The World Owes Haiti an Apology: The Perils of US Intervention

Via Picryl

The United States is a country that wears its values on its sleeve and thus takes it upon itself to carry the weight of the world on its shoulders. Upon its very birth, it stood upon a foundation of freedom, justice, democracy, fairness, and opportunity, principles that it proudly emblazoned on its seminal Constitution and that it immortalizes in its physical monuments. These are the traits that define the outlook of America’s history; these traits make up the hallowed, almost deified American Dream; these are the traits that Americans seek to embody at home and abroad. It is what distinguished early America from the antiquated and repressive monarchies that it sought to free itself from. Yet, travel to Haiti, a nation scarred by American intervention, and these traits will seem like a myth when ascribed to the U.S. Travel to Haiti, and it will seem like freedom and justice are in short supply.

Seemingly from its inception, the Caribbean country that makes up around one-third of the island of Hispaniola has been mired in a stubborn, unrelenting downward spiral of abject poverty, political instability, and despair. The reputation of being “the poorest country in the Western hemisphere” has clung to its national character for over a generation and supersedes any further conversation about Haiti. The irony is, Haiti was once the wealthiest colony in the entire Western Hemisphere. The juxtaposition between its former abundance and its current suffering can be explained by the legacy of colonialism and occupation, originally occurring under the Spanish, and later the French and American imperial projects. 

The story of Haiti’s contact with the West unfolds in a familiar way to its peers in the Western Hemisphere. Initial Spanish contact brought disease, which ravaged the indigenous populations, as the Spanish crown enacted the racial and economic hierarchy that facilitated its rule. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were trafficked onto the island via the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Amid weakening Spanish power, France laid claim to the Western part of Hispaniola, transforming the colony into an economic powerhouse fueled by cash crops like timber, sugar, and coffee. But in 1791, Haiti was struck by an intriguing turn of events: a massive slave revolt, led by the revolutionary and ideologue Toussaint L’Overture, proved an existential threat to French colonial rule. After thirteen years of brutal war, the former Haitian slaves successfully declared independence, in a land free from the tyranny, exploitation, and humiliation of slavery. This constituted the world’s first ever successful slave revolt to gain independence, and mirrored the effect of the “shot heard ‘round the world” so embodied in American ideals.

Yet, even from the outset of Haiti’s existence, America’s presence could be felt. Though early in the United States’s lifespan, the young nation had already demonstrated an interest in its peers in the Western hemisphere, in a foreign policy approach that would eventually culminate in the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. supported the global isolation of Haiti during the Jefferson administration, maintaining its alliance with France and the global balance of power. However, the U.S. had its own vested interest in preventing the success of the Haitian Revolution: the Jefferson administration did not want the country’s own slaves to revolt following inspiration from their Haitian comrades, especially given its already tense racial politics. Of course, Thomas Jefferson and his peers would never admit that their approach directly contradicted the premise of universal rights and economic freedom, upon which they had fought a war with the British less than thirty years earlier. But from its very birth, Haiti was defined by the interests and potential aggression from foreign powers, a trend that would only continue. 

Shortly after Haitian independence, the French levied enormous debts upon Haiti, which it was forced to pay under threat of force, to make up for the lost wealth of French slave owners and landowners. This was a threat made to Haiti, which was already outgunned and underdeveloped due to the existential war it had just fought. Haiti was forced to take out loans from French banks to pay this debt, and then accrue additional debt from French banks to cover its original debt. So while France continued to profit from its former colony long after its occupation, Haiti was deprived of the essential income needed to develop infrastructure, education, and other systems needed for a stable government. Its rural farmland continued to supply cash crops, as its infrastructure and farming methods grew increasingly antiquated, and as its people languished for generations. Around World War I, the United States re-entered the picture. 

In 1915, the Wilson administration occupied Haiti, under the pretense of establishing stability (eventually a common refrain in U.S. foreign policy) after the assassination of their president. The Americans also wanted to curb growing French and German influence (owing to their debt policies and economic interests toward the nation, respectively) and prevent their intervention during this time of chaos. But instead of ensuring stability and lasting peace, American intervention was brutal, corrupt, and altogether scarring to the Haitian people. The U.S. seized Haitian economic assets and land, enriching American banks and government coffers while damning the Haitians to debilitating yet familiar exploitation. Yet more damning, perhaps, is how U.S. Marines killed 15,000 Haitians who rebelled against American rule, and made chilling examples of opposition leaders. 

Make no mistake: U.S. intervention was not welcomed by the Haitian people, and this pattern of U.S. occupation and profiteering in the name of democracy or stability can be found across the Western Hemisphere. Around the same time, the U.S. effectively forced the creation of, and profited greatly from, the Panama Canal; it replicated a similar model of Haitian occupation in Cuba following the Spanish-American War; a few years before its actions in Haiti, the U.S. had ended a bloody, years-long war for control of the Philippines. While the Americans would often establish infrastructure in the countries they intervened in, these institutions were often not accessible to much of the country’s poor majority. But more importantly, even if this infrastructure (roads, ports, the Panama Canal itself) immediately or eventually created value or otherwise brought economic or social success to a community, I would assert that that value is incredibly dwarfed by the value of a people’s self-determination, self-governance, and control over its resources. I would surmise that the Founding Fathers would be inclined to agree with that statement. For the United States, freedom, justice, stability, and prosperity were the shades under which it imposed its will and hegemony onto others, relegating smaller countries to the very fate that it had escaped from itself at birth, and leaving death and destruction in its wake. 

While formal U.S. occupation ended in 1934, its influence over Haiti continued to loom large–most notably in its control over Haitian finances lasting until 1947. As Haiti weathered the brutal dictatorships of François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier during the 20th century, the United States propped up their regime in the interest of Cold War hegemony, especially after the Duvalier regime made concessions to Washington, including tax breaks for foreign companies and anti-communist alignment. Haitians continued to suffer violence, imprisonment, repression, and poverty on the part of the state; the cascading disasters of Haiti’s history had left the country’s systems in disrepair. All the while, a deep well of corruption continued to replenish the country’s elite, a chasm of inequality separating rich and poor. Haiti’s ongoing crisis only deepened after a devastating earthquake in 2010, a 7.0 magnitude wave of destruction that killed an estimated 300,000 people and displaced another million. This brings us to Haiti’s current conditions: after the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, the nation has been overrun by gangs, who contend for control in the capital, Port-au-Prince. The actual government has lost much of its legitimacy following the aforementioned political turmoil, and the Haitian people are caught in the middle. A UN-backed intervention force, this time led by Kenyan police, has been dispatched, to minimal success.

What can we take from this? Again and again, even after Western colonialism and the Cold War, the United States’s intervention has damned Haiti to a fate it did not choose and did not deserve. American intervention was done in the interest of profit and hegemony, instead of the freedom and democracy that the country prides itself on. The common notion that Haiti’s current condition is the result of the failure of its people and the deep corruption of the country is, at best, reductive. Persistent foreign occupation and violence severely hindered the nation from creating strong institutions and infrastructure. Moreover, the support for illicit regimes (like the Duvalier dynasty) and the constant misappropriation of funds reinforce the vast inequality that Haiti experiences while preventing the socioeconomic mobility of the Haitian people, even given the country’s abundance. Indeed, many of the skilled and professional among Haiti’s population have migrated outward, many of them to the United States, where they are often the victims of xenophobic rhetoric. 

This fashion of American intervention was not just practiced in Haiti, though. It is a trend across recent American history, done in the interest of preventing communism or maintaining stability, but often ignoring the will and perpetuating the suffering of the people within. During the Arab Spring in 2011, as Egyptians rallied in the streets demanding freedom and self-determination, the United States continued to support the authoritarian Mubarak regime in the interest of regional political and economic stability until the final hour, once its collapse was all but inevitable. Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 was, in large part, a failure: Iraq today maintains an unstable democracy, and the U.S.’s actions created a power vacuum that left an easy entrance for the Islamic State, one of the most destructive terrorist groups of the 20th century. There are also examples where the U.S. didn’t intervene, but should have: the United States, “leader of the free world,” sat idly by as the Rwandan genocide saw the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands. President Bill Clinton himself publicly recognized this mistake during a visit to Rwanda after the genocide. Time and time again, the United States did not stick up for its values. However, there is precedent for positive examples of U.S. intervention and peacemaking when there is political will. American involvement in Somalia in the 1990s, while originally invoking the infamous “Black Hawk Down” debacle, eventually pioneered a positive model of diplomacy. The peace process was aided by the measured stability induced by foreign involvement, remained in the country until the peace process was fully complete, and made use of local power brokers to bring agreements that were effective–all lessons that can be applied to the current situation in Haiti. 

The Haitian people have suffered for generations. The United States and the world owe Haiti an apology. But an apology is not enough. The United Nations, with the backing of the United States and other important countries, must make a concerted effort to re-establish stability and the basic functioning of the Haitian state. While this is a form of intervention, it is a necessary one to prevent Haiti’s continued misery. From there, these organizations must work with Haitians to create Haitian-led institutions; there is precedent for state-building like this within Haiti (with the Aristide regime) and outside of it (the re-establishment of the democratic Sierra Leonean government by UN and UK forces after the rebel takeover in 1996). But one thing must remain true: the next chapter of Haiti’s future must be written by the Haitian people.

Panama’s Recent Response to Trump’s Canal Desire

Panama’s president, José Raúl Mulino (EPA/FMT image)

On March 5th, Panama and BlackRock reached a deal granting the US company control of the Balboa and Cristobal ports in the Panama Canal. While the Panamanian government granted this concession in an effort to ease tensions with the United States, it has instead instigated US President Donald Trump's further ambitions of owning all the ports. Panama’s current strategy of appeasement is ineffective in maintaining its sovereignty and, absent readjustment, could ultimately lead to a domino effect in which Trump's imperial ambitions permeate the rest of Latin America.

A US focus on the region isn’t unheard of; since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, and the Roosevelt Corollary of 1904, the US has adopted a hands-on approach to Latin American politics. During the Cold War, the United States became heavily involved in Latin American politics, spreading capitalist ideals in the wake of communism. Notable examples include Operation PBSuccess, which overthrew the leftist Guatemalan president in favor of a right-wing dictator allied with the US, and the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs, which hoped to depose communist dictator Fidel Castro in Cuba. Earlier, in 1904, US President Theodore Roosevelt struck an agreement with Panamanian separatists, who were striving for independence from the Colombian government, to build the Panama Canal. The deal permitted the US to construct an artificial canal in exchange for its support for Panama’s rapidly growing independence efforts. Construction was finalized in 1914, and the US controlled the “Panama Canal Zone” until 1977, when the Torrijos-Carter treaties relinquished control to Panama gradually by 1999. During the 1990s, Panama continued dealing with US intervention despite gaining canal control. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush launched Operation Just Cause, aiming to depose the military dictator Manuel Noriega, who was suspected of drug trafficking and allying with Soviet-backed governments in Latin America. The US sent troops to Panama, capturing and convicting Noreiga, causing the deaths of around 300 civilians while leaving the state with a democratic structure that has endured to this day.

Once Trump came into office for his second term, his pursuit of regional and economic security against foreign powers, such as China, led him to the canal. He argues that the Torrijos-Carter treaty is a “disgrace” to US pride, and therefore should be invalidated.  In the 21st century, the US has shifted to economic control of Latin America with heavy investment in the region. From a trade standpoint, Trump’s interest in the canal is clear: access would be economically beneficial for the US, granting them control over trade and shipping in an area where 40% of US container traffic goes through. In doing so, they can obtain cheaper rates for the US and impose higher rates for their adversaries, consistent with Trump’s America First trade policy. Beyond that, Trump’s move is also motivated by a desire to hedge back against major attempts from the Chinese government to get a foothold in the region via the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Chinese have helped construct several projects in Latin America, and are in the process of constructing many more in the future, threatening US power in the region. With the increase of Chinese economic expansion, the Trump administration has aggressively diverted its focus to the region to maintain the US’ regional sphere of influence and strengthen its position. 

In light of Trump’s aggression, the Panamanian response has been a policy of appeasement and accommodation. Following Trump’s inauguration, the state audited two Chinese ports in the canal, both part of the BRI, to gain favor with the new administration. During Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s first mission abroad, the Panamanians granted the US free passage of warships through the waterway, allowing the US to consolidate influence and defend against rivals like Venezuela. Further attempts have been made to move closer with the US: President José Mulino has withdrawn from the BRI as a whole, coinciding with US skepticism of Chinese influence within the Canal–information Rubio brought up to the Panamanian president. This policy has continued to be problematic, as in April 2025, US troops are now set to deploy near the canal in Panamanian territory. The idea of Panamanian sovereignty has begun to slightly erode, unable to stop US authority within its territory.  

Mulino’s objective has become unsuccessful; rather than neutralizing Trump’s aggression, it has failed to satiate his appetite. The day after the deal with BlackRock was announced, Trump addressed Congress, asserting that the deal implied Trump was reclaiming the canal from Panama. President Mulino has responded by accusing Trump of lying in the address. He emphasizes that “the transaction was purely commercial,” based on mutual interest, and not a form of concession. The Panamanian Canal Authority immediately rejected the claim of US warships, and a statement posted on X reaffirmed Panamanian sovereignty of the canal. Despite Mulino’s statements, the Panamanian government has been reluctant to use many of its resources to reaffirm its sovereignty in the face of US antagonism. Recently, Mulino met with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in an attempt to address certain concerns. In this meeting, the US was said to have been granted a cost-neutral compensation scheme for US warships and joint military training in the canal. While the statements struck a friendly tone, the point of Panamanian sovereignty remains. The government has refused to consult the United Nations or the Organization of American States about the issue. Recently, Mulino met with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in an attempt to address certain concerns. In this meeting, the US was said to have been granted a cost-neutral compensation scheme for US warships and joint military training in the canal. While the statements struck a friendly tone, the point of Panamanian sovereignty remains.

Panama’s genuflection to Trump could encourage him to force the hand of other nations in Latin America. As more and more nations in Central America have been welcoming Chinese cooperation, such as Costa Rica and Guatemala, Trump will likely turn his attention to these nations to expel Chinese influence.

This move has also worried the maritime powers that use the canal to shorten maritime trade and reduce shipping costs, such as Chile, Colombia, and Peru. The threat of US invasion and ownership of the canal could disrupt a vital shipping route, especially integral to these three nations, who rely heavily on trade with Europe and other Atlantic regions for resources. President of Colombia Gustavo Petro and Chilean President Gabriel Boric have continued to fight for the sovereignty of Panama through statements expressing unconditional support and denouncing Trump, while President Petro and Mulino are working together on other agreements, such as a bill reinforcing Panama’s sovereignty, a clean energy project, and issues on migration.   

In the meantime, to push back against Trump, Panama should take a harder stance on preserving their sovereignty and avoid the horrors of further US intervention. Their policy of appeasement has only been to the detriment of Panamanians and can embolden Trump to push his limits as far as he can in Latin America.  Panama must adopt a new strategy, potentially aligning closer with nations such as Canada, Mexico, and Colombia, which have already gone head-to-head with Trump on trade matters. All of these nations have responded to Trump’s aggression by appealing to international law, condemning Trump while threatening retaliation, and imposing tariffs with varying levels of success.

This could be through publicly criticizing US actions at the UN and OAS, invoking international law to defend its rights, and finding alternative economic partners, such as Mercosur, to open new economic opportunities, protect the canal, and strengthen regional independence in the wake of China and the US competition. Currently, Panama’s future is surrounded by uncertainty regarding Trump’s next steps for targeting the canal, and if they fail to reorient their current strategy, it may result in the US eventually taking full control of the canal through coercive means.

Venezuela in Crisis: What Does the West’s Waning Opposition to the Current Regime Mean for the Future of the Country?

Introduction 

Venezuela is a country full of striking natural beauty and one of Latin America's most urbanized places. It is the birthplace of Simon Bolivar, contains the Los Roques Archipelago, and is famous for its Pan de Jamon (bread filled with ham and olives) and Hallacas (corn or cassava dough stuffed with meat, olives, raisins, onion, and more.). However, in recent years, Venezuela has been plagued with social, political, and economic strife. 7 million people have left Venezuela, fleeing poverty and political crisis. Many are at risk of eviction, exploitation, and are forced into debt that they could never repay. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic made things worse, plunging Venezuelans into an even deeper economic crisis. People are forced to flee in unconventional and unsafe ways, many falling prey to smugglers, kidnappers, and traffickers. While some Venezuelans make it to the United States, many go to surrounding Latin American countries, such as Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. Adding to their suffering, Venezuelan refugees are stigmatized and scapegoated by the countries they flee to, with limited job opportunities and access to public services, they are often left to fend for themselves. While host communities and countries remain committed to helping the refugees, the sheer numbers mean that resources are stretched thin and finances are almost nonexistent. Understanding the present reality for many Venezuelan citizens requires examining the external factors at play.  

In this article, I explore how a country with such a rich culture and economy, due to its oil reserves, came to be in such a perilous situation politically and economically. I will also discuss how the West’s initial opposition to the current Venezuelan government is fragmenting, after many years of strong condemnation. Finally, I will discuss what is next for Venezuela and how the international community is assisting in one of the biggest humanitarian crises of the 21st century. 

How did Venezuela get here?

There are two parts to how Venezuela got into its current situation, political reasons and economic reasons. However, they intertwine and together they have engulfed the country in a crisis that has caused millions of people to flee. The executive powers of the president are incredibly strong and have only been strengthened in the past few decades. Since 1999, Venezuela has been run by two individuals from the same political party: Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. Chavez was a socialist president from 1999 until his death in 2013. He emphasized key elements such as nationalism, a centralized economy, and a strong military that frequently engaged in public projects. His approval rating was quite high, reaching up to 80% public support. He ran on an anti-corruption platform which made him very popular. He increased social welfare programs and redistributed the country’s oil wealth. Riding this wave of popularity, Chavez’s party gained control of key institutions, such as the judiciary, electoral council, and the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Over time, the system of checks and balances became weakened and the president’s power was often left unchecked. When Maduro was elected following Chavez’s death, global oil prices decreased. Venezuela’s economy relies heavily on oil, which led the country into a 7-year recession. Basic goods were scarce and inflation skyrocketed. It was clear that Maduro was not as beloved by the public as Chavez was because there were many anti-government protests between 2014-2017. It did not help that Maduro ordered a brutal police crackdown on the protestors. During this time, many Venezuelans left the country to escape the economic repression and political crisis. 

Everything came to a head in the 2018 presidential election. Despite public discontent with Maduro, he was reelected president. This election was dismissed by citizens as neither free nor fair and many accused the government of corruption to help Maduro hold onto power. Many other candidates that planned on running were imprisoned or ran from the country out of fear of imprisonment. As discussed earlier, many of the institutions in Venezuela that performed checks and balances were under the socialist party’s influence. So when these institutions were called upon to investigate the claims of a corrupt democratic election, they refused and there was a lot of division. In January 2019, the speaker of the National Assembly, one of the only institutions that was still credible and influential, Juan Guaido, declared himself the “interim president” of Venezuela. He proclaimed the seat of president vacant because Maduro’s re-election was not valid. He predicted that he would be governing the country within a few months. In hindsight, this process would become extremely complex and detrimental to the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela’s economy is very dependent on the income from oil imports and exports. So much so that Venezuela could be thought of as a petrostate, where the government is dependent on oil, power is concentrated, and corruption runs rampant. The country is home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves and while that has been financially beneficial in the past, it has also been its downfall because there has been no diversification in the economy. The oil price in Venezuela has plunged from $100 per barrel in 2014 to $30 per barrel in 2016. Even though the prices have started rising again in recent years, Venezuela is still in an economic recession where conditions remain in turmoil. This is because of oil dependence, falling production rates, high levels of debt, and hyperinflation. Many experts believe that economic diversification will be difficult for Venezuela in the future. It would take an enormous investment to first put the oil sector back on track and then develop and cultivate other industries. 

The West’s Opposition 

More than 50 countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate president. Yet the international influence was limited, as the military stayed loyal to Maduro. He remained firmly in charge of the country with the support of China and Russia behind him. In response, the US put sanctions on the Maduro government making it harder for him to sell his country’s oil in 2019 on Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). These sanctions cut off the US as PDVSA’s main destination for oil exports, which restricted Venezuela’s access to foreign currency. Because the economy was in freefall, Maduro loosened the foreign currency regulation brought in by Chavez. This helped a little with the economic crisis but the majority of citizens do not have access to foreign currency, leaving them to continue to struggle.. In August 2019, the US issued sanctions on Maduro’s government blocking and freezing the property and interests in the United States and within the control of US persons. In January 2021, the US imposed oil-related sanctions on Venezuela. The Treasury targeted three individuals, fourteen entities, and six vessels for their ties to organizations attempting to assist PDVSA. This network allegedly helped PDVSA sell oil to Asia despite the US sanctions. The Treasury argues that any profits from the sale of oil help to contribute to the corruption in Venezuela’s government. 

The United States and the international community have also condemned Venezuela’s current government for its human rights abuses. The government has been repressing dissent and opposition as they did during the protests between 2014-2017. There are violent crackdowns on peaceful street protests. Since 2014, more than 12,500 people have been arrested in connection to the anti-government protests. There has been imprisonment of any potential political opponents and the prosecution of civilians in military courts. On top of removing the checks and balances system, the government has also stripped power from the opposition-led legislature. There are shortages and scarcity of medical supplies, food, medicine, and a lack of access to essential healthcare. In 2018, 80% of Venezuelan households experienced food insecurity. The infant mortality rate has increased by 30%, cases of malaria by 76%, and maternal mortality by 65%. For more than a decade, the government has abused its power to regulate the media and has worked to reduce the number of media outlets that criticize them. Self-censorship is a serious problem for fear of the media outlet being suspected, flagged, or its journalists arrested. 

The humanitarian crisis, human rights abuses, and persecution of dissents have caused a refugee crisis. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 7 million people have fled Venezuela however it could be more as many who are not registered by authorities have also left. Many are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse while in other countries because they have limited access to jobs, healthcare, schooling for their children, and other public services. 

Is the Opposition fragmenting?

Despite initial opposition and sanctions by the United States and the international community, recently the opposition has been fragmenting and waning. They have recognized that these restrictions are only making the humanitarian crisis worse. In March 2023, the United States announced that it will be sending 120 million dollars in humanitarian aid to Venezuela. This is to help relieve the limited resources that are causing the current humanitarian crisis. In November 2022, the US announced that they will be easing oil sanctions after Maduro signs an accord to create an UN-administered fund to provide humanitarian aid to his people. This agreement is part of a long-term solution to finding a common path out of Venezuela’s complex economic crisis. This will include the relaxation of limitations on Chevron’s operations in Venezuela and would allow them to re-enter global oil markets. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have recently pledged to review their own sanctions in exchange for the release of political prisoners. The Biden Administration has signaled that they are prepared to ease up on their sanctions in exchange for concrete steps by Maduro and his government to not ban opposition parties from running against him in the 2024 presidential elections. 

What is next for Venezuela? 

So who is the president of Venezuela? Is it Maduro or Guaido? If you ask who the current president is, it is clearly Maduro who has the support of the military. If you ask who the rightful president of Venezuela is, that is a more complex question. What is next for Venezuela? How will they get out of the crisis that they are currently in? How are they going to fix the economic situation in their country so more citizens have to leave in order to survive? 

For one, the Biden Administration has signaled that they are prepared to ease up on their sanctions in exchange for concrete steps by Maduro and his government to not ban opposition parties from running against him in the 2024 presidential elections. In order to survive and fix its economy, many experts believe that Venezuela must diversify its income and end its dependence on the export of oil and natural gas. This has worked in other countries such as Norway and Saudi Arabia where oil accounted for a large part of their GDP. If strong democracy was redeveloped in Venezuela, with an independent press and judiciary, this could help hold the government and oil companies accountable.  They have to strengthen their political institutions so there are checks and balances within the government. Anti-corruption is important in order to keep the government accountable in the eyes of the public to win back their trust. Most of all, they must expand their social service programs as Chavez did early on in his presidency. The humanitarian and refugee crisis is an immediate threat to people’s lives, the short-term goal if you will. The long-term goal is to push Venezuela away from being a state reliant on one source of income. International aid and intervention can only do so much; governmental and institutional reform has to come from the Venezuelan government itself by recognizing the precarious situation of becoming a failed state they are in danger of falling into.

Reproductive Rights and Violence against Women in Latin America: Spotlight on Paraguay

As the pro-choice versus pro-life debate surrounding abortion continues in the United States, the status of reproductive rights in Latin American remains highly restricted. The politically conservative and predominately Catholic continent generally restricts access to contraceptive and family planning services, and denies abortions except when the mother’s life is in immediate danger.

The cultural and legal taboo of abortion is exemplified by the tragic case of an eleven-year-old Paraguayan girl who gave birth in 2013. According to Amnesty International, the girl was taken to the hospital by her mother in April, when she was then only ten-years-old, and was found to be 21 weeks pregnant. The father of the child is alleged to be the girl’s own stepfather, who raped her on several occasions. An international outcry among human rights groups and pleas from the girl’s mother to terminate the pregnancy proved unsuccessful. In Paraguay, abortion is restricted only in cases of serious danger to the mother’s life. The girl carried the pregnancy to full term, and was placed in a center for young mothers. The girl’s mother has been arrested and charged with negligence, despite reporting the sexual abuse of her daughter in 2013. Her stepfather has been arrested, though he denies the allegations, and it is unclear whether he will face time in prison.

This case hinges on the fact that, despite the girl’s young age, doctors ruled that she did not face immediate physical danger from carrying the pregnancy to full term, the only permissible reason for abortion under Paraguayan law. However the risk of maternal death in Latin America is four times higher among girls under sixteen years of age than among women in their twenties. This is due to complications of underdeveloped reproductive organs and physical immaturity among younger girls. Paraguay’s record for maternal and reproductive health is troubling, especially in comparison to regional, albeit more developed, neighbors.

The maternal mortality rate is extremely high, with 132 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared to 22 in nearby Chile and 14 in the United States. Infant mortality is in the double digits, at 18 per 1,000 live births, compared to a rate of seven in Chile and six in the United States. Instances of infant and maternal mortality are even more likely among younger mothers. It is crucial that women have access to quality health care to reduce these rates--especially family planning services and prenatal care.

Contraceptive prevalence in Paraguay was 79 percent among married women ages 15 to 49 in 2008. While 79 percent represents relatively good access, there are many problems with this indicator. First, it only includes married women. Most statistics regarding contraceptive prevalence only measure married populations, making it difficult to estimate prevalence among single, or cohabiting populations. This is a group that has an arguably higher demand for contraceptives because they are not in a traditional union that signals a readiness to settle down and have children. This group may also face greater stigma and challenges in obtaining and using contraceptives. This indicator also does not include access or availability of emergency contraception, such as the “Plan B” pill, which is often outlawed in Latin America. Finally, this indicator does not capture girls younger than fifteen who are likely survivors of rape and sexual assault, such as the eleven-year-old girl mentioned previously. In order to address the contraception needs of a modern and diverse population, better indicators must be developed to uncover and close the gaps. Survivors of sexual assault and rape should be offered every possible option -- including emergency contraception and abortion, or pre-natal care if she chooses to continue the pregnancy.

The measures of physical health determined by Paraguayan doctors in evaluation of eligibility for an abortion do not take into consideration the mental health of these mothers, who may be victims of rape and sexual assault. According to Amnesty International spokesperson Guadalupe Marengo, in the case of the Paraguayan girl, “the physical and mental repercussions of continuing with…high-risk pregnancy could be devastating and are akin to torture.” The World Health Organization finds that violence, including sexual violence, by an intimate partner is related to higher instances of injury and death, depression, alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancy, and low birth-weight babies. Among women in Paraguay who had experienced partner violence in the past twelve months, 68 percent reported severe anxiety or depression and 14 percent had considered or attempted suicide.

Systematic denial of quality health care services and reproductive rights in Paraguay is related to the larger crisis of violence against women. Violence against women is a form of gender-based violence and “refers to any act that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual and psychological harm to women and girls, whether occurring in private or in public.” It is a not unique to Paraguay, and plagues societies all around the globe. Sexual violence can cause unwanted and unintended pregnancy leading to devastating results if women cannot access health care that prioritizes their psychological and physical health, as well as their quality of life.

It is estimated that one in three women ages 15 or older in Latin America has experienced physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. Most of these transgressions are not committed by strangers in dark alleyways, but rather by men who have close relationships to the survivor. In Paraguay, prevalence of intimate partner violence is highest among girls aged 15 to 19, and this trend is fairly consistent across Latin America. The 20 to 24 age bracket also experiences high levels of intimate partner violence. As can be seen, violence against women starts disturbingly young. Among women ages 15 to 24 who have had sexual intercourse, 2.2 percent reported that their first experience was forced or rape, and 14 percent reported that their partner “convinced them.” Power inequality dominates young women’s intimate experiences, and it persists throughout their lives.

According to a report by WHO/PAHO, almost 8 percent of women in Paraguay reported unwanted sexual intercourse with a partner out of fear of what he might do if they refused. Even more troubling, only 12 percent of women sought help in dealing with sexual assault from police, a hospital, a religious group, or a women’s organization. The most common reasons women did not seek advice or assistance were that they “thought she could solve it alone,” “shame,” and “fear of retaliation.” These last two responses are indicative of the social stigma placed on survivors of assault. Women who seek help or report the crime often face humiliating questioning by officials who do little to investigate. Perpetrators then benefit from high levels of impunity. Cases of sexual assault are frequently characterized by victim blaming and “he-said-she-said” adage. Although Paraguay’s parliament passed a law against domestic violence in 2000, it does not outline avenues for justice by including criminal repercussions. Without proper institutional support and policies that act in the survivor’s best interest, it is unlikely that assault reporting will increase and impunity will be reduced.

As stated previously, limited reproductive rights and violence against women is not unique to Paraguay. The situation is similar across the Americas. Latin America has the highest rate of maternal death (an estimated 2,000 women annually) from attempting to obtain an unsafe abortion. Only three regional bodies-- Cuba, Uruguay, and Mexico City-- permit abortions within the first term of pregnancy for any reason. On the other hand, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and Chile prohibit abortion under all circumstances, including risk to the mother’s life, rape, and unviable fetus. El Salvador has come under scrutiny for imprisoning women who have miscarried naturally, under allegations that they induced an abortion. In Honduras, it is even illegal to provide women with information about emergency contraception (which does not terminate an already fertilized egg) and abortion. Millions of women experience physical and sexual abuse each year across the region, with high rates of impunity and few options to bring their abuser to justice.

The case of the eleven-year-old Paraguayan girl who was denied an abortion is just one example of the perils of allowing violence against women to persist while systematically stripping them of their right to chose how, when, and if they have children. Regardless of an individual’s view on the morality of abortion (which is outside the scope of this article), it is morally unquestionable that women should be provided with quality healthcare that prioritizes their health and wellbeing, as well as resources for support and justice in the case of rape or assault. Paraguay, along with the rest of the region, should work to improve the lives and health of its women by introducing effective legislation that condemns gender-based violence, and providing resources for women to control decisions about their bodies and health.