If Haiti and Africa are considered “sh**holes,” then the United States must hold responsibility

During a heated meeting with lawmakers concerning immigration to the United States, President Donald Trump was reported to have made derogative comments about Haiti and several African countries. Trump has been accused of arguing against people from ‘sh**hole countries’ coming to the United States, preferring to accept immigrants from countries such as Norway. Although Trump has since denied making the remarks about Haiti and Africa (despite the reputable sources from officials present at the meeting), the US President has been widely criticised for his comments and has received a barrage of complaints from policy-makers and political commentators both within the United States and across the world. Trump’s recent comments only fuel public accusations that he is a racist, and provide further weight to the notion that he is overwhelmingly unfit for office. However, despite the intolent and abhorrent conjectures behind Trump’s scolding of Haiti and Africa, is there an ounce of truth in the US President’s remarks?

In many senses, the answer is yes. Both Haiti and several African countries have been economically deprived for decades, and have been marred by poverty and political instability. Haiti is undoubtedly the poorest country in the Americas and one of the poorest in the world, with a GDP per capita of US$846 in 2014. The World Bank stated that six million of Haiti’s 10.4 million inhabitants live under the national poverty line of US$2.41 per day, with a third of those living in extreme poverty. Haiti’s economy is also heavily depedent on external finance – particularly from Venezula, and has an increasing fiscal deficit, particularly due to poor management of public expenditure and the country vulnerability to natural disasters, e.g. Hurricane Matthew. Moreover, Haiti has been plauged by political instability and corruption, and has struggled to embed democracy succesfully, with coup d’état’s an ever-present reality throughout the country’s history. These issues have been influential in the dramatic rise of Haitian-born immigrants in the United States over the last 25 years. This is despite the US government’s extrodinary efforts to block illegal immigration from the country, as noted by the Migration Policy Institute.

Similiarly, many African countries have also suffered from extreme poverty and political and economic trepidation, despite the rich abundance of resources across the region. Despite recent growth over the last decade, which has partly been driven by an increase in domestic demand and foreign investment, Africa remains the poorest continent in the world. Several African countries have had particular trouble with managing fluctuating commodity prices on global markets, largely due to their depedency on a single agricultural commodities as a source of revenue. In addition, Africa has suffered from a plethora of natural disasters, rampant outbreaks of disease – particularly HIV/AIDs and tuberculosis, and has had an unwavering reliance on foreign aid. This is without mentioning the emergence of brutal dictatorships throughout Africa during 1960s and 1970s, and the ever-present reality of fierce tribal differences that have often been the precursor to civil war in many countries. Evidence from Pew Research Centre shows that although Africans make up a small number of the United States’ immigrant population (4.8% in 2015), immigration from Africa has approximately doubled in every decade since 1970, demonstrating the extent of development crisis in Africa.

However, Trump’s comments – and indeed my previous assessments of Haiti and Africa, ignore the significant role that the United States has played in creating the conditions that have predisposed the two regions to such negative attitudes. Firstly, the historical relationship between the United States and Haiti has been mostly oppresive by the former against the latter. Due to its geographical location, the United States have had a persistent interest and influence in the political and economic conditions in Haiti over the last 200 years. Although maintaining its trade relationship with Haiti following its indepedence from France in 1804, the United States failed to recognise Haiti’s freedom until 1862 (incidently not until the American Civil War), due to a fear that it could result in an slave uprising in Southern states. For much of the 19th century, the United States monitored Haiti with great suspicion and perceived the free state as a threat to its future ambitions.

The lack of political support for Haiti by the United States was most evident in the country’s sparadoic military interventions in the country throughout its early history, culminating in the eventual occupation of Haiti from 1915-1934, which added fuel to the deep political tensions that had existed in the country since its birth. Since then, the United States have played a dominant role in damaging the Haitain economy, largely through their support of the brutal ‘anti-communist’ regimes of François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, which led to widespread corruption and the death of millions, and its influence in driving ill-suited political and economic reform policies, particularly during the 1990s. As of 2016, Haiti’s GDP was roughly  £8 billion – approximately 0.4% of the United States’ GDP in the same year, demonstrating the gulf in economic performance between the two countries.

The United States’ relationship with Africa is of course well-documented, and the lasting impact of slavery on the continent cannot be understated. However, more pertinent to the floudering foundations within modern-day Africa is the United States’ calculated economic and political incentives in the region since the 1960s. In order to secure its global dominance following the Second World War and deligitimise communism as a political ideology, the United States endeavoured to remove several left-leaning or “anti-American” regimes across the region. This led to political instability and civil unrest across the continent, with the United States intervening in several countries, irrespective of their accordance to ‘good governance’ and democracy. Examples include the removal of Patrice Lumumba from Congo in 1960 and the CIA-led coup in Chad in 1980.

The United States’ political involvement in Africa is closely associated with their economic agenda throughout the continent, prescribed through the ‘Washington Consensus’ and expoused by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.  This has forced African countries to liberalise their economies to stimulate trade and foreign investment, decentralise state systems, float their fragile currencies and privatise key industries, all unpinned by an apparatus that ‘encouraged’ large borrowing to the continent to finances their economic transformation. Both the political and economic incentives of the United States has decimated many African countries, who have since had to contend with crippling debts, and poorly managed infrastructures and resources. Albeit several African countries appear to be on the road to recovery – boasting levels of growth similar to that of East Asia during the 1990s, the legacy of US involvement in the region remains.

Of course, it would be wrong to ignore the impact of other internal and external factors in effecting the development of Haiti and Africa. However, Trump’s derogative statements about the two regions suggests a lack of knowledge and antipathy for the extent to which the United States has contributed to their lacklustre growth. In fact, rather than to follow the cynical narrative that has now become synonymous with Haiti and Africa, the World should reflect on the great strides both areas have made in overcoming the imperialist claw of the United States. Haiti and Africa are not “sh**hole” countries – and if Trump thinks they are, maybe his country should look in the mirror first.








Why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a product of miscalculated foreign intervention

In the ongoing struggle between Israel and Palestine, one question that surely springs into the minds of the world’s populace is what will (if anything) bring the two conflicting states together? Well what is certainly apparent is that a feasible solution has yet to emerge. Indeed, what has been particularly detrimental to the reconciliation process is the largely unsuccessful interventions of foreign countries in the affairs of the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Historically, the ‘Holy Land’ has always been a matter of contention between the Judeo-Christian and Arab world, however it would be an over assumption to suggest that the conflict between Israel and Palestine stemmed from an uneasy relationship between the Abrahamic religions in the past. As Mark A. Tessler noted in 1994, the conflict is not based on primordial antagonisms, and it has only been over the last century that Jews and Arabs began to view one another as enemies. In reality, it was not until the fall of the Ottoman Empire as a consequence of the  their defeat in the First World War that tensions in the area emerged. More importantly, the fall of the Ottoman dynasty would also stimulate a growing incentive by nations across the world to influence the destiny of Palestine, largely without considering the consequences of their actions.

For centuries, the Ottomans had solidified its domination over Palestine, and had governed the largely Arab population without any significant resistance. Yet, by the turn of the 20th century the Ottoman Empire was struggling to survive, hampered by a weakening economy, internal and external threats to its territory, and a lack of military modernisation – particularly in comparison to its rivals in Europe. Coinciding with the burgeoning Zionist movement – which promoted the idea of a Jewish homeland in the ‘Land of Israel’ (although other areas, such as Uganda and Saudi Arabia were also considered), the future of Palestine became increasingly uncertain. Ultimately however, the fatal decision of the Ottomans to align with the Central Powers would be the catalyst to the tensions in the ‘Holy Land’ in the future.

The Ottoman Empire’s eventual defeat at the hands of British during the First World War would result in Palestine being surrendered to Britain under the terms of the Balfour Declaration. However, although the British had initially signed an agreement with Arab leaders in 1915 which promised the sovereignty of Palestine in exchange for their support in the war effort – culminating in the Arab Revolt in 1916, the Balfour Declaration effectively lobbied for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine in appeasement of Zionist movement. As a result, driven by their own individual interests in the area, Britain had given promises both to the Arabs and Jews over the sovereignty of Palestine, causing either side to claim their right to the land. The falsehood of Britain’s promises would lead to tensions between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine throughout the inter-war period, as Jewish migration dramatically increased. As a consequence, the Palestinian nationalist movement matured in response to the growing strength of the Zionist cause.

The British administration over Palestine would expire in 1948. However, following the events of the  Second World War – the Holocaust and the Arab leadership in Palestine alignment with Nazi Germany (a decision undoubtedly influenced by Britain’s ‘betrayal’ of the Palestinian cause after the First World War), the overall consensus of the recently formed United Nations was to partition Palestine into an independent Jewish and Arab state. This decision was widely objected by the Arabs, particularly due to the fact that the Jewish population in Palestine was a minority at the time. As a result of the creation of Israel, a large portion of the Arab population would be enclosed within the new Jewish state. The post-war world were defiant that the Jewish population’s call for a home would be accepted – particularly in response to the atrocities Jews had suffered, who were unwilling to compromise their newfound home against Arab objections to the partitioning of Palestine. Thus, the eventual declaration of the Jewish state of Israel on 14 May 1948, as supported by the United Nations would sow the seeds to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Throughout the last 65 years war, has continuously broken out in the region between Israeli and Arab populations as a result of  the creation of the Jewish state, leading to mass killings and millions of citizens forcibly being expelled or fleeing from their homelands in both Israel and in the Palestinian territories. In 1948 war broke out between Israel and Palestine (backed by Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq), however only a year later Israel defeated its Arab neighbours and in turn, seized further territory within Palestine which were later incorporated into the new Jewish state. Furthermore, despite their defeat the Arab states divided the Palestinian territory amongst themselves, with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank being incorporated by Egypt and Jordan respectively.

Seemingly, this was  an opportunity for Palestine’s neighbours to share the spoils in the newly independent territory. Without the intervention of the United States – who were engaging in a global power struggle with the Soviet Union, and the lacklustre attempts by the United Nations to cease fighting, the future of Palestine was once again determined without legitimate consideration for the Palestinian people. This was compounded by the Tripartite Declaration in 1950, which was a joint statement by the United States, France and Britain which cemented the territorial agreement in Palestine after the war of 1948-49. This was despite the fact that the West would aid Israel economically and militarily during this 1950s, as well the Soviet Union’s own efforts to strengthen the Egyptian army. The Suez Crisis in 1956 also demonstrated Egypt’s own intention to maximise its own strengths in Palestine under the leadership of Nasser, further elucidating the impact of foreign intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Israel would be victorious once again against the Arab states during the Six Day War in 1967, resulting in further territory being captured, including the remaining Arab lands of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and the incredibly fractious Jerusalem, effectively incorporating the whole of the Palestine in the process. It also demonstrated the  unwillingness of the Arab states to support the Palestinian cause.  The ultimate repercussions would be a strenuous relationship between the Palestinian freedom fighters and its Arab neighbours – signified during the Jordanian-Palestinian War and the Lebanese War. The United States perceived support for Israel, especially during Johnson’s tenure as president has only damaged relations further between Israel and Palestine, and by extension the rest of the Arab world. Significantly, although the peace process began in the 1990s after years of further animosities in the region – giving Palestine greater autonomy in the area in the process, as of yet neither side has been able to co-exist in amity and tensions continue today.

I090203-Jewish-peace-1[1]n conclusion, before we simply jump on to the ‘anti-Israeli’ and ‘Free Palestine’ bandwagon, it is important to assess the impact of foreign powers in solidifying the untenable relationship between Israel and Palestine.  Although it would be foolish to ignore that there are obvious nationalist motivations that have exacerbating the conflict from either side, the actions of foreign nations have only contributed in intensifying the internal differences as a consequence of their egotistical nature of their individual agendas. Ultimately, if we are to solve the enigma of the Israel/Palestine conflict in which both sides can have their nationalist potential realised, the nations of the world must avoid dwelling into the narrow-mindedness that has existed in the resolution process in the past, and give fair consideration to the claims of either side before we can even begin to hope for peace.