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

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

Published

on

Moscow-born gunman dead after Kyiv shooting rampage leaves at least 6 dead, 14 wounded: Zelenskyy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A Russian gunman was killed by special forces Saturday in Ukraine after opening fire at a supermarket in Kyiv, killing six people and wounding 14 others — including a 12‑year‑old boy.

The 58-year-old shooter long resided in the Donetsk region and was born in Moscow, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Interior Minister Ihor Klymenko.

He took at least four hostages, killed one of them, and fatally shot four others on the street, Zelenskyy said. Another woman died at a hospital from her injuries.

Graphic video captured by witnesses showed the gunman shooting at a victim within close range on the street. Other bodies were seen lying on the pavement and in courtyards.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen walking with a weapon on the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

MANHUNT UNDERWAY AFTER GUNMEN STORM CHICK-FIL-A LEAVING 1 DEAD

Ukranian special forces stormed the convenience store after 40 minutes of failed negotiations, according to Klymenko.

At least fourteen people were wounded in the attack, though officials cautioned the number may rise as people continue to seek medical assistance.

Among the injured is a 12‑year‑old boy and a supermarket security guard, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko.

Advertisement

The gunman was pictured dead in the convenience store. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

NINE DEAD, 13 WOUNDED IN SECOND TURKISH MASS SHOOTING IN TWO DAYS

Zelenskyy said the shooter also set fire to an apartment prior to the attack, though it is unclear if any injuries resulted from the arson.

“My condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims,” Zelenskyy wrote in an X post. “…We wish all the wounded a swift recovery.”

The gunman had previously been prosecuted for criminal offenses, but held a valid weapons permit, according to authorities. Investigators from the National Police and the Security Service of Ukraine are investigating.

Advertisement

The gunman was seen holding and shooting a weapon in the street. (Obtained by Will Stewart)

GUNMAN OPENS FIRE AT HIGH SCHOOL IN TURKEY, WOUNDING AT LEAST 16

Ukraine’s security service labeled the attack an act of terrorism.

“All available information about him and the motives behind his actions is being thoroughly investigated,” Zelenskyy said. “Every detail must be verified.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

One of the shooter’s neighbors, Hanna Kulyk, 75, described him as an “educated, refined man,” who lived alone and did not socialize often.

“You’d never guess he was some kind of criminal,” Kulyk told The Associated Press.

Continue Reading

World

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Published

on

Iran navy says any ship trying to pass Strait of Hormuz will be targeted

Top negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf says US naval blockade of Iran’s ports is ‘a clumsy and ignorant decision’.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGC) says the Strait of Hormuz is closed and that any ship that attempts to pass through the waterway will be targeted, a dramatic reversal less than 24 hours after the critical shipping lane was reopened.

In a statement carried by Iran’s Student News Agency, the IRGC navy said on Saturday the strait will be closed until the United States lifts its naval blockade on Iranian vessels and ports. It said the blockade was a violation of the ongoing ceasefire agreement in the US-Israel war on Iran.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“We warn that no vessel of any kind should move from its anchorage in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, and approaching the Strait of Hormuz will be considered cooperation with the enemy, and the offending vessel will be targeted,” it said.

Advertisement

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s parliament speaker and a senior negotiator in talks between Washington and Tehran on ending the war, said in a television interview that “the Strait of Hormuz is under the control of the Islamic Republic”.

“The Americans have been declaring a blockade for several days now. This is a clumsy and ignorant decision,” he added.

The reassertion of control came just hours after Iran had briefly reopened the strait, in line with a 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon. Oil prices dropped on global markets after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the waterway was “completely open for all commercial vessels.”

More than a dozen commercial ships passed through the waterway before the IRGC reversed course.

Iranian gunboats reportedly fired on two commercial ships on Saturday, according to United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO). India’s Ministry of External Affairs also said that two Indian-flagged ships were involved in a “shooting incident” in the strait.

Advertisement

Some merchant vessels in the region received radio messages from the IRGC Navy, warning that no ships were being allowed through the strait.

US President Donald Trump said Tehran could not blackmail Washington by closing the waterway and warned that he would put an end to the ceasefire if a deal before its expiry on Wednesday is not reached. Trump added that the naval blockade would “remain in full force”.

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, meanwhile, said the navy was ready to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

‘Two competing blockades’

Al Jazeera correspondent Zein Basravi said that Iran and the US are back where they were the previous day.

“Less than 24 hours ago, world leaders were praising what they thought was a breakthrough in this conflict, hoping Iran was signalling a confidence-building measure by opening the Strait of Hormuz, potentially leading to a ceasefire deal and a permanent end to the war,” he said.

Advertisement

“As disappointed as people may be, this isn’t entirely surprising. What we’re seeing now is a return to square one,” he added, saying there are now “two competing blockades in place”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem, reporting from Tehran, said Iran was using the strait to send a message.

“It’s clear that Iran is dealing with a situation in which they are not sure what’s on the table. So the Strait of Hormuz is once again the only space for engagement, even if it’s a negative engagement. And it’s the space where they are sending and conveying messages to the Americans, showing their leverage,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending