The United Nations formally admitted Aug. 18 to its contribution to the cholera outbreak that has plagued Haiti since 2010.
According to The New York Times, the outbreak stemmed from poor sanitation conditions in a U.N. aid camp following the 2010 earthquake and has since infected Haiti’s major waterways.
Unlike most Caribbean islands, Haiti had no confirmed history of cholera until 2010. However, Nepalese peacekeepers working in the U.N. camp received inadequate medical screening and carried the disease with them to Haiti.
Since then, cholera has caused nearly 10,000 deaths in Haiti and has infected hundreds of thousands more people throughout the country.
The U.N.’s disclosure highlights a central irony in its actions. The effort to restore humane living conditions after the earthquake only resulted in widespread human rights violations, potentially of greater long-term magnitude than the earthquake itself.
I do not intend to denounce U.N. aid in the wake of a natural disaster, but the situation does serve as a cautionary tale when doling out foreign assistance.
Because of the U.N.’s intervention, Haiti now requires more foreign relief to combat the cholera outbreak. What began as well-intentioned aid has only thrust Haiti further into a cycle of dependency on foreign powers and organizations.
This cycle is nothing new for Haiti.
Arguably, it began with Columbus’ arrival in the Caribbean — the beginning of a complicated history of imperialistic exploitation.
First were the Spanish colonizers of the Caribbean. Then, the French took their century-long turn as colonial rulers of Haiti.
After 300 years of imperial subjugation, Haiti gained independence in 1804 and existed as an autonomous nation for over a century until the next world power took over.
The U.S. occupied Haiti for nearly 20 years, from 1915 to 1934, a fact that rarely receives much attention in high school history textbooks.
The U.S. celebrates the improved infrastructure it established in Haiti during the occupation, which is indeed a tangible legacy of the occupation.
The less visible effects conveniently get relegated to footnotes in the traditional narrative of U.S. exceptionalism.
Beneath its purported ideals of democracy and development, the U.S. invasion was a brutal military occupation, rife with violence, financial exploitation and racial oppression.
Haiti needs integral development to move beyond its colonial past and emerge from the cycle of imposed dependency. Access to basic human rights, such as health care and education, forms the foundation for sustainable and independent democratic governance.
But how can Haiti achieve such development independently, without access to adequate resources?
Despite historical oppression, Haiti has been proactive in the case with the U.N., and the families of cholera victims initiated a class-action lawsuit for compensation.
U.S. courts refused to hear the case because of U.N. immunity, but the suit nonetheless represents an outward and vocal assertion of rights for Haiti.
Yet, unlike the U.N.’s immunity in court, Haiti still has no immunity to cholera or to the disease of hegemony.
The U.N.’s admission of culpability is a step in the right direction, though, and has increased international pressure for a new proposal for aid.
Until a definitive plan is announced, all we can do is wait and see if the U.N. can produce a cure-all to remedy both cholera and the lingering infection of empire.
kmilvert@indiana.edu
