The Friendly Face of US Imperialism USAID and Haiti

[XXPANTHAXX]

By SASHA KRAMER
New York Times

On the ground United States foreign assistance projects often
mean desperately needed food and employment for the poor,
impossible to resist, difficult to critique. But from the
vantage point of US foreign policy objectives a very
different picture emerges and long-term and global outcomes
often differ dramatically from the immediate consequences of
relief efforts.

The United States International Development Agency (USAID)
emerged as an arm of US foreign policy following the Second
World War. The Agency was developed to provide foreign relief
and development assistance in accordance with US policy
objectives. According to the USAID website (www.usaid.gov)
the organization operates under the following mandate.

"U.S. foreign assistance has always had the twofold purpose
of furthering America's foreign policy interests in expanding
democracy and free markets while improving the lives of the
citizens of the developing world."

This dual mandate raises the important question of whether US
policy interests generally result in improved living
conditions for the majority of the world's poor? While it may
occasionally be the case that the interests of the US
government and the poverty stricken citizens around the world
are aligned, more often than not, US economic and political
interests are dependent on the exploitation and manipulation
of workers and consumers in the developing world. It is this
inherent contradiction within the USAID mandate that should
cause skepticism among US taxpayers concerned with issues of
social justice and self determination.

The fundamental problem with USAID's stated objectives is
that it is not in the national interests of the US government
to promote self sufficiency in developing countries. US
economic interests are fed by foreign dependency on US
imports and loans. Political interests are served by
maintaining an economic stranglehold on foreign governments,
and many a strategic alliance has been forged out of economic
necessity. Among USAID's operating tenets are sustainability
and local capacity building, noble goals but highly dependent
on how these tenets are defined and the manner in which they
are implemented. Sustainability of what, and which local
capacities are being supported? Implementation is primarily
shaped by another of USAID's governing tenets, selectivity,
the allocation of resources based on foreign policy
interests.

The recently released USAID Haiti Field Report provides an
excellent case study for investigating the role of USAID in
promoting US foreign policy objectives under the friendly
guise of aid. Much of USAID's current work in Haiti is
carried out under the umbrella of the Haiti Transition
Initiative (HTI), a program developed by USAID's Office for
Transition Initiatives (OTI) in May 2004 to "emphasize
stability-building measures in key crisis spots."

The OTI was created within USAID in 1994 "to provide fast,
flexible, short-term assistance to take advantage of windows
of opportunity to build democracy and peace" in countries
experiencing political turmoil. According to the OTI website
the organization accomplishes its objectives by specifically
encouraging "a culture of risk-taking, political orientation,
and swift response among its staff and partners." The Haiti
Field Report explores how short term assistance programs
provided within a culture of political orientation can be
used to distort international perceptions of Haiti's
complicated political terrain, as the elections approach.

The United States is primarily concerned with Haiti's
upcoming elections occurring on schedule, so that a new
government can be in place by February 2006. In Haiti, as in
Iraq and Afghanistan, the timeliness and appearance of
legitimacy of the electoral process are of paramount
importance for the Bush Administration's PR machine, which
tends to equate elections with democracy, boasting that the
United States is benevolently promoting "democracies" around
the world. USAID describes their objectives as
follows: "Haiti's future depends on elections that are
considered free and fair to ensure the legitimacy of the new
government and enhance their ability to govern effectively.
The stabilization of the political and security environment
in Haiti is central to U.S. foreign policy and USAID
objectives."

What sort of democracy is the United States promoting in
Haiti, where the duly elected president was spirited away on
a US military jet against his will, as the country once again
fell into the hands of the powerful elite and brutal former
military? Haiti is now governed by a cadre of unelected
officials overseen by Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, a
Haitian businessman and former radio show host that lived in
Boca Raton Florida for the 15 years preceding his
unconstitutional rise to office. In direct contradiction to
actual events and the laws of the Haitian Constitution, USAID
describes Haiti's unelected Interim Government as "benefiting
from the support of democratic institutions." They further
state that the "political transition" of February 29,
2004 "created a new environment for collaboration with the
Interim Government of Haiti," indicating their willingness to
work closely with an illegitimate government accused of
numerous human rights abuses over the past year in order to
promote US interests.

USAID's Haiti Field Report, which can be found on the USAID
website, presents a glowing image of US development efforts
in this "troubled" country, through a carefully-crafted
compilation of selective facts. In August alone, USAID
invested over 4 million dollars towards projects in Haiti.
These projects include road and canal clean-up projects,
terracing of hillsides to prevent erosion and electricity
projects. On the surface it is difficult to criticize the
provision of badly needed clean-up efforts and employment
opportunities and certainly these programs have had benefits
within the community. The questions are: what is the long
term viability of these projects, and who are the primary
beneficiaries? A far more detailed on-the-ground
investigation would be required to determine how these
programs will differentially benefit various local and
international interests in the short and long term.

Other USAID projects that have more obvious political
implications are short term nutrition and recreational
initiatives in "key crisis areas." The report outlines
USAID's strategy for pacifying Haiti's largest political
party, Lavalas through selective distribution of aid
resources. In August the Haiti Transition Initiative set up
26 "Play for Peace" camps in Port au Prince, Cap Haitien, St.
Marc and several other "target" cities. These camps are
designed to provide food and activities to desperately poor
communities; essential services, the importance of which is
not in question.

What is questionable is the way in which these camps are used
to undermine existing community programs in an attempt to de-
legitimize the demands of the Lavalas movement in the eyes of
the international community. This strategy is exemplified by
USAID's description of their activities in Petit Place
Cazeau, the community that is home to Father Gerard Jean
Juste's parish of St. Claire. Father Jean Juste, illegally
imprisoned since July 21, 2005, is a popular priest and
outspoken opponent of the unelected interim government.
USAID's Haiti Field Report describes their activity in Father
Jean Juste's neighborhood as follows:

"OTI initiated a Play for Peace summer camp in Petit Place
Cazeau, the Port au Prince stronghold of Lavalas party
presidential candidate Father Gerard Jean Juste. [] The
fruits of these efforts were seen during a recent
demonstration attended by 200 people. At the same time that
the demonstration was taking place, 300 people were enjoying
the summer camp. It is believed that the camp prevented the
demonstration from being larger and giving greater legitimacy
to the protesters. The coming weeks will see a deepening of
OTI activities in Petit Place Cazeau, where events like the
summer camp will become increasingly important now that
Father Jean Juste has been arrested. His imprisonment has
inflamed pro-Lavalas fires in the area and made him a martyr
to some Haitians."

This report presents a picture of US aid that is
simultaneously disturbing and refreshingly honest. The fact
that the "fruits of these efforts" are described as the
camps' potential to de-legitimize protest as opposed to their
success in providing basic services to the community, speaks
volumes to USAID's primary motivations, motivations which
will shape long term outcomes. USAID is an arm of the US
State Department reporting directly to Condoleezza Rice and
their stated objective is to use aid to pursue outcomes
desired by the State Department. In this case the State
Department is eager to for the upcoming elections to appear
legitimate as evident in Condoleezza Rice's recent visit to
Haiti in which she stressed the importance of timeliness and
legitimacy.

In order for this goal to be achieved it is critical to
stifle resistance to the elections. Resistance is being
tackled on two fronts. In the past year, thousands of former
elected officials and community organizers have been
imprisoned, forced into hiding or killed, with many innocent
civilians caught in the crossfire. This overt stifling of
dissent is implemented by Haiti's unelected interim
government through the Haitian National Police, a brutal
police forced armed by the United States and under the
control of the United Nations.

USAID uses a different tactic for pacifying the poor in Haiti
who have been rightfully outraged by the destruction of their
democracy, rise in the cost of living and ongoing government-
sponsored repression. Understanding the level of desperation
in these communities, short term provision of services is
used as a way to draw people away from protesting these
conditions with a warm meal. As people are fed they can be
quietly indoctrinated with the notion that these camps
provide an alternative to the "violence" of Lavalas. The
provision of entertainment and meals may provide a temporary
alleviation of suffering but they do nothing to address the
underlying causes of that suffering which are deeply
entangled in with the disruption of Haiti's democracy in
2004. A full stomach will not end the police killings, it
will not free the political prisoners and it will not result
in the reestablishment of social programs in Haiti; but it
may give a hungry person a moment of peace. Full stomachs and
soccer are excellent tools for temporarily easing suffering
to pacify protest and give the country the appearance of calm
in the run up to the elections but they are not a sustainable
solution to the many problems that prevent these elections
from being free and fair, nor will they promote a democracy
that truly represents that Haitian people. The long term
implications of installing an illegitimate government could
far outweigh the short term benefits enjoyed by those
attending the camps.

Other questions about these programs include: how long will
these programs feed the hungry and what is their effect on
pre-existing programs in Petit Place Cazeau, that were not
mentioned in the report? Long before USAID initiated the Play
for Peace camps in the neighborhood, Father Jean Juste and
the St. Claire community were providing vocational training
classes, recreational activities and meals to thousands of
children in the neighborhood. Now with Father Jean Juste in
prison these programs are at risk. Unlike Father Jean Juste's
commitment to empowering the community, USAIDs stated goal of
pacifying political protest through aid is decidedly a short
term strategy, and these camps are not likely to provide a
sustainable source of aid after political objectives have
been met. If USAID were truly interested in improving the
lives of poor people they would support the maintenance of
existing programs by joining Amnesty International, Human
Rights Watch, 29 members of Congress, and over 400 religious
leaders in calling for the release of Father Jean Juste, a
cornerstone of many community development projects in Petit
Place Cazeau.

As stated in the document, the coming weeks will see
increased expansion of USAID programs in Petit Place Cazeau
and in other key areas like Milot, where Lavalas remains
strong. These developments are of interest not only for those
concerned with US subversion of democracy in Haiti but also
to those interested in understanding USAID's operations
throughout the world. This explicit acknowledgement of the
motivations underlying aid in Petit Place Cazeau provides and
excellent case study and these developments deserve ongoing
scrutiny. Despite its beneficent name, USAID is doing what it
was designed to do, play off the hunger of the starving, and
the boredom of the unemployed, to further US policy
interests. In Haiti this means propping up and illegitimate
foreign government in the face of massive resistance, a
difficult task best carried out through a combination of
violent repression and foreign aid, the friendly face of US
imperialism.

Sasha Kramer is a PhD. candidate at Stanford University who
has travelled to Haiti three times this year on human rights
delegations. She can be reached at: sash@stanford.edu