Fair Use Notice
  Axis Mission
 About us
  Letters/Articles to Editor
Article Submissions
RSS Feed

The United States Awful Treatment of Haiti According to Wikileaks ( 0) Printer friendly page Print This
By Adam Clark Estes
Correo del Orinoco
Friday, Jun 17, 2011

In the wake of this year’s many disasters, the flow of bad news coming out Haiti has slowed to a trickle. Last week actually brought some good news that the 2010 quake’s death toll might actually be much lower than reported. And then WikiLeaks swoops in with with 1,918 documents from a seven-year period starting 10 months before the coup that ousted President Jean-Bertrand Aristide on February 29, 2004 and ending six weeks after the January 12, 2010 earthquake.

In partnership with WikiLeaks, The Nation and the Haitian weekly newspaper Haïti Liberté are publishing a series of stories that so far highlight how the United States has been micromanaging and manhandling the Haitian government into aligning their policies with US interests. It is, of course, not news that the United States bullies allies into doing what it wants, but the first couple of scoops are worth itemizing.

The US Used Haiti as a Pawn in an Oil War Against Venezuela

Rene Preval took power after Aristide’s ousting and immediately visited the United States to bolster confidence in the two nations’ diplomatic relations. According to a March 26, 2006 cable written by US Ambassador Janet Sanderson, Preval wanted “to bury once and for all the suspicion in Haiti that the United States is wary of him”, wary because of Preval’s ties to Cuba and Venezuela. Sanderson also said that Preval “stressed to the Embassy that he will manage relations with Cuba and Venezuela solely for the benefit of the Haitian people, and not based on any ideological affinity toward those governments”. But US behavior behind the scenes would show how “wary” may have been too gentle a word.

Preval quickly dashed his own hopes for a strong relationship with his northern allies by negotiating a deal with the Venezuelan based oil alliance PetroCaribe. Recognizing how the deal made sense both for Haiti’s strapped budget and poverty-stricken people--the Haitian government “would save USD $100 million per year from the delayed payments” by US embassy estimates-- the United States stonewalled the deal for years to come. US officials apparently helped to enlist Chevron and ExxonMobil, the only US oil companies operating in Haiti, to block their shipments and refuse to transport  PetroCaribe oil, a necessary requirement for Haiti to sign the deal.

Despite the US ambassador’s recognizing Haiti’s lack of interest in anti-US politics--”At no time has Preval given any indication that he is interested in associating Haiti with Chavez’s broader ‘revolutionary agenda’”, she wrote in one cable--Sanderson suggested that the US “convey our discontent with Preval’s actions at the highest possible level when he next visits Washington”, after Preval visited Venezuela to negotiate a related energy deal that would bring electricity to more homes and save the Haitian people millions.

Chevron ultimately signed the PetroCaribe deal in early 2008, despite US protests, but only after two years of negotiations potentially watered down the benefit to Haiti. However, as The Nation points out, “The extraordinary story that the Haiti Wiki- Leaks cables tell of the US Embassy’s campaign against PetroCaribe--which provides such obvious benefits for Haiti--lays bare the real priorities of ‘Haiti’s most important and reliable bi-lateral partner’, as Sanderson calls the United States”.

US Wanted to Keep Haiti's Minimum Wage at 24¢/HOUR


Preval’s campaign to raise the nation’s minimum wage caught the attention of the Obama administration. The 37¢ bump seems small by US standards, but considering it would raise wages by 150 percent-- from 24¢ an hour to 61¢ an hour--the new rule stood to dramatically affect the lives of poor Haitians. However, it would also dramatically affect the bottom line of US companies, like Hanes and Levi Strauss who contracted labor in Haiti to sew their clothes. The companies insisted on capping the wage increase at 7¢ an hour, and the US ambassador pressured Preval into a $3 per day wage for textile workers, $2 less than the original $5 a day that Preval had wanted.

Still the US Embassy wasn’t pleased. A deputy chief of mission, David E. Lindwall, said the $5 per day minimum “did not take economic reality into account” but was a populist measure aimed at appealing to “the unemployed and underpaid masses”.

Ryan Chittum at the Columbia Journalism Review did a little bit of math to put these figures into perspective. The proposed $5 per day falls well short of The Nation’s estimated $12.50 per day needed for a Haitian family of three to make ends meet. But how dramatically will the even lower $3 a day affect the US companies with a stake in the matter?

Zooming in on specific companies helps clarify this even more. As of last year Hanes had 3,200 Haitians making t-shirts for it. Paying each of them two bucks a day more would cost it about $1.6 million a year. Hanes brands Incorporated made $211 million on $4.3 billion in sales last year, and presumably it would pass on at least some of its higher labor costs to consumers.

Chittum notes that Hanes’s CEO Richard Noll could cover the losses with just one sixth of his $10 million compensation package. That makes American Apparel and their no sweatshop policy look angelic, sex crazed CEO Dov Charney and all.

Received via Email from Correo del Orinoco

Printer friendly page Print This
If you appreciated this article, please consider making a donation to Axis of Logic. We do not use commercial advertising or corporate funding. We depend solely upon you, the reader, to continue providing quality news and opinion on world affairs.Donate here

World News© 2003-2015
Fair Use Notice  |   Axis Mission  |  About us  |   Letters/Articles to Editor  | Article Submissions |   Subscribe to Ezine   | RSS Feed  |