Skip to content

Haiti in Perspective

February 12, 2010

The recent earthquake that struck Haiti is only the most recent in a long line of struggles that the people of the island nation have had to face.  The history of modern Haiti, and hence the French colony of Saint-Domingue that preceded it, goes back many centuries.  Over the past 200 years an independent Haiti has consistently been among the poorest nations in the western hemisphere. Democracy has only had short interludes in the history of the country, which has all to often been fraught with authoritarian strong men and dictators.  In recent years intervention in the form of foreign military forces and neo-liberal financial capitalism has formed the main crux of the struggle.

Waves of History

The Spanish settlers wiped out the original inhabitants of the island of Hispaniola, of which Haiti makes up the western portion. First setting foot on the island in 1492 under the auspices of the now mythical voyage of Christopher Columbus, the Spanish reduced an estimated initial population of 250,000 Tanino Indians to 14,000 by 1517.  The method was the standard one tragically repeated over and over again in the Americas; first came the inter-Columbian exchange of disease to which the Taninos had no immunity, second came the sword and forced labor.  Within a hundred years of the Europeans first arriving at Hispaniola there ceased to remain any of the native inhabitants.  The resulting lack of an indigenous labor source meant the Spanish had to start importing black slaves taken from Africa to work the on newly established plantations.  I say ‘had to’, but it is obvious that the Spanish could have worked the plantations themselves had they so chosen.  But the riches of the ‘New World’ were not to be produced by the hands of Europeans.  By in large they were the products of slave labor and they were only to reach European hands through a vicious process of systemic exploitation, oppression, and savagery.  The importation of African slaves first began in 1501 and by 1574 there were 12,000 slaves compared to 1,000 Spanish.

The French entered the scene a bit later, but they also established a colony on the island in the 1600’s.  It was officially recognized by king Louis XIV in 1665 and was given the name Saint-Domingue.  The colony came to play an increasingly important role for the French Empire and Europe in general. “By the 1780s, Saint-Domingue produced about 40 percent of all the sugar and 60 percent of all the coffee consumed in Europe. This single colony, roughly the size of Maryland or Belgium, produced more sugar and coffee than all of the British West Indies colonies combined.”[i] Not only one of the wealthiest colonies in the Caribbean, Saint-Domingue was one of the wealthiest in the world.  Of course the wealth it produced went to the colonial masters and not the people who actually produced it.  It was against this backdrop that a widespread slave rebellion began in the colony in 1791 that eventually culminated in the declaration of Haiti as the first independent black republic in the world.  Those that are familiar with history know that slave rebellions hardly ever succeed in the long term, but Haiti proved to be the exception.  Overcoming incredibly daunting odds the Haitian people defeated the most powerful army of the time, that of Napoleon’s France.  The Haitian people and their revolutionary leaders such as Toussaint L’Ouverture proved to the world that the most oppressed and exploited of peoples can stand up to the most powerful and throw off the yoke of slavery and exploitation. Europe and the US have never forgiven them for it.

Leader of the Revolution[ii]

Toussaint L’Ouverture is considered by Haitians to be the father of the country.  Born Toussaint Bréda c. 1743, he was a former slave on the Bréda plantation who was later granted his freedom by the plantation owner.  Toussaint continued to work on the plantation and even came to own slaves of his own.  It is known that in 1790 he had decided not to join in the efforts of Vincent Ogé, a free colored man whose efforts were confined to the wealthy and free colored peoples, but not to the poor and those trapped in slavery.[iii] The reasons behind his refusal are unclear, but it is likely due to the limited version of liberty that Ogé proposed. In any event, by August 1791 Toussaint, who had by then given up the dubious distinction of being a slave owner, decided to align himself with the masses and threw his support behind the slave rebellion that erupted in the north of the colony.  The rebellion was the first step in what was to become a general insurrection on the island, eventually leading to Haitian independence from France in 1804.

Though Toussaint was a free man and certainly had a material interest in maintaining the status quo, he chose to join the slaves’ cause because of his understanding of universal liberty.   In a proclamation dated 29 August 1793, he publicly assumed the name of L’Ouverture (The Opening) and quickly rose to a position of leadership within the insurrection.[iv] Although adopting the slaves’ cause as his own, L’Ouverture took a less radical approach than the majority of rebels.  He rejected the rage directed at white colonists and the destruction of their plantations because he foresaw that the colony’s economy would be destroyed along with the plantation system and that liberation of some people at the expense of others, even former oppressors, was contrary to his universal notions of liberty and equality. He was farsighted enough to realize that the universalism of the Enlightenment ideals would amount to nothing if they were not truly universal, that is applied to all humans regardless of religion, nationality, economic status, or color of skin.

At first fighting solely for the insurrection, he joined the side of the Spanish 1793 who were at war with France and in control of the eastern portion of Hispaniola.  The Spanish and their British allies made promises of freedom for slaves that joined their cause.  It was a strategic move that would be a characteristic of L’Ouverture throughout the rest of his career; alliances that could help advance his ultimate goal of universal liberty and emancipation were adopted. A year later in 1794 he switched to the French side following the abolition of slavery by the French National Assembly.

By this time L’Ouverture had established himself as a general with remarkable military skill.  He succeeded in routing the Spanish and driving them from the island.  For a number of years he sought to keep Saint-Domingue within the French Republic and he often appealed to the republican ideals that emanated form France during the Great Revolution. He never compromised his values or the people of Haiti though and he constantly strove to produce the conditions that were most favorable for the welfare of the people.  He resurrected the economy of the colony and greatly improved social conditions on the island.  Believing that true liberty was achieved though labor he sought to make the fruits of that labor available to vast majority of Haitians for the first time.  He was eventually elevated to the unofficial ruler of the colony, signing important trade agreements with Britain and the US.  The two countries offered to recognize L’Ouverture as king, but he refused. L’Ouverture did not seek power for its own sake; he understood that power was only a means by which he could achieve his goals.

Perhaps the former Haitian politician Jean-Bertrand Aristide paints the most concise picture of a complex man and revolutionary leader:

The political participation of the slaves was certainly an indispensable driving force against the enemies.  But so too was Toussaint’s character, his personality.  I refer here to the essence of his person and his self-consciousness.  And in his essence he was a free man.  Toussaint consistently demonstrated intellectual independence from the colonizers, even while maintaining the ability to negotiate with them when necessary.  Time and again, Toussaint demonstrated his own autonomy, his ability to manoeuvre, to lead, to shape events, rather than merely respond to them.  He set his own course, and this the colonizers ultimately found intolerable.[v]

In 1801 L’Ouverture convoked an assembly to draft a constitution for Saint-Domingue.  Of world-historic importance for a number of reasons, it was the first modern constitution that deals with the conflict between property and human rights.[vi] This constitution was also of a very practical importance for Haiti in two ways.  Firstly, it provoked Napoleon into sending a force to subdue the increasingly autonomous colony and initiate a revolutionary war the saw L’Ouverture kidnapped by the French and eventually culminated in the defeat of the French force and the independence of the nation of Haiti.  L’Ouverture would not live to see his country attain its freedom; he died rotting away in a prison cell in France in 1803.  Secondly, article 28 of the constitution, referring to the Governor of the colony, states:

” The Constitution nominates the citizen Toussaint L’Ouveture, Chief General of the army of Saint-Domingue, and, in consideration for the important services rendered to the colony, in the most critical circumstances of the revolution, and upon the wishes of the grateful inhabitants, he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.”[vii]

Though not out of place in its historical era, this clause was set a precedent that set the stage for a long line of authoritarian rulers-for-life.

Postcolonial Blues

The postcolonial period was largely characterized by fractious infighting between various authoritarian leaders and political struggles that led to long stretches of instability.  There were also brighter moments, such as the granting of asylum to the great Latin American liberator Símon Bolívar in 1815 at an important point in his liberation struggle.  The leader of Haiti at the time, Pétion, also furnished Bolivar with arms, ships, and material support for his cause in exchange for freeing the slaves under the Spanish yoke in all the territories he liberated.  Bolívar initially followed through on his promise and issued the Carúpano decree on 2 June, 1816, establishing absolute freedom for slaves.  Unfortunately it was not until much later that slavery was actually abolished in Latin America as it ran counter to the economic interests the elites.  Bolívar’s expedition was defeated and he regrouped once again in Haiti, setting off on the more successful expedition of 1817.[viii]

In 1825 Haiti was forced to pay 150 million francs (later reduced to 90 million), the equivalent to US $21 billion in today’s value, to France in compensation for French property that was lost during the period of colonial revolt (more on what exactly that property was below).  In return, France recognized Haiti and the crippling economic blockade by France, Britain, and the US that excluded Haiti from international commerce was lifted. In order to accomplish this Haiti was forced to take out an initial 24 million franc loan at “extortionate” interest rates from French banks.  Thus, Haiti has paid France three times over – through the slaves’ initial labor, through the compensation paid to the former slave masters, and in then in the interest accruing on the loans they were forced to take.[ix] Thus began the history of structural indebtedness that has plagued the country and been a justification for foreign intervention ever since.[x] It took until 1947 for the Haitian government to finally pay of this debt.[xi]

In 1915 Woodrow Wilson, responding to complaints from the US banks to which Haiti was deeply indebted, sent in the Marines to occupy the country.[xii] The occupation was often brutal, resulting in the deaths of an unknown number of Haitians (the US does not keep tallies on its victims). The occupation lasted until 1934 and saw the country become a virtual protectorate of the US.  A 20-month period of armed resistance to the US military presence from 1919-1921 under the leadership of Charlemagne Péralte resulted in around 15,000 deaths according to Haitian historians.[xiii] Notable achievements from the perspective of the Imperium during this time include getting a new constitution approved with 5% of the population voting, taking over the National Bank, abolishing the clause in the former constitution barring foreign ownership of property, creation of a new armed forces, the Gendarmerie d’Haïti, which would be the primary instrument of US authority, and retaining control of Haitian external finances until 1947.[xiv] The Gendarmerie d’Haïti would also go on to have a long and infamous career as a tool of various dictators and general oppressions of the people of Haiti until Aristide disbanded it. Military coups and the US supported father-son nightmare dictatorships of the Duvaliers from 1957-1986 (François Duvalier, a.k.a. ‘Papa Doc’, set up his only infamous militia, the Tonton Macoutes, as a counter to the Gendarmerie d’Haïti)[xv] only continued the plight of the Haitian people up to the recent period.

Democracy in the Imperial “Backyard”

The most recent experiment with democracy arrived with the presidential elections of 1991 (previous experiences with electoral politics in the 1930’s and 40’s lead to a series of military coups and were held under the guise of the US military occupation) when Jean-Bertrand Aristide assumed the office of the president.  He was almost immediately deposed by a military coup.  It came to light later that the leaders of this coup, notably General Raoul Cédras, were or had been on the CIA payroll.  Emmanuel Constant, leader of the most vicious death squad, responsible for thousands of deaths of Aristide supporters in the aftermath of the coup, admitted to CBS News that he, too, was in the pay of the CIA.[xvi] Aristide did manage to return to fulfill his legal term with US support.  Clinton, seeking a foreign policy victory following the Somalia debacle, saw an opportunity to “restore democracy” in Haiti, surely a feel-good story if there ever was one.  The price Aristide was forced to pay to return to power was significant though.  The US demanded he agree to an amnesty for the coup-makers, except his term would end in 1995 as if he had served the full mandate, share power with opponents that were convincingly defeated in the 1990 election, and perhaps most importantly he was forced to implement the drastic IMF Structural Adjustment Programme he had always been against.[xvii] Despite all this he remained very popular with the vast majority of Haitian people, a result of his social policies, although some were critical of the compromises he made to return to power.

Aristide helped to form a new political organization OPL (Organisation Politique “Lavalas” – “the flood” – in 1991.  It enjoyed broad popular support from a majority of the Haitian people, however Aristide decided to break from the organization in 1996 for increasingly coming under foreign influence and an adoption of increasingly neo-liberal policies.  He in turn help to found a new organization in a split from the OPL, the Fanmi Lavalas, in which he sought to more fully engage the people.  Fanmi Lavalas won the 2000 legislative elections, but was prevented from assuming all the seats by the OPL (since renamed Organisation du Peuple en Lutte).  Lavalas has remained the most popular political party in Haiti in recent years, although it has been barred from participating in the previous national election of 2006 as well as the election scheduled for 2010. Supposedly this is due to the Lavalas submitting improper documentation, but in reality it is much more likely due to the connection with Aristide and the fact that is the only organization that enjoys broad popular support in the country.  Seeing as the vast majority of the population is impoverished this presents an obvious problem for the ruling class of Haiti.[xviii]

Aristide was barred from seeking a second consecutive term in 1996 by the constitution, but was successfully reelected in 2000. Alas, a president who is attempting to institute modest social reforms that place people ahead of property, even (some would say especially) in a tiny, poor county such as Haiti, is seen as a threat to the Imperium.  This is especially true if that country lay in the US’s self-proclaimed ‘backyard’. Aristide had attempted to raise the minimum wage, invest the some of the countries meek resources in education and health[xix], and attempted to put an end to the sweatshop factories that, among other things, produce so many of the goods for the US’s national pastime, baseball.  He disbanded the national military, the infamous Gendarmerie d’Haïti, which had operated in the traditional Latin American fashion, i.e. not as a force to defend the nation from external threat, but rather as a force in the service of the ruling class for the purpose of internal repression of the people. He also demanded justice for the island-nation worthy of its long and honorable history as the world’s first independent black republic.

Part of that justice was asking France to pay reparations to Haiti for the sum it was forced to pay in the previous century for revolting against French colonial rule and daring to apply the lofty ideals of the French revolution to all peoples, not only to white Europeans. When it became clear that the universalism of the Enlightenment was not going to be extended to people of color, i.e. it wasn’t going to be universal at all but rather quite localized and specific, the Haitians revolted and declared the colony of Saint-Domingue an independent state (this was in 1804, ten years after the black slaves of Haiti had defiantly rebelled and refused to be slaves any longer, although they did remain a willing part of the French Empire during the interlude before independence). France and the US (the latter incidentally would not recognize Haiti for another 60 years because of the dangerous precedent it would set for its own southern slave labor economy) brought enormous pressure upon the newly independent nation, which eventually resulted in France demanding the aforementioned compensation for the property it lost when Saint-Domingue revolted and became Haiti. What was that property? Why the Haitian people of course.  It is worth repeating that in today’s US dollars, Haiti was forced to pay $21 billion to France for freeing themselves from the shackles of slavery. Well, Aristide had the audacity to demand that France give back to Haiti this extortion extracted from the Haitian people.

Another facet of Aristide’s attempt to gain justice for Haiti was attempting to relieve some of the worst effects of the neo-liberal Structural Adjustment Programme that was forced on the country by the IMF.  The SAP was a result of the agreement with the US that saw Aristide return from his exile in Washington following the 1991 coup.  He has always maintained that what was initially agreed to and what the IMF demanded later was quite different.

JBA: In 1993, the Americans were perfectly happy to agree to a negotiated economic plan. When they insisted, via the IMF and other international financial institutions, on the privatisation of state enterprises, I was prepared to agree in principle – but I refused simply to sell them off, unconditionally, to private investors. That there was corruption in the state sector was undeniable, but there were several different ways of engaging with it. Rather than untrammelled privatisation, I was prepared to agree to a democratisation of these enterprises, so that some of the profits of a factory or firm should go to the people who worked for it, be invested in nearby schools or health clinics, so that the workers’ children could derive some benefit. The Americans said fine, no problem.

But when I was back in office, they went back on our agreement, and then relied on a disinformation campaign to make it look as if I had broken my word. It’s not true. The accords we signed are there, people can judge for themselves. Unfortunately we didn’t have the means to win the public relations fight.[xx]

Part of the IMF dictate was the opening up of the agricultural sector to foreign trade without any state protection. Haiti went from a nation that was self-sufficient in rice production to one that was forced to import most of its’ rice. The tariff on rice was cut from 50%to the IMF-decreed 3%; consequently rice imports rose from 7,000 tons in 1985 to 220,000 tons in 2002.[xxi] US agribusiness stepped in to fill the void, with a healthy subsidy from the US government (the exact thing it was demanded that Haiti stop doing in order to let the wonders of the ‘free market’ do its magic). The results were predictable; small Haitian farmers were driven off the land and into the slums of Port-au-Prince in search of work. Without homegrown food crops to rely on, Haiti was dependent on the commodity markets for supplying what they needed to survive.  During the 2008 worldwide rise in food prices it was the poorest nations that had been forced to open up their economies by the neo-liberal orthodoxies of ‘structural reform’ that were hit the hardest. The combined effect of the lack of food self-sufficiency and the crowding of people from the countryside into the cities in search of work was tragically demonstrated when the earthquake of 2010 hit.

Regime Change in the Mideast…err Mid-Caribbean?

The motto of “regime change” seemed constantly to be on the lips of various officials in the Bush II administration, his neoconservative allies in the think tanks, large swathes of the corporate media, and, of course, by both of the two major parties in the US.  Overwhelmingly these were references to the regimes in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and other countries that held a geo-political importance for the US ruling class.  Haiti by and large slipped past the media radar undetected and had virtually no resonance in public perception whatsoever.  While geo-political considerations certainly played a part (the US ‘backyard’ may have been neglected under Bush II but it certainly was not forgotten), it was the symbolic importance of Haiti that made it a prime candidate for regime change.  Aristide’s reforms, not to mention his overwhelming popularity with the masses of Haiti, meant that he had to go.

“In 2004, the US involvement in the coup was much more in the open.  Washington led a cut-off of almost all international aid for four years, making the government’s collapse inevitable.”[xxii]

The US, France and Canada, in alliance with the Haitian ruling class and with UN complicacy, were the foreign powers behind the second Aristide coup in 2004, this time with the US forces forcibly extracting Aristide from his home country and dumping him in Africa where he remains to this day. Business as usual as far as the Imperium goes.

Why, you may be asking, would the Imperium even care about what such a tiny nation is doing in its internal affairs? Surely Haiti and Aristide couldn’t be a threat to the all-mighty US, could it? The fact of the matter is that it is precisely because Haiti is so poor and destitute (economically and materially perhaps, the natural resources and the cultural and political traditions of the Haitians are certainly rich and varied) that the US has to ensure that no reforms happen there. It is a fairly good example of what Noam Chomsky calls the ‘mafia doctrine’ in practice.[xxiii] The example is that of the Godfather sending out his goons to collect extortion money from the local shopkeeper. If the shopkeeper refuses to pay, then the mob goons trash the shop. It is not that the don needs the money, far from it, but rather it is the message it sends. If an example of resistance is allowed to take place it can set a dangerous precedent. The more lowly and impoverished, the more dangerous it can be for the don. It shows other oppressed peoples that they don’t have to settle for the way things are, that there is a possible alternative. We can see this principle in action recently in the coup in Honduras, another poor nation in the ‘backyard’, which was supported by Washington.  It was also attempted in Venezuela in 2003, but it failed there as the people stepped up to demand the return of Chavez and democracy.

There have been various suggestions that US has been using Haiti as a staging grounds in its preparations for a possible invasion of Venezuela.[xxiv] While an all out invasion/occupation Iraq style, or even a more limited bombing campaign as initially employed in Afghanistan remain unlikely in the near future, an opportunity to test the capabilities of the US Southern Command and the newly reactivated Fourth Fleet probably figured highly into the calculations of the military establishment in the US. Likewise, reports are surfacing that oil reserves were found in Haitian waters decades ago but were intentionally left unexploited by US dictate in order to better too much to let pass.  Reports are also surfacing that oil reserves were found in Haitian waters decades ago, but that the US dictated that the finds remain under wraps in order to better serve the interests of the Imperium at a later date.[xxv] Whatever the case, and in all likelihood it is a combination of factors, the US is currently constructing its fifth-largest embassy in the world in Port-au-Prince.[xxvi] With an influx of more foreign troops and decisive control over economy resting outside of Haiti, any chance at the people of that country moving from what Aristide once characterized as, “absolute misery to a dignified poverty” has vanished.

Aristide is now in South Africa and has been trying to get back to his home for the past 6 years. He has stepped up his appeals following the quake and would no doubt be a force of good in the ravaged country, but he is still being prevented from returning.   His struggles against the forces opposed to him and poor that support him, both domestic and foreign, in a way reflect the history of the nation as a whole.  This is just but a sample of the struggles that the Haitian people have gone through in their remarkable history, one which you would be hard pressed to find any mention of on the extensive coverage of the relief effort being blasted at us on the TV ‘news’ channels. It is unlikely that they will be surmounted anytime soon, but if Haitian history has anything to tell us it is that the Haitian people will never give up in their efforts to attain a more just and equitable society. Our hearts go out to the Haitian people. With are with you in solidarity.

Note – Information for this article was draw partly from the Wikipedia entries on Aristide and Haiti respectively.  Although helpful in many details, I found the section on the ‘Aristide Era’ and its accompanying subsection ‘Increasing Human Rights Abuses’, and the section on ‘The 2004 Rebellion” of the Haiti entry to be virtually unusable.  A reading of these sections would leave one with the impression that Aristide was a brutal dictator. Examples include,

“Aristide launched widespread violence and human rights abuses.  He employed his police and paramilitaries to attack opposition.[29] Radio stations were firebombed and journalists murdered. Aristide suppressed peaceful rallies by opposition members and civil society organizations. Arbitrary arrest, arbitrary detention, summary executions and police brutality became everyday reality.[29]

“At the same time Aristide and his allies enriched themselves. Aristide oversaw extensive construction of mansions in Port-au-Prince, just above the slums.[29]

“Drug trafficking emerged as a major source of money.”

“Investigators discovered extensive embezzlement, corruption, and money laundering by Aristide. Aristide had stolen tens of millions dollars from the country.[32][33][34]

This last quote is immediately contradicted,

“However, none of the allegations about Aristide’s involvement in embezzlement, corruption, or money laundering schemes could be proven, and the much publicized court case brought against Aristide was quietly shelved. [35] Aristide’s lawyer, Ira Kurzban, said, “No wrongdoing, of any kind, has been found. Although scores of Haitians have been working day and night to find the money that the President supposedly took, it’s now obvious, there is none.” The Haitian government suspended the suit against Aristide on Jun. 30, 2006 to prevent it from being thrown out for want of prosecution. [36]

We all know the limitations that Wikipedia is subject to being open to editing and revision by all.  This seems rather flagrant though; it is as if the section on Aristide was composed solely by his detractors and opponents.  The last quote from above is reminiscent of the same logic that are used to keep people imprisoned in Guantanamo and other US military prisons.  While the subjects are ‘clearly’ guilty of various crimes, none of the crimes can be proven nor can an adequate case of prosecution be brought to a court because of a lack of evidence.  In contrast to the various accusations and denunciations brought against Aristide that are cited above, there is a notable lack of documentation of any of the achievements or positive measures that occurred while Aristide was in office or that emanated directly from his actions.  It could be a worthwhile project for those who are willing to take it on to attempt to rectify some of the disparities in the Wikipedia article.


[ii] The following draws heavily on the account given by Jean-Bertrand Aristide in his introduction to Jean-Bertrand Aristide presents – Toussaint L’Ouverture: The Haitian Revolution – Verso 2008

[iii] Jean-Bertrand Aristide presents – Toussaint L’Ouverture: The Haitian Revolution, ed. Nick Nesbitt, pg X – Verso 2008

[iv] Ibid. pg. 1

[v] Ibid. pg. XVII

[vi] Ibid. pg. 45

[vii] Ibid. pg. 51

[viii] Hugo Chavez presents – Simon Bolívar: The Bolívarian Revolution, ed. Nick Nesbitt – verso 2009

[ix] Peter Hallward, Option Zero in Haiti New Left Review 27, May-June 2004

[x] Justin Podur, Kofi Annan’s Haiti – New Left Review 37, Jan-Feb 2006



[xiii] Gaillard (1983: 261), adding innocent victims and Cacos killed in combat throughout the occupation, reached the number of 15,000.   Cited in: Jean-Philippe Belleau, Massacres perpetrated in the 20th Century in Haiti, Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, [online], published on 2 April 2008, accessed 12 February 2010, URL :, ISSN 1961-9898

[xiv] Hallward, NLR 27

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Mark Weisbrot, The US Game in Latin America, The Guardian

[xvii] Hallward, NLR 27

[xviii] Peter Hallward, An Interview with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, London Review of Books

[xix] Peter Hallward, Why They Had to Crush Aristide, The Guardian,3604,1159809, 00.html

[xx] Peter Hallward, An Interview with Jean-Bertrand Aristide, London Review of Books

[xxi] Hallward, NLR 27

[xxii] Mark Weisbrot, The US Game in Latin America, The Guardian

[xxiii] Noam Chomsky, Modern-Day American Imperialism: The Middle East and Beyond

[xxiv] Glen Ford, US Military’s Haiti “Relief” Ops A Rehearsal for Troop Deployments in Latin America, Black Agenda Report

[xxv] Cynthia McKinney, Haiti 2010: An Unwelcome Katrina Redux

[xxvi] John Pilger, The Kidnapping of Haiti

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: