Can Foreign Intervention Avoid Repeating History?
Haiti is unraveling. In recent months, the island nation has descended into chaos as powerful gang coalitions have overtaken the capital, paralyzed the government, and triggered a profound humanitarian crisis. With the collapse of public order and the Haitian police force overwhelmed, the international community has reentered a debate it knows all too well: Should foreign powers intervene in Haiti? And if so, how? This month, the United Nations formally backed a Kenyan-led multinational security mission to restore stability to Haiti, with financial and logistical support from the United States. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in the Caribbean to discuss regional collaboration in regards to Haiti’s crisis. Yet, while the international impulse to intervene may stem from legitimate concerns, history warns that foreign involvement in Haiti has often left in its wake scars deeper than the problems it sought to solve.
A History of Intervention — and Its Consequences
Haiti’s struggles with foreign intervention are in no way new. The U.S. occupied Haiti from 1915 to 1934, leaving behind resentment and a legacy of economic dependency. More recently, the United States again in the 1990s deployed troops to Haiti to reinstate President Jean-Bertrand Aristide after a military coup. Although the intervention was justified as a mission to restore democracy, it highlighted a pattern of U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts shaped by strategic interests, rather than the long-term stability of the nation they sought to arbitrate.
The most notorious intervention in recent memory, however, came in the early 2000s. Following the collapse of Aristide’s government in 2004, the United Nations deployed the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) — a peacekeeping force that remained until 2017. That mission, though intended to promote peace and security, became infamous after UN personnel introduced a cholera outbreak that killed over 10,000 Haitians. Reports of human rights abuses and sexual exploitation further undermined the credibility of international forces in Haiti.
These past failures loom large over today’s calls for intervention. Many Haitians fear a repeat of foreign troops arriving under the banner of supposed salvation, only to leave their country further undermined, destabilized, and exploited.
The Current Crisis
Haiti’s current situation is as dire as ever. Gang coalitions like G9 and G-Pèp have seized control over key territories in Port-au-Prince and beyond. Critical infrastructure is crumbling, basic services are collapsing, and thousands of civilians have been displaced. Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who has led the country without an elected mandate since 2021, was recently barred from returning to Haiti after a trip abroad, further exacerbating the vacuum of meaningful leadership.
In response, the international community has rallied behind a new intervention model. The United Nations Security Council approved the deployment of a Kenyan-led multinational security force tasked with supporting Haitian police and restoring order. The United States pledged $300 million in funding, along with intelligence and logistical assistance.
Adding weight to these efforts, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio traveled to the Caribbean this week, meeting with regional leaders in Jamaica, Guyana, and Suriname to discuss Haiti’s state of crisis. In Jamaica, Rubio emphasized the need for a "Haitian-led solution" while reaffirming U.S. support for the multinational mission. His visit reflected the Biden administration’s larger regional approach — seeking to share responsibility among Caribbean partners rather than leading the intervention unilaterally.
Sovereignty, Security, and the Risk of Repetition
The current intervention strategy is framed by the United Nations as a partnership rather than a foreign occupation. Kenya’s leadership and its Caribbean partners aim to address by example the long-standing criticism that international powers, particularly the U.S., impose their will on Haiti without accountability. For Kenya, leading the mission also offers significant diplomatic and practical benefits. It boosts the country's global standing as a reliable international partner, while also providing its security forces with access to advanced training, new equipment, and financial incentives that could strengthen its own law enforcement capacity over time.
Yet, this mission still raises critical questions about the nature and execution of foreign intervention in Haiti. Who gets to decide what “help” truly looks like for the Haitian people? While the mission is being framed as a collaborative, regionally-led effort, concerns remain about who is shaping the agenda and whether Haitian voices are genuinely being prioritized. Additionally, what mechanisms will be in place to prevent the kinds of abuses and unintended damage that have marred past interventions, such as those seen during the UN’s MINUSTAH mission? And, perhaps most importantly, will this new effort go beyond immediate crisis response to address Haiti’s deeper structural issues—like poverty, political corruption, and weak institutions—that allow instability to persist? Without a definitive answer to these questions, even the best-intentioned intervention risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
The broader debate touches on very real and present tensions between state sovereignty and the responsibility to protect (R2P) doctrine. Haiti’s government is effectively non-functional. Gang violence threatens not only Haitian civilians but also regional security, fueling migration pressures and illicit trade. History has constantly shown that intervention without meaningful, locally-driven reform risks perpetuating Haiti’s cycle of instability.
What’s at Stake for Foreign Policy
The current intervention in Haiti has implications that go far beyond just one small Caribbean nation. It is a test of whether international powers — particularly the United States — have learned from decades of failed state-building efforts. It is an evaluation of whether the Global North can collaborate with the Global South without paternalism or exploitation.
Secretary Rubio’s diplomatic efforts suggest a desire to avoid the errors of the past, emphasizing regional cooperation and Haitian leadership. Whether this new mission can live up to that promise remains to be seen.
For policymakers, students, and observers of foreign affairs alike, Haiti’s crisis is a stark reminder that intervention is never a neutral act. In order to truly affect positive and lasting change, the world must more conscientiously weigh its responsibility to act against the consequences of such actions done wrong.
