Update on Haiti

by Daniel Simidor

July 28 marks the 77th anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Haiti. Historians often speak of the Monroe Doctrine to justify that act of international aggression. It is true that U.S. imperialism seized the opportunity during and after the First World War, at a time when the European powers were either fighting each other or licking their wounds, to enforce its own claim of hegemony over the entire region. Thus the Woodrow Wilson administration also invaded the Dominican Republic in 1916. In fact, the U.S. invaded 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean between 1898 and 1925.

But the U.S. invasion of Haiti also took place at a crucial moment in Haitian historу. It took place at a time when the traditional Haitian dominant classes were losing their grip on power. Peasant guerrillas, known as Cacos, unable to seize and hold power for themselves, had made it impossible for any central governmentto function. Six new governments came to power in the four years prior to the Marines' landing. Civil unrest spread from the North, the traditional bastion of the Cacos, to the rest of the country and to the capital, Port-au-Prince. The Wilson administration sent in the Marines supposedly to restore order after the Dechoukaj (uprooting) of President Vilbrun Guillaume Sam, who had ordered and personally directed the massacre of more than 200 political prisoners, in a desperate bid to remain in power.

The people of Port-au-Prince reacted quickly to the news of the massacre: they went into the national palace, grabbed Vilbrun Guillaume, who was hiding in the nearby French Embassy, and put him to death. The bourgeois press in this country, oblivious to the routine lynching of Black people in the South during the same period, reacted with typical hypocrisy and decried the people as thugs and savages. In my opinion, Vilbrun Guillaume Sam got what he deserved; the rest was propaganda to justify the invasion. The week of July 28, 1915, was a busy week which sealed a long period in Haitian history. It also launched a new one that is finally coming to an end, if a new U.S. invasion does not take place soon to prolong it.

Haitian history can be divided into three main periods: the colonial period, which began with Christopher Columbus's landing in 1492 and ended with the victory of the Haitian war of independence in 1803; the formative years, from 1804 to 1915; and the contemporary period, from the U.S. invasion to today. One thing runs as a constant throughout this long history: the land question. The Cacos, from the first decade of the 19th century until they were effectively wiped out by the Marines, fought with one goal in mind: land. The peasants who form the backbone of the resistance in Haiti today put their lives on the line with one thing in mind: land. The land question was also at the heart of the colonial period, whether people were fighting against slavery or for independence. The question that comes to mind then is: what is the difference between fighting for land and fighting for political power?

Mao Zedong is often quoted as saying that "political power comes out of the barrel of a gun." But he also emphasized that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and that politics should always be in control of the gun and not the other way around. The Haitian peasants have been fighting for land for more than 200 years. But except for brief and intermittent periods between 1805 and 1850, they never developed a clear political program for seizing and controlling power, either independently or in conjunction with the urban poor. They never developed the two magic weapons of an independent political program and an independent revolutionary party to lead their guns to victory. Instead, they joined one bourgeois party after another, they fought under the leadership of reactionary generals and feudal chiefs, who betrayed them the minute they assumed power. Without revolutionary leadership and a political program of their own, the Caco guerrillas became little more than mercenaries, and the poor and landless peasants little more than cannon fodder in a two-century-old battle between the feudal landlord class on the one hand and the rising merchant and bureaucratic bourgeoisie on the other.

The masses of poor peasants-- the former slaves -fought for eleven years under the leadership of Toussaint Louverture to abolish slavery and put in place an independent state of their own. But when Toussaint came to power, instead of implementing the simple but revolutionary program of his supporters, land to the tiller, he chose instead to preserve the structure of the big plantations. He even restored the French plantation owners who had fled the island during the General Slave Uprising of 1791–1793. He also put in place a new system of agrarian corporativism whereby the former slaves were forced to remain on the plantations under threat of physical punishment and imprisonment. The feudal system that exists in Haiti today goes back in fact to the new constitution written by Toussaint in 1801. Toussaint's ideas of growth, prosperity, and development were based on the production and export of sugar, indigo, and coffee, the three biggest sources of revenue during the 18th century.

By a curious coincidence, I heard President Aristide over the radio this past weekend referring admiringly to the wealth that colonial Haiti produced in 1789. He said that Haiti-then known as St. Domingue -was responsible for more than one-third of the world production of coffee, and if we could do it then, why can't we do it now. That got me worrying, primarily because I think that Aristide is about to repeat the same mistake Toussaint made 200 years ago. One should be mindful of Marx's saying about history repeating itself a second time as a farce. Toussaint sacrificed the people in the interest of growth; and in the end, when the French came back against him, he was forced to capitulate. He had not only lost the undying support of the bulk of the people, he had himself lost faith in them as the real source of power.

When Aristide was running for president in 1990, a now defunct group called the July 28 Coalition published a pamphlet to warn that Aristide would not last as president unless he moved immediately to satisfy the four main demands of the popular movement which brought him to power. Land reform, the most basic and fundamental demand of the Haitian masses since 1801, was one of the key decisions that Aristide had to put into effect, while he still had the tactical advantage over his opponents. The president failed to use this advantage, opting instead for the dream of uniting the whole of Haitian society under his command. He only succeeded, of course, in distancing himself from his real supporters, allowing the dominant classes enough time to regroup themselves and to strike against him.

Today, Marc Bazin, Washington's favorite political figure on the scene, has been appointed prime minister of Haiti by the coup leaders. The Bush administration is now able to return to business as usual with its traditional allies and protegés. But due to the conditions of the crisis in Haiti, their victory is at best tentative, and the imperialists in Washington know it. It is still possible for Aristide to turn the table against them, though he seems to have resolved not to call on the masses for direct action.

The Bush administration has already announced its intention to intervene militarily in Haiti, under the cover of a multinational force, to short-circuit or to crush any attempt at armed resistance or insurrection against the illegal regime now in power. So we seem to have come full circle to yet another major crisis in Haitian society and to another impending foreign occupation of that country. The remaining space will provide a brief overview of the crisis, the main actors involved, and perhaps some ways to help bring change in Haiti.

Any materialist reading of the situation in Haiti over the past seven years points to a profound revolutionary crisis which provides great opportunities for change, but also grave dangers of further imperialist aggression against the people. This crisis takes on dramatic social, political, and economic overtones, but at its core, it is a structural crisis, a crisis inthe relations of production in Haitian society. Amere change of governmentcannot solve the crisis, nor will the so-called politics of growth and economic development that Mr. Bazin is likely to evoke during his interim illegal government. The conditions under which feudal society has produced and exchanged since 1801 have become obsolete. The feudal organization of agriculture and industry and the feudal relations of property are no longer compatible with the reality of today's productive forces in Haiti. The method, organization, and the relationships that connect people in the production of value will have to be revolutionized in order to find a real solution. The crisis in Haiti is not just a crisis of government or bourgeois democracy; nor is it one of the cyclical crises of overproduction that plague capitalist economies in the industrialized world.

Haiti is one of very few countries where revolution is on the agenda today. But outside of Haiti, this is a very well-kept secret. Perception of Haiti is limited to four stereotypes: AIDS, boat people, Papa Doc, and voodoo. It is true that the political situation in Haiti has been in the news over the past seven years. But the image we are often left with is one of senseless violence, crowds out of control, people fleeing poverty, and a vague feeling of pity for a people so utterly victimized, impoverished, and oppressed. These negative perceptions have a lot to do with the general indifference toward revolution in Haiti. And that's why programs such as this [public forum in Manhattan] are very important to help throw aside the distortions and the lies affecting Haiti.

Haiti is not only a dependent country oppressed by U.S. imperialism; it is also one of this hemisphere's poorest countries. Its economy has traditionally relied on subsistence farming and the production of coffee as the main source of foreign exchange. The lives of the vast majority are controlled by a small class of feudal landowners and a handful of merchant capitalists in the import/export sector. Exploitation takes place at both the point of production and of distribution. A heavy tribute is extracted from the poor peasants in the combined form of rent, produce, taxes, free labor, loan shark interest, and lopsided exchange. Not even a small fraction of this stolen wealth ever goes back to the countryside, whether as low interest loans or basic services. The country's agricultural system has fallen into decay, so much so that the land can no longer support the economic survival of the people. While the most productive and irrigated lands remain under the control of the big landowners, the poor and landless peasants have to force a living out of the depleted hillsides, on smaller and smaller plots of eroded land. The point here is not thatthe land is too poor to feed its inhabitants, but that the backward social relations imposed by the dominant classes are in contradiction with the people's interest and their survival.

The crisis in the relations of production has also given rise to a severe political crisis that U.S. imperialism cannot resolve. The traditional ruling classes can no longer maintain their domination over the country. And the people no longer accept their rule, but fight instead to establish political institutions that serve the interests of the poor.

In addition, world public opinion, George Bush's New World Order notwithstanding, strongly favors the politics of radical change in Haiti. The international situation is on the side of the people of Haiti, and that's a very important element of a favorable revolutionary situation in any country. Haiti's challenge is to transform this revolutionary situation into successful revolutionary struggle.

The past six years have been a period of intense struggle for the people. Grassroots organizing has given rise to dozens of neighborhood committees, peasant cooperatives, youth groups, trade unions, women's organizations, among others. This mass movement has been nonviolent and decentralized, overall, and by its very nature unable to uproot the Duvalierist system still entrenched in every structure of Haitian society. Nationally, revolutionary struggle implies a leap from the present mass nonviolent and decentralized forms of organization to more disciplined and centralized ones. The Duvaliers' legacy of terror and the country's endemic poverty and isolation explain in part the slow emergence of viable revolutionary organizations.

It is conceivable, however, that a mass insurrection will take place in the near future without Aristide's consent and without organized revolutionary leadership.

Finally, what can people in this country do to help the situation in Haiti? If we are to remain truthful to Marx's saying that the point is not only to understand the world but to actually change it, we must begin seriously to pay some attention to the question of active solidarity with the struggle in Haiti.

Concrete solidarity work in regard to Haiti begins with a principled stand for the unconditional return to power of the democratically elected government of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. But while upholding Aristide's right to continue his electoral mandate unconditionally, solidarity efforts in this country must strive to develop channels of communication with the popular movement in Haiti, on a nonsectarian basis.

Political support is the first and most urgent form of solidarity generally requested by grassroots organizations in Haiti. This requires up-to-date information on the political situation in the country, a sound understanding of the political orientation, the objectives, and the needs of the organizations in question, and the ability to respond quickly and forcefully in cases of political repression and other acts of aggression against the people. The solidarity initiative must begin work, almost immediately and on a continuous basis thereafter, to establish links with the progressive and liberal sectors in the United States. Trade unions, student associations, churches, minority forums, elected officials, advocacy groups, and support organizations in general should receive particular attention. Funding requests from Haiti should also be anticipated. Any prospect of meeting those needs depends on the ability to develop organic links with the Haitian community.

We must also work to establish a second front against U.S. military intervention in Haiti, right here in this country. U.S. military intervention is on the agenda for Haiti in the coming period. The question is not if, but when. Historically, the U.S. government has never sent troops to invade countries under the rule of client regimes, but it is almost certain that U.S. troops, under the cover of a multinational force, will land in Haiti to prevent the people from taking over power. Haitians in the U.S. will certainly mobilize against foreign aggression at home, but alone they are unlikely to succeed. Iranian students, with a smaller community base, were able to mobilize in the 1970s to counter detrimental U.S. policy vis-à-vis their country. The Grenada and Panama invasions show, however, that the government in Washington is more skillful today in controlling the media to deflect or delay public scrutiny in periods of conflict.

Any campaign against U.S. military intervention in Haiti must promote the idea of Haitian solutions to Haitian problems. We must not wait, however, for direct intervention before we spring into action: our outrage then will be too little, too late. The point is to prevent the U.S. from going in by exposing and opposing their current harmful policies against Haiti. The main opponent and the main target of invading troops will be the membership of the grassroots movement who will be selected for annihilation through military destruction of the shantytowns, surgical strikes, and political assassinations. The solidarity effort must closely monitor Washington's actions toward Haiti, expose them broadly among Haitians and non-Haitians here, and develop effective means to combat them. This is a major part of the groundwork toward building a second front against imperialist intervention in Haiti.

Haiti is a dependent country under the heel of U.S. imperialism. Its struggle for liberation must be waged in a global context. Its victory will not be just a local accomplishment. Haiti represents a concentration of some of the worst contradictions in world politics today. What happens there is likely to influence events throughout the area, and may very well have repercussions worldwide. This is a strong reason for progressive people to get involved in this solidarity effort.

This piece was also published in Bulletin in Defense of Marxism, no 101, December 1992.