Can't read it? Listen now!
In his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on September 26, 2024, Edgard Leblanc Fils, head of Haiti’s Transitional Presidential Council, reasserted a bold demand that Haiti has championed before: the call for reparations. Leblanc’s appeal resonates with a long-standing grievance, famously reignited by former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide during his tenure, that Haiti should be compensated for the crippling indemnity it was forced to pay to France after gaining independence in 1804.
Leblanc’s argument strikes at the heart of one of the greatest historical injustices in the modern world. Haiti, the first independent Black republic, was coerced into paying 150 million francs (estimated at over $20 billion in today’s currency) to France as compensation for the loss of its former colony. This payment—an extraordinary burden for a nation struggling to rebuild itself after decades of brutal enslavement—essentially crippled Haiti’s economy from the start, leaving it trapped in a cycle of debt and underdevelopment that persists to this day. France, in exchange, formally recognized Haiti’s independence.
What Leblanc articulated at the UN is more than just a historical grievance. It is an argument for reparative justice, a principle that holds when harm has been inflicted, the aggrieved party deserves acknowledgment, apology, and restitution. This is not a radical concept; it’s the cornerstone of legal and moral justice systems around the world. For instance, Germany paid reparations to Holocaust survivors, and the U.S. government issued apologies and payments to Japanese Americans interned during World War II. So why not Haiti?
In 2003, Aristide formally demanded that France repay nearly $22 billion—an amount calculated to reflect the original indemnity with interest. France rejected the claim, and Aristide’s demand became a rallying cry before his ousting in 2004, which many speculate was linked to powerful international opposition to his stance. Now, two decades later, Leblanc’s revival of this demand at the United Nations is timely and significant.
At its core, Haiti’s call for reparations is not merely about receiving a financial payout. As Leblanc pointed out, it’s about recognition and moral accountability. It’s an acknowledgment that Haiti’s current challenges—ranging from political instability to economic hardship—are not entirely the product of domestic failings. They are the result of deliberate choices imposed by powerful nations, both during colonialism and in the centuries that followed.
Beyond the indemnity, Haiti also grapples with the legacy of foreign interference in its politics. From U.S. military occupations to international embargoes following its independence, Haiti’s struggle for self-determination has repeatedly been undermined. Leblanc’s speech emphasized the importance of Haitian sovereignty in any future rebuilding efforts—a critical point when reflecting on the long history of external interventions in the country.
Leblanc’s call for reparations also speaks to a larger global conversation about the legacy of colonialism and slavery. Haiti’s demand is not isolated but part of a broader movement, seen most recently in the efforts of CARICOM’s Commission on Reparation and the African Union, which both advocate for historical justice for countries affected by colonial exploitation and the transatlantic slave trade. By placing Haiti’s plight in this broader context, Leblanc’s speech challenges the world to reckon with the unfinished business of colonialism.
Some critics may argue that reparations are impractical or symbolic, offering no tangible solutions to Haiti’s immediate crises, such as rampant gang violence, political paralysis, and economic collapse. However, Leblanc’s vision for reparations is not just about money; it’s about fostering international dialogue, changing narratives, and, crucially, giving Haiti the tools it needs to rebuild its institutions. Reparations, in this sense, are a means to restore dignity and provide a foundation for a self-determined future.
The international community has a moral obligation to take these demands seriously. Haiti’s current crises, while pressing, cannot be resolved without acknowledging the deeper historical roots that have contributed to its instability. While financial compensation could certainly provide a measure of relief, the symbolic power of an apology, alongside structural support for Haiti’s development, would be a transformative step.
As Leblanc aptly stated: “Haiti does not seek charity, but justice and partnership in building a shared future.” This is a call for a new era of international cooperation, one built not on handouts but on recognition, respect, and historical accountability. Haiti deserves this—just as it deserved it when Aristide first made the demand two decades ago.
Now, the question remains: Will the world finally listen?
