Martelly Needs to Broaden his Circle of Advisers

Though Garry Conille had always been viewed with suspicions because of his cozy relationship with the international community, his resignation as prime minister pushes back the timeline for an end to the occupation of Haiti. Coming on the heels of the so-called fact-finding mission by the members of the Security Council during which the country’s politicians were admonished to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the Haitian people, the blame game will likely be intense and unforgiving. But one man, more than any of the other actors, bears the ultimate responsibility for this unfolding drama and that is the Haitian president, Michel Martelly.
Ten months into Michel J. Martelly’s accidental presidency, Haiti is again experiencing a political crisis that has its genesis in the stubbornness of its president and the political philosophy he espouses. Lauded as a resolute leader by Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti and former US president, Martelly sees himself as “the man of the hour”, anointed by a higher power to guide the trouble country into the Promised Land, irrespective of his inexperience and lack of support among the population. Though he succeeded in moving the stalled reconstruction project forward, he did so through intimidations and a noticeable disdain for political compromises and constitutional niceties despite his pledge to establish the “rule of law” in Haiti.
Since almost everyone was fed up with the political deadlock that practically froze the project of reconstruction, Martelly’s unorthodox approach to governing was initially overlooked and even applauded. His political adversaries however were biding their time seeing that politics is a game of opportunities. Fittingly, Martelly’s political adversaries went back to the drawing board and dusted up an old issue that may well derail his presidency: his suspected foreign nationality, which the Haitian Constitution forbids, under any circumstances, for the country’s elected officials.
Like the birther movement in the US, which alleges that Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen and is therefore ineligible to be president, the issue of Martelly’s possible double nationality will not go away. Michel Martelly needs to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had never acquired another nationality, and the sooner he addresses the issue, the better. Moreover, Martelly’s confrontational attitude in the matter is providing ammunitions to his critics in a country whose core attitude toward unsubstantiated rumors has always been “Il n’y a pas de fumée sans feu.” Where’s there is smoke, there is fire would be a correct translation to this Haitian idiosyncrasy.
With the resignation of the prime minister, this issue is no longer a political football but a serious matter that could impede the project of reconstruction of the country’s political, physical and administrative structures. Most importantly, the many entities (foreign and domestic) that facilitated the occupation of Haiti will seize upon this political infighting as irrefutable proof of immaturity on the part of the country’s leadership. Were this event happened in any other country; it will be viewed by the international community as an unmistakable sign of a vibrant democracy but Haiti being a special case with special needs makes it an alarming development that must be contained.
For Haiti’s sake, Martelly can do the right thing by addressing the issue expeditiously or let it develop into a full blown crisis, which will inevitably bring the unwanted meddling of the international community. With his narrow base of political support, the Haitian president can ill afford to further alienate the international community which, in all likelihoods, does not condone his treatment of Garry Conille whom it wholeheartedly supports. A consummate bureaucrat, Conille felt that the lawmakers’ demand for proof of citizenship for the members of his cabinet and that of the president was within of their constitutional prerogatives and that compliance was the way to go. But the president and his inner circle apparently disagreed.
There is a school of thought that supports the Haitian president’s calculated decision to orchestrate the resignation of a prime minister he did not control, nor had any confidence in, but did he consider the alternative? Elected with the support of less than 18% of the electorate, Michel Martelly does not have a political base that can act as trooper for his vision, whatever it may be. Parliament, which must ratify the next prime minister, is controlled by the opposition. In the ten months he has been in office, Michel Martelly managed to alienate every sector of the population, save his core supporters.
Replacing Conille with a member of his inner circle, which remains the cherished dream of Michel Martelly, would be the greatest political triumph ever in the history of Haiti. But unless the Haitian president has something up his sleeves, the possibility of this happening at this juncture is non-existent. Seeing that the resignation of Garry Conille does not advance the cause of stability nor strengthen Martelly’s position in his perennial struggle with the opposition-controlled Parliament, it is hard to fathom the rationale behind his move. But considering that Martelly’s closest advisers were authenticated members of the movement that facilitated the invasion and occupation of Haiti in the year of its bi-centennial (2004), the uncertainty that comes with this crisis may be a means to an end for the group. Having beaten the odds of improbability by becoming president of Haiti, Martelly must not be underestimated. But does he measure up to his group of advisers?

Reforming the UN must become a Priority

On January 31, 1933, a twisted political ideology, which firmly believed in the cultural and genetic supremacy of the Aryan race (Nordic peoples whom the Nazi considered the purest of the white race) gained power in Germany and set in motion a mass hysteria that resulted in the most horrific conflict the world has experienced to date (1939-45). The magnitude of the carnage led many to conclude that unless humans repudiate these fallacies, they could be on a collision course with their demise. This reasoning naturally led to the creation of the United Nations, an organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of peace in the world.
As the last 67 years have shown, this utopian dream or rather calculated deception has become a nightmare for much of the world. Every concept emanated from the organization has a double meaning. Ironically, the nations, which today use subterfuges and other means to further their interests or engage in alleged illicit activities, may have learned these behaviors from the master, namely the United Nations Security Council. Throughout the existence of the Council (1945-present), its permanent members have used deceit, lies and intimidations to further their hegemonic designs while promoting their role as keepers of peace and security in the world.
In retrospect the concept of a community of nations working together for the well-being of humanity, as the preambles of the United Nations Charter manifestly suggest, may be the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on humans. It legitimizes the long-established tradition of domination, which characterizes inter-human relationships since the dawn of civilization, by bestowing on a few powerful nations sole authority to define what is right and, of course, correct perceived wrongs by force. As you would expect, it also creates an unstable world where the line that separates righteousness from wickedness is constantly shifting, and the contrast between the two is a matter of perspectives.
Though it was obvious, from its inception, that the United Nations could not be counted on to solve or mitigate the myriad of problems facing humanity because of the fundamental differences between its then two most powerful members, the US and USSR, its stated purposed represented the only hope for a better future, nevertheless. But over the years, the organization’s actual purpose could no longer be concealed and its ugly mask was unveiled. From its purported role of global peacemaker, the organization evolved into a totalitarian and militaristic entity that has been undermining peace and security in the world. Superagencies such as the IMF and World Bank, whose tentacles reach every nation on the planet, act as promoters of the organization’s nefarious designs. Recalcitrant nations that questioned these agencies’ methods or refused to comply with their directives are ostracized and made to suffer for their impertinence.
With the changes that are taking place outside the traditional centers of power likely to alter the current geopolitical reality, a restructuring of the organization has become a necessity that must be addressed in earnest. Besides the need to reform the all-powerful and autocratic Security Council, amending the UN Charter might be needed to face the challenges and realities of the 21st century. Under its actual structure, which reflects the political reality that existed in 1945, the UN is ill-prepared to tackle the challenges that are propping up in every corner of the planet. The ramifications of not reforming the UN are too scary to contemplate seeing that the decaying organization is likely to remain the heartbeat of the world for the foreseeable future.
To make matters worse, the all-powerful Security Council, the UN governing body, has become more dysfunctional with the apparent political and economic decline of the West and the rise of other centers of power. As a result, militarism and disdain for established conventions have become the primary tools in international relations. In the aftermath of the twin vetoes by China and Russia of a resolution condemning the ongoing violence in Syria, which Damascus sees as foreign-instigated, there is a widespread sentiment among member-nations and ordinary folks that the system is irretrievably broken, hence must be reformed.
The strongly-held belief by Britain, France and the US that western values are universal is undoubtedly the crux of the matter. The recent assertion by the French interior minister that “Some civilizations, notably France’s, are worth more than others” epitomizes the narcissistic view of the western powers which holds that the Western civilization is superior to all the others, past and present, and must therefore dominate. Given that all civilizations are extensions or progressive versions of earlier ones, Mr. Claude Guéant’s comment is senseless; it discredits the French’s reputation as a nation that expects first-rate intellect from its leaders. Not surprisingly, such flawed doctrine is anathema to many countries, notably Iran (formerly Persia) and China, whose civilizations existed millennia before the West’s own.
The western powers need to reassess their self-belief in the supremacy of their values and perceived shortcomings of other countries, seeing that misconceptions, more often than not, are the perfect recipe for miscalculations. The notion that all nations must conform to the values of western civilization, as decreed by its keepers, is anachronistic and a threat to the concept of “community of nations” enumerated in the preambles of the UN Charter. In the thermonuclear age, such nonsense could well bring the demise of humanity, insofar as this planet is the only place suitable for humans.

The UN is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention in Haiti

Under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, “All individuals who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power” shall in all circumstances be treated humanely by the occupying army. As such, they must not be subjected to “outrages upon their personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Unfortunately for millions of Haitians, who find themselves living under an army of occupation (MINUSTAH) through an abuse of authority of the UN Security Council in the form of a resolution (1529) labeling Haiti “a threat to international peace and security”, the forbidden crimes under the Fourth Geneva Convention (rapes, tortures, beatings and untimely deaths) have been a fact of life since February 29th, 2004. To make matters worse, they are being subjected to these humiliating and degrading treatments by the very organization entrusted to upholding the tenets of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Human relations and social development being naturally asymmetrical effectively negate the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples prominently enumerated in the preambles of the United Nations Charter. It is all the more absurd that a small country, like Haiti, would want to be a member of the United Nations, an organization whose fundamental principles are rather utopian, if not deceptive. As the history of human social development and interactions is littered with trials and errors, I want to believe that the United Nations is one of those instances rather than a concerted effort by a few powerful nations to deceive and subjugate the rest of its member-states. Is the United Nations, as presently organized, indispensable for the survival of humanity or an impediment to human development, given the interdependency of our world and its less than stellar record at promoting peace?
The atrocities committed by the Nazis throughout Europe (1939-45), the Italians in Abyssinia (1938) and the Japanese in Asia (1936-45) undoubtedly made the case for the creation of the UN in 1945 as an alternative to the ineffectual League of Nations (1919-46) which failed to suppress the genocidal designs of Germany, Italy and Japan. Aptly, the United Nations’ founding is an emotional reaction to a repulsive episode in human history rather than a genuine attempt at promoting peace among its members. From its inception, it has been the domain of a few powerful countries intent on imposing their cultural, political and economic values on the rest of the world, therefore a nightmare for humanity as its purposes and goals conflicted with the history of human interactions and social development.
Because of the Nuremberg (1945-46) and the Tokyo (1946-48) War Crimes Trials in which high ranking Germans and Japanese political and military officers were convicted under non-existing statutes for crimes against humanity, the victorious allies then decided to make such crimes punishable under international laws. Hence, the rationale behind the Geneva Conventions that outlaw the inhumane treatment of civilians under military occupation (a time-honored hobby of invaders) and condone today’s generic use of “crimes against humanity” as an instrument for political oppression by the Security Council, the UN body in charge of enforcing the statutes. Even an invading soldier, who came to terrorize a peaceful population, is protected under these Conventions, which range from the necessary to the unenforceable to the downright absurd. The fact that no Italians were ever prosecuted for the genocidal assault upon the people of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) was evidence of the duplicitous nature of the UN and its lofty purposes.
In 1993, the plenipotentiary powers of the UN Security Council were evident when it adopted a report from then-Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and a Commission of Experts which recommended that the Geneva Conventions be part of the body of Customary International Humanitarian Laws, therefore binding on non-signatories to these Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts. (Customary International Humanitarian Laws are sets of rules that are generally accepted as laws, irrespective of precedents or biding treaties.) Fittingly, a civilian, who killed a soldier of an occupation army in self-defense, could be criminally charged under the Geneva Convention, which legally protects his tormentor from retaliatory actions by civilians under military occupation.
Seeing that laws are enacted and treaties signed in response to unfortunate incidents, MINUSTAH’s reign of terror in Haiti ought to serve as rationale for the revision of any accord that grants blanket immunity to UN peacekeepers. Signing treaties under duress is incompatible with the principles of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. Nonetheless, any elected official, who acquiesces to this abomination, is legally and morally responsible for the deaths, beatings, sexual assaults and daily humiliations of Haitians at the hands of the MINUSTAH soldiers. As a remedy, the victims and their families should seek compensations by suing Gérard Latortue, René Préval and Michel Martelly for their annual endorsement of this absurdity.
It is simply unacceptable that Haitians, who find themselves under an unprovoked military occupation, would continue to be humiliated and degraded with the implicit support of the political class. Educated in the schools of legalism, internationalism and other isms that do not pertain to nationalism, Haiti’s political class refuses to see the reality as it is. Their blind embrace of the international conventions, which oppress and rob the Haitian people of their dignity, must not be tolerated.

The DR Continues Decades-old Race-Based Policy Harassing Haitians

Given that Haitian leaders are prone to sign international treaties without reading their contents, it is quite possible that Haiti’s past and present leadership never read the Charter of the United Nations. Or, given their indifference to the welfare of the country and its people, these leaders simply failed to consider the plight of Haitian expatriates living in the Dominican Republic. Though the differences between the two nations that share the island of Hispaniola predated the founding of the UN (1945), the organization could nonetheless be used to arbitrate some disputes that clearly violate the international laws, which it has been entrusted to uphold.
For the last 5 decades, the Dominican Republic (DR) has been at the forefront of the destabilization of Haiti by harboring terrorists and other dubious characters that intended to cause mayhem or destroy the constitutional order existing in its western neighbor. Periodically, the DR government rounds up thousands of Haitians, even those whose families have resided in that country for generations (Arrayanos), and illegally dumps them on the other side of its border. The most insulting aspect of this inhumane policy is that these Arrayanos are considered stateless citizens in the country of their birth (DR) while not having any connection to Haiti, their parents’ country of origins. Yet, the color of their skin is enough for successive DR governments to categorize them as Haitians who ought to be living on the other side of the DR border and that is Haiti.
On January 26, 2010, the DR amended its constitution to specifically deal with the issue of the Arrayanos whose existence within the country’s border is a threat to the nation’s twisted aspiration to live in a Haitian-free DR. The legislation redefines Dominican nationality and denies citizenship to children born on Dominican soil to immigrant parents residing illegally (read Haitians) in the country. Though a comprehensive study by the CUNY Dominican Studies Institute established that 90% of the DR population has West African ancestry, these aspiring Caucasians steadfastly believe the presence of the Arrayanos will Africanize their country and deny them their rightful or, at the very least, an honorary place within the Caucasian world. The DR current president, Leonel Fernandez, unmistakably a Dominican of African ancestry, is one of them.
Pandering to the Neo-Duartianos, a self-hatred group that refuses to acknowledge the DR racial identity and consistently blames the Arrayanos and Haitian migrants for the Africanization of their country, Leonel Fernandez, through his anti-Haitianismo policies, proves no better than his lighter skinned predecessors. Self-hatred does not justify violating international laws ratified by the DR. The Arrayanos, by their numbers, (they comprise 5-15% of the DR population) ought to be recognized as a persecuted minority needing UN protection under international laws. To that end, the Haitian government should file a complaint before the relevant UN authorities calling on the DR to cease and desist from persecuting ethnic Haitians living in that country. Or, given that Haiti is an occupied country (2004-?) and its government currently hampered in its ability to speak or act on behalf of persecuted ethnic Haitians abroad, the UN should take the initiative of pressuring the DR to abide by the international conventions pertaining to the right and protection of minorities.
The 1929 Borno-Vasquez accord delimiting the present border between Haiti and the DR, which already claimed thousands of innocent Haitian lives, needs to be revisited in order to avert a catastrophe of biblical proportion in the region. Long term strategic considerations and “a responsibility to protect” a persecuted minority demand a UN arbitration of the thorny dispute. The UN involvement will no doubt preserve peace and stability in the Caribbean region, given that the Arrayanos, as a persecuted minority, have an inalienable right to protect and defend their existence by any means they see fit. The Haitian Diaspora, albeit dysfunctional, will see to it that they receive moral, political and material support to that end.
Twenty-two months ago, I wrote an article on the subject (Haiti and DR relations in perspectives) and, true to form, received a scathing rebuke from a Mr. Nessimo Valdez, a Neo-Duartiano, who accused me of anti-Dominicanism, when my evidence was and is still rooted in verifiable historical facts. Unable to refute the irrefutable, Mr. Valdez launched into a tirade that included comparing Jean-Jacques Dessalines (1758-1806), the founding father of Haiti, with Adolf Hitler (1889-1945); questioning the existence of Haiti as a nation and pledging to, one day, hold people like me accountable for promoting anti-Dominican hatred. This mass hysteria (antihaitianismo) in the DR, the result of misplaced or conscious racial misidentification, must not be ignored. It could induce another genocide, like the one unleashed by Rafael L. Trujillo in 1937, seeing that the Neo-Duartianos are emphatic about living in the DR-free Haitian.
Once a nation allows itself to be victimized, the most it would get from the perpetrator is empty promises or an apology. Although Haiti has been victimized throughout its existence, she never received an apology from its tormentors, which explains the Neo-Duartianos’ astonishing claim that the 1937 genocide never happened. The international community, through its actions (destabilization and occupation of Haiti) and inactions (silence over the disenfranchising of the Arrayanos) is acting as the enabler of the Neo-Duartianos’ abnormal aspirations. The Holocaust started with the Germans’ falsely blaming the Jews for their torments. Right in the middle of the Caribbean Sea, history is being repeated.

Does Haiti Really Need the UN

As the malevolence of the UN occupation force in Haiti continues to grow, the so-called mission to stabilize the country known by its French acronym (MINUSTAH) finds itself at a crossroads. The raping, beating and sodomizing of Haitian citizens, besides the introduction of a cholera epidemic by the Nepalese, are having political ramifications. These incidents partly explain the about face of Brazil, the participating nation with the largest share of mercenary soldiers in the endeavor. In Haiti, once committed supporters of the UN occupation have metamorphosed into proponents of a gradual withdrawal of MINUSTAH. University students are also demanding the withdrawal of the occupation force, while Michel Martelly, the Haitian president, is expected to formally request the renewal of the MINUSTAH mandate which expires on October 15. Based on these conflicting developments, should opponents of the occupation start uncorking the victory bottle or brace themselves for more disappointments?
Brazil’s change of heart announced by its Defense Minister Celso Amorim who, as foreign minister in the Luiz Lula’s administration, was the architect of his country’s participation in the endeavor, is self-serving and irrelevant. Moreover, Brazil’s contingent will likely to be replaced by troops from other nations that are eager to please the powers-that-be or oblivious to the fact that they may someday be victimized under the same policy. An aspiring world power, Brazil may have finally realized that it had been duped into participating in an undertaking that is inconsequential to its aspiration and interests. Its participation was contingent on it being allocated a permanent seat in an eventual reorganization of the all-powerful UN Security Council, a promise which remains as imaginary as MINUSTAH achieving its goals in Haiti. One must therefore conclude that Brazil’s decision to withdraw its troops, though welcome, is as duplicitous as the illegal occupation of Haiti, which is based on falsehoods, double-dealing and contempt for international conventions.
7 years and 7 months into the military occupation, MINUSTAH is nowhere near its purported goal of stabilizing the allegedly unstable country (UN definition). The daily humiliations of Haitian citizens made possible by the 2004 Accord between the UN and the illegal Boniface-Latortue regime may have awakened the resilient population. The 2004 agreement which grants UN personnel immunity from personal arrest or detention, the occupation soldiers included, is based on the “Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations” adopted by the organization’s General Assembly on February 13, 1946. Incredibly, Haiti is a signatory party to that illogical treaty, which was conceived to facilitate the imperial designs of the Security Council.
Though the legitimacy of any accord between an occupied-nation and its occupier has no legal basis whatsoever, the UN should abide by it nevertheless. It maintains: “MINUSTAH and its members shall refrain from any action or activity incompatible with the impartial and international nature of their duties or inconsistent with the spirit of the present Agreement. They (soldiers and civilian workers) shall respect all local laws and regulations.” Unfortunately, these provisos have regularly been violated since the onset of occupation. The random bombing, shooting and beatings of Haitian citizens protesting the occupation, the raping of young Haitian girls by Sri Lankan soldiers, the cholera epidemic and the sodomizing of an 18-year-old Haitian male by 4 Uruguayan soldiers, are examples of these violations.
As it is understood that repeated violations of an accord between parties by one signatory nullifies the agreement, the contractual obligation of the government of Haiti to honor the 2004 accord theoretically ends with the premeditated acts of the UN soldiers. The Sri Lankans and the Uruguayans should have been arrested by the Haitian authorities and prosecuted under Haitian laws, because the rapes, sodomy and executions of civilians violate the fundamental human rights of the victims. Given that the relationship between the UN and the government of Haiti is based on the master-slave format, such reasoning is at best gibberish and worse naïve. Imagine a New York-based UN personnel raping or sodomizing a US citizen (remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn), even Ban Ki-Moon, the UN-General Secretary would be liable as an accessory to the crime under US laws, because the laws of a sovereign nation takes precedence over international conventions within its borders.
Theoretically, Haiti is still a sovereign country as the many SC/RES to date have not specifically revoked its status as a sovereign member of the United Nations, despite the occupation (2004-?), because any government that willingly submits itself to these abominations certainly does not represent its people. Given that the UN Charter does not make membership in the organization mandatory, Haiti, which is illegally occupied and its citizens shamed on a daily basis, should suspend or relinquish its membership, since it preceded the United Nations by 141 years and had survived political isolation, extortion, economic boycotts and military occupations.
Given that Martelly has casually stated “MINUSTAH is working for the Haitian people”, which implies a long-term occupation by UN forces, there is an alternative. The 2004 accord, irrespective of the provisos of the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, should be amended to specifically exclude sodomy, rapes and child prostitution. As the self-appointed keeper of peace and security in our world, the Security Council should know that these crimes, committed by UN personnel under its authority, undermine its own legitimacy. Failure to prosecute these perverts and compensate the victims for their trauma amounts to condoning these villainous crimes, as long as they are committed by UN personnel.

China and the U.S in perspectives

In 1984, when Ronald Reagan proclaimed “Its morning in America”, indeed, it was. The US’ share of the global trade stood at 25%; the dollar was king, China was an undeveloped country trying to raise the standard of living of its billion-plus citizens, Europe was a patchwork of competing economies and U.S military power could be counted on to keep the threatening Soviet juggernaut in check. Almost three decades later, a great lot has changed. The U.S’ share of the world economy currently stands at 19% and the mighty dollar is derided by other nations as a has-been; China has surpassed Japan as the world’s second largest economy, once fragmented Europe is now the world’s largest economic entity, and countries such as Brazil, India and South Korea are grabbing a larger piece of the pie.
As the global economic crisis indicates, the dawn of the post-industrial society put forward by U.S economists in the 1990’s was premature because manufacturing countries, primarily China and Germany, have done better in weathering the storm. Many iconic U.S brands that once symbolized the US’ industrial prowess are now manufactured overseas (outsourcing), while many developing countries are fast catching up in the U.S-dominated high-end exports. As a result, two-third of the U.S economy relies on domestic consumption, the service industry and federal spending, leaving the country with a chronic account deficit that makes it the world’s largest debtor nation (13.8 trillion and counting). The U.S’ entrepreneurial spirit is slipping away; it is the Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs that are now creating innovative products for mass consumption.
At the G-20 Summit in Seoul last November, Washington’s emphasis on having China bolstering the value of its currency (the renminbi) as a means to reduce the U.S account deficit and boost export did not address the real issue, which calls for a fundamental reorganization of U.S economic policy. Incidentally, the high-end goods the U.S expects to sell to China may cause more harm than good to U.S industries, since the Chinese will insist on technology transfer, in effect cheaply acquiring the means of production and denying U.S companies of further sales. What does NASA, the jewel of U.S technological prowess, expect to gain from cooperating with China’s budding space program? When NASA administrator Charles Bolden visited China last month (Oct-21-26), the trip was certainly not about a common effort to catch wandering extraterrestrials or congratulate the Chinese on their spatial achievements, but an earnest attempt at peddling wares on behalf of U.S corporations.
The Federal Reserve Bank was right when it decided not to engage in another round of quantitative easing (a monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate an economy by increasing the money supply), as has been advocated by many economists. It would have boosted consumption but not productivity and precipitated a devaluation of the U.S dollar. How would China, which has almost 2 trillion in dollar-nominated reserves, react to a steep reduction of its holdings? Beijing can move toward Washington’s stance by letting its currency appreciate in value, which may cause a drop in Chinese exports and precipitate workers discontent in China, or spearhead a revolt to replace the U.S dollar as the world’s leading currency. Were the second scenario be the case, the Japanese and South Koreans, not wanting to offend their big and economically powerful neighbor, may support the Chinese or move toward a Euro-type Asian currency with China. This is not a farfetched theory, since such move will protect their holdings and prosperity, although it carries the risk of both nations becoming China’s vassals.
Clearly, the economic center of gravity, a position the U.S held since the end of WWII, is slowly shifting, not yet shifted, but, in as little as 10 years, it might be too late for the U.S to redress the situation. Three decades ago, any stimulus plan, Reagan or Obama-style, would have worked, since the U.S economy was the engine that propelled global trade. Presently, it is no longer the case, as most countries now look to China’s expansive market to sell their goods, which is why a modest stimulus package to revive that country’s economy worked, while the almost three times bigger but highly leveraged U.S economy failed to respond to a similar scheme.
Military power is a derivative of economic might and not the other way around. With its economic might in decline, the U.S is becoming more militaristic while the Chinese, determined not to follow the mistakes of the defunct Soviet Union, are taking the opposite path. With its vast and expanding market, China is poised to play the role played by the US at the end of WWII when it was the final destination for most of the world’s manufactured goods. It is therefore incumbent upon U.S policy makers to jettison the notion that American economic supremacy will last forever and start learning the lessons of history.
Who could have, in 1988, predicted that a disorganized and theocratic Iran reeling from a devastating war with Iraq (1980-88) would become an assertive regional power at the beginning of the 21st century, capable of challenging U.S supremacy in the Persian Gulf? No one, not even the Chinese or the Iranians, wants to see a precipitous decline of U.S power which could prove calamitous to world peace and security. The ball is in Washington’s court or rather its politicians.

AP Journalist Needs to Verify Facts

The truth is rarely pure and simple wrote Oscar Wilde. Be that as it may, some people never made any effort at finding the truth and, to make matters worse, exhibited a pathological aversion to it. Though factual errors by journalists can be attributed to poor research, many are actually part of elaborate schemes to distort the truth or spread lies to targeted audiences. As this relates to Haiti, there has been a pattern in factual errors by the international media that cannot be attributed to poor research, as they are unbroken, premeditated and in clear contradiction with the truth. A dispatch by Trenton Daniel, an AP (Associated Press) writer, about the Haitian government’s effort to create economic opportunities in the outlying parts of the country as a way to lighten Port-au-Prince’s overcrowding epitomizes that attitude.
Elaborating on his research-poor analysis of the overcrowding, Trenton Daniel wrote “the capital city (Port-au-Prince) is one of the Caribbean's biggest, with about a third of Haiti's population, having swollen from 200.000 people a few decades ago to more than 3 million.” That is actually a factual error because as early as 1970, Port-au-Prince had an estimated population of 461.000 people. All things considered, the AP writer can be forgiven for that one. However, he has exhibited a blatant disregard for the truth when he authoritatively wrote “Part of the reason was that Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, the late dictator, shut down ports and tore up roads to undermine his opponents in the countryside. And, in the 1980s, new factories lured farmers to the city from fields where they were struggling to survive.” His amateurish analysis, superficial, preposterous and malicious, does not close to explain the truth.
For starters, his analysis has a profound implication and is in line with the widely accepted notion that the history of modern Haiti begins in 1957 A.D with the coming into power of Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier. It also perpetuates the notion of obscurantism and barbarism that best illustrates Haitian leaders’ psychological state from "Papa Doc" onward and validates the occupation of Haiti (2004-?) as a necessary endeavor to root out wickedness in the beleaguered country. The international community’s obsession with rooting out this perceived primitivism is such that invading in Haiti is considered a noble act on behalf of this civilization. Besides the illegal seizure of La Navase by US forces in 1891, Haiti was invaded three times, in 1915, 1994 and 2004, under the premise of it needing foreign help to overcome its primitiveness. The most insulting of these foreign adventures being the 1825 naval blockade and threat of invasion of Haiti following which the country was forced to compensate the French settlers for the loss of their properties and France, itself, in exchange for recognition of the world’s first black republic’s right to exist.
Because the main component of a good lie is a parcel of truth that can be twisted to that end, and the hollowness of Trenton Daniel’s assertion disqualifies it as a good lie, his analysis should appropriately be considered a poorly written propaganda piece. Anyone can argue that “Papa Doc” Duvalier did not do much for Haiti’s infrastructure and the reasons could be as abundant as the examples, but the claim that he deliberately destroyed the country’s roads to undermine his (political) opponents, as Trenton Daniel authoritatively wrote, is utterly irresponsible, absurd and inexcusable. Reviled by many for stated and unstated reasons, Papa Doc, who died on April 21st, 1971, is usually put in the same league with Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin, the 20th century’s most notorious tyrants, an utter nonsense that says a lot about his detractors.
Apparently, the AP writer was riding the anti-Papa Doc train when he decided to write his nonsense. Had Trenton Daniel gathered all the relevant facts, which include the economic embargo and the foreign-sponsored armed revolts Papa Doc had to confront during his 14-year presidency (1957-71), he might have come to his senses and a less unflattering conclusion. Yet, this is wishful thinking because he deliberately overlooked the IMF-imposed directives which were indubitably responsible for the destruction of the Haitian peasantry, the breakdown of social order and the ensuing mass exodus toward Port-au-Prince. As an AP writer, Trenton Daniel’s nonsense enters historical records not as a draft but as an accepted historical fact. Future graduate students, historians and researchers may use it in their thesis, books or academic pursuit, a reality that makes his nonsense all the more unacceptable.
This episode reminds me of an interview given the BBC by Paul E. Farmers, the Deputy UN Special Envoy for Haiti, in which the renowned anthropologist and physician enumerated all the contributory factors of the cholera epidemic in Haiti, except the documented fact that the disease originated with the MINUSTAH-attached Nepalese soldiers. Conspiracy theories aside, these are tangible proof of an elaborate pattern of lies, half-truths and imaginary tales that put into question the nature of the UN involvement in Haiti.
“History is a maiden, you can dress it as you like” said a Chinese proverb. I couldn’t agree more. Nonetheless, the adornment needs not be to make the maiden look unsophisticated or illusory. Trenton Daniel’s imaginary tale of roads destruction by Papa Doc for political purposes, far from being a factual error, is a direct assault on the Haitian character. He needs to retract it and apologize to his readers.