Haiti's Movement From Below Endures

Great piece by Jeb Sprague on Jean-Bertrand Aristide’s return to Haiti. The only thing to fear is fear itself.

Jeb Sprague is the author of the forthcoming book Haiti and the Roots of Paramilitarism and was the recipient of a 2008 Project Censored Award, who also regularly blogs and tweets. Also find here a link to Aristide's entire return speech.

Obama Administration Blocking Aristide From Haiti Return

What a "change" from George Bush:

WASHINGTON, March 14 (Reuters) - The United States on Monday urged Haiti's exiled former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to delay his return until after Haiti's March 20 run-off presidential election.

Responding to reports of Aristide's imminent return to Haiti, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said it was up to Port-au-Prince to decide whether to permit the return of its former leader who has lived in exile in South Africa since his 2004 ouster.

"Former President Aristide has chosen to remain outside of Haiti for seven years," said Toner. "To return this week could only be seen as a conscious choice to impact Haiti's elections."

"We would urge former President Aristide to delay his return until after the electoral process has concluded, to permit the Haitian people to cast their ballots in a peaceful atmosphere," he said, adding that a return before the election could "potentially be destabilizing to the political process."

Toner said the United States was also calling on the South African government to urge Aristide to delay his return until after the election.

A spokeswoman for Aristide said on Friday that the former president would return to Haiti "in a few days."

Aristide's return is unrelated to the election, but "he is genuinely concerned that a change in the Haitian government may result in his remaining in South Africa," his attorney, Ira Kurzban, said in Miami.

"The Department of State has previously said that this is a decision for the Haitian government.

They should leave that decision to the democratically elected government instead of seeking to dictate the terms under which a Haitian citizen may return to his country," Kurzban said.

Aristide has long accused the United States of helping engineer his ouster, and Kurzban said the U.S. government has played an active role in ensuring he remained in South Africa. He said Aristide was going back to Haiti to carry on his educational work.

Election officials have barred Aristide's party from running a candidate in the election, which was tainted by allegations of widespread fraud during November's first round of voting.

Democracy in Haiti - where the most popular candidate can't run, and where his return "threatens" an already fraudulent election. Aristide has only expressed interest in rebuilding Haiti's education and health-care systems.

The First Person Haiti Needs: Jean-Bertrand Aristide

Those who’ve read Paul Farmer’s account of foreign intervention in Haiti, appropriately titled “The Uses of Haiti,” know that the world-renowned doctor holds a low opinion of the U.S. media. Taking aim at both The Wall Street Journal and New York Times for circulating government propaganda, Farmer accuses them of misleading the U.S. public during the brutal (and U.S. supported) reigns of Francois and Jean-Claude Duvalier, aka “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc.”

Perhaps the NYT is playing an old trick - feigning opposition to a government policy to provide a liberal outlet - but yesterday it snapped away from Washington. According to its editorial board, “The Last Thing Haiti Needs” is the return of “Baby Doc,” a refreshing contrast to the official U.S. position. To no surprise, the State Department has announced that the “last thing Haiti needs” is the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristde, exiled president and possibly the most popular man in Haiti.

Aristide has posted a statement online announcing, "As far as I am concerned, I am ready. The purpose is very clear: to contribute to serving my Haitian sisters and brothers as a simple citizen in the field of education."

Now who would ever want that?

Voice of America bluntly “reports,” “The United States Thursday expresses opposition to the possible return to Haiti of deposed former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. U.S. officials say in the wake of this week’s arrival in Haiti of former dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier, the return of another controversial figure is the ‘last thing’ Haiti needs.”

"Haiti has its hands full dealing with the current ongoing election process," Tweeted State spokesman Philip Crowley. "And we do not think that any actions by any individual at this point that can only bring divisiveness to Haitian society is helpful in helping Haiti move forward - expressly because the Haitian people need the emergence of a new government that they believe, and have confidence, can lead Haiti to a more prosperous future."

Deputy spokesman Mark Toner added that Haiti should focus on its future, and that Aristide "is not really part of that equation." Yes, because the government outlawed one of Haiti's most popular parties, Aristide’s Fanmi Lavalas.

Crowley paradoxically echoed, “We do not doubt President Aristide's desire to help the people of Haiti. But today Haiti needs to focus on its future, not its past."

The U.S. response to Aristide is to be expected given his intimate knowledge of unlawful U.S. activity; the State Department ignored warnings from Congressional Democrats to appeal Fanmi Lavalas’s disqualification, which many suspect Washington of privately backing. Yet the State Department’s reaction is no less revolting and insensitive. To argue that Haiti's past has no bearing on its future is unconscionable, not just because the link between past and future is proven, but because Washington is obviously trying to conceal its own nefarious history in the country.

Thus America continues to oppose Aristide out of its own interests, not because of Haitians. Some things never change - past meet future.

Pulling Out of Haiti’s Death Spiral

Although the massive 7.0 earthquake that struck Haiti in January was immediately recognized as a disaster of untold proportion, the simultaneous belief followed that an opportunity had just opened. Ignored by the West despite the hemisphere’s worst living conditions - or more likely ignored because of these conditions - Haiti’s earthquake thrust it back into the spotlight as the international community raced to the island.

But, as many expected while still hoping otherwise, the international community hasn’t capitalized on the emergency to restore a sense of normality to the country. Rather, the strong are doing what they’ve always done in Haiti: exploit the weak.

Depressing as the latest news is, 2011 holds the potential to dip the country into new lows. Roughly 5% of the 25 million tons of rubble has been cleared from Port-au-Prince. Nearly all of the one million displaced remain in squalid camps, both fearful of and irate at the cholera epidemic plaguing the countryside. And while both problems require vast sums of aid and personnel, funds are trickling in at embarrassing levels.

Last week UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the General Assembly that an emergency appeal for $164 million has only reached 20%. Of the $2.12 billion that international donors (not including humanitarian agencies) pledged to Haiti in 2010, only $897 million of it has been disbursed as of late November, according to the UN Office of the Special Envoy for Haiti.

The $1.15 billion pledged by the U.S. government remains frozen in Congress.

At first the lack of funds appears rational. Like Afghanistan, there’s no use pumping billions into an environment that won’t retain its investments. Except the West’s narrative in Haiti is false to the core. When the earthquake struck, U.S. officials completely ignored Haiti’s history of foreign intervention, so insensitive to this history that they tapped George Bush and Bill Clinton to act as Washington’s public face.

And they were the perfect representatives - two presidents who routinely distorted Haiti’s political and economic system in pursuit of U.S interests. Little surprise, then, that Washington’s humanitarian assistance has lacked direction from the beginning.

However the U.S. government has a clear policy when it comes to Haiti’s democracy. The consensus is that international donors are waiting out a new government, and that more aid will flow into the country once the election’s dust settles. This theory is accurate in a vacuum. Yet some diplomatic officials and analysts are under the impression that Washington wants to replace current president Rene Preval, when the situation indicates the opposite.

One of WikiLeaks’ newest cables, dated June 2009, disclosed that Preval is trying to "orchestrate" a political transition through his hand-picked successor, Jude Celestin. By pushing elections through numerous obstacles, the West also appears bent on putting the democratic process behind it. Haiti is indefinitely unprepared for an election, goes the argument, so there’s no reason to delay. U.S. and UN officials compared Haiti to Afghanistan - as if this analogy provided any real comfort.

Ki-moon would eventually admit, "While some violence and disruptions on election day are not exceptional in Haiti, the irregularities now seem more serious than initially thought.”

The first red flag, and still one of the largest, was the exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas, chaired in exile by former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. The White House ignored pleas from the Democratic majority to include Fanmi Lavalas, all the more revealing by a lack in Republican concern. The common belief in Haiti - which might as well be reality - is that the State Department and U.S. embassy maneuvered to block Aristide's potential return, having been suppressed by Clinton and exiled by Bush. Consequently, Washington and the corporations behind it are thought to be pulling strings on Celestin to ensure a continuation of the Preval government.

Fear has become reality, as Celestin just displaced popular musician Michel Martelly in the final runoff with Mirlande Manigat. Unofficial estimates had Manigat at 30% percent of the vote, Martelly at 25% and Celestin at 20%, leading many locals and observers to foretell chaos in the event of Celestin’s advance. Celestin was officially pegged 1% ahead of Martelly.

"If they don't give us Martelly and Manigat, Haiti will be on fire," said a protester, Erick Jean.

Protests have indeed broken the night, leaving the U.S. embassy no choice except to finally question the results. An e-mailed statement read: "The Government of the United States is concerned by the Provisional Electoral Council's announcement of preliminary results... that are inconsistent with the published results of the National Election Observation Council.”

Haiti is getting the Egyptian treatment over Côte d'Ivoire's.

It’s far past time for the international community to get its act straight in Haiti, but recent events are threatening to generate even more appalling conditions. The situation demands rapid adaptation. As the first of many actions, Washington must intervene if Celestin qualifies for a runoff without the votes - and the UN must act if America refuses to. The reputation and functionality of its despised peacekeeping force inhabits an all-time low, with health officials closing in on UN troops (Nepalese or not) as the cholera source.

Without political and economic progress, the UN force is nothing more than a white elephant. Now would be a good time for the UN to do something useful.

Although cash isn’t likely to come flooding in after a successful election, there is some truth to the expectation. But only if the international community oversees a credible runoff after forcing a corrupt election on Haitians. Otherwise their future is shockingly depressing.

In the absence of true allies, says Ban Ki-moon, "Haiti has no sustainable future, no hope for a better future.”

Real Hope for Haiti

We understand that raising hope is metaphorical for raising money and awareness. If you want to literally hope and/or pray then get down to it. Now is not the time to tell people not to Hope for Haiti.

While Pairing President Obama's campaign slogan, now currently a liability, with a disaster seems cheesy, don't think twice about giving - except to reconsider Dr. Paul Farmer’s Partner’s In Health.

But in Haiti’s case getting up might be falling down, while getting down amounts to raising up. So we don’t consider raining on Hope for Haiti as negative, we feel that digging up dirt is exactly the positivity Hope for Haiti is lacking.

Hope for Haiti? Absolutely - as long as that means 50 years minimum of sustained reconstruction and a fundamental change in US and Western political circles.

Blaming governments alone isn’t enough though when the American people ignored their government's prison mentality of Haiti for decades. The island hovered in irrelevance except for its level of poverty, periodically but briefly exposed by riots, foot shortages, and hurricanes.

The earthquake accomplished what no US-backed coup or economic exploitation could - attract global, focused awareness to the island.

Unfortunately this awareness hasn’t translated into education, and a one-track response was set up where there should be two rails. This one track appeals to your heart to save the dying and support the surviving - without giving any information back. Helping Haiti isn’t a one way street, Americans must understand why they’re help is abnormally necessary.

Bill Clinton and George Bush won’t tell you. President Obama and his officials won’t tell you. The US media won’t tell you. The hundred celebrities at Hope For Haiti won’t tell you.

They wouldn’t get as much funding.

Without making a blanket statement, the majority of reports and op-eds on Haiti either skip America’s interference completely or whitewash it. Real talk on Haiti is often pyrite. As of this moment the cover up continues. They want your dollars and minds.

So after you give, make sure to look into US political and economic policies in Haiti and their effects. Read a few Paul Farmer books. You’ll want to help even more. Don’t let Washington and the media keep the lights off. Only by holding them accountable through educated awareness will future Haitis be prevented.

That is the only real hope.

Haiti As Counterinsurgency

One day, hopefully not too far in the future, America is going to respond differently to natural disasters. Split into two categories, one reaction assists any international disaster relief effort, if possible, to promote US goodwill and overall world peace.

The second reaction will quickly recognize those disasters that fall under counterinsurgency and respond with this in mind.

Disaster relief has long been considered part of military operations by the US military as it creates a good image to fight with. When warfare transitioned out of the conventional and into the asymmetric, disaster relief was subsumed into counterinsurgency operations.

So did the US military see the golden opportunity in Haiti or not? If it did, was there force applied on Obama? Did Obama reject or not if so? These are difficult questions to answer.

Of more certainty is that America’s response, while seemingly vigorous, was average at best. Obama appears not to have realized that Haiti is a counterinsurgency first and disaster relief second, with the potential to directly influence Palestine and Afghanistan. Haiti isn’t an arbitrary disaster to help and leave, but a political and media battle to wage and win.

Disaster relief is an active weapon, a non-military operation of war. And considering America’s 700$ billion Defense budget, Haiti is a bargain counterinsurgency compared to Afghanistan.

Comparing the two countries doesn’t present Obama in a good light. Haiti was the anti-Afghanistan, demanding quick and confident decisions. Deliberation might have been necessary in Afghanistan, but it’s open to debate whether he could have decided quicker. Most think he could but didn’t want him to.

Now he looks like he can’t make a quick decision at all.

Obama made one wrong move, either out of ignorance or bad advice, and doomed every next step. He saw the 2004 tsunami and automatically limited his thinking, when Haiti is an unlimited disaster requiring unlimited thinking. After the first phone call he needed to visualize an entirely new response.

10,000 troops should have been readied for launch immediately with another 10,000 on standby. Another 2,000 Marines were just ordered to deploy, bringing the total US commitment to 11,500. 16,000 US troops and seamen are supposed to be deployed by the week’s end.

A contingent of 3,500 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Brigade was also supposed to land this weekend, but many of them are still loading up on disaster relief at their North Carolina base.

Clearly Obama’s initial reaction of 2,000 Marines was under-estimated. He needed up to 20,000 troops from the start. Possibly afraid of over-reacting and the political consequences of doing so, he should have known this was impossible.

"Troops on the ground” is the solution to every problem, reports CBS.

The most valid argument against a rapid buildup is aftershocks as seen by yesterday. But that risk was incurred by the 10,000 troops already deployed. They should have been there faster, that way security could have stayed tight in the immediate aftermath, smoothing the security over the coming weeks and opening up disaster and humanitarian efforts.

If 10,000 Marines had been in Haiti in 48 hours they would have been greeted as liberators and been in place for the ensuing rescue effort. Instead their late arrival contributed to bottle-necking the airports, violating counterinsurgency by giving military flights priority over aid.

Obama also came up short financially, pledging only 100$ million in initial relief. Why, if that number will eventually cross 1$ billion, not pledge it immediately? This would place America in front, demonstrating its determination and assuming coordination over relief efforts militarily and financially. Obama should’ve utilized the UN instead of allowing it to take his place.

Now other countries are pledging billions of dollars. America should have lead that charge.

Free thinking, quick reaction, and sincerity could have turned Haiti into a massive America counterinsurgency victory. All the debate about whether the response is too slow or not, too coordinated or not, would instead be how America, and Obama in particular, are doing a great job.

American success is beamed into billions of people’s homes, and hundred of millions of Muslims. They’re talking about Haiti from Africa to the Middle East to Asia - huge markets for a successful US counterinsurgency and the resulting propaganda fruits.

Instead Obama is relatively silent and in his place stand Bill Clinton and George Bush, both complicit in crimes against Haiti, above all the perpetuation of the status quo. With Bush you get statements like, "I fully understand the anguish that the people of Haiti feel.”

"I was involved with Haiti," he told VOA. "I did care deeply about those who are suffering from AIDS. PEPFAR has spent about $320 million in Haiti to get anti-retrovirals [anti-retroviral drugs] and prevention programs to the people Haiti."

Yes, to keep them alive for cheap labor.

Obama should dump Clinton and Bush and assume the face of American relief efforts in Haiti. He needs to admit to America’s wrongs, otherwise the effort can never be sincere, and to do so he must break with the past.

He must also pledge billions of dollars like any other war. He must realize he’s waging a counterinsurgency in Haiti, not just saving lives, and pursue it as vigorously as Afghanistan and Pakistan. Success would reverberate throughout America’s engagement with the Muslim world.

Hugo's Schizophrenia

Hugo Chavez is a political scientist's dream. Random and thus hard to predict, but we understand that much. And so when he speaks of improving relations with America, then accuses it of occupying Haiti, at least Chavez fits his definition.

We can say with certainty that his latest accusation makes no sense.

America doesn't want to occupy Haiti, doesn't want to waste troops on Haiti, doesn't want to stay in Haiti for a prolonged period. Furthermore, America is the leading candidate if one power is needed to rebuild Haiti. Only France comes close.

America isn't going to occupy Haiti in the long term even though it should help rebuild for as long as the democratically-elected Haitian government requests. If Chavez would accomplish more by getting Jean-Bertrand Aristide on the phone.

We hear Haitians are starting to call for his return.

Haiti's Overt Conspiracy

Is an obvious conspiracy still a conspiracy? They can smile all they want, solemn up for the cameras. They won’t fool us - they shouldn’t fool anyone.

Posing for a press conference with President Obama and Bill Clinton, George Bush praised Obama for his "swift and timely response to the disaster” to the Haiti earthquake. Right from the beginning something is wrong.

Now we don’t think highly of Obama’s response to Haiti. Critics claim he’s gone overboard by deploying 10,000 US troops and pledging 100$ million in aid; we’d argue the opposite. Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes that, "I don't know how this government could have responded faster or more comprehensively than it has,” but Obama hasn’t act fast enough.

10,000 troops should have been deployed minutes after the first call, not in the days after. The unlimited magnitude of destruction, considering Haiti’s history, was apparent from the beginning; 2,000 troops were never going to be enough. Haiti needed immediate muscle and a large-scale deployment of US troops was the only realistic option.

1$ billion dollars should have been pledged as well, with more billions to follow. 100$ is a drop in the bucket. Obama did right by recognizing Haiti’s recovery will be measured in years (decades, in fact), yet pledging a meager amount says the opposite.

Under-estimation is evident in a White House press release: “The President admired the substantial success of the effort to raise money and awareness in the aftermath of the Tsunami, and believed that a similar effort would be necessary to respond to a challenge of this magnitude.”

Haiti is beyond the 2004 Tsunami though, and the responses must differ because the magnitudes differ. Those countries hit hardest - Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India - had infrastructures to support a relief effort. Haiti had no grid to plug a relief effort into. Widespread disease and malnutrition should have raised the alarm that Haiti’s death toll would raise rapidly after the earthquake and grind to a halt far beyond the 2004 tsunami.

The response, relief effort, and rebuilding phases are incomparable, meaning this confusion slowed America’s reaction.

Obama wouldn’t be in that big of trouble if his mistakes stopped here. Most criticism is directed at an over-response, a criticism we would've welcomed if completely true. Time has been lost but he still has the opportunity to oversee a successful reconstruction. However, there’s no hope judging by yesterday.

"In times of great challenge in our country and around the world, Americans have always come together to lend a hand and to serve others and to do what's right," Obama said in the Rose Garden, the two former president’s at his side. “In these difficult hours, America stands united. We stand united with the people of Haiti who have shown such incredible resilience, and we will help them to recover and to rebuild."

Obama has committed a deeper offense than a slow response. Pairing Bush and Clinton together as America’s face reveals an ignorance and disregard for Haiti’s history - or worse. He’s touting Bush and Clinton’s pairing as a sign that “America stands united,” as if Democrats and Republicans have finally joined together.

But they’ve joined together before - in oppressing Haiti.

Though Bill acts as if Haiti is his second home and Hillary speaks fondly of “Haitian art” in their first, back in 1994 Clinton was continuing to deny Haiti’s refugee status and holding HIV patients unconstitutionally at Guantanamo. Uses of Haiti spells out Clinton’s actions most vividly.

To keep it short, Clinton eventually reinstalled exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1994, but only on the condition that Haiti revert to favorable economic policies with America. The agreement crippled the remainder of Aristade’s term.

Bush’s hand can be found from beginning to end. Bush I exiled Aristide in 1991 after he won 67% of the vote in an election deemed free and fair by international observers. Cooking up the propaganda that Aristade was behind Haiti’s violence, Bush I installed Raoul Cédras, who was met with heavy resistance. The next three years resulted in murder and mayhem by government paramilitary forces on the Haiti people.

When they tried to flee they were locked up in Guantanamo.

Bush II decided to emulate his father (securing favorable US trade laws) and removed Aristade from the presidency in 2004 after he returned to power in another landslide victory. Accused of corruption and embezzlement, all court cases were eventually dismissed for lack of evidence. America denied any role in Aristade’s kidnapping despite the obvious chain of events.

In all likelihood Bush I and Bush II exiled Haiti’s most popular political figure in its history, while Clinton neutered him in between and impeded Haitians escaping from the violence caused US interference. They have an active motive in covering up their actions with diplomacy and humanitarianism.

So is Obama naive of America's history in Haiti or is he whitewashing?

Everything is right in the open. Reports on Haiti superficially gloss over Haiti’s brutal poverty without reference to America’s profitable but disastrous policy. The word “Aristade” is nowhere to be found, as if the man never existed. Gates, whose connection with the Bushes runs deep, is claiming America couldn't respond any better.

And now Obama’s going to bring together two men whose policies contributed to this disaster? Too many coincidences to be a coincidence. They’re uniting to cover up the past.

Partners In Health

Darkness has fallen on what could be the greatest catastrophe in human history. Haiti has No food, No water, No shelter, No aid. No electricity either. Rescue efforts are said to be impossible.

Survivors and the wounded are sleeping in the streets.

Haiti needs an internationally coordinated air and sea lift of over a million people to hospitals outside the country if the death toll isn't to shame the world forever. There’s almost no limit to how bad the situation could end.

This isn’t to dramatize Haiti, only to pass along Dr. Paul Farmer’s website Partners in Health (PIH). Farmer was in Haiti before anyone else and knows the truth about America's dark history. Uses of Haiti is a hard read.

Our part in the destruction is inescapable. Ignoring this fact during the emergency serves the cover-up. History has finally come to haunt us: America owes Haiti a century of time. It's now or never.

Farmer’s website says all his hospitals survived, being outside the capital, and are operational. He isn’t just the most reliable American in Haiti - he can put the aid to use.

We also hope President Obama puts him in long-term command.

Haiti

Words don't have much effect during a catastrophe of this magnitude. A hundred thousand people are likely dead. The cities and countryside is wrecked. Where will the wounded receive care? There are no hospitals left standing. Millions are affected - will the aftermath leave a million dead? It's possible.

Haiti needs more than donations - US troops are realistically needed above 10,000. But if donating, please consider Dr. Paul Farmer's Partners In Health before other organizations. He's the only one we trust with Haiti's future.


"The whole city is in darkness, you have thousands of people sitting in the streets, with nowhere to go. I've seen seven to eight buildings, from office buildings to hotels and shopping stores, collapsed ... I think hundreds of casualties would be a serious understatement."

- Rachmani Domersant, charity operations manager

"The hospitals cannot handle all these victims. Haiti needs to pray. We all need to pray together."

- Dr. Louis-Gerard Gilles, former senator, as he helped survivors.

"I think it's really a catastrophe of major proportions."

- Raymond Alcide Joseph, Haiti's ambassador to the US

"It's total chaos."

-Joseph Guyler Delva, Reuters reporter

Caribbean Tour

There are few good times to be a Haitian, but hurricane season is especially demanding. The storms add a Sisyphus element to the distressed island, periodically blowing away what little progress is made. Unpopular as the idea may be in Washington, it’s time to push Haiti over the hump of instability so that it can begin to recover properly.

Prizes await America upon a successful nation-building operation.

Naturally the Haitian people would have to approve of such a mission. President Rene Preval is on record for telling UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, “if the Haitian people were asked if they wanted the UN forces to leave they would say yes.” However, the United Nations Stabilization Mission In Haiti (MINUSTAH) only functions as peacekeepers and distributes emergency aid. It’s a band aid on a gaping wound - intensive surgery requires a nation-building force. Not only is America the only actor capable of delivering this force, it’s also the most obligated.

America’s history on the island is too deep to recite; Dr. Paul Farmer, a long time Haitian activist, has needed multiple books to detail America’s unsavory foreign policy. Occupation from 1915 to 1934 exchanged infrastructure development for slave labor. Though publicly opposing the Duvalier dictatorship from 1957 to 1986, America continued exploiting Haitians for their cheap labor. Coups in 1991 and 2004, both overthrowing then-President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, have US fingerprints on them. Colin Powell and Scott McClellan, among others, decried reports that America forcefully removed Aristide from power. Both have since expressed remorse for lying for the Bush administration and anger for being lied to.

Gérard Latortue was installed as prime minister while still in America and left office in 2006 with a suspect human rights record. Why does America hesitate to rebuild but not exploit? In the politest terms America owes Haiti.

Haiti is certainly dangerous, but its armed gangs are unlikely to generate the systematic insurgency found in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Somalia. A greater challenge lies in impression management. America’s history is still fresh in Haitian minds so a different entry is required. Radical as this sounds, America would ask to come in. The purpose of repaying Haitians for past errors must be explicitly stated. The mission would be explained in detail to the government and people before it began; it may even be put to a national referendum. Clauses should be drafted in the UN to expel US forces if they fail to meet their objectives. These measures would reduce anti-American sentiment.

Turning negatives into positives is a mandatory skill, and America must realize that Haiti is a gift in disguise. Nation-building will form the bulk of US military operations in the next century and, judging by Iraq and Afghanistan, America still has much to learn. Rebuilding Haiti would produce textbooks of lessons and provide invaluable experience to the military in a closer and less hostile environment than current American areas of operations. Haiti is a nation-building university.

Like many counterinsurgencies 80% of the Haitian population lives below the poverty line, 54% in abject poverty. Correcting this affliction would take first priority and requires integrated initiatives. Like Afghan opium, Iraqi religious division, and Somali pirates, Haiti provides a unique security challenge - deforestation, estimated at 98%. Villages are more vulnerable to floods and soil erosion lowers the overall productivity of the land by destroying dams, roads, and crop fields. Haiti’s environmental crisis is made all the worse as 66% of Haitians depend on the agricultural sector.

Similar to Afghanistan, America must develop innovative solutions to provide economic opportunity. Government and USAID efforts to re-grow the forests have fell flat from lack of funding, so America would infuse the mission with billions of dollars. An army of well-paid tree planters must work with a host of environmental planners and engineers in conjunction with the local population. Alternatives to charcoal must be introduced to limit logging, with solar cookers being one of many answers. Haiti must become the forefront of the reforestation movement.

Outside of agriculture are standard schools, hospitals, and roads; Haiti needs all three. Those working on the environment must be trained in other technical skills in their free time. An overdue gun buyback program presents a challenge America will find in most insurgencies. One fundamental goal in Haiti is breaking America’s habit of over-funding military operations and under-funding civil projects. Not only are economic, social, and environmental programs cheaper than supporting military operations, they’re more conducive to stability. They should form the majority of a nation-building budget.

Though US military focus would shift from destruction to regeneration, military training is still be gained. Haiti’s terrain is a counterinsurgency environment. As in Afghanistan’s mountains, bulky armored vehicles become less useful in the jungle. Most of Haiti is crisscrossed by shoddy roads and beaten paths that require foot travel. Moving around the island would be good training for US troops looking to get a feel for the insurgent; the best counterinsurgents move like insurgents, shades of Kaibiles. Haiti provides the US military an opportunity to embed itself within a local population, while urban gangs mimic urban warfare.

The cost of nation-building in Haiti is unlikely to run higher than a traditional insurgency. Most of the population isn’t targeted by militants - disease, starvation, and unemployment are the main demons and cheaper to combat. 40,000 American troops, in addition to 9,000 UN peacekeepers, would be more productive in Haiti than Afghanistan, and few are likely to die if they behave properly. Supply lines will also be cheaper and easier to maintain, and the exit closer. A bonus: air-strikes are probably unnecessary

A final prize awaits America, were it to restore life to Haiti. Successful nation-building would greatly enhance America’s standing in the world. Future candidates for nation-building will be more confident if America has a record of success. President Obama is well-received, but America as a whole is still distrusted in many countries. Assisting Haiti would truly announce a new America.