Repression In the Name of Democracy

On October 15, Haitians protesting this year’s automatic renewal of the Security Council mandated-occupation of their country were viciously attacked by U.N troops apparently indignant at their lack of gratitude toward the mission. This incident, more than countless others, epitomizes the real purpose of the occupation: submission through intimidations and coercions. For starters, Haiti is not a country that started a war and lost, something that would warrant the occupation, but a victim of naked military aggression. Moreover, the notion that political instability, incidentally instigated by many western powers, makes Haiti a “threat to international peace and security” only highlights the lack of credibility of the U.N Security Council.
When one thinks of nuclear proliferation; religious and narco-terrorism that have cost thousands of lives in the last five years, and the haphazard rush by emerging powers to secure raw materials for their economies in faraway lands, a development which could easily trigger expansionism and military confrontations with the established powers, it is evident that the U.N Security Council is barking at the wrong tree. As Haitians would say “Konsèy Sékirité-a kité kò-a, lap krié devan sèkèy-la.” Moreover, given the illogical premise of the Security Council mandated-occupation of Haiti (threat to international peace and security), the outcome cannot possibly be one that satisfies both the interests of the Haitian people and those of the international community, which are obviously murky.
In destroying a nascent, albeit imperfect, democracy in Haiti by force on February 29, 2004, the international community, in the eyes of many Haitians, abdicated its role as an impartial arbitrator that can bridge the country’s political-economic divide. The arbitrary imprisonments, the extrajudicial killings, the bombing of Sité Solèy on June 6, 2006, the disappearances of supporters of the exiled president, Jean Bertrand Aristide, and exclusion of his party from the electoral process, which took place under the occupation, cannot conceivably be a winning formula to building democracy. 6 years and counting, indiscriminate use of force against peaceful protesters remain the preferred method by which U.N troops exercise control over the population, as the October 14 incident indicates. By contrast, protests were allowed under the Lavalas government (2001-04) which the international community considered undemocratic and autocratic, a fabricated justification for the February 29, 2004 invasion. In this case, maladi moun-sa yo soufri-a, sé pa li yo di doktè-a, because what else can explain the contradictory course in implementing their stated goal.
Exactly what kind of Democracy do these people have in mind? Is it one in which the notion of human rights pertains to the right hands and feet of the majority of Haitians? From the implementation of the IMF’s onerous privatization directive that practically destroyed Haiti’s peasantry to the expropriation of the government’s prerogatives by the foreign-led Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF), everything undertaken by the international mission has been detrimental to the majority of Haitians. Haiti is so dysfunctional under the occupation that one presidential candidate is staking his campaign on restoring the now-defunct Haitian military, which at one point consumed 40% of the country’s budget. Unless the man plans to embark on military adventures to confiscate the riches of neighboring countries, which would make sense, I do not see how he can rationalize his thoughtless idea and persuade a majority of Haitians to go along with it. Perhaps, his foreign handlers, in anticipation of their eventual departure, forced or voluntary, put him up to it.
One of the core principles of Democracy is the right to protest, which provides a voice to the voiceless against perceived or real abuses by those in power. Protests started the French and Russian Revolutions, 1789 and 1917 respectively, and remained a powerful weapon against entrenched power structures that excluded those at the margin of society. In Haiti, where a purported attempt by the U.N at building democracy has been in motion since February 29, 2004, the right to protest is anything but. Instead a reign of terror under the aegis of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has descended upon the Haitian people. Young Haitian women are raped by U.N troops; opponents of the occupation have disappeared or arbitrarily imprisoned, and, with the banishment of Fanmi Lavalas, the country’s largest political party from the political process, the political system has become ever more exclusive.
In democratic countries and those moving steadily toward embracing democratic ideals, the right to protest provides the disaffected or excluded with a powerful voice that sometimes resonates in the corridors of power. For that reason, protests are viewed with suspicions by oppressive entities, notwithstanding the fact that historical precedents validate the correlation between repression and upheavals. Perhaps, the Security Council, supremely confident in its unchallenged authority and might, considers such possibility farfetched. If that assertion was valid, the now-defunct Soviet Union (1917-91) would not have disappeared the way it did.
Aptly, the Security Council’s doctrine of preventive intervention or responsibility to protect civilians clearly was inappropriate in Haiti’s case, which was purely political, thus required a political solution, as there was no genocide or mass killings, which would have warranted the country’s occupation under Chapter VII of the U.N Charter. Despite the generic statements occasionally emanated from the U.N, it is unmistakably clear that building democratic institutions in Haiti is not, never has been nor will ever be, the goal of the occupation. Simply put, the endeavor is a testament of the Security Council’s abuse of its unchallenged authority.

God, Humans and Religions

On the practical side all species are enjoying their earthly purpose to be born, live and die, except humans who are so enthralled with their intelligence that they have raised the ante. Proclaiming themselves plenipotentiary representatives of a Supreme Being on earth, humans invented religion, a destructive concept that evolves into a “raison d’être” surpassing domination and conquest, the main attributes of survival and evolution. So powerful is religion that it has become inconceivable to imagine our world without it. Ironically, the concept creates a host of intractable issues that not only challenge humans’ vaunted intelligence but may well bring their untimely demise.
Because humans are a diverse bunch that could never blindly follow any universal precept, regardless of its allure or potency, religion may never work according to the design of its architects or proponents even in a hypothetically homogenous world. The history of religion from its inception to the present proves it, since religious doctrines are as changeable as the weather and as accommodating to human influences as nature. Because the basic tenets of many of the world’s best known religions are invariably made to tailor human idiosyncrasies and communal evolution, it is incumbent upon theologians (professional religionists) to prove to skeptics that religion was God’s edict and not a human creation. Barring such explanation, time remains religion’s worst enemy despite the occasional outbursts in religious fervor marking the major religious faiths to varying degrees throughout their recorded existence.
It doesn’t take a genius to understand that compassion and indifference, love and hate, virtue and wickedness also exist in the non-human world, hence the notion of God and Satan, which characterizes those traits, could not possibly be the defining proof of the existence of a Supreme Being that forms the essence of Judaism, Christianity, Islam and other lesser known monotheist faiths. Fortunately for the architects of the concept and unfortunately for the devotees, other species have so far been unable to present their own version of the “Creation” upon which rests the notion of an omniscient and omnipresent God. Were that to happen, their perspectives would undoubtedly differ from the accepted theory that confers to humans dominion over all things.
Assuming one stands prepared to give the notion of a Supreme Being the benefit of the doubt, that person cannot in all truthfulness countenance his omniscience because it is testing to imagine an omniscient God leaving humans, apparently his most wicked creation, in charge of their own judgment. Moreover, the notion that God prefers to take a back seat and let humans enjoy their earthly stay on the premise they will ultimately be judged for their actions trivializes his inimitable wisdom and is patently absurd from a theological perspective. This religious-disseminated view makes God an intriguer, possibly a practical joker, not the infallible and omniscient creature who purportedly conceived the universe and its contents.
Take for example the story told in the bible of Jesus having sent by God to teach disobedient humans the way to salvation. It implies that God, far from being omniscient, may have actually lost control of his prized creation. Moreover Jesus did not help matters either, since his teachings were allegories that remain subject to different interpretations, leaving an elite group of priests, pastors and theologians to tell the rest of us what is to be construed literally or figuratively. Adding to the confusion is the sad reality that these modern-day Sanhedrin themselves typically cannot come up with an authoritative reading of Jesus Christ’ message, making theological differences among Christians intense and unforgiving. Accordingly Catholics are derided as followers of the Pope not Christians by other Christian denominations, even though Jesus is the central figure of Catholicism.
What about Judaism’s doctrinal contention of the Jews being the chosen people? It implies that God, by virtue of his preference for a particular group of people, is actually a prejudiced Being and every non-Jew claiming to be His progeny is an impostor. This fundamental tenet of Judaism incidentally contrasts with Christianity’s own, which holds “God so loved the world (those adhering to the Christian faith), that he gave his only Son (Jesus), that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” Furthermore Christians could look askance at the Muslims’ claim of God having sent the Prophet Muhammad to spread his words, after Jesus, his begotten son, had failed. These conflicting theological readings of God’s intention may explain the hard to comprehend delay in Jesus’ anticipated return that baffled generations of Christians for the last 2000 years, because God apparently does not want to add to the confusion. Hence any religion claiming to be the only authentic conveyer of God’s wishes is an insult to the Creator himself, because it is indeed presumptuous to accept as true that God would delegate to humans or any religion for that matter the right to fight battles or defend causes on his behalf.
Many Haitians have turned to religions following the January 12th earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince, in effect validating the notion of desperation as a potent facilitator of religious beliefs. Since the Reverend Pat Robertson authoritatively claimed that the tragedy was God’s punishment for the pact made by Haitians with the devil (1791) to liberate themselves from the ignominies of slavery, are these Haitians trying to make amends with the Creator? If that is the case, then God himself has lost track of what should be considered good and evil.

The Politic Of Forced Assimilation

It has happened to the Basques in Spain under Francisco Franco (1939-75); the Kurds in modern Turkey, the Crimean Tatars of the former Soviet Union during the reign of Joseph Stalin (1922-53) and the Tibetans under Chinese rule (1959-?): forceful attempts at assimilating these minorities into the larger entities through eradication of their mother tongues, the most potent symbol of their ethnicity. To that end, the use of their language was discouraged, forbidden and, in extreme cases, criminalized. As such, this policy is the most repugnant form of subjugation. Conversely in Haiti, a nation of 12 million souls, including its Diaspora, that speaks a native language, it is the majority that is compelled to adopt that of the dominant minority, namely French.
Moreover, “Haitian”, the etiologically correct appellation for the language, is wrongly, albeit intentionally, called Kréyol, patois or broken French, which means that it derives from the more accepted French language. It is akin to declaring that Portuguese is broken Spanish, and also patently absurd to assume that a Frenchman can understand “Kréyol.” This widely accepted theory of the origins of “Haitian” contradicts the reality, as “Kréyol, patois or broken French” is grammatically, orthographically and phonetically distinct from the French language. Those insisting on the intertwinement of the two languages may be on to something more sinister: a willful intent to debase and confuse a proud little nation that intended, at its inception, to discard all vestiges of colonialism. Contextually, it is by choice that Haiti is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that develops its own language despite centuries of colonialism.
Like the demonizing of Vodou by malevolent foreigners with nefarious intents, this way of thinking is a deliberate attempt at disavowing the notion of a Haitian identity. Aptly, it wasn’t until 1987, the 183rd year of Haiti’s formal independence from France, that the inappropriately-named “Kréyol” was finally recognized as an official language to be used conjointly with French. However, encrypting “Haitian” as an official language into the Constitution is only one step, promoting its acceptance by the population may require many more steps that will involve changing the mentality of a nation that has consistently been steered away from the concept of forging a national identity.
Human interactions through commerce and conquests have fundamentally altered native tongues all over the planet and in many instances created new ones. For example, it is not unusual to find Japanese words in Chinese and vice versa and German words in the English language. And, it was in the context of promoting interaction that Esperanto, an alternative language that would allow people who speak different native languages to communicate while retaining their own languages and cultural identities, was introduced by Dr. L.L. Zamenhof in 1887. Though the idea was well-intentioned, it never caught on and remained Eurocentric and elitist in nature as, according to the latest estimate, only 2 million practitioners speak Esperanto. Moreover, its restricted usage demonstrates that the development of languages runs parallel to that of insular groups or societies and cannot be created artificially regardless of good intents.
As a rule, a common language represents the soul of a nation, something which the pathological French people can attest to. In the 1990’s a debate raged in France over the infiltration of English, the dominant international idiom since the end of WWII, into the French sacred language. The result was the Toubon law (1994) enacted by the French National Assembly forbidding the use of English words in broadcasting. The law may seem preposterous to outsiders but to the French it was about protecting their identity. More to the point, I remember watching a French program titled “Bouillon de culture” (Cultural stew) in which Jean D’Omersson, a famous French writer and member of L’Academie Française was invited. Asked by the host why he loves France? D’Omersson responded with unabashed pride “Parce qu’elle nous a donné la langue”, literally “Because it (France) gave us (the French) the language.” This was a testament of the emotional attachment to the French language which D’Omersson as, do all French men and women, consider central to their identity.
Fittingly, languages form the essence of ethnic identity more so than geography or race and are revered by their native speakers, which is why ethnicity is recognized by the language a person speaks rather than the geographical area in which he lives or the color of his skin. In Africa wherein, as a result of European colonialism, ethnic groups straddle national borders, it is precisely the language that identifies a person as being a member of a particular ethnic group. It is also for that reason that the ethnic Germans who lived for centuries in the Volga region of the former Soviet Union were deemed Germans by Stalin because of the language they spoke.
As languages define ethnicity more so than geography and race, should Haitians be identified as French or Kréyol speakers? In contrast with the other countries of the Western Hemisphere that adopted the idioms of their former colonizers, Haitians speak a distinctive dialect, which should appropriately be called Haitian, in conformity with our ethnicity, not Kréyol, which is a reminder of a past we would rather forget. Our existence as a people is contingent on affirming our identity, which is inextricably linked to our language, and unless we (Haitians) come to terms with that reality, others will always feel empower to decide what is best for us.

Six years on....Haiti is a U.N Problem

If one took care to exclude the impenitent collaborators who are basking in their subservient role in administering the country, the solution to Haiti’s woes have been beyond the control of ordinary Haitians, many of whom are systematically hunted down, murdered, ostracized and humiliated since the start of the occupation (2004-?). Even Mother Nature is cooperating with the occupiers, as Hurricanes Jeanne (2004), Fay, Gustav, Hanna, Ike (2008) and the January 12, 2010 earthquake that killed 2% of Haiti’s population demonstrate. Sheer coincidence, may be. The ramifications are nonetheless too palpable to ignore as the international community’s self-assigned nation-building role could ultimately endanger Haiti’s very existence. Even the premise of the endeavor, (Haiti being a threat to international peace and security), is ludicrous, if not malicious.
Recently Rwanda’s Paul Kagame elaborating on the western powers’ paternalism in Africa summed it up this way: “They criticize the good things we do (Africans) and try to hold us responsible for the bad things they do.” He further added “Africans are capable of forging their own destiny; we don’t need the lessons that we’re always being given.” In Haiti’s case, the western powers seem no longer content to criticize or give lessons as the unlawful occupation of the country attests, they are bent on imposing their will by any means, using the most preposterous argument and brutal tactics to that end. While the international community is slow in delivering its promised aid for the reconstruction, the United Nations is sending more soldiers and police officers in Haiti to neutralize any upheaval that is likely to occur.
Complicating matters is the fact that the corrupt and servile political class remains silent on the U.N occupation by choice. Taking a principled stand against the occupation means forsaking their personal aspirations, something that members of this particular group will never do. In the process, they are lending credence to the notion put forward by the international community that Haiti needs supervision or protection from them. A presidential candidate, senator Jean Hector Anacacis, looking to endear himself with the occupiers, proposes reconstructing the decommissioned Haitian Armed Forces (FA d’H) and creating a secret service agency that would bolster security and create a safer environment for foreign investors. Another candidate Charles Henry Baker laments on his website “the full range of political rights and civil liberties guarantees by the Haitian Constitution remains precarious as there is a lack of any legitimate security force’ (he is passionate about the restoration of the defunct Haitian Armed Forces). How precisely these absent-minded approaches correlate with solving the problems of the 1.3 million homeless living and dying in inhumane conditions in squalid camps since the January 12 earthquake may baffle economists and historians for years.
With turncoats like Préval, Anacacis and the facilitators of the February 29, 2004 invasion and occupation of Haiti, one needs to ask whether the Haitian revolution was a mirage or a genuine attempt by men of valor to do away with institutionalized injustice. As for Préval’s contemptuous attitude toward the Haitian people, it was evident in the aftermath of the January 12 disaster when he failed to address the traumatized nation for a month, preferring instead to give interviews to foreign media and lamenting about the collapse of his palace, presumably the one he inherited from his father. With a leader like Préval, the Haitian people certainly do not need enemies, hence the prevailing view in the international community that Haitians are responsible for their torments.
At this juncture, the revolutionary spirit that embodied the likes of Mackandal, Boukman, Biassou, Toussaint, Dessalines and Christophe, to name a few, has vanished into thin air. To think that 20% of the Black population of Saint Domingue (present-day Haiti) perished for a righteous cause that many of their descendants consider irrelevant to their existence is an insult to the Negroid race. In sabotaging the commemorations of the bi-centennial of a hard won victory over injustice and arrogance, Haiti’s political class along with the foreign-born or affiliated elite have shown their true colors and ought to be designated “special enemies of the nation.”
Unless the presidential candidates take a stand on the issue, the electorate should boycott the November 28 vote which is a mockery of Democracy. This particular election will legitimize the Security Council mandated-occupation of the country and nullify the principle of auto-determination enumerated in the United Nations Charter. Considering the occupiers’ effective control of Haiti with the explicit support of local collaborators and because the Haitian people are factually prevented from deciding or addressing their own future, participation will amount to voting under duress.
Because a year in politics is an eternity, the redundant assertion that Haitians are responsible for their torments is no longer valid after 6 plus years of occupation of Haiti by MINUSTAH. Whether the international community cares to admit it or not, Haiti’s problems have been its responsibilities since February 29, 2004, and the argument that whatever has been achieved between 2004 and 2010 is now buried under the rubbles is patently disingenuous and totally ridiculous. In that regard, the international community can either admit defeat or claim victory and make an honorable exit. Evangelization, coercion and occupation can never obliterate our national character, which was built on a core principle: rejection of all forms of subjugation. Like its predecessors, the republic of NGOs will inevitably crumble in the most unexpected way.

Nigeria's Terror Bombing...What a Shame

By virtue of its large population and abundant mineral resources, Nigeria was advertised as a giant and upcoming Africa’s Superpower upon getting its independence from Britain on September 29, 1960. Those claims however turned out to be shallow, as the events of the last fifty years demonstrated. Military coups, endemic corruption, ethnic and religious conflicts and increasing poverty certainly nullify this rosy scenario. Thus September 29, 2010 which was to be a milestone for Nigeria turned into a nightmare when the festivities commemorating that country’s 50th year of political independence from Great Britain were interrupted by twin car bombings that left 12 dead and dozens injured. Unless Black people in general have a peculiar way of commemorating special events, (it reminds me of the sabotaging of Haiti’s bi-centennial by impenitent thugs at the behest of foreign entities), this behavior is unquestionably abnormal and hard to comprehend.
Understandably MEND, (Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta), the group behind the bombings has legitimate grievances against the central government. It is fighting for a fairer distribution of oil revenue and remedial from sustained environmental degradation of the Niger Delta that endangers the livelihood of thousands of farmers and fishermen. As Nigeria remains mired in corruption and successive administrative failures, the statement released by the group is regrettably true "For 50 years, the people of the Niger Delta have had their land and resources stolen from them." “There is nothing worth celebrating after 50 years of failure." Perhaps the impenitent Haitians who deliberately sabotaged the bi-centennial of their country’s hard fought independence and facilitated its occupation (2004-?) were thinking along those lines.
Regardless of the justness of their cause, the act was self-centered and ill-timed; those responsible should, upon their capture, be hanged high in Abuja’s Eagle Square. Two days after the bombings, Henry Okah, the ex-leader of MEND, who was freed from a Nigerian prison on humanitarian grounds in July 2009 and moved to South Africa, was arrested by that country’s police. He is facing terrorism charges in connection with the bombing. The group’s unjustifiable action clearly shows that ethnic pride supersedes national interests; it validates the viewpoint of many within and outside of Nigeria that the prematurely named Africa’s Superpower, as presently constituted, cannot conceivably survive as a functional and stable country. Even Muhammad Khaddafi, a passionate advocate of a political union grouping all African states, flaunted the idea of a partition of Nigeria as a solution to its intractable religious problems. The statement emanated from the Nigerian Foreign Ministry in response to Khaddafi’s unsolicited advice was swift and unforgiving: "The insensitive and oftentimes irresponsible utterances of Colonel Gaddafi, his theatrics and grandstanding at every auspicious occasion have become too numerous to recount. These have diminished his status and credibility as a leader to be taken seriously." Khaddafi’s comment may be undiplomatic, but it highlights an issue that can no longer be ignored. The 1967-70 Biafra War (the Igbo seceded from Nigeria to form an independent state) is an example of what the country could be facing in the near future.
Actually Nigeria is, like all Sub-Saharan countries, fundamentally dysfunctional and should not exist in its present form. A creation of European colonialism, Nigeria is a mosaic of more than 250 ethnic groups, each with its own language and customs, with the largest being the Hausa in the north, the Yoruba and the Igbo in the South, East and Southeastern parts of the country. Though English, the language of the former colonizer, superficially holds this nation together, it is far from being the required solution because it is spoken mostly by the affluent and educated. These facts notwithstanding, the country has to deal with periodic tribal, regional, sectarian and religious violence which certainly make the case for its dismemberment into separate entities. Barring such ideal solution, Nigeria’s problems will endure for centuries because the ethnic and religious divide can never be bridged.
Therefore, the concept of Nigeria becoming the Superpower of Africa in the year 2000 was utopian, as the country was from its inception fundamentally flawed and could never develop a national identity commensurate with the title. Case in point, 50 years after British rule ended, Nigerian barristers and judges still wear white wigs, the colonial era symbol of the authority of the Court. Although the custom is still in use in many Commonwealth countries, Nigeria, one of the leading African nations thus representative of the Continent and its Diaspora, could have discarded this colonial vestige as it is truly a pathetic sight seeing a Black person wearing that wig. More to the point, South Africa, by virtue of its economic and industrial might, has eclipsed Nigeria as the leading African nation and the most likely to get a permanent seat in the U.N Security Council, if that club of powerful nations ever gets an overhaul.
Today’s Nigeria is known to the rest of world as a nation beset by religious and ethnic violence and inhabited by fraudsters and corrupt politicians. In a report released last year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimated that 400 billion of dollars were stolen from Nigeria’s treasury during that country’s five decades of independence. Considering the rolling black-outs and Nigeria’s decrepit infrastructure, this astronomical sum could certainly have been used to better end. Perhaps, the insurgents of the Niger Delta have decided that is enough is enough, the timing of their actions is unjustifiable nevertheless.