in the strait, framing the issue as a matter of sovereignty and regional negotiation. The strait sits between Iran and Oman.

Further discussions are expected on the matter in the coming weeks.

But such negotiations have been thrown into jeopardy amid ongoing Israeli military operations in Lebanon, which threaten to violate Wednesday’s ceasefire memorandum.

Advertisement

Iran claimed that Saturday’s closure of the strait was a result of new Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon, which killed dozens of people after the ceasefire was announced.

Iranian officials have also said that any upcoming talks should focus on proper implementation of the initial memorandum, and that the 60-day negotiating period stipulated in Wednesday’s deal would begin after that was settled.

Pakistan, a top mediator between the US and Iran, has said that follow-up talks are set to begin in Switzerland on Sunday.

Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that an Iranian delegation, led by parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, has already arrived for the negotiations.

On the US side, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance are expected to attend.

Advertisement

Vance departed for Switzerland late Saturday.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending