The Dominican Republic (DR)
and Haiti share the island of Hispaniola, with Haiti occupying
approximately the western third of the island. Both countries were
colonized by European powers after the arrival of Christopher Columbus in
1492 - the then colony of Santo Domingo (Spanish side) by both Spain and
France and Haiti by France. Both were subjected to invasion and occupation
by the United States at various times in their history - Haiti from 1915
to 1934 and the DR from 1916-1924 and again in 1965-66. Haiti, following
its successful fight for independence from France, also conquered and
occupied its neighbor for twenty-two years between 1822 and 1844.
The current political and economic conditions, between the DR and Haiti,
represent very stark differences. With a per capita income in 2003 of
about US $400, Haiti has been often described as " the poorest nation in
the Western Hemisphere." Seventy five percent of the population live below
the poverty level and unemployment is above fifty percent, factory workers
earn less than $3 per day in a country where one percent of the population
control forty percent of the nation's wealth. Since the end of the
Duvalier dictatorship in 1986, the country has been in a state of
political crisis and uncertainty. A nine thousand-member United Nations
peacekeeping force now tries to contain the anarchy and violence that
continue to wrack the country after the elected President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide was forced into exile in 1994.
The Dominican Republic is classified by the World Bank as a, "middle
income" developing country with a per capita income in 2003 of US$6,000.
The country has a seventeen percent unemployment rate and twenty percent
of the population living below the poverty line. The DR too had its share
of dictatorial regimes -from 1930 to 1961 and a military government from
1963 to 1965 that was ended with the intervention of the United States.
Since that time the country has had a series of elected governments and
presidents, most with very close ties to the United States.
The economic success of the DR, as compared to Haiti, was due in large
part to investment from the United States, particularly in the sugar
industry beginning in the late nineteenth century. (The tobacco industry
and livestock rearing also account for its wealth). While sugar production
was a lucrative industry, it required extensive manual labor for
cultivation and harvesting the sugar cane. With fewer and fewer Dominicans
willing to work in the fields, out of economic necessity the
government-regulated industry looked to towards its impoverished neighbor
Haiti as a source of cheap labor. The 1920 census indicated about 28,000
Haitians living in the DR and by 1935 this was estimated to be about
50,000 (Library of Congress Country Studies). Amnesty International
estimates that there are between 500,000 and one million Haitians and
Dominicans of Haitian descent living in the DR (Amnesty International
Online Documentation Archive.)
The presence of Haitians in the DR has always been a source of political
fodder, with rampant injustices including practices of discrimination,
exploitation and denial of basic human and civil rights by the employers,
the government and its security forces. Regular arbitrary, violent and
inhuman "round-ups" and deportation of Haitians are carried out by the
security forces and the Dominican public, in general, has no sympathy for
the victims. Haitians provide the vast majority of the labor in the
agricultural sector and increasingly in the construction and service
sectors and in the "informal economy." It is estimated that Haitians earn
sixty per cent less than their Dominican counterparts for similar jobs
(Library of Congress Country Studies.) This discrimination against the
Haitians is believed to be largely based on race and skin color as other
migrant groups in the DR do not suffer the same treatment or face the same
obstacles to participation in society.
One of the most egregious forms of discrimination against Haitians is the
refusal of the government to issue birth certificates to children of
Haitian parentage born in the DR. This is a violation of the law and
constitution of the DR that grants citizenship to all persons born in the
country, regardless of immigration status. Without birth certificates,
these persons are essentially stateless, cannot obtain identity or travel
documents, cannot attend public schools or access public services and
cannot participate in the electoral processes or other civic endeavors.
The denial of birth certificates is one sure way of maintaining a
perpetual underclass and a pool of cheap labor while condemning
generations to persistent poverty.
After many unsuccessful attempts by the Dominico-Haitian community and
many local and international NGOs and religious organizations to force the
government to adhere to its own constitution and grant birth certificates
to children born in the DR of Haitian parents, the matter was brought to
the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), to which the DR is a
signatory. The case was filed seven years ago, on behalf of two girls of
Haitian descent by the Movement of Dominican Women of Haitian Descent (MUDHA),
the International Human Rights Clinic at the University of California
(Berkeley) School of Law and the Center for Justice and International Law
(CEJIL.)
In its ruling of October 2006, the Court concluded that the "DR had
violated the rights of children of Haitian ancestry and rendered them
stateless by refusing to issue their birth certificates because of their
race" (CEJIL.) In addition, the Court ordered the DR to reform its birth
registration system and to issue birth certificates to children born in
the country regardless of the immigration status or race of their parents;
open schools to all children, including children of Haitian ancestry,
publicly acknowledge responsibility for the violations and apologize to
the victims. As one of the twenty-two nations that have ratified the
American Convention on Human Rights, the ruling of the Court is obligatory
and the government must comply. Speaking on the day of the ruling, Sonia
Pierre, the General Coordinator of MUDHA stated, "Today's ruling is a
victory for children's rights and sends a clear message that the Dominican
state must put an end to discrimination."
But the victory in court has for MUDHA and its leaders meant suffering
severe backlash in the DR. MUDHA was founded more than twenty years ago to
provide "support for the woman migrant" who had even fewer rights that
their male counterparts. With the assistance of MUDHA, Haitian migrant
women now have the right to enter in contractual agreements, independent
of men. In addition to advocacy and education in the human rights arena,
MUDHA is also engaged in providing schools and health services to the
migrant communities lacking these services. As a result of this advocacy
and the case brought before the IACHR, the profile and visibility of MUDHA
and its General Coordinator, Sonia Pierre have been raised, resulting in
negative media reports and worse.
Ms. Pierre has received death threats against herself and her family and
they now live in fear of their lives. Unknown person(s) removed her
portrait, one of a photographic exhibit of "100 Excellent Dominican Women"
on display at Independence Park in Santo Domingo. There have been
expressions by some government officials and newspaper editorials
denouncing Ms. Pierre and MUDHA for being part of an "international
conspiracy" to tarnish the reputation of the government of the DR.
Perhaps most alarming was an effort by the Central Electoral Board (JCE),
an arm of the government of the DR to annul the birth certificate of Ms.
Pierre, granted in 1963, based on questions of the legal status of her
parents and the validity of their documents at the time of her birth.
Ms. Pierre was the recipient of the 2006 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights
Award for her work to advance the human rights and bring justice to
Dominicans of Haitian descent living in the DR. " We believe Sonia Pierre
has been targeted for investigation because of her work on behalf of human
rights in the Dominico-Haitian community," stated Monika Kalra Varma,
Director of the Robert F Kennedy Center for Human Rights. "The final
authority for these decisions rests not with the JCE, but with the
courts", said Varma. "She is a Dominican and is entitled to an impartial
and transparent judicial process."
The immediacy of this situation is somewhat decreased as the government
tries to decide whether the JCE has the authority to annul Ms. Pierre's
birth certificate, and those of her children. This, however, does not
settle the question and such a threat is very unsettling, at the very
least.
Winston G. Carroo
AMI Director of Programs
REFERENCES
*Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Human Rights Award
www.rfkmemorial.org
*Inter American Court Decision
www.justiceinitiative.org/db/resource2?res_id=103001
*Inter-American Justice Comes to the Dominican Republic: An Island Shakes
as Human
Rights and Sovereignty Clash
https://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/13/2baluarte.pdf?rd=1
*Haitian Struggle in Dominican Republic
www.margueritelaurent.com/campaigns/campaigntwo/DRreport.html
*History www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Dominican_Republic
*Church World Service Director's Visit
http://www.churchworldservice.org/news/archives/2006/06/495.html
*Justice for Haitian Refugees Conference
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/03news13.html
