Haitian Crisis: The International Community’s Role in Haiti’s Descent into Chaos
For the past five tumultuous years, Haiti has been mired in an unprecedented crisis. Recent events from last week underscore the growing chaos, raising crucial questions about how the nation reached this dire point and, notably, how the international community, with the U.S at the forefront, contributed to this chaos. Haitian civil society contends that the international community bears significant responsibility, rooted in the historically interventionist nature of U.S. foreign policy towards Haiti. This article delves into specific instances of the international community’s role, particularly their unwavering support for Prime Minister Ariel Henry, and sheds light on the ways they have exacerbated the crisis.
Ariel Henry’s Rise to Power
The tragic assassination of Jovenel Moise in July 2021 plunged Haiti into an unprecedented institutional and constitutional vacuum, which was further complicated by the absence of a functioning parliament and a dysfunctional judiciary. This pivotal moment presented both a challenge and an opportunity for the country to reshape its political landscape, ideally through the establishment of a transitional and consensual government, a demand long championed by Haitian civil society in protests against the former president.
However, instead of allowing for a locally-led solution, the United Nations Integrated Office in Haiti (BINUH) and the U.S. took a unilateral step by choosing Ariel Henry as head of the government, sidelining the potential for a genuine and inclusive negotiation process that Haitians had been advocating for. This unilateral decision closed the door on a locally-led settlement that was critical to bringing Haiti out of its crisis.
In the eyes of the international community, Ariel Henry became the rightful and legitimate ruler of Haiti, despite his lack of legitimacy and support within Haiti. In contrast to typical U.S. policy towards interim governments, which usually outlines clear conditions and limits to cooperation, Henry found himself with unchecked executive, legislative, and even judicial powers to some degree. Surprisingly, the international community supported most of Henry’s decisions, even those deemed unpopular or unconstitutional, including the controversial removal of fuel subsidies in the midst of an already struggling economy facing soaring inflation.
This unchecked authority not only hindered any meaningful dialogue between Ariel Henry and political and civil society actors but also created an environment in which Henry was immune from any accountability for his actions. With no incentive to engage in a real dialogue, Henry’s unchallenged power, coupled with the unwavering support of the international community, created a significant power imbalance at the negotiating table. This imbalance has made it increasingly difficult to achieve the difficult task of building consensus and resolving Haiti’s crisis through a locally-led process.
Ariel Henry’s Government and the Gangs
In November 2022, Haiti grappled with escalating insecurity, prompting the U.S. and Canada to impose sanctions on political figures, including high-ranking officials within Prime Minister Ariel Henry’s government. Specifically, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Interior Affairs, roles akin to Homeland Security in the U.S, were sanctioned due to alleged connections with criminal gangs. Despite subsequent dismissals by Prime Minister Henry, this incident vividly demonstrated the intricate relationship between the government and armed groups. Moreover, the two sanctioned ministers were integral parts of the National Security Council (CSPN), working alongside Ariel Henry and the Chief of Police, who technically bears responsibility for the country’s security.
Haitian civil society anticipated a potential shift in international support for Ariel Henry following the imposition of sanctions. The expectation was that the withdrawal of support for Henry would provide a ground for more productive negotiations. However, the international community surprised many by not only maintaining its support for Henry but also publicly reaffirming its confidence in his leadership.
This unexpected turn left the Haitian civil society perplexed and disappointed, as tangible evidence of collusion between the government and criminal gangs appeared to be disregarded. The international community’s failure to adjust its stance in the face of such evidence further strained its relationship with the Haitian civil society.
A few months later, in a development that added another layer of complexity to the situation, the international community welcomed Prime Minister Ariel Henry’s request for international troops to assist in combating the same gangs with which the government had allegedly colluded. The international community’s insistence on supporting Ariel Henry in this context further complicated the dialogue, creating a perplexing dynamic in which external support seemed to contradict the aspirations of local actors advocating for accountability.
The December 21st Accord
In December 2022, as Ariel Henry faced repeated calls for negotiations from various actors in Haitian civil society and the political class, the international community exerted passive and seemingly disengaged pressure to push him towards a consensus agreement. Ariel Henry initiated the formulation of what became known as the “December 21st Accord”, claiming to demonstrate his government’s willingness to compromise and engage in dialogue. However, the agreement turned out to be a sham that lacked any real political weight or substantive support from any of Haiti’s major political or civil society actors. In fact, the majority of the signatories were obscure organizations with minimal influence in the Haitian political landscape.
Despite its questionable legitimacy and lack of significant support, the international community endorsed the December 21st Accord. This endorsement had far-reaching consequences, providing a misleading narrative that portrayed the accord as a positive step toward an inclusive transition process. In reality, this agreement served more as a tool for Ariel Henry to buy time and create the appearance of a commitment to dialogue.
Crucially, this endorsement allowed Ariel Henry to take bold and unconstitutional actions, notably the unilateral and illegal appointment of eight judges to the Supreme Court of Haiti for a ten-year term. This move, denounced by the Haitian civil society, including the Haitian Bar Associations and members of the judiciary, was publicly approved and applauded by BINUH and U.S. diplomats as progress, despite its undemocratic nature and the threat it posed to the already fragile judicial system.
By supporting and endorsing the December 21st Accord, the international community further strengthened Ariel Henry’s grip on power and provided him with a facade of legitimacy. This further complicated the negotiations and made consensus even more elusive since the agreement had already settled most of the issues that would normally be discussed at the negotiating table.
The February 7th Deadline
February 7th holds profound symbolism in Haitian politics, marking the date of transfer of power. In 2024, this date gained heightened significance as it was the deadline set by Ariel Henry to hand over power, in line with the December 21st Accord. However, given the failure to implement key resolutions and organize elections, the civil society and the political class viewed this as a decisive moment to pressure Ariel Henry into resigning or, at the very least, negotiating a consensus formula for governing the country.
As the deadline loomed, BINUH and U.S. diplomats once again tipped the scales in favor of Ariel Henry, who was in a weakened position. They officially reaffirmed their support for Henry, dismissed the February 7th date as a binding deadline, and opposed the idea of Ariel Henry stepping down to clear the way for a new transition. Only after recent events linked to gang-induced chaos did the international community belatedly acknowledge the substantial cost of its unconditional support for Ariel Henry on Haiti’s future. While the exact motives behind the withdrawal of support for Henry and the call for a transitional government remain ambiguous, these events have served as a wake-up call to the international community, forcing them to face the consequences of their actions.
The international community may have withdrawn its support for Ariel Henry today and created a more conducive environment for dialogue but the delay in doing so leaves Haitian society with a fait accompli and an even greater challenge to overcome as the gangs who are now presenting themselves as political actors who will seek to be part of the solution.
The International Community vs. Haitian Civil Society
Haiti’s recent tumultuous history and the current crisis reveals a consistent influence of external actors, particularly the United States, in shaping its crises.
The international community’s unconditional support for Prime Minister Ariel Henry has hindered the possibility of a fair dialogue process and a locally-led solution to the crisis. From the unilateral appointment of Henry to the endorsement of flawed agreements and anti-democratic actions, international support has created a power asymmetry in favor of Ariel Henry that rendered consensus-building nearly impossible. This support consolidated Henry’s grip on power and helped entrench a leader whose legitimacy and actions were widely contested within the Haitian civil society.
The clash between the international community, particularly the U.S., and the Haitian civil society has been a defining feature of this crisis. While the international community has consistently supported Henry while also ignoring evidence of collusion with gangs and endorsing his questionable actions, the civil society has called for accountability, checks and balances, and locally-led solutions. The failure to recognize and support the legitimate role of the Haitian civil society in holding leaders accountable has widened the gap between external actors and the aspirations of the Haitian people.
As Haiti grapples with the consequences of these events, the international community must engage in its own introspection. Recognizing the role it played in impeding a fair dialogue process and undermining civil society is paramount. Lessons from this crisis should guide future international policies towards Haiti, emphasizing the need to prioritize locally-led solutions. Genuine democracy in Haiti can only be achieved if external actors respect and support the civil society, rather than acting as a counterforce to its crucial role in the democratic process. The way forward requires a collaborative effort that acknowledges past mistakes and fosters an environment in which Haiti can chart its course toward lasting progress and self-determination.