A Question of Justice

All last week, political leaders from around the world convened in Geneva, Switzerland for the 2009 United Nations World Conference Against Racism.  The conference was intended to develop strategies and foster coalitions for combating racism around the world, however this noble cause overshadowed by the actions of a parade of industrialized, relatively wealthy, majority-white countries who had decided to boycott the event citing concerns that the conference would devolve into a forum for unfair criticism of Israel for its ongoing occupation of Palestine.

In what was perhaps the greatest irony of the whole charade, the caravan of dissenters was lead by the United States, whose decision to boycott came from none other than their newly-elected, first ever African American president, Barack Obama.  Equally puzzling (although not for those of us who understand race politics and diplomacy) was the fact that, prior to the commencement of the conference, Obama conditioned America’s attendance on the complete removal of, not only all specific or implied references to Israel, but also the removal of any mention of reparations from all conference documents.

A cursory look at the countries who joined the boycott bandwagon reveals that the US wasn’t the only country who, by virtue of its very history, should have been obligated to attend yet once again thumbed its nose at a bona fide opportunity to partially atone for its racist past – and present.  Australia, Canada and New Zealand, were among first to join the boycott, in what will surely be interpreted by some observers as a slap in the face to their respective indigenous populations, all of whom endured systematic, state-sanctioned displacement, ethnic cleansing, disenfranchisement and residential schools (in Canada and Australia) along with other forms of forced assimilation.  It was no surprise when Germany dropped out.  Given their government’s history with the European Jews, they likely deemed this a necessary action in order to appease the government of Israel and assuage the collective guilt with which they grapple as a result of Germany’s role in the Holocaust.  This may also be true, although to a lesser extent, in the case of Italy, who, under the leadership of the fascist dictator, Benito Mussolini, aligned themselves with the Nazis during World War II. 

However, racism is not only a thing of the past in either Germany or Italy.  In fact both societies have earned reputations for being extremely xenophobic.  It’s definitely no coincidence that, to this day, they remain the only two Western European countries where children born to immigrant parents are not given citizenship at birth, while so-called ‘ethnic’ German and Italian children born abroad can apply for citizenship immediately even if their families are several generations removed from their homeland.

But, in my opinion, by far the country whose absence represented the most wonton disregard for global efforts to combat racism and atone for past acts was France.  In an apparent attempt to hedge his bets, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, announced that his country would be in attendance but that the minute a single speaker dared to cross the line by singling out Israel for criticism, France would promptly withdraw from the conference.  This represented a de facto boycott since it was well-known that the issue of the Israeli occupation would surely be brought up.  France was given the chance to make good on its promise on the first day of the proceedings when Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered an incendiary indictment of what he termed the “totally racist” actions of the Israeli government.

Rather than engage in a reasoned debate about the merits - or lack thereof - of Ahmadinejad’s assessment, the French delegation simply exited the conference.  Had they stayed, it’s quite possible that they could have been the second in line to be placed under the microscope for an examination of their own human rights record and efforts to fight racism - or lack thereof.  It is fairly well-known that for quite some time now, France has endured recurring periods of civil unrest related to the treatment of its ethnic minorities, of which there are many, most of whom come from impoverished former French colonies.  But what most people don’t know is that since the early 1990’s, the most impoverished of those former colonies has been calling for France to pay reparations for crimes it committed almost 200 years earlier.

When Jean Bertrand Aristide rose to the Presidency of the Republic of Haiti in 1990 via free and fare elections, he brought hope to a population that had suffered for almost thirty years under the cruel and corrupt dictatorship of the U.S.-backed Duvalier regime.  But he immediately raised the ire of the U.S. with his socialist politics and enraged France with by insistence that Haiti was entitled to no less than 21 billion dollars in restitution from the French government.

Most North Americans are opposed to reparations for slavery for a whole host of reasons, some sound, some understandable, and some outright racist.  Most of the reasonable opposition is based upon the shear logistical nightmare that would be caused by trying to repay the descendants of slaves for all the forced labour of their ancestors.  First of all, how would one go about quantifying the amount of money to be paid?  Also, what if the sum, after adjusting for inflation, is too large for the economies of these countries to support?  And lastly, in the racially integrated communities and states in which the vast majority of diasporic Africans live, how would we ensure that the funds are disseminated to the rightful recipients in a way that allows them to benefit appropriately.  This is the do-we-just-send-every-black-person-a-cheque-in-the-mail?/reductio ad absurdum argument.

But in the case of reparations for Haiti, none of these arguments apply.  In fact, Haiti’s case for reparations is actually quite simple and rather difficult to argue against even for those who most vehemently oppose reparations at a philosophical level.

In 1804, former slave and military commander, Tousaint Louverture lead a successful revolution to expel the French colonizers and enslavers from the island and subsequently formed the first ever republic ruled by blacks.  In 1825, France, never having gotten over its humiliating and costly defeat at the hands of former slaves, threatened to re-colonize the island nation and demanded a indemnity payment of 150 million francs in exchange for diplomatic recognition and to avoid reinvasion.  Being a small island whose population was made up almost entirely of displaced, non-indigenous people, Haiti relied upon trade with colonial powers, who at that time still controlled all the neighboring islands.  Therefore it was determined by the Haitian leadership that they had no choice but to pay.  The 150 million franc figure was arrived at by approximating the amount of lost revenue from Haitian resources that would have been exported to France in the period since the revolution; exports that were harvested using slave labour and which were essentially being pilfered by the French government.

Though the amount was later reduced to 90 million francs, Haiti had been forced to take out loans from French banks to come up with the payment and it is estimated that, given the exorbitant interest the corrupt French banks charged the desperate and vulnerable Haitians, they may have ended up paying out more than the original 150 million francs to their French freeloaders.  It is believed that this act of extortion crippled the Haitian economy to the extent that they are still struggling with its legacy, as evidenced by the fact that Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere and is significantly poorer than its neighbours with similar histories prior to the revolution.

The 21 billion dollars demanded by Aristide is estimated to represent the 90 millions francs paid out by Haiti in 1825, after being adjusted for inflation.  So we have a reliable means of calculating the amount owed, we have an obvious recipient (the internationally recognized central government of a country, whose population is fairly homogeneous and almost entirely made up of descendants of the victims of the original crime).  Furthermore the amount is both affordable and ethically justifiable as it constitutes restitution for an extorted payment that everyone would agree should never have been paid in the first place.  But with the newly invigorated campaign to silence all discussion on reparations being spearheaded by men like Barack Obama, it’s clear that those who are depending on - and are entitled to - these payments can’t afford to hold their breath.

It’s not about international aid, it’s about justice.

AlexsJenkins