Haiti, Guantánamo, and the"One Indispensable Nation" U.S. Imperialism, "Apparent States," and Postcolonial Problematics of Sovereignty Jana Evans Braziel In the 2003 presidential address to the American Studies Association, entitled "Violent Belongings and the Question of Empire Today," Amy Kaplan describes Guantánamo as an "imperial location, close to home, in the ambiguous border between the domestic and the foreign" (12). Kaplan argues that Guantánamo is a liminal, militarized zone, where "contemporary empire building in the Middle East meets the history of imperialism in the Americas" (12). Even its "location," Kaplan reasons, is difficult to define: "Where is Guantánamo? In America, yes; in the United States, yes and no; in Cuba, well, sort of" (12). For Kaplan, Guantánamo's liminality makes it the site par excellence for imperialist abuses.1 In effect, Kaplan codes Guantánamo as exceptional: in fact, though, Guantánamo is far from exceptional. The U.S. naval base remains rooted, historically, militarily, and juridically, I contend, within the domain of U.S. policy, connected to legal and extralegal forms of violence (and militarized prison systems) as both deployed within the domestic borders of the U.S. (against citizens and immigrants) and imposed on foreign occupied terrains like the Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, Chile, to name only the most obvious sites within this hemisphere, and elsewhere (against foreign nationals—whether citizens, refugees, or "enemy combatants") from the late nineteenth century to the end of the twentieth century. Elaborating this argument in a recent article actually entitled "Where Is Guantánamo?" Kaplan confidently asserts that Guantánamo "represents the start of the 'road to Abu Ghraib,' one island in a global penal archipelago, where the United States indefinitely detains, [End Page 127] secretly transports, and tortures uncounted prisoners from all over the world" (831).2 While Kaplan traces the immediate genealogical and historical development of this "global penal archipelago" to the post-9/11 legislation of the USA PATRIOT Act that allows for executive circumvention of the Geneva Conventions,3 we must remain mindful of the ways this transnational militaristic development is decades older, perhaps even a century older, manifesting the twenty-first-century culmination of a nineteenth-century trajectory toward what Neil Smith has called the U.S. aspirations for a "global Monroe Doctrine" that first crystallized in the Spanish-American War in 1898, although its roots were already present in 1823.4 Extraterritorial detention sites (like Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Baghram, and other scattered global sites) merely extend, I would add, the deeply rooted conditions and continuities of the U.S. penal system: nothing novel here or there. To argue this point, I suggest an intellectual and political détour,5 first through Môle-St. Nicolas and then through Guantánamo, or through Haiti and Cuba, by transport of the U.S. Navy.6 By doing so, I hope to contest the "exemplary" nature (as site par excellence) of Guantánamo by foregrounding the international relations between the United States and Haiti as triangulated through Cuba during two interlocking historical moments: first, in the late nineteenth century as the U.S. military sought a naval base in the Caribbean Sea, initially in Môle-St. Nicolas and then in Guantánamo; and second, in the late twentieth century as Haitian "boat people" were intercepted at sea, detained at Guantánamo, and finally deported back to Haiti. These historical precursors mitigate interpretations of Guantánamo (or Abu Ghraib, for that matter) as exceptional or exemplary. In this paper, I assay writing an anti-imperial counternarrative of the Americas by focusing on the geopolitical, historical, and transatlantic points of exchange (often violent and imperial) between Haiti, the "poorest country in the Western hemisphere,"7 and the United States, a military empire that acts (and has always acted) unilaterally and whose nation-state structures are transnationally dispersed.8 It does so by navigating through but one of the...
Read full abstract