In Haiti or Gaza, intervention does not equal freedom 

Last week, I wrote about the resignation of unelected Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry because of popular unrest, increased militancy of street organizations and the Caribbean nation’s overarching economic precarity as a result of centuries of colonial dependency — or, more accurately, overexploitation and underdevelopment. I argued that the international community’s hair-trigger solution for solving the crisis in Port-au-Prince, foreign intervention by installing yet another unelected government, would be ill-advised and utterly fail to address the root problems of imperialist exploitation and suppression of the Haitian people’s democratic voice.  

This week, my goal was to further explore the recent history of Haiti. However, my plans took a hard turn when I caught wind that the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution calling for a temporary ceasefire in Gaza on Monday, March 25. The vote was near unanimous, with the United States abstaining from the vote after vetoing three previous ceasefire resolutions and having its own, largely symbolic and ineffectual, proposal vetoed by fellow permanent member states Russia and China last week.  

In addition to calling for a cessation of hostilities for the remainder of the month of Ramadan, with hopes of leading to a “permanent sustainable ceasefire,” the resolution pressed for the “unconditional release of all hostages,” according to Reuters. This includes some Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, although it is unlikely that this would mean freedom for the thousands of Palestinians arbitrarily held in “administrative detention” in Israeli prisons. Nor would it mean an end to violent land grabs in the West Bank by the Israeli government, Zionist capitalists and 700,000 civilian settlers; the Israeli military occupation of Palestinian territories; the perpetual siege on Gaza; and other devastating consequences of the Zionist settler-colonial project as a whole. 
 
Furthermore, in a very real sense, the ceasefire resolution does not guarantee an end to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza. The UN Security Council’s power to enforce a ceasefire resolution are derived from chapter seven, article 42 of the UN charter, which stipulates those members of the council “may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security” should non-military measures fail. However, having not committed to any sanctions on Israel, military or otherwise, the Security Council will likely rely on cooperation from both Hamas and Israel to implement the ceasefire.  

The outlook of this arrangement appears to be bleak; shortly after the resolution passed, Israel canceled its delegation’s visit to Washington D.C. in response to the U.S.’ abstention. Clearly unfavorable to the terms of the ceasefire, it is unlikely that Israel will comply without the invocation of article 42, which would require another fraught Security Council vote without a U.S. veto. 

The ceasefire resolution itself only lasts until the end of Ramadan — that’s two weeks. Successful implementation of the resolution would provide much-needed respite for two million Palestinians in Gaza resisting a vicious military and starvation campaign by Israel; that much is true, however the physical and psychological trauma of genocide in Gaza would linger, and there is no certainty of an end to Israeli aggression in Gaza.  

It is also true that the U.S. has changed its tone slightly regarding unconditional support for Israel’s assault on Gaza. On Sunday, Vice President Kamala Harris warned of “consequences” should Israel commence its planned invasion of Rafah, a city bordering Egypt where more than one million Palestinians are currently sheltering with no means of egress. However, throughout the weeks-long push-and-pull between Israel and its chief financier over the Rafah invasion, the U.S. has remained non-committal over holding Israel accountable for its past and present violence, outside occasional sanctions on individual settlers.  

Although I departed from my intended focus of Haiti, the connection between its current political situation and the genocide in Gaza are far more related than meets the eye. The U.S. and Caribbean countries’ support for the installation of a transition government in Haiti and the resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza both represent solutions left in the hands of the states responsible for these crises in the first place. Their provisions do nothing to resolve the fundamental contradictions leading to the present violence, and only ensure that history will repeat itself on a greater scale.  

Relying on intervention by imperialist superpowers like the United States will not free Haiti or Palestine; the people of Haiti and Palestine will free themselves, by resistance or other means set on their own terms. Students at the University of Connecticut who are sympathetic to these struggles and aspire to become leaders in international relations should be highly skeptical of these remedies imposed from without. We must recognize when intervention, even when seemingly benevolent, can be used to maintain or exercise further control over oppressed populations. And though I welcome every moment that bombs are not falling on Palestinians and Haitians are safe from state and non-state violence, this sentiment is worth nothing if the political and economic causes of harm remain unchallenged.