Should America Intervene in Haiti? ‘Go to Hell’ and Other Views

Hi, I'm Solana Pine, I'm the director of video at The New York Times.

For years, my team has made videos that bring you closer to big news moments, videos by

Times journalists that have the expertise to help you understand what's going on.

Now, we're bringing those videos to you in the Watch tab in The New York Times app.

It's a dedicated video feed where you know you can trust what you're seeing.

All the videos there are free for anyone to watch, you don't have to be a subscriber.

Download The New York Times app to start watching.

It's the argument, I'm Jane Christian.

Like a lot of you, I've been reading Nick Christoff's work for a long time.

He's been writing about human rights and foreign affairs since before I was born.

And over the years, I've disagreed with him about a lot of things.

Like, Nick is an Oregon State beaver's fan.

And more importantly, he also thought that invading Libya was a good thing for Libyans.

It wasn't.

I don't know how calm this Lydia Pullgren feels about Oregon State, but I do know that

she has spent a lot of time reporting on international conflicts, particularly in the Global South.

So I invited them on to talk about if, when, and how the US should intervene in other countries.

More specifically, we're talking about Haiti.

For many people listening as podcasts, you may know more about voting rights in Maricopa County than what's happening in Haiti.

So let me catch you up.

The US and Haiti go back.

And we've this habit of intervening every once in a while.

And historically, that hasn't gone very well.

Look up 1915, 1994, 2004.

Now it's 2022, and Haiti is in crisis.

The country is facing brutal gang violence, extreme hunger, and intense political turmoil,

sparked by the President's assassination last year.

In this past October, the widely unpopular acting prime minister put out a call for international military assistance.

Which means the US is another chance to intervene.

But should we?

Both Lydia and Nick have spent time in Haiti, and they have different ideas about what would help Haiti most.

Well, Lydia, Nick, hello, and welcome to the show.

Great to be on.

Thanks for having us, Jane.

So I want to talk about if and how the United States should intervene in Haiti.

But before we get there, I'm wondering, on a scale of one to 10, with one being the most isolationist,

and 10 being the most interventionist, where do you fall these days on America's role broadly speaking in the world?

Nick, my sense is that you're more willing to support American intervention than Lydia might be.

Would you both say that's fair?

I think that might be true.

I tend to be somewhat more willing to support interventions than many people who were kind of similar to me on the spectrum.

I think that Nick and I probably are closer together in views than further apart.

I think our differences probably come down more to vibes than they do to actual sort of substance.

I'm very preoccupied by questions of sovereignty and of power relations between countries.

And I do worry about intervention being a sort of Trojan horse for assertion of power of other kinds.

You talked about how there's kind of a vibe difference between you on this issue.

Nick, what do you think that that difference is and where do you think it comes from perhaps?

I do think that it's probably a function of being shaped and part by Bosnia and what was going on in that war.

And then again, deep frustration with Darfur and Syria and thinking that there were tools in the toolbox.

And we let people die because we were too focused on the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan.

So I want to use Haiti as a specific example of US involvement in foreign affairs.

And then we're going to talk more broadly about US intervention.

Lydia, the humanitarian crisis in Haiti right now has been ongoing.

And it feels as if it's descended into even greater free fall over the last year and a half.

But it's been ongoing in many ways for I think a long time.

For those of us who may not know as much about what's going on, what is happening in Haiti more recently?

Haiti has really been in free fall in an acute way since the assassination of its president in July of 2021.

That set off just a whole series of events that have just plunged the country deeper and deeper into crisis.

But you've ended up with a country that has a very, very weak prime minister who essentially has very little or really no constitutional legitimacy or authority.

And there is this overlapping series of crises.

There's a security crisis that comes from the gangs that have taken over upward of 60% of the capital city, Porto Prince.

There is a crisis that we're all experiencing, which is inflation, rising prices, food scarcity.

And all of these things coming together have left us in a situation where you have a government that does not have a lot of legitimacy.

There's a tremendous amount of violence.

These gangs have taken over the port, for example.

So even if you had money to buy something, there's nothing coming in or out.

Now there's a cholera outbreak.

And actually the prime minister, acting prime minister of Haiti has asked for security assistance in dealing with the gang problem because the Haitian police have not been able to get a handle on it.

And sort of setting the country on a more stable course.

That sounds like a great idea.

They need more stability, but it actually turns out to be a lot more complicated than that.

So could you tell me a little bit what's unique about the United States relationship with Haiti?

I mean, it really is a special case because this is really right in our backyard.

I mean, one of the things that makes the Biden administration, I'm sure very queasy about the situation in Haiti right now is that, you know, we're at the moment, you know, dealing with a political climate around immigration and our borders that is incredibly toxic.

And the terms are being defined by the hard right.

You know, Haitians have always been very convenient boogie men in the narratives around immigration and the border and immigration enforcement.

For a long time, the United States essentially tried to kind of cut Haiti off from the broader world and refused to recognize its independence.

Haiti was the really the first and only successful slave revolt.

It created an independent black nation in the Western hemisphere.

This was a huge threat to the United States back when, you know, we were still totally down with enslaving people.

But in 1915, the United States essentially invaded Haiti.

US Marines came to the country. They had absconded with half a million dollars, which I think was most of the foreign reserves of the Haitian government at the time for quote unquote safe keeping.

And they sort of ran roughshod over Haitian sovereignty for a very, very long time.

And that was really kind of the beginning of what I think has been a very, very sad and ongoing history of aggressive invasion slash interventions by the United States in Haiti that has continued in various forms right up to the present.

Nick, you've been covering crises for decades, which is an unfortunate sentence to need to say, how do you see the current situation in Haiti?

One of the things that, you know, I've learned in covering these kind of crises is that when you don't have some kind of order, it's impossible to do other kinds of aid.

You can't provide food to kids who are starving. You can't provide clean water. You can't provide sanitation. You can't help reduce maternal mortality.

It is in this situation where it's just spiraling out of control. On the other hand, I think probably most Haitians at this point would not welcome an armed intervention.

I think that the last thing the Biden administration wants to do is intervene. You know, there are more problems and international relations and there are solutions. And I think Haiti right now is one example of that.

When we're talking about intervention, I want to make sure that we're using a common parlance because I think that for many people, when you hear intervention, you might think Iraq or Afghanistan or a US back coup to the House to president, which by the way, we have done in Haiti maybe twice.

So I'm curious Lydia, if there wasn't intervention, what should it look like if it were to take place?

Well, I think that the way that I would reframe the question is what does Haiti need to get back on its feet right now? And I think that the first and most important thing that it needs is some sort of path to a political future and settlement that has legitimacy in the eyes of the Haitian people.

And in a lot of the places that Nick and I have both spent a lot of time covering conflict, covering humanitarian crises, there is this impulse from the international community often driven by the United States that let's get in there, let's stabilize the situation, let's have an election.

And then we'll have a legitimate government and then we can get the heck out of there.

And I think that in Haiti, that option is actually a terrible one. I personally have been through a lot of hastily organized elections in places that are complete basket cases, but you'll have a sort of technically free and fair, but ultimately not particularly representative election that doesn't actually solve anything.

And so I think that my impulse is to try and find a way to create some kind of transitional government in Haiti that can then assert some sort of sovereignty and authority on behalf of the Haitian people and that government could then turn to the international community and say, hey, we need help, we need security help.

And in that case, I think if a sovereign government that has the legitimate support of the people of that country says to the international community, we want your help.

Then that's a completely different situation than the one that Haiti is in right now.

One thing I really agree with Lydia on is the way in which from the outside, we tend to just equate democracy with elections and it's so much more complicated in Congo, the international community spent almost a billion dollars on holding an international election there.

And it enabled international community to wash its hand and say, okay, we did an election.

But meanwhile, a slaughter went on across the country. Overall, some 5 million people died.

And the election fundamentally didn't solve things in her column.

Lydia wrote about the Montana Accord, which is an effort, bicycle society to kind of reassert itself and create a consensus about where the country goes from here.

The rest of the international community could support such an effort. I'm pretty skeptical that that will work because, you know, goodwill isn't always a match for a bunch of guys with guns.

So I think it's just a horrendous problem, but at this juncture, I don't really see any kind of an intervention that makes a big difference.

So I think that actually brings up an interesting question for me. We were talking about like creation of civil society and having elections. And I'm a huge fan of civil society and elections.

But if you are talking to people on the ground, they will all have different ideas as to what's best for Haiti or what's best for any country.

Lydia, how do you make that work, especially when the Montana Accord, it's representative of Haitian unions, churches, professional groups, voodoo groups, and those in the diaspora.

But it is also coming from a group of people who, you know, are they representative of the people of Haiti, of the people who are likely to be on the ground?

I mean, this is, I think, one of the hardest questions to answer is, you know, how do you, how do you ascertain what the actual will of the Haitian people is and what, what Haitians really want for the future?

I first went to Haiti in 2003. And that was a time when Haiti was in a very different crisis. It was in a crisis over the presidency of Jean Bertrand or a steed who was this incredibly charismatic former Catholic priest who, you know, was the first legitimately democratically elected leader in Haiti's history.

And I think a figure of just enormous charisma, he'd been overthrown in a coup, then, you know, the Clinton administration helps bring him back and it's this tremendous moment of hope that Haiti is going to get back on track.

And it's interesting because, you know, of course, Jean Bertrand, Aristide ended up being overthrown again.

And the thing that was really striking to me was that everywhere that I went, every time I'd asked people like, who is the figure that represents the aspirations and the hopes of the Haitian people?

The only name that people could come up with was Aristide. It should be said, Aristide had a very flawed record. And a lot of the problems that we're seeing today really started with Aristide and his presidency, empowering these kind of popular groups and neighborhoods that then turned into these kind of politically-inflicted gangs.

So the narrative in most Haitian's minds that I talked to is we had a president who we loved and who we supported. America didn't like him and he was overthrown.

America decided to bring him back and then they decided they didn't like him again and he was again overthrown. And, you know, people look at the United States and just say, no, thank you, go to hell.

You know, we don't want your involvement in our life. You've brought us only pain and only suffering.

Well, I think that gets to a conversation a little bit about interventions more generally. Nick, you know, you've been very public about supporting some US interventions like in Kosovo in 1999 and opposing others like the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

When you look at a situation like what's happening in Haiti, how do you decide if a humanitarian intervention is justified? Are there metrics that you use to decide when you should engage or should not engage because it's really hard.

Oh, it's incredibly hard. I mean, I don't think there is an algorithm that enables one to figure out, okay, we go in. But I think there are some considerations. One is, is a genocide.

I think that in the case of genocide, we should be a little more inclined to do what we can. Then simply in cases where there is high mortality from other causes. And so in Rwanda, for example, I think we probably should have in 1994 in Darfur.

I don't think we should have sent boots on the ground. I think we should have tried to affect the calculations of Sudanese government in other ways to discourage them from slaughtering people of particular ethnic groups.

Kosovo, I think that was maybe the one case in American history where we did a genocide at almost no cost in life. I think that was really heroic.

I think that attitudes have changed over the years. So my generation came of age with Vietnam and that taught us that one should never intervene, that it's a catastrophe.

And then along came the Balkans and Bosnia and Kosovo. And we saw people being slaughtered because of a reluctance to intervene. And so I think that helped change my thinking in that of a lot of liberals.

And then Iraq and Afghanistan kind of turned people the other way around. I guess I never fully turned the other way around. I was obviously against Iraq. I thought it was a catastrophe.

But I also would note that in northern Iraq and Kurdistan, we had a no-fly zone that wasn't in military intervention. And it saved a huge number of lives.

I think that it has to be decided on a case by case basis. And one factor is there is there genocide. One factor is do people want us to intervene.

And in Haiti, I think they pretty much don't. And I think it's hard to see how you would have a successful intervention if local people don't want us there.

Lydia, what metrics do you or if you had metrics, might not be the right term. But what what what do you use what vibes do you use to decide if you're supportive of an intervention?

I think the place where I'm definitely with Nick is, you know, if you are dealing with a genocide, then it seems clear that there needs to be some sort of action, although there are going to be cases where, you know, look, it's what's going on. You know, we're not going to invade China over what's happening to the weakers, right?

Like it's horrific, but we're not going to start World War III over it, which is tragic, but I think reflective of the fact that we live in the real world.

And that certain states have the ability to exempt themselves from the norms that we expect from the world that we live in today.

I think I think that it's natural that there is this kind of pendulum swing back and forth.

You know, we tend to overestimate the cost of repeating history and underestimate the cost of fighting the last war.

And so that means that you're kind of constantly swinging back and forth between, you know, what seems like a good idea and what seems like a terrible idea.

And the answer is often it just it depends.

And I think that, you know, this cycle that we're in this kind of anti interventionist moment is also related to that.

You know, we've gotten into these situations where it just feels like things have gone too far.

After the break, how immigration policy dictates our relationship with Haiti.

And stay with me to the very end of this episode for a big announcement.

I'm Robin and I am excited to open my cross-play app. I'm challenging John, my colleague at the New York Times.

Robin played the word grunge, which has a G, which is four points. She got that triple word multiplier.

I'm going to take facts and make it faxes for 30 points.

I might just take another two letter word here with low, gets me at 23. I think this will put me back in the lead if my maths are mapping.

I like to play it more from a strategic point of view and see where I can block the other player from scoring high.

I'm pretty competitive. It's fun to beat friends and co-workers and also get to learn new words.

Cross-play, the first two-player word game from New York Times Games. Download it for free today.

I think he thinks he has us in the bag, but I'm not so sure.

Nick, we've been talking a little bit about what we would want in Haiti or what Haitians would want.

Those are two very different questions. What does success look like for Haiti? What does success in Haiti look like for the United States?

Success in Haiti is going to be measured by enough tranquility that people can actually live their lives.

The economy can recover, people can educate their kids, things we take for granted that are just right now completely missing.

This misperception in the US that Haiti is just as inevitable a basket case and nothing ever works.

And governance has been generally a disaster ever since the Duvaliers and before.

But actually by social metrics there's been real progress. In 1950 more than a third of kids died by the age of five.

Now it's down to 6%, which is horrendous and awful, but compared to 1950 it's a huge gain.

Fertility that number of live births per woman is down to less than three from I think it was seven in the 1960s.

And so progress is possible, but governance is where it's the real failure has been.

I also think though that in Haiti there is this deep and fundamental need for like a restructuring of the political and social and economic compacts that govern the country.

And I think a lot of what lies at the root of Haiti's problems is that it's an importer of goods.

We haven't talked at all about the transshipment of narcotics. Haiti is an incredibly important transshipment point and there's a lot of money that flows through Haiti for that reason.

And there are a lot of people who want that to continue. Lawlessness benefits them.

When Lydia mentions transshipment of drugs it just reminds me of another point that there's a transshipment going the other direction of guns from Florida and the US to Haiti.

And that's one of the reasons these gangs are so well armed.

Looking back that would have been one of the most effective ways we might have been able to help Haiti is to try to crack down on that one aspect I think of our responsibility for what's going on there.

So I think that essential to improving all of those metrics that Nick was talking about there needs to be a fundamental rethinking of how the political economy of the country works that will open up more opportunity for investment, for entrepreneurship.

And kind of break up this predatory elite that really most Haitians will tell you feels like a boot on the neck of the ordinary Haitian.

Lydia, you pointed out in your first time's opinion column that when you were reporting in Haiti in 2004 many of your sources were bilingual and educated social elites who could get their voices out there.

And it's not just Haiti. I keep thinking about the people who are able to leave at some point or in many cases need to leave.

You know, they represent a small and unique minority. How do you think about those voices? I mean, you recognize clearly that they might have a different perspective, but how does that change your view?

This is one of the things that I think about all the time in terms of our role as journalists and having been a foreign correspondent for a long time.

You're always inevitably influenced by the people who speak your language, both literally and metaphorically, right?

It's very easy to take their views as a consensus view and you make that mistake once and then you never do it again.

And you know, Haiti was my waterloo with that regard. And I think I learned the lesson well and it really changed the course of my career in a lot of ways.

But you know, as you were speaking, I was actually thinking about Afghanistan. And in the chaos of the pull out of American troops there was a lot on social media about Afghan women.

And this was going to set them back. And it's absolutely heart-rending to think about, you know, the amount of progress that has been made for women and girls in Afghanistan and what the departure of the United States military might mean.

And we have seen that it has not meant great things since that happened. But I remember also reading an exceptional piece in the New Yorker by Anon Gopal about the experience of women in Afghan world Afghanistan, who basically were like, we're constantly looking up at the sky.

And waiting for bombs to fall and kill everyone we love, you know, and that is the, that was the actual lived experience of many, many, many, many people in Afghanistan over the course of our humanitarian intervention.

And so it should chase and and humble us as we think about our ability to help people and exactly who we're helping is a question that we should always be asking ourselves.

Yeah, you know, I think it should humble us, but also not paralyze us. You know, Tony Blair is kind of interesting because I think he deeply believed in principles of humanitarian intervention. He spoke about them.

And then the intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 was so successful that I think it led to a certain hubris in the case of Iraq. And I thought he thought, oh, you know, they're going to create us with flowers. We're going to win easily.

And it was of course the catastrophe that has destroyed his reputation, et cetera. I mean, to me, one of the lessons is that we can't be ideological about this. And all the decisions have to be at hawk and recognizing the differences between countries and how difficult it is and what the broad spectrum of options are.

And then, but there is a toolbox and we shouldn't be ideological either about using it or, you know, in the case of places like Rwanda or elsewhere about not using it.

Lydia, you mentioned how entwined the United States and Haiti are and it's not just history. It's thinking about immigration patterns. It's thinking about the more than a million Haitian Americans who live in the United States predominantly in Florida.

What do you think the consequences are for the United States of not doing anything? It feels like not getting involved with Haiti. Is that even really an option for the United States?

I mean, we are involved. Right. There's no, there's no, there's no question that we are involved. And I think that there are not a ton of ways to unenvolve ourselves. I do think though that the consequences of continuing to take a very hands off.

Or actually not that dire. I think that the migration question is always going to be a present one and the cruel policy that the Biden administration is is continuing, which is to just, you know, send people right back.

Is a policy that they've been able to keep despite the fact that it's morally abhorrent.

But I actually think that there is not actually a hugely tremendous amount of urgency on the on the part of the United States government to do something here because I think that the primary cost is to Haitians not to the United States.

And Haiti is not unique. I mean, they're real parallels with what happened in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to what is now happening in Haiti. And you had gangs that went through rural areas and displaced farmers and stole everything they had and people died as a result.

And the US tried to affect governance to some degree here and there, but it certainly didn't ever think about a military intervention in recent times. And, you know, I think likewise by demonstration is would be incredibly unwilling to send troops there.

What this actually highlights to me and I think this is a real sign of the times in which we live and I think also a failure on the part of the Democratic Party to resist it. But the conversation in this country around immigration migration asylum refugees, all of that stuff.

It's really being dictated by not just the right, but the far right. If there's one thing that that I could wave my wand and change, it would it would be to take this venom out of our conversation around who's coming to the United States because it in some ways I think has become the central deciding factor in American foreign policy toward Latin America, the Caribbean and basically the question is, will this government allow us to put people on planes and send them right to the United States?

Back if they come to our border and if the answer is yes, that government essentially has a blank check from the United States to do whatever they like.

Right. We see that in North Africa with refugees attempting to go to Germany were basically like, we will pay you whatever you want. It's like blackmail. It is human blackmail.

And this is to me, I think one of the most profound and troubling moral issues of our time and the way in which it's just completely seized the imagination of all of these political structures is to me just to profound tragedy.

So my last question for both of you, I kind of want to zoom out a bit. Nick, do you think that the US should be doing less intervention in general?

You know, I think it's hard to quantify them. Right. I think that simply speaking out makes a difference. You know, we saw and Liddy and I both covered Darfur and you could see that when government simply spoke out about it, then the pace of killing and rape declined. It didn't go away, but outside screwed and they really did make a difference in the scale of it.

I think that in Syria hundreds of thousands of people died because we were too allergic after Iraq to intervene in the sense of supporting particular groups and then it became impossible.

So I think we have to recognize the incredible range of options. It's not typically going to be boots on the ground, but this is so, so difficult.

And I think that one of the lessons is, you know, just of any time you hear somebody who's too confident about what to do, run the other direction.

Yep. Yeah. I find extremely confident people with extremely confident opinions, very anxiety inducing, you know, as with any conversation about US intervention, I'm left just as confused as I was beforehand, but I think that's okay as we said, certainty is not good.

Confused is good. Confused reach humility.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Jane. Thank you.

Lydia Poldering and Nick Kristoff are near times of opinion, calmness.

And now, for those of you who have made it this far, I have some news. The argument is ending, and this is the second to last episode.

I've been hosting the show for nearly two years. In that time, we've debated so many of the biggest issues on your minds from abortion to the death penalty to should we talk to aliens?

I've loved reading your emails and listening to your voice mails every week. And I've loved sitting in this chair and talking with guests who vehemently disagree with me and with each other and getting to watch them actually listen to each other.

It's been a pleasure, but it's been a real honor. I'll have more to say next week in our final episode.

But if you're wondering where I'm going, don't worry, I'm staying at the times. And I'm excited about what's next.

Thank you for being a part of this show every week, and for your enthusiasm in listening to people with different opinions, even when they made you very, very mad.

And now, for some real credit to the wonderful people who made this show every week.

We're proudly produced by Phoebe Let, Vashaka Durba, and Derek Arthur, edited by Allison Brzezek and Amber Von Chasen, with original music by Isaac Jones and Pat McCusker.

Mixed being by Pat McCusker. Fact checking by Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker, and Michelle Harris.

Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, with editorial support from Christina Semylusky.