Haitian Hunger in the Global Market

History of the Global Now
Midterm paper
Haitian Hunger in the Global Market
Terese Howard
10/2/09

On April 4, 2008 scores of Haitians gathered in the streets of Les Cayes to protest the price of food. From January to April rice prices rose 141% (Quigley). One Haitian woman, Hernite Joseph, told a reporter this.
"Before, if you had a dollar twenty-five [cents], you could buy vegetables, some rice, 10 cents of charcoal and a little cooking oil…Right now, a little can of rice alone costs 65 cents, and it's not good rice at all. Oil is 25 cents. Charcoal is 25 cents. With a dollar twenty-five, you can't even make a plate of rice for one child." (Whalen).
A thousand hungry children gather at St. Claire’s Church Food program in Port au Prince for a free meal every day (Quigley). The US, Venezuela, and many other countries are sending food aid in tons to Haiti. Yet, these meals and all the food aid coming from other countries does not even close to enough to feed all the hungry people in Haiti.
The problem, however, is not a lack of assessable food as one would assume. Jessica Reyes-Cantos, an economist for Rice Watch, points out that, “The US Department of Agriculture 2008 numbers show Haiti is the third largest importer of US rice—at over 240,000 metric tons of rice” (Reyes-Cantos). Rice is sitting in bags in Haiti waiting to be bought, but it is so expensive the people cannot pay the price and starve instead.
The urgency of the hunger was manifest at the protests of April 4, 2008 as they took a violent turn when a few of the Haitian protesters came in conflict with UN peacekeepers. Four protesters and two UN peacekeepers were killed by gun shots. Who shot first and the motivation for the shooting are debated. What can be observed in these deaths is the urgency of the hunger to ignite the energy behind these events. The state of hunger was so great that just marching down the streets or waving signs could not echo it.
The problem can be stated simply: the people of Haiti are hungry. It is a problem of personhood, of embodiment, of the needs of the human body. Hernite Joseph describes the problem in terms of the appearance of her children’s bodies. She says, "My kids are like toothpicks" (Whalen). Food is a matter of necessity for life. Without enough of it, the human body deteriorates into lifeless rot. The hunger has not subsided since the uprisings of 2008. In spite of President Rene Preval’s promise to reduce the price of rice from $51 for a 110 pound bag, to $43 dollars for the next month (Reyes-Cantos) and to continue to go down from there, Haitians are still hungry.
Many foreign countries and international organizations, predominantly the IMF and UN, have been formative in creating the situation in Haiti today. These forces have been making gallant efforts to integrate Haiti into the global market place as a consumer and a producer. The attempts of these counties and the organizations to help Haiti become a part of the global exchange and thus help them out of their poverty ultimately lead to the hunger they are in today. Since the 1980’s Haiti has become almost completely dependent on US rice through a series of IMF and US policies and actions. After a variety of global mishaps and shifts in the food market took its effect of the price of food in Haiti, the Haitian people were left unable to buy the food they need to survive. These global capitalist attempts to fix the Haitian hunger problem have continually created more problems and failed to fix the hunger problem at hand. The conditions for the possibility of nourishment for the Haitian people do not lay in the increase of dependence on global market place, which has lead to the hunger of the people today, but in the growth of local food which the people can eat without being affected by the every shift in the global market.
The question which follows the problem of hunger in Haiti centers on the “why” of this hunger. Why are the people hungry? What has caused this hunger? What is the context of this hunger? The quickest answer to these questions is the one already addressed, namely that the price of food has risen beyond what people have the money to pay for. This does not answer the questions of what cause the hunger or what its context is, but it does move the questions into the realms where their answer must be sought – economics in global relations.
It is important to recognize that no cause stands alone in effecting the situation. By focusing on one or two causes this does not exclude the significance of every other cause. In this way, it can be better to look at it in terms of the broad context instead of simply cause. Nonetheless, the language of context alone does not sufficiently recognize the effecting action of the context on the condition. The context of hunger in Haiti is not just a back drop but actually effects/causes the condition.
The raise in food prices is traced to a wide range of causes including “rising fuel prices, weather problems, increased demand in China and India, low global stocks, the use of crops to create biofuels and commodity speculation” (Reyes-Cantos). The reasons for the state of hunger can be traced even deeper than these current events though. Haitian history of global relations and capitalist free market theory/practice are crucial factors in shaping the hunger in Haiti today. The role of the IMF in Haiti is particularly enlightening to the deeper causes of the situation. The IMF is both a global force as well as being driven by capitalist free market logic.
The people of Haiti have not always been hungry. An IPSN reporter Nick Whalen explains this rise of hunger saying, “Thirty years ago, Haiti produced nearly all the rice it consumed. But in the late 1980s, cheap imported U.S. rice inundated the country after a military junta began liberalising the economy with support from the International Monetary Fund (IMF)” (Whalen). With an excess of cheep American rice flooding into the country Haitian farmers no longer could compete in the market. This relationship of cheep American rice imports to the demise of local Haitian rice (and other foods) is confirmed by countless sources. Even the IMF itself states in a report in 2001 that "Trade liberalization has contributed to a large increase in imports of rice. At the same time, domestic production has gone down substantially" (Georges). What instigated this abrupt inundation of American rice into Haiti? Countless factors are influential on this. A few will be considered briefly here.
Nick Whalen points out one cause of the rise in imported rice, “In 1994, an IMF-sponsored plan cut tariffs on imported rice from 35 percent to 3 percent, the lowest in the region. In one year, the number of rice imports doubled” (Whalen). The IMF’s mission is to protect the free flow of capital exchange through its international “agreements.” One of these agreements is the cut of tariffs on imports to Haiti. In order to get the $24 million dollar IMF loan, Haiti was “required to reduce tariff protections for rice and other agricultural products and some industries to open up its markets to foreign competition”( Reyes-Cantos). Since the IMF’s beginning it has cut tariffs where ever it could. By cutting tariffs the IMF believes it will make trade across borders easier. This is proven true in the case of Haiti. However, the trade in this case, did not flow freely from country to country, but facilitated a near monopoly of American products in the Haitian market. By cutting tariffs on imported rice foreign rice became cheaper than local rice thus putting local rice farmers out of business.
Another agreement is that subsidies will not be given to agricultural exports. However, the US subsidizes its agricultural exports heavily. Without the government aid which the US farmers receive, Haitian framers are forced to charge far more than their US competitors in the market. The free market, which the IMF is supposed to facilitate and protect, is thus only a market for countries which already have access to an excess of capital with which to invest in the market. By making agreements prohibiting government subsidies and yet not enforcing this agreement equally to all member countries, the IMF has enabled countries who do not uphold this agreement to benefit and come out on top in the market exchange.
The IMF is not the only player in the creation of US near monopoly in the Haitian food market. Corruption in American corporations is also a player. American Rice Inc. is by far the largest rice company in the US. Josiane Georges, the author of Trade and the Disappearance of Haitian Rice, explains, “Most American rice exports are handled ‘by a single US corporation -- American Rice Inc. -- which has enjoyed an almost monopolistic position in Haiti’” (Georges). American Rice has not gained this monopolistic state without its doss of corruption. American Rice broke IMF agreements and US laws by finishing and bagging its rice in Haiti where it could pay workers less, reducing import taxes, and many other costs. The US Secretary and Exchange commission summarizes the charges against American Rice.
“From at least January 1998 to August 1999, American Rice employees, at the direction of an American Rice vice president, made numerous bribery payments to Haitian customs officials to illegally reduce American Rice's import taxes. The payments assisted American Rice to obtain or retain its business of selling rice in Haiti at a favorable price in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), Section 30A of the Exchange Act”(US Secretary and Exchange).
This bribery and the finishing and bagging factory in Haiti, made it possible for American Rice to play a significant role in putting Haitian rice farmers out of business.
IMF tariff cuts, US agricultural subsidies, and American Rice advantages all played a part in the rapid influx of US rice into Haiti in the 1990s continuing to today. Without these forces it would have been much more difficult for the US to gain the near monopoly it has in the Haitian rice market.

None of these matters are wholly economic. The IMF and US agriculture are both as political as they are economic matters. Furthermore, Haitian politics have been closely tied to foreign political relations throughout Haiti’s entire history. From Columbus’ seizure of the island in 1492, which ultimately “killed between 12 and 20 million native peoples” (Coupeau, The History of Haiti, 15), to the French slave rule of Haiti, to the US occupation of Haiti from 1915 to 1957, to the US capture of the Haitian President Duvalier in 1986, and continued relations today, Haiti has been the brunt of continuous maltreatment from outside. Haiti has also had its share of corruption from within, mostly in the form of authoritarian presidents who used “physical coercion, torture, [and] corruption” (Coupeau, The History of Haiti, 10) to rule the country. Both the international and internal political struggles have made it difficult for Haiti to develop or sustain any form of independence or self determination.
In 1986 when the US government captured Haiti’s President Duvalier, they did so under the name of saving Haiti from a “tyrannical” leader. In 2004 when the UN sent “peacekeepers” to Haiti, it did so in the name of establishing a stabilization mission after the exile of their President Aristide. When the IMF cut tariffs on imports to Haiti, it did so in the name of free markets as the possibility for feeding the Haitian people. In all of these cases Haiti became more dependent on outside sources for policing, governing, and food.
The presence of UN peacekeepers took authority from Haiti’s own government and policing force by standing as an arbitrator between the Haitian people and Haitian authority. It was the UN that was at conflict with the hunger protesters in 2008 which ended in the death of six people. The question maybe asked, if the people are hungry and there is an excess of food present in the country sitting in storehouses, why do they not just take what they need to survive? Part of the answer here is in the presence of UN as a police force and local police forces. The police are authorized to “protect the people” by stopping them, through physical force if needed, from dismantling the stability of the market place through taking food without paying for it. The police, including UN peacekeepers, form a vital aspect of the market place and the hunger as they enable the market to continue to run under capitalist exchange only. Through UN presence, Haiti no longer is even able to police its own people without the influence of the UN and the global agendas that come with that. In this way capitalism is protected even though the people cannot participate in capitalist exchange.
As discussed prior, the aftermath of the IMF tariff cuts on imported rice to 3% was the demise of local rice farmers who could not compete against American agricultural advantages. In only a couple of years more than half of the rice farms in Haiti had gone out of business. Haiti was left dependant on imported food for survival. The American government’s intervention in agriculture through subsidies enabled US food to dominate the Haitian food market. American politics here has had devastating effects on Haitian sustenance.

It was in this situation of foreign dependence that the rise in food prices created the conditions for mass hunger. As listed above, there are a variety of direct reasons for the rise in food prices at the beginning of the 21 century. “Rising fuel prices, weather problems, increased demand in China and India, low global stocks, the use of crops to create biofuels and commodity speculation” (Reyes-Cantos) are all among the causes. Yet none of these situations were the result of any actions of Haiti itself (with the possible aside of increased whether problems after deforestation of Haitian land which lead to greater mud flooding after the hurricanes of 2008). Haiti is not the one using too much fuel and causing rises in fuel prices. Haiti is not the one selling food to China or India. Haiti is not the one pulling out stocks from the global market. Haiti is not the one using crops for biofuel. All of these conditions which have cause the rise in food prices, and ultimately the mass hunger in Haiti, were caused by other countries consumption and politics. This global rise in food prices combined with the loss of local agriculture since the 1990’s due to cheap food, has left Haiti starving and dependent on the very foreign exchange that created the problem in the first place.
Foreign intervention in Haitian political and economic affairs is usually seen as help for a poor country. The IMF argues that they are helping Haiti by cutting tariffs on imports so the country can afford to buy more food. The IMF also argues they are helping Haiti by giving them the $24 million dollar loan. While these avenues have been a quick fix for some of Haiti’s economic disadvantages they have ultimately left Haiti in greater problems than the ones the foreign aid was supposed to fix. Through dependence on other countries Haiti is forced to take the brunt of all foreign affairs even though they do not bring about these affairs. The slightest change in the global market can bring about the rise in prices that leave the Haitian people starving for years.
Food aid is coming into Haiti from afar in mass. “Venezuela sent 350 tons of food. The United States just pledged $200 million extra for worldwide hunger relief. The UN is committed to distributing more food” (Reyes-Cantos). In each of these cases the idea behind the food aid is to feed the hungry while the market gets back to an affordable state. What could be wrong with sending free food to feed the people? The problems with food aid include money lost in the donating country in the process of sending the food, increase in outside dependence, not to mention the Haitian government’s embezzlement of food and funds. The economist Jessica Reyes-Cantos explains that,
“US law requires that food aid be purchased from US farmers, processed and bagged in the United States and shipped on US vessels—which cost 50 percent of the money allocated. A simple change in US law to allow some local purchase of commodities would feed many more people and support local farm markets” (Reyes-Cantos).
These laws about food aid put half the benefit in the hand of the aiding country instead of the country in need of the aid. Without the aid even more Haitian people would be starving to death for sure. Yet with the aid Haiti continues to become more and more dependent on foreign markets and assistance. This not only puts them at the mercy of international control, it also gives them less initiative to replenish their local farms. Whether Haiti takes food aid or refuses it in attempt to gain more independence, the hunger will prosiest for a season. The point here is not that nobody should send food to Haiti or that Haiti is distend to be dependant forever. The point is to recognize that in the context of the international dependence which Haiti has found itself, a result of countless foreign initiatives in politics and the market place, Haiti is stuck continuing this cycle of dependence until they can grow enough food of their own to gain independence.

All of these foreign “fixes” are based on the same logic. According to this logic, the problem of hunger in Haiti is diagnosed as a symptom of a lack of capital to invest in the global trade market. Without capital to invest, Haiti cannot get to an equal playing field with other countries in the market exchange. As such when food prices rise globally, thus rising in Haiti, the people of Haiti do not have enough money to pay for the food. The fix for this problem is thus concluded to be the creation of jobs which will both bring money to the people as well as producing something that will become a resource for foreign investment and trade. In order to make money the product of these jobs must be investable in the global market because that is where all the money is. If Haiti were to only make and sell products for itself the people would not buy it because they already do not have enough money to buy the basic necessary food. According to this capitalist logic, the answer to fixing Haitian hunger lays in participation in the global market.
The IMF’s cutting tariffs and banning government subsidies, the US’s cheap rice sales, the UN’s peacekeeper policing intervention, all of these actions are based on this logic of developing Haiti’s place in the global market place. Yet the result of this logic was to create the conditions for hunger in Haiti today. Haiti produced nearly all its rice prior to IMF and US intervention. Now they depend on foreign rice and are starving because of it. Foreign intervention through IMF agreements and cheep food was supposed to fix the problem of poverty in Haiti, but instead it created the conditions for the possibility of an even greater poverty of hunger when global prices rose. The fix becomes the next problem which in turn is fixed by the same method – development of the countries’ role in the capitalist global market place. Yet this method has failed over and over in Haiti. Haiti’s role in the global capitalist market has brought them to the brink of starvation.
What will fix the hunger in Haiti if not food aid, be it “free” or cheep, from foreign countries? One economist Charles Arthur, director of the Haiti Support Group, a British-based NGO, believes that, “Instead of setting up [a] free trade zones in Haiti,…the Haitian government should implement ‘a concerted programme to assist local farmers to produce more food for the domestic market’” (Salgado). Instead of turning to the global market to fix the problem the hunger must be addressed directly by growing food in Haitian soil that Haitian people can eat. The hunger of the human body is thus addressed directly with food and not with the entire global market and all of its instabilities. By focusing on local food independence Haiti may be able to prevent the sort of hunger the Haitian people are living with today.


BBC News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7331921.stm accessed 9/27/09

Coupeau, Steeve. The History of Haiti Greenwood Press: London, 2008.

Georges, Josiane. http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm accessed 9/27/09
Quigley, Bill. http://www.counterpunch.org/quigley04212008.html accessed 9/27/09

Reyes-Cantos, Jessica. http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20080503-134390/US-IMF-role-in-Haitis-food-riots accessed 9/27/09

Salgado, Sonali. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47935 accessed 9/27/09

Securities and Exchange Commission. Securities Exchange Act of 1934,Release No. 47286 / January 30, 2003, http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-47286.htm accessed 9/27/09

UN stabilization Mission. http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/minustah/ accessed 9/27/09

Whalen, Nick. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42011 accessed 9/27/09