Why civil liberties may be a thing of the past

Why Civil liberties may become a thing of the past

            Like or not, the notion of civil liberties may not survive another generation, even in the countries that benefited socially from the concept. Because human needs remain in constant evolution, new issues constantly arise, providing the conditions or justification for more government interference in the lives of the citizenry. Moreover, the experiment was somehow slated to fail since its success depended on a symbiotic understanding between governments (the eternal oppressor) and citizenries (the insatiable and troublesome beneficiary), which has remained elusive since the advent of modern states. Historians will no doubt consider the experiment as well-intentioned but impractical because of the conflicting raison d’être of the protagonists, i.e. government and citizenry.

In 1776, when Thomas Jefferson wrote that humans are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the quote was commensurate with an era of idealistic thinking during which precepts such as civil liberties and human rights meant to protect the individual from the excesses of a constituent state were paramount. Appropriately the concept developed into an essential feature of representative government and a testament to humanity’s fervent hope of attaining the commendable goal of a symbiosis between governments and subjects. However, its emphasis on government’s responsibilities rather than those of the individual creates the perception of the former as the incorrigible villain and the latter the perpetual victim, the premise upon which lays the misunderstanding.

Naturally, the adversarial stance or rather deep-seated mistrust between the two precludes the materialization of the dream of a peaceful and orderly society despite two centuries of incremental progress toward achieving it. Are humans running out of time or do they need to lower their expectations on ever seeing a society bereft of divisive social issues that require arbitration by the government which effectively increases its power to the detriment of the individual? Most importantly, is government really the culprit or are humans responsible for the stalemate?

Human psychology and all that it implies, a determining factor in the whole process, was somehow overlooked or not taken into account in the experiment. As a result, the individual feels immune of responsibilities and sometimes blames the government for his or her mistakes. For example an individual, wanting to double in 90 days an asset he or she had taken years to accumulate, must have known that it was a gamble, therefore unequivocally and exclusively responsible for any adverse outcome. However the Ponzi-schemes of Bernie Madoff and others and the subprime mortgage debacle that dragged the U.S economy to the gutter inferred that the government is ultimately responsible for bad financial decisions made by these individuals. In an ideal world, the government should not only prosecute the perpetrators for their criminal deeds but also the victims for their stupidity, because the common denominator in both instances is greed. If the average yearly return on an investment is 7%, any investor expecting more is clearly guided by greed, hence ultimately responsible for the outcome and undeserved of state compassion and protection.     

Being a product of his era, Thomas Jefferson apparently did not consider the government’s awesome responsibilities toward the citizenry and the ever-changing challenges that propel it to operate out of its constitutional framework. This unintended consequence with placing the burden of political correctness on the government’s shoulders inevitably negates the feasibility of a modicum of understanding between these two pillars of a constituent republic: the people and the rulers. Granted the government has become self-serving as opposed to being the guardian of the people interests, many of its controversial actions, particularly those straddling constitutional boundaries, remain indispensable to the functioning of society nevertheless. Many government actions attest that even mass protests and civil disobedience are not enough to dissuade anti-constitutional predispositions of those in charge, hence reevaluating the Jeffersonian idea has become a necessity. It may not need to involve capitulation before arbitrariness, but a sensible and rational approach to what is in the best interests of everyone.

As we are entering a delicate period in human history where dwindling resources, overpopulation and a host of other issues are constantly testing the limits of civility and tolerance, can a government combat terrorism without curtailing on civil liberties? Can a government, constitutionally vested with the supreme authority to arbitrate, address social inequalities without alienating another group? Is a smaller government really possible, considering its ever-expanding role in the lives of the citizenry brought forth by new issues that were unthinkable a generation ago? These are questions that committed libertarians would have trouble answering without demonizing the government and its purposes.

Although the concept of participatory government is noble and should never be discarded in favor of dictatorship or totalitarianism, it could not withstand the challenges facing our world.  In the U.S and Europe, the balance is tipping toward more government interventions and many recently enacted social policies are the antithesis of the concept of individual and civil liberties. How will the courts and judges interpret these changes in an ever changing environment dictated by new waves of social issues (terrorism) that challenge the notion of civil liberties? A consensus is needed to untangle these complicated social/civic/civil/conflicts and the current system cannot be counted on to provide the answer. We are in a race against time and civil liberties, humanity’s most cherished accomplishment in the last two centuries, is slated to be the first victim.

Haiti's opposition...opposition to what

On May 9, at a conference in Santo Domingo, Carlos Fuentes, a Mexican writer boldly proposed that Haiti be put under a UN protectorate with the aim of managing the reconstruction project away from “the corrupt local elites”, a clear indication of the widespread negative sentiment toward them. Though Mr. Fuentes’ unsolicited comment was at best idiotic, since Haiti has been effectively a U.N protectorate since March 2004, no one within the political establishment saw fit to denounce Mr. Fuentes’ patronizing statement. As a rule a corrupt political system cannot be peacefully transformed from the outside, especially one that uses intimidation and violence, which is the case in Haiti. Unfortunately for the country, a dearth of stealth reformers has always been the missing link to an eventual eradication of this rotten system that impoverished generations of Haitians and robbed them of their self-respect and sovereignty.


In light of the scientific discovery that Neanderthals interbreed with humans before becoming extinct, Anthropologists should explore whether Homo erectus are still alive in Haiti because that country’s political establishment lacks the most basic of human characteristics: reasoning and introspective capabilities. Aptly, Haiti’s politicians have been referred in U.S policy papers as scoundrels and other pejoratives that conveyed utter disdain and blatant racism. For the last 200 years, a plethora of Haitian leaders not only acted as destroyer of the Haitian dream but also as facilitator of imperial designs of other nations. To that end, they either hijacked the country’s institutions or simply muzzled their opponents with help of their foreign backers. René G. Préval, the current president, is undoubtedly the worst offender. Elected in the 2006 general elections funded and organized by the U.N, which shamelessly endorsed the invasion of Haiti by French and U.S forces in 2004 and mandated the country’s occupation, Préval, as his recent actions indicate, personifies this behavior. Apathetic to the plight of the poor and presumptuous to a fault, the man stated recently “I want to bring stability in this country”, a statement that essentially validated the bogus “instability” premise put forward by the occupiers.

In a move that surprised no one, the Teflon president, citing the impracticality of organizing the general elections scheduled for this fall, peremptorily extended his term, which was to end on February 7th 2011, for three months. Having been appraised the most intelligent of Haitian presidents by Brazil’s ambassador to Haiti, Igor Kipman, Préval is apparently savoring his newfound status at the expense of the country’s welfare. Clearly, Kipman’s statement is a testament of the patronizing attitude of the international community, which has always been wary of any Haitian leader that shows independence, because Préval is, by any measures, pliant, servile and bereft of any political philosophy. Apparently, the disdain shown to Haiti’s political establishment by the international community is being extended to the nation as a whole, because what else would warrant such fallacious statement from el senòr Kipman.

Whatever is in store for Haiti has been in the work since the beginning of the twentieth century because, in the eyes of many, Haiti, poor and overpopulated, stood as an anomaly in the middle of one of the most scenic places in the world. Correcting the anomaly has become an obsession for the powers-that-be, and each incremental step toward accomplishing this imperial goal has been met with indifference and sometimes voluntary participation of the intelligentsia and the political class. Case in point, the truncating of Haitian territory in the 1929 Accord between Borno and Velasquez was illegal, as it occurred while Haiti was under foreign occupation (1915-34), nevertheless, the intelligentsia and the political establishment accepted it as a fait accompli. In 2004, the year of Haiti’s bicentennial, the opportunity to fully implement this imperial dream of remaking Haiti was handed on a platter to the international community by the political and economic elites in a general insurrection against the country’s legitimate government.

Not surprisingly, the politicians who are now appalled at Préval’s dictatorial style never protested Gérard Latortue’s imperious tenure (2004-06), which cemented the international community’s strangled hold on the country. Where were these guardians of constitutional order when thousands of poor Haitians were hunted down and murdered during Gerard Latortue’s reign of terror (2004-06)? Are these politicians lamenting the destruction of the democratic process or simply protesting over being left out of the caravan?

In a twist of irony, the so-called opposition is made up of the same people who sabotaged the bicentennial celebration of Haiti with violent manifestations and other malfeasances on January 1st 2004 and facilitated the occupation. Naturally, they earned themselves a special place in the pantheon of traitors to the nation but also contempt from the beneficiaries of their malevolence. Following the invasion of Haiti on February 29, 2004, many were promptly shunned aside for offences that included corruption and drug smuggling, while the others remained oblivious to their exclusion until Préval’s egregious act.

Being a dysfunctional group of disaffected without a foreign sponsor, a sine qua none condition for political success in present-day Haiti, these opponents of the new order are as irrelevant as the country’s moribund constitution, and Préval, like Gérard Latortue, will implement the designs of his backers with impunity. Moreover, these impenitent collaborators’ protest over Préval’s anti-constitutional action is nothing but crocodiles’ tears masquerading as a genuine concern for constitutional order. Unbeknownst to these unsavory characters and also Préval, the day of reckoning may be closer than they think.

The Iran nuclear dilemma

On April 9, at a ceremony in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled new third generation of centrifuges which, according to the bombastic Iranian president, can spin six times faster than the version now available to the Iranian nuclear program. If the claim is true, the Iranians are on the verge of mastering the nuclear fuel cycle, which would permit that country’s scientists to produce a nuclear bomb, a prospect the western world deemed unacceptable. In Ahmadinejadian fashion, the Iranian president also took a swipe at the West by declaring that his country is now a nuclear state and the program is irreversible. Meanwhile the five permanent members of the Security Council, (Britain, China, France, Russia and the U.S, plus Germany), are negotiating a new round of sanctions meant to cripple Iran’s nuclear program which has, to date, been slapped with three set of resolutions that specifically forbade military actions as a tool for enforcement.


In this uncompromising environment, will the Iranians’ determination to proceed with uranium enrichment and the West’s avowed resolve to stop it from happening lead to unilateral western military actions? Though the previous Security Council resolutions specifically forbade military actions, many western powers, primarily the U.S, France and Israel, do not rule them out as an option to force Iran into compliance. Assuming that the West, frustrated with China and Russia’s passive engagement in the matter and Iran’s intransigence, chooses the military option, what will be the outcome?

In a prospective war, Iran will be defeated since its army is no match to the West’s technological superiority in armaments and military tactics. The ramifications however are hard to predict, because wars usually do not end when military objectives are achieved and the guns fell silent. Wars invariably created new issues and magnified existing ones, and a winner sometimes ended up losing more than it gained (Britain after WWII is one example). What's more, the fact that a prospective war with Iran will not be one of conquest, the Iranians will still have the means and opportunity to nullify the West’s victory by waging a war of attrition, which could be economically ruinous to the victors, along with the use of proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Shiite minorities in Sunni-dominated Arab countries.

Since the Iranians have consistently threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the body of water through which passes 40% of the world’s oil production, this prospect, if it ever comes to fruition, could hasten a geopolitical realignment. With an ascending and confident China lurking in the background and a restless Russia wanting to recover the glory of the former Soviet Union in global affairs, the alternatives to a western faux pas are too apparent to ignore. In the end the winner would neither be Iran or the West but China and Russia which stand ready and prepare to pick up the pieces. What are the alternatives to a war with Iran? Indeed there are many: regime change, fomenting ethnic unrests, or acceptance of an eventual Iranian nuclear bomb.

Anyone clamoring for a regime change in Iran is guilty of shortsightedness. The Iranian regime, unlike the late Saddam Hussein’s abstract Baathist ideology or the former Soviet Union’s utopian communism, is rooted in religion, a powerful cohesive force and antidote to induced subversion from the outside world. Hence the idea of a popular revolt toppling the theocratic Iranian regime in the wake of a military defeat by the West is farfetched and overrated.

Since Iran is a multiethnic society with the dominant Persian at its core, fomenting ethnic unrests in Iran is an attractive option that could however destabilize the region in a grander scale. Encouraging Iranian Kurds to seek independence from Iran will affect neighboring Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Iran’s largest minority, the Azeris are well integrated within Iranian society, with the most prominent member being none other than Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader. Besides, Armenia, a western outpost in the region does not wish to see a Greater Azerbaijan carved out of Iranian territory. Despite feeling marginalized, the Baluchis, a small minority agitating for autonomy in Southwestern Iran are better off in that country than they would be in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Finally, the least attractive option, acceptance of a nuclear Iran, may actually be the most beneficial to the West’s interests. Firstly, despite Ahmadimejad’s rhetoric, a nuclear Iran would not dare engage in military adventurisms against Israel and U.S interests, since Teheran will open itself up to retaliations by enemies possessing vastly nuclear arsenals, a credible deterrent by any measures. Secondly, Iran, wanting to catch up militarily with Israel and the U.S, will, like the former Soviet Union, bankrupt itself in an unwinnable arm race with the West. Thirdly, a nuclear Iran will help cement U.S presence in the region, since the Arabs, fearful and resentful of the Persians, their eternal enemy, would seek the protection of the U.S nuclear umbrella, akin to the situation with Japan and South Korea in Asia. Fourthly, a farfetched but not impossible scenario could be an entente between Israel and Arab nations against Iran, their common enemy.

In the age of nuclear drawdown, (Russia and the U.S are slashing their awesome stockpiles), any nation wanting or building this apocalyptic weapon represents a clear danger to peace. Engaging the proliferators however may be the only practicable course to preventing nuclear proliferation.

Economic Leberalism: A Revised version Of Mercantilism

By Max A. Joseph Jr




Economic Liberalism: a revised version of Mercantilism



Despite the 2008-09 global economic meltdown, the architects and proponents of economic liberalism still believe in the sanctity of the system which, they maintain, has brought prosperity to countries adhering to its core principles, i.e. free trade, free flow of capital, limited government interference and last, but not the least, freedom of expression. Assuming that the concept works as advertized, why is it that China whose economic and political system is the exact opposite of what have been prescribed by the architects of economic liberalism prospering while other developing countries are reeling. More to the point, why hasn’t the system worked in Haiti and Africa?

While most economists are quick to point out the contrast between mercantilism, the economic system that existed from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and economic liberalism; the two systems, at first glance, remain identical to the core as both rest on the premise of protecting the prosperity of the economically advanced countries. For example, mercantilism relies on protecting an economy with subsidies for local industries and high tariffs on imported goods, which automatically increase exports to and restrict imports from the other side. By the same token, economic liberalism prevents the other side from subsidizing its industries and imposing high tariffs that would enable it to export more goods while restricting or controlling the volume of its imports. As they say: there is nothing new under the sun.

Simply put, economic liberalism is a revised version of mercantilism, which like the old system, is backed by force and coercion that guarantee its acceptance by the least developed countries (LDC). This helps explain why China, a giant and powerful country, could not be folded into the system while poor African nations and Haiti are forced into it through coercive measures, including military intervention. With the IMF (International Monetary Fund), World Bank and WTO (World Trade Organization), acting as enforcers, any poor country that resists their directives finds itself unable to finance its development projects or accused of hampering world trade through protectionism.

The rigidity of the enforcers is such that funding for basic development projects like water purification and sanitation in the underdeveloped world is sometimes withheld until the targeted country accepts to “restructuring its economy”, code word for opening its internal market to unrestricted and subsidized imports. Facing high unemployment, political instability (induced or conventional) and other social pressures associated with the lack of economic development, the beleaguered country inevitably capitulates and accepts the onerous demands formulated by the IMF, World Bank and WTO.

Two particular situations involving Japan and Haiti explain the paradox or one-sided approach to the implementation of economic liberalism in favor of economically advanced countries. Up to the mid-1980s, Japan, one of the world’s leading exporters of manufactured goods, not only subsidized its rice growers but also protected them from foreign competitors on the ground of national security. Starting in the mid-1980s, Haiti, a primarily agricultural country, was forced to end subsidies to its farmers and lower its tariffs on imported agricultural products as a condition to receiving development loans from the World Bank and other international financial institutions. Consequently 380.000 Haitian farmers lost their jobs and migrated to Port-au-Prince with their families, creating the overcrowding conditions that led to the catastrophe of January 12, 2010.

Making matters worse, state-owned enterprises such as the country’s flour mill, sugar refinery and the only producer of cement were privatized and then closed to facilitate imports. The lost of jobs notwithstanding, Haiti is now a net importer of these commodities it once produced for internal consumption. Apparently the system is not working in Haiti, but incredibly it is being advertized as the only remedy to the country’s chronic poverty, economic doldrums and political instability. Aptly, the rush to integrate the country into the global economy without the prerequisites, i.e. an industrial base, a vibrant middle class and good political and economic governance, was the reason behind the February 29, 2004 invasion not political instability as the Security Council resolutions pretend.

While dictatorships are proficient at quelling dissent and imposing their will, democracy, a political system easily subverted by outsiders as well as insidious insiders, generally remains the Trojan horse of economic liberalism, in economically unstructured and corrupt countries. The reason: democracy provides a legitimate cover for the implementation of the system, which usually involves economic dislocation and other social ills, as is currently the case with Haiti and many undeveloped countries in Africa.

Most importantly, in injecting social and political freedom as an integral part of economic liberalism, the architects of the system are simply trying to make it palatable to the freedom-starved and economically destitute Third World, although China’s robust economic growth and authoritarian political system naturally take the sail out of that notion. Beijing’s success however cannot be replicated in Haiti and African countries partly because of induced political instability, hence the dilemma.

So what are Haiti and Africa to do? Touted as America’s little Africa, Haiti is on her knees, with her arms bound, calling to her ancestors for deliverance since the January 12th quake that puts her on the receiving end yet again. Not surprisingly, the architects of economic liberalism find a plethora of loopholes from which to impose economic measures that undermine Haiti’s sovereignty under the veils of Democracy, Manifest Destiny and Empire. Unless there is a geopolitical realignment, these countries cannot do anything at this juncture, except engaging in passive resistance.