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.

The Stalemate Continues

Seven and a half years into the UN Security Council-mandated occupation of Haiti that is so far responsible for the deaths of more than 10.000 Haitian citizens, the result of political persecutions and a cholera epidemic brought on by the MINUSTAH-attached Nepalese soldiers, it is obvious the country has moved from being structurally unstable to politically ungovernable. The failure of the opposition-controlled Parliament and the president, Michel Martelly, to find common ground on a suitable candidate for the post of prime minister attests to that fact. Is this stalemate, as Elizabeth Rust of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) puts it: “a chronic crisis of leadership” or “the result of Haiti’s history of perpetual foreign intervention and political instability?
Without a doubt, the former complements the latter and vice versa. Nevertheless, Rust’s analysis in which she excoriates Haitian politicians for their role in the stalemate, while ignoring the instigating role of the international community, is consistent with the patronizing views of foreign observers of Haiti. Rust should know that the political impasse is over the suffocating authority of the international community, the self-appointed nation builders, and a group of Haitians attempting to salvage what is left of Haiti’s sovereignty. Bear in mind, as Rust correctly acknowledged, only 23 percent of the electorate participated in the March 20th election that catapulted Michel Martelly to the presidency. Therefore, the president cannot claim of having had a mandate from the Haitian people, despite receiving two-third of that number.
It is all the more insulting that the president would want to impose on the nation a prime minister totally dedicated to implementing the neo-liberalism policies advocated by the international community that are responsible for the crisis gripping the country. The military coups, the unofficial embargoes, the destruction of Haiti’s peasantry, the subversion of its nascent democracy, the invasion and occupation may have been a means to an end for the architects of the policy, but they certainly did not succeed in subjugating the population. If anything, they help justify why Haiti has teetered on the brink of anarchy since the 1980s, because any system imposed by force of arms is fundamentally deficient.
Meanwhile, the paternalism that prevented the country from forging an identity of its own since the dawn of its existence continues. This coming October, the mandate will be automatically renewed, loaded with the same generic provisos that have now become redundant, paternalistic, insulting, if not laughable, particularly the paragraph reaffirming the UN Security Council’s strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of Haiti. Indeed, the country is treated as a primeval tribe that needs to be permanently supervised, for its inhabitants cannot be trusted to uphold the basic moral precepts of this civilization, hence the notion of it being “a threat to international peace and security.”
For example, Paragraph 14 of last year’s Resolution 1944 stated: The SC Strongly condemns the grave violations against children affected by armed violence, as well as widespread rape and other sexual abuse of women and girls, and calls upon the Government of Haiti, with the support of MINUSTAH… and, to continue to promote and protect the rights of women and children as set out in Security Council resolutions 1325 (2000), 1612 (2005), 1820 (2008), 1882 (2009), 1888 (2009), and 1889 (2009). Even the most ardent opponents of the occupation would be hard pressed to find fault with this noble statement, except that many soldiers attached to the MINUSTAH are actually committing these crimes themselves.
In 2007, 108 Sri Lankan soldiers were without fanfare repatriated to their home country for having sex with underage Haitian girls, the very constituency they were mandated to protect under these resolutions. Currently, five Uruguayan soldiers are under investigation for raping an 18-year-old Haitian male. As these soldiers are immune from prosecutions, they may not be made to account for their depraved actions. Unprovoked beatings, mistreatments, rapes and harassments of Haitian citizens by the improperly-named “peacekeepers” remain as common as the stream of arbitrary Security Council resolutions authorizing their presence in Haiti. Therefore, any analysis of the Haiti situation that does not bestow a primary responsibility on the international community is inherently flawed.
Having rejected Michel Martelly’s first two choices for the post of prime minister, the Haitian legislators are once again being asked to ratify a third pick, wearing the same cloth, and ostensibly more controversial. The actual nominee, Gary Conille, not only does not meet the residency requirement (he has not lived in Haiti for 5 consecutive years), as mandated by the Constitution, he is also the chief of staff for Bill Clinton in his position as UN special envoy. If approved as prime minister, Conille would assume the co-chairmanship of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC) with Bill Clinton, the other co-chairman and his former boss. Besides this apparent conflict of interests and the residency rule, which constitutionally disqualifies the prime minister-designate for the post, his nomination is a testament of the arrogance and intransigence of Martelly and the international community.
Conclusively, Martelly hasn’t learned anything from Parliament’s rejection of his two previous choices, or the real powers behind his presidency have decided on an “all or nothing strategy” that requires violating the Constitution. Or, still, the president does not understand what is at stake, given the negative impact on Haiti not having a functioning government and his stated goal to institute the “rule of law” in the dysfunctional country.

Re-Colonialism: The New World Order

Because of the interdependency of our world, any policy emanated from the UN Security Council (the world’s governing body grouping China, Britain, France, Russia and the US) is part of a larger scheme. The February 29th 2004 invasion of Haiti was the introduction of a new geopolitical arrangement meant to replace the post-colonial order (1947-77) which had become unmanageable, thus in need to be revamped. The rulers of our world, no longer satisfied with neo-colonialism (rule by proxies) because of the emergence of new centers of power or so-called rogue nations that is threatening or challenging their hegemony, decided to put an end to the experiment. Fittingly, in less than a century, the world has witnessed the conclusion of the colonial period, the neo-colonialism experiment, and the dawn of re-colonialism.
Historians will agree that WWII instigated the demise of the colonial period (1492 when Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas to 1977 when Djibouti became the last African colony to be given its independence by France), because the new centers of power (the US and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union) could not countenance European colonialism, which was archaic and incompatible to their own interests. They will also concur that the post-WWII order (neo-colonialism) was a natural transfer of hegemony from one center of power (Europe) to two continent-size nations (The US and the Soviet Union). In 1991, the Soviet Union, weakened under the weight of its own militarism and beset with economic problems, simply imploded.
With Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, incapacitated, and new centers of power, China, Brazil, India and the so-called rogue states (Iran and North Korea) vying to be taken seriously or defying the post-WWII arrangement, a new order protecting the interests of the primary beneficiaries of the old became a necessity. With the most to lose, the western nations settled on the once discarded approach to domination: direct rule. Through unilateral actions and the expert use of the instruments of the post-WWII order such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Security Council, they set out to institute a new order: re-colonialism.
Under the new arrangement, any attempt by a Third World country at projecting political and economic independence is confronted in its embryonic stage so as to prevent the copycats efforts that were common in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and preclude political, economic and military alliances with the emerging powers. Recalcitrant governments are hounded and subjected to harsh measures that include financial, economic and political isolation calibrated to create internal dissent or armed revolts. Isolated, noncompliant leaders inevitably resort to repressive measures against the foreign-funded provocateurs and that naturally paves the way for their indictment by the ICC for “crimes against humanity” which has become a generic term under the new policy.
In one worst case scenario, Haiti, a poor country not at war with anyone, was invaded by French and US forces on February 29th, 2004 and arbitrarily labeled “ a threat to international peace and security” by the UN Security Council the day after the invasion. The country has since been under a mandated-Security Council occupation that is responsible for untold numbers of political deaths and a cholera epidemic that has thus far took the lives of 6000 Haitians. Though scientific evidences have established that the Nepalese battalion attached to MINUSTAH (the UN occupation force) was responsible for the outbreak of the epidemic, the UN steadfastly refuses to acknowledge guilt.
Not surprisingly, the core principles enumerated in the United Nations Charter are selectively applied depending on the circumstance. For example, threats to collective peace and security, which mandate UN military interventions, invariably take precedence over the principle of self-determination of peoples whenever the western powers (Britain, France and the US) perceive any transgression as such. Alternatively, the principle of self-determination of peoples is automatically ignored whenever it collides with the interests of any member of the Big Five, which encompass everything under the sun.
Strangely enough, the re-colonization is being enforced by Third World countries which may later be victimized under the same policy. Like the disposable hired guns of the colonial period, the nation-enforcers went about their allotted assignment with a zeal that sometimes surpassed the expectations of their masters, which explains the arbitrary shootings and enduring harassments of Haitian civilians under the UN occupation 2004-?. Besides the contractual and enforcement role of the mercenary nations, the administrative side of the policy is handled by an army of NGOs (the modern-day equivalent of settlers) acting as an independent entity within the state. A motley crew of adventurers, religious zealots, perverts, entrepreneurs, opportunists, racists, pedophiles and, of course, a number of idealists, the NGOs constitute the greatest threat to auto-determination of peoples and sovereignty of poor nations.
When the Security Council, the all-powerful body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security in our world, is arming insurgents to destabilize an accredited UN member-state, it is not only discrediting the organization’s stated purpose but also destroying the very foundation of its power. Undeniably, the old demons that conceived slavery, the extermination of the Amerindians, the Holocaust and innumerable human sufferings have yet to be exorcized. Given that re-colonization naturally collides with the aspirations of its targeted victims, not even the architects of the policy can confidently predict the outcome. Time will tell.

The Next Government Must Declare an Economic Emergency in Haiti

Beginning in the mid-1970, any ill-conceived idea, particularly those emanated from the IMF, are advertized as indispensable to Haiti’s development and automatically endorsed by the country’s political leaders. The reason can partly be explained by these politicians’ inability to tackle Haiti’s seemingly intractable problems, which predictably grew more serious with their shortsightedness or indifference. Haitians alone have the power to shape their destiny; the situation commands it and the answers are plentiful, but the political will is in short supply.
Building and maintaining a modern state necessitate locally-produced revenues and not the politically-dependent foreign assistance upon which the country has been relying for its survival, a reality that has eluded every Haitian government since the death of Papa Doc Duvalier in April of 1971. Because these leaders, to varying degrees, failed to understand that indeed “Sé grès cochon-an pou ki kwit cochon-an” Haiti’s sovereignty was compromised well before the February 29th 2004 French-US invasion which, by itself, is a proof of the malevolence of the international community.
The only exception was the democratically-elected Jean Bertrand Aristide, who stubbornly resisted the onerous directives of the IMF, out of patriotism and misreading of the severity of the international community’s determination to subjugate Haiti. He was overthrown twice in 1991 and 2004 and sent manu militari into exile for a multitude of concocted transgressions, which included political murders and drug trafficking, though the allegations were never proven. The man has since been cast as an unreformed villain, whose presence in Haiti constitutes an existential threat to a nation recuperating from his truncated mandates. Prevented from setting foot in the Western Hemisphere for 7 years, Aristide was eventually allowed to return last March by then-Haitian president René Préval, infuriated over the elimination of his hand-picked candidate by the international community for alleged electoral fraud. Préval and his family are now persona non grata in the countries that opposed Aristide’s return.
In essence, the international community has been shaping Haiti’s destiny in the last 4 decades and the end result is appalling. Its policies, conceived to create a mendicant and dependent state, succeeded in that regard as successive Haitian regimes willingly complied with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) inappropriately-named austerity measures. A prime example is the 1987 closing of the Haitian American Sugar Company (HASCO), then the country’s second largest employer and only sugar refinery. Back in 1984, Baby Doc Duvalier, coping with political unrests and desperate for new loans to prop-up his regime, readily complied with an IMF directive to lower the tariffs on imported sugar in exchange for these loans. Three short years later, HASCO, unable to compete with the subsidized, lower priced US sugar, closed its doors.
Economists estimate that over 300.000 people (laid-off workers, suppliers and their families) were affected by the closing of the plant. The tragedy was to be repeated in the late 1980 and early 1990, when Haiti was forced to eliminate subsidy to its farmers who formed the backbone of its society. 800.000 farmers and their families lost their only source of livelihood because of cheap imports, leaving them with no other option but migrating to Port-au-Prince, the capital city. The enormous death toll of the January 12th 2010 earthquake (official estimates put the number at or around 250.000) that obliterated the overcrowded city was the unfortunate end result of that policy. What’s more, the once self-sufficient country now imports 80% of its food needs, leaving it highly vulnerable to malevolence of its food suppliers.
What is being imposed on Haiti is the discredited system (economic liberalism) which is creating havoc around the world. For the destitute 207 year-old country that had missed the industrial revolution, the experiment will not work. Unfortunately, the yet-to-be formed government is expected to follow this proven path of destruction that has reduced a once proud little nation to the unenviable status of a mendicant state.
Counting on the largesse of aid donors and the theoretical rewards of economic liberalism has to be abandoned, if Haiti was to extricate itself from the strangled hold of foreign NGOs and breaking the cycle of instability and foreign military interventions. In light of the gravity of the situation, the incoming government must declare an economic emergency, which would allow Haiti to bypass or suspend the World Trade Organization (WTO) burdensome rules and set its house in order.
Many economic powerhouses, among them France, Great Britain and Japan, had done so in the aftermath of WWII. Haiti’s desperate situation, particularly after the January 12th, 2010 earthquake, can conceivably be equated with that of a nation recovering form a devastating war, hence the need to tailor a response similar with those employed by these nations. Naturally, such necessary but controversial measure will rattle many quarters, but isn’t appropriate for a nation, which has been arbitrarily labeled “a threat to international peace and security” because of its poverty-induced instability, to extricate itself from this unenviable situation?
Having been the victim of embargoes, extortion, and military interventions (the contributing factors to its underdevelopment) Haiti can no longer afford to be punished or led astray by its tormentors. By virtue of its emphasis on delegitimizing the Haitian state and parceling its constitutional authority among foreign NGOs, the current experiment is a deliberate assault on our dignity and the principle of self-determination enumerated in the UN Charter.

Capitalism and Constituent-States

In the myriad of structured societies that straddled human civilizations (Hunting and Gathering, Pastoral, Tribal, Agricultural, Feudal, and Industrial), the ability to control resources has been instrumental in the development of dominant groups. Accordingly throughout the course of human history, even in societies that preceded the advent of constituent-states, the concept of resources redistribution has also been at the forefront of internecine and external conflicts. Naturally, the asymmetry between control and redistribution sparked insurrections and wars of conquest, domination and extermination that have impacted every culture, in every geographical area of the globe, and every socio-economic system established by humans.
Incidentally, as humans progressed toward establishing orderly societies, control of resources by dominant groups and challenges for their equitable distribution or rather redistribution by the dispossessed became an inherent component of these social orders. Even the modern-day concept of Law and Order upon which all constituent-states depend for viability and survival originated with the need to protect the interests of resources-holders against the incessant demands of those clamoring for redistribution. As a result, countless socio-economic theories meant to correct the imbalance were devised by social scientists and academics, many are not worth mentioning since they remained concepts that never left the world of their creators or were simply impractical.
Not surprisingly, one socio-economic system has defied the ages by reinventing itself whenever the need arose, and that is capitalism, whose origins can be traced back to the beginning of structured societies and not in 16th century Europe as most people are led to believe. Historians and pundits have embarked on futile debates about its origins while forgetting that the concept of structured societies itself originated with the control of resources (the quintessence of capitalism) which allowed successive groups (hunters and gatherers, shepherds, farmers, feudal lords, traders, factory owners, and holders of capital) to accumulate power and dominate.
Strangely enough, despite the periodic revolts and insurrections that marked the development of structured societies from the beginning to the present, capitalism, as a socio-economic system that relies on dominance of one group over the others, has never been in danger of being thrown into the dustbins of history. The reason: its compatibility with human nature. Conversely, the communism experiment in Russia (1917-91) and other countries failed because of that system’s incompatibility with human character; its prospective most valuable asset “the communist” never existed and was at best fictional. Even the official Communists never subscribed to the philosophy they claimed to have espoused and, as you would expect, formed a privileged group that thrived on dominance of others, the same premise as capitalism. In contrast with the symbiotic relationship existing between capitalism and humans, communism was superficial and impractical and that facilitated its demise.
It can be said that capitalism, as the world’s oldest economic system, haphazardly and naturally evolved not created. Its many celebrated aspects, (Mercantilism and Keynesian), to name a few, were corrective measures meant to anchor it to larger social agendas. Though the Soviet experiment is a textbook example that artificially created socio-economic systems are destined to fail, this reality nonetheless continues to elude the architects of the current economic system. They are using purposely created financial institutions, such as the IMF and the World Bank, to establish an artificial global economic order (Economic liberalism or Globalization.)
This emphasis on creating a one-size-fits-all economic order grouping developed and underdeveloped nations may, in the end, prove catastrophic to peace and security in our world. In the Third World where the disparity between the haves and haves not seems impossible to bridge, these institutions, through their policies, are adding fuel to the fire. By forcing Third World governments to relinquish ownership of their industries, the IMF and World are essentially engaging in the transfer of public wealth to individuals and multinational corporations, in effect reversing the trend that has allowed capitalism to endure and thrive.
Despite its shortcomings, capitalism greatly benefits the societies that manage to reduce the disparity between resources-holders and those clamoring for a fair distribution. This orderly redistribution of wealth helped hundreds of millions of peasants and urban dwellers ascend to blue-collar and middle-class status and naturally lessened the prospect of insurrections in many parts of the world. Strangely enough the architects of economic liberalism, through the IMF and World Bank, are discarding this successful method (state role as arbitrator) and spearheading a drive to concentrate the world’s wealth in the hands of a few. What’s worse, the policy is being implemented while the earth’s resources are shrinking and its population is exploding. Are the system’s creators (globalization) been invested with a messianic mission to usher the demise of constituent-states and, by extension, humanity itself?
One needs not be a doomsayer to conclude that this incomprehensible policy is creating the conditions for a perfect storm that could affect every country because of the interdependency of the world we live in. The ongoing global economic turmoil (2008-?), which has its genesis in economic liberalism, is a dire warning that should not be ignored because the survival of constituent-states depends on the soundness of their socio- economic system. As things stand now, the outlook for capitalism, which has survived countless challenges since the advent of structured societies, is not at all promising. The reverberations could be a complete breakdown of social peace that brings to an end the concept of constituent-states as we know it.

The Rejection of Michel Martelly’s Alter Ego

Last Wednesday August the 3rd, 16 courageous Haitian senators, performing their constitutional duties, rejected Bernard P. Gousse, a former minister of justice under the illegal Boniface-Latortue regime (2004-06), as Michel Martelly’s choice for the post of Prime Minister. For those keeping scores, this is Parliament’s second rejection of the president’s choice for the post in three months. In response to his rejection by the Haitian Parliament, Gousse issued a sarcastic, professorial and moralistic statement that more or less gave the public an insight into his personality and validated the senators’ judgment. Unrepentant and unquestionably proud of his role as head henchmen for the Boniface-Latortue regime, he signed off his statement with “Gousse Pi Rèd”. In the idiom-laden Kréyol, it implies that he (Gousse) intends to stay put and torment his political opponents. Someone has apparently died and left Gousse in charge of the nation’s destiny, because what else can explain his supreme confidence in his ability to torment his enemies.
Indisputably, the president, who campaigned on a platform to end the politic of exclusion that characterized Haitian politics for two centuries, was being unreasonable with this choice. Considering Bernard Gousse’s discreditable past, (he zealously engaged in illegal persecutions of officials of the fallen Lavalas government during his tenure as minister of justice 2004-05), the blame lies at the feet of the president. Moreover, unlike Martelly’s first choice for the post, which was also rejected by the Haitian Parliament and could be blamed on inexperience or ineptitude, Gousse’s nomination was calculated and consistent with the president’s own political philosophy. A lawyer by profession, Gousse, like the president, passionately believes in neutralizing the Lavalas juggernaut by any measures, even if that entails the subversion of the democratic process. Both the president and his defeated nominee’s questionable actions during the violent overthrow of Democracy in 1991 and 2004 by the bloodthirsty Haitian military and the French-US invasion of Haiti, respectively, are indicative of their convergent political views in solving the matter.
One falsehood embraced by the media is the characterization of Michel Martelly and his cohorts as neo-Duvalierists. This notion is patently absurd and does not reflect the dominant political ideology in Haiti, which is basically self-preservation. Any association of Martelly and his cohorts with Duvalierism is inherently flawed and may be part of a protracted propaganda campaign meant to distract the Haitian people from the real issues. I only wish Bernard Gousse could explain his conception of “national dignity”, which he mentioned in his statement, when he was part of the group of impenitent collaborators that facilitated the occupation of Haiti on the bicentennial of its finest hour.
The truth is that Duvalierism, an offshoot of the Negritude movement that stood for the empowerment of Haiti’s black majority and eradication of colonialism, expired with the passing of Papa Doc in 1971. Though Martelly, Gousse and the current crop of Haitian politicians have benefited from Duvalierism, they remain steadfastly opposed to its political goals. They are essentially “escapees” from the pre-1957 political order (the mulatto elite dominance of every aspect of the Haitian state beginning with the US occupation 1915-34) who now see themselves as a cushion between stability and anarchy. They instinctively despise and fear the poor and mostly illiterate majority, which they perceived as reckless, ugly, smelly, primitive, barbaric and a latent threat to stability.
A prime example of this group’s temerity is its public rejection of Duvalierism while it emulates the method that contributed to its success: organized repression against those it perceives to be enemies of the current order. An unabashed supporter of the 1991 bloody military coup that overthrew the first democratically-elected president of Haiti (Jean-Bertrand Aristide), Martelly is, like his defeated nominee, a man committed to rolling back the minor gains made by the masses since the fall of Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier in 1986. His stated intention to bring back the now-defunct Haitian Armed Forces, the once reliable enforcer of the status quo, is indicative of his reactionary streak and simplistic view of the situation. In order not to tarnish the memory of the valiant men who have honorably served the defunct-F.A.d’H, Martelly’s Army, if it ever see the light of the day, should be appropriately named “Niggers with Guns”, a dangerous concoction under any definitions that will validate its sinister purpose.
Because party politics in Haiti cannot be defined in ideological terms, the political banner under which Michel Martelly was elected, Répons Péyzan (Peasants’ Response), is as absurd as it is inappropriate. Nothing connects the president to the Haitian peasantry nor could he conceivably formulate a practical response to their plight. Supporters of the president see the rejection as a dangerous game of brinkmanship by Haitian legislators unconcerned with the plight of their countrymen, but others disagree. Had Gousse been confirmed as prime minister, the notion of impunity, which the president has vowed to eliminate, will be institutionalized, as the defeated nominee ought to be prosecuted for depriving legions of Haitians of their civil rights during his tenure as minister of justice. Bernard Gousse’s vindictiveness toward his political adversaries, exemplified by his stinging response to his rejection by Parliament, provides an insight into the man’s twisted psyche. In rejecting Bernard Gousse for the post of prime minister, the senators no doubt saved the nation from a new round of political persecutions; history will likely concur.

The United Nations Diversionary Tactics in Haiti

Over 5500 deaths and 300.000 officially diagnosed cases since the outbreak of a cholera epidemic in Haiti, last October; yet the United Nations is treating the disease as incidental to that country’s poverty. This year alone, three-quarter of a million of Haitians are expected to be infected by this preventable disease from which thousands more could die. But in response to the findings published by the Atlanta-based Centers for Diseases Control (CDC) linking the cholera epidemic to a MINUSTAH-attached battalion of Nepalese soldiers, a UN spokesperson dispassionately commented that the organization is "aware of the report and as with other prior reports, we will study its findings diligently." This is in accordance with a UN tradition of burying politically-sensitive issues under the pile of “further studies needed”, a stalling tactic that invariably works for the organization.
The UN indifference to Haitian lives is such that the World Health Organization (WHO) had originally refused to investigate the origin of the cholera epidemic. "At some time we will do further investigation, but it's not a priority right now," commented spokeswoman Fadela Chaib last November. Needless to say, this is strange reaction from an organization that is chartered to help its members deal with health crisis. As I said before, it seems that the UN discovers a primitive tribe (Haitians) in the middle of the Caribbean Sea and sets out to bring it to the norms of civilization. Accordingly, until the tribe achieves certain unidentified or not publically shared criteria formulated by the Security Council, it will not be accepted as a sovereign nation as enumerated by the UN Charter. That helps explain why Article 2 (1) of the UN Charter, which states “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members”, does not apply to Haiti, one of its founding members.
Basically, the United Nations, whose own fact-findings panel blames “confluence of circumstances” (environmental contamination of the Meille River by Nepalese troops, poor sanitation and health-care system deficiencies) for the outbreak, is second-guessing the findings of the world’s foremost institution of research against infectious diseases. No Haitian health professional was included in the Ban Ki-Moon-appointed panel, a fact that underscores the temerity and condescension of the occupiers. The only surprise in the convoluted UN report was the omission of Jean Bertrand Aristide and Lavalas as a factor.
Now that the cat is out of the bag, it is incumbent on the UN to do the right thing by repatriating the cholera-carrier Nepalese soldiers; establishing stringent requirements for its colonial troops in Haiti and compensating the victims and their families, seeing that the organization is in no hurry to end its devious endeavor. Meanwhile, the UN is conveniently pushing ahead with its benevolence by launching a military operation to rid many poor neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince (Bel-Air, Martissant and Sité Solèy) of the undesirables it believes pose a greater threat to the Haitian people than a transient epidemic for which the organization is being unfairly blamed.
The UN will never assume responsibility for the cholera epidemic, because any admission of guilt theoretically puts the organization in violation of the international laws that it is mandated to uphold. Since Haiti is under a military occupation, the actions of the Nepalese soldiers violate Article 32 of the Fourth Geneva Convention which states “A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination…” The UN military operation against criminality, the latest out of many since 2004, is a diversionary tactic meant to cover this inconvenient truth.
In theory, the Nepalese soldiers’ frequent dumping of feces into the Meille River, which subsequently provoked the cholera outbreak, amounted to war crimes as they have factually caused physical suffering and mass extermination of innocent Haitians. The UN can maintain that these actions were not deliberate, but cannot escape the reality that the Nepalese soldiers were negligent or acted in blatant disregard for the wellbeing of the persons they are protecting under the Security Council mandates. The UN can also argue that its health programs and the millions it has spent in the fight to contain the epidemic certainly prevented the deaths of thousands more Haitians, but this reasoning would be hypothetical at best. The truth is: there wouldn’t be a cholera epidemic without the UN occupation. Moreover, we have travelled that road before with the French; at some point, Haitians might be compelled to reimburse the UN for the expenses incurred during its occupation of Haiti.
A comprehensive look at the UN occupation of Haiti (2004-?) reveals a string of violent incidents that highlights a manifest indifference to the lives and wellbeing of the Haitian people by their supposed benefactor. The rounding-ups, beatings, shootings and arbitrary imprisonments of Haitian citizens, opposed to the UN-sponsored Latortue regime (2004-06) by, or with the consent of, MINUSTAH, were collective punishments to suppress the resistance against the occupation, hence amounted to war crimes. So was the firing of 22.000 high caliber bullets by Brazilian and Jordanian soldiers on June 6th, 2006 during a UN security operation against an alleged gangster, which resulted in the untimely deaths of innocent civilians. A successful propaganda does have a lifespan; sooner or later the UN would need to explain to the same gullible Haitians who believe in its benevolence why their economic conditions have deteriorated under the occupation.

Azor: The Passing of a Legend

It must have been 4 or 5 years ago at a concert that I met for the first and last time Lénord Fortuné (Azor), the internationally-renowned Haitian drummer and vocalist, who died of renal failure on July 16th. A true son of Haiti in many aspects (grew up poor, uneducated and yet possessed unsurpassed talents), Azor will be remembered by his countrymen for his immeasurable contribution to Haitian culture and also legions of innumerable fans throughout the world that enjoyed his unique brand of music (Rasin Mapou). Last Saturday, July 23rd, he was accorded a Vodou-style State Funeral at the Champs-de-Mars, Port-au-Prince’s largest square, presided by Max G. Beauvoir, the first crowned Supreme Master of Haitian Vodou. Michel Martelly, the Haitian president and fellow musician himself, sent his condolences and remembered Azor as “a tireless Ambassador of Haitian culture.”
Azor’s short but bountiful life accomplishment is an inspirational story to the millions of his fellow countrymen who seem condemned to a life of servitude and misery. His passing however ignited a debate among Haitians that underscores the extent of our self-hatred and proves beyond the shadow of a doubt the irreversible effects of colonialism on many of its victims. At issue was the state funeral given the deceased, which many “educated Haitians” considered improper because of his earthly association with Vodou, notwithstanding his immense contribution to the advancement of Haitian culture. Once again, the 500 years of ostracism, white-conceived propagandas and self-hatred among Haitians have come to the surface.
I have grown accustomed to unorthodox comments from my fellow compatriots, which can be attributed to willful ignorance, but this one defies any rationale. Although Vodou has, since April 4th 2003, been elevated to the status of religion in accordance with Haiti’s Constitution by then-president Jean Bertrand Aristide, a former Catholic priest, the old misconceptions, narcissistic Christian values, and manifest ignorance endure. In Brooklyn, New York, a well-known Catholic priest, whose list of infidels also includes Freemasons, unsympathetically said that God took Azor’s life in his prime because of his association with Vodou, whose practitioners are condemned sons and daughters of Satan. What was God’s verdict in regard to my late little brothers Ricardo and Caroll who passed on at three and a-half years of age and thirty-five, respectively?
It is disconcerting to learn that God would take a person’s life for being a drummer and Vodou practitioner while letting pedophile Catholic priests live long lives that enable them to wreak havoc on society. Unless the priest in question, who never toiled a day in his life to earn a living like the late Azor did, was expressing his personal, one-dimensional views and not actually speaking on His behalf, God definitely got it wrong.
It was Voltaire who said “Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.” The priest and others like him should not be dismissed as simple rabble-rousers, because their small-minded views have caused harm to innocent Haitian citizens in the past. Centuries of indoctrination by these peddlers of the “Gospel of resignation” (Catholic priests and more recently evangelical Christians) have had the desired effects on their intended victims (unsuspecting and uneducated Haitians trying to find a rationale for their earthly sufferings).
In 1940, it was the Haitian state under then-president Elie Lescot that organized the persecution of Vodou practitioners, but recently this sinister endeavor has become the handiwork of unrepentant vigilantes. Thousands of Vodou practitioners were killed following the fall of “Baby Doc” Duvalier in 1986; the perpetrators were never brought to justice. In the aftermath of the January 12th, 2010 earthquake that devastated Port-au-Prince, 50 Vodou practitioners were also killed by defenders of the Christian faith and, as expected, no one was ever prosecuted for these horrific crimes.
Voltaire was also right when he wrote: As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.” In this case, the absurdities being a narcissistic view of Christianity by simple-minded adherents and their inherent belief of Vodou as demonic, which naturally lead to atrocities against innocent citizens. It is also a paradox to see Christians (the alleged children of God, the Merciful) committing violence against peaceful alleged sons and daughters of Satan. Could the failure by Vodou practitioners (the alleged sons and daughters of Satan) to retaliate against their tormentors be a sinister plot to win converts among peace-loving Christians? These are questions that need to be answered by those hiding behind their hatred of evilness in order to foment intolerance and violence against peaceful citizens that are trying to find a purpose for their wretched earthly existence.
The truth is: the hatred of Vodou by a raucous segment of Haiti’s population has anything to do with that group’s love for God. It is actually consequential to colonialism, which associates anything from Mother Africa with primitiveness and devil worshiping, but also idiosyncratic to Haitian society, which considers anything that is embraced by the poor as an existential threat to the status quo.
The late Azor, the product of the “Haitian Renaissance” that began in the mid-1980, would understand the misplaced nihilism of his fellow compatriots, since he lived it and died in it. His spirit lives on; others will no doubt follow in his footsteps and keep alive the flambeau of liberty and resistance that has experienced a reincarnation through his uplifting songs.

The World on the Brink

The news that China’s high performing economy, the engine that has prevented an expansive global economic recession in the last 3 years, is slowing down may be the surest sign of more troubles ahead. Despite its huge market, China is unwilling or not yet ready to assume the role played by the US (being the repository of most of the world’s goods) unless Beijing is given a role proportionate to that status in managing the global financial system. It also implies that reforming the global economic system, which has generated an abundance of wealth and propelled hundreds of millions of workers to middle-class status, needs to be tackled in earnest. However, convincing the affluent inhabitants of the first world that the system of entitlements, which has become standard in the developed world, is having a negative impact on global prosperity may be the greatest challenge facing world leaders. As the riots in Greece over that country’s government’s austerity plan and the stand-off in Washington over raising the U.S debt ceiling to avert a possible default demonstrate, it may be next to impossible for affluent countries to enact the reforms necessary to save the global economic system.
The U.S, the chief beneficiary of the 1944 Bretton Woods Accords from which derives the present economic order, must take the lead to starve off a precipitous crash of the system. That, however, requires painful political decisions which neither the Obama White House nor the Republican-controlled House of Representatives seems willing to undertake. Naturally, all Americans (the poor, the rich and the middle-class) must tighten their belt and bid good-bye to the entitlement programs, because the day when they will start paying for imported goods in currencies other than the dollar may not be too far off. More to the point, the prospect of the US defaulting on its debts, though highly unlikely, will nonetheless influence the drive to replace the dollar as the leading global currency. Since August 5th 1971 when then-US president Richard Nixon (1969-74) terminated the convertibility of the Dollar into gold, the foundation of the Bretton Woods Accords, the stability of the global financial system rested upon the credibility and creditworthiness of the US government. This arrangement however could change in the event of a US default on its debts, which may send the system crashing down like a house of cards.
In a worse case scenario, the US may end up being a passive participant in the decisions that affect its own future, because China, the EU and others will be in the driver seat (Caucasian solidarity oblige, the EU might be a reluctant reformer). Hence, the question facing US policy makers is not what programs to eliminate or which tax cuts should remain on the book, but how much should be slashed from every item in the federal budget. These cuts must certainly include Medicaid, Medicare, capital gains, mortgage interest deductions and tax exemptions for churches (many crooked pastors have provided a solid argument against that one, and the Lord would agree) to name a few. Social Security however must be exempted, because it is not an entitlement program but a retirement fund paid for by the retirees. The gravity of the situation is such that without a thorough restructuring of the US federal budget, the next generation of Americans may end up having to pay to get a High School education. Most importantly, the US and the rest of world may revert to the destructive old habit of protectionism which would naturally bring about global economic disturbances and possibly military conflicts among the major players. As the 19th century French political economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50) expressively and correctly puts it: “When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.”
To enact the needed reforms and save the system, US leaders need to remember that it was the Great Depression of the late 1920’s which provided the impetus for WWII (1939-45), the most murderous human conflict to date. Incidentally, WWII could have been averted, if only the then-shapers of the world had listened to John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) who, as an economic adviser to the British government at the Versailles Conference (1919), warned that the level of reparations payments imposed on Germany would eventually ruin Europe. As predicted by Keynes, the victorious allies’ misguided policy led to a global economic downturn and set the stage for the political ascension of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933. The analogy being that, unlike the present-day economists advising US policy makers, Keynes was not a partisan ideologue, but a visionary who could see the larger social and political ramifications.
Indeed, economic disturbances invariably created social upheavals that spilled over national borders and provoked regional conflicts. In today’s environment, however, a Great Depression-type economic disturbance will inevitably bring worldwide disorder, because of the interdependency of the global economic system. Hence, what is happening in Washington should not be of concerns to Americans only but also the entire world. To make matters worse, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the overseer of the system, cannot force Washington to accept the necessary austerity measures, although the Fund is suggesting a package of tax increases and programs cuts.
Unless corrective actions are undertaken in Washington, the US, the country that has accumulated the greatest concentration of power and influence in the history of the world, may end up having the shortest span of dominance. That will be history’s greatest irony.

Say What: Bernard Gousse as Prime Minister

Any doubt about Michel Martelly’s pseudo-populism, which propelled the singer-turned-politician to the status of first citizen of Haiti on March 20th, has been dissipated by his nomination of Bernard Gousse as his prime minister-designate. Gousse, a former minister of justice in the Boniface-Latortue regime (2004-06), is the poster child for the reactionaries (Groupe 184) which facilitated the invasion and occupation of Haiti on February 29th, 2004. Like his fellow putschists, Gousse really believed he was doing the Lord’s work and predictably carried out his assignment with religious fervor. As has always been the case with Haitian politicians, the then-minister of justice and now prime minister-designate never knew the limits of the authority invested in him. This set the stage for his demise. His take-no-prisoners approach to solving “the Lavalas problem” became a public-relations nightmare for his handlers and he was eventually sacked.
If confirmed by the opposition-controlled parliament, Bernard Gousse, who ought to be nicknamed “former minister of injustice” for his unlawful persecutions of officials of the deposed Lavalas government in 2004-05, will be presiding over a government of inclusion (Michel Martelly’s bogus campaign promise). A strange logic that highlights the president’s duplicitous approach to tackling Haiti’s perennial politic of exclusion which, for two centuries, has prevented the country from moving forward. To avoid a protracted battle that would harm Haiti and its people, the prime minister-designate should thank the president for putting his trust in him and then withdraw his nomination.
Ironically Bernard Gousse is a man who should be prosecuted for the extrajudicial killings and illegal imprisonments of Haitian citizens that took place during his tenure as minister of justice (2004-05). I wonder what Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, who seems obsessed with prosecuting Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier for alleged crimes over a quarter of century old she claims have no statute of limitations, thinks of Bernard Gousse. UN Watch, an organization that monitors the United Nations and promotes Human Rights, was right when it accused Ms. Pillay of turning a blind eye to most of the world’s worst abusers. It is expected that if Ms. Pillay gets her way with prosecuting Duvalier, she would skip the crimes of Henry Namphy, Prosper Avril, Raoul Cédras and Gérard Latortue and move on to Jean Bertrand Aristide, the bogeyman for everything that is wrong with Haiti today.
This is political cynicism at its worst. Gousse, a legal scholar who could not possibly give a lecture in jurisprudence to 12th graders because of his narrow-mindedness, clearly does not have the administrative competency for the challenging post of prime minister of the country. The Haitian legislators ought to remind the president that he is not negotiating with concert promoters or nightclub owners but with duly elected representatives of the people and that the very future of a dying country is at stake. Considering the extent of the social, political and economic divide in Haiti, a person of integrity that can assuage the fears of the competing constituencies is needed for the post. At this juncture, Bernard Gousse is the wrong person for the prime ministership, because the man only knows what he is against but clueless as to what he wants. If Gousse were to become prime minister, his first order of business will be the compilation of a dossier on Aristide, who escaped his dragnet in 2004 (courtesy of the invaders), for an eventual prosecution on bogus charges like those he leveled at the former president’s top lieutenants during his stint as minister of justice.
Taking into account the Daniel-Gérard Rouzier’s fiasco, one had expected Michel Martelly to become politically savvy and avoid unnecessary blunders. Apparently that assessment was premature because a seasoned politician would not have nominated such a notorious and blood-soaked individual for the post of prime minister while claiming to be working toward ending the “politic of exclusion.” Politic is like quantum physics: the better you know the position of a politican, the less you know the momentum behind it, and vice versa. While Martelly’s right-wing philosophy is well known to the public (he was an active supporter of the 1991 military coup against the first democratically elected president of Haiti and had once lambasted the poor as ugly and dirty), the reason behind his nomination of the unsuitable Gousse is perplexing. He may be counting on a public backlash against the opposition-controlled parliament, which would in the end allow him to get his way, given the urgency for the country to have a functioning government.
The late British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.” That may be true as Democracy remains the only political system with universal appeal. Its price, however, is too high for any society that neither desires it nor is ready for it, which happens to be the case with Haiti. Since the day when Democracy’s fruitful principles benefit all Haitians remains well beyond the horizon, the country must now live with the unintended and unpleasant consequences. Commenting on the defeat of his nomination in a letter to the Haitian people, Daniel Gérard Rouzier magnanimously said: “Our Lower House Representatives were duly elected to the Parliament by the people and, by voting against my ratification as Prime Minister, they fulfilled the role that their conscience imposed on them.” Obviously, the man says it all.

Sorry Mr. Rouzier: It Comes with the Territory

Without a doubt, the Haitian Parliament rejection of Daniel-Gérard Rouzier as the country’s prime minister on June 21st dealt an additional blow to the Haiti Reconstruction Project which seems to have stalled since it began to function on June 17, 2010. For the millions of Haitians who have been waiting impatiently to see the Reconstruction moving forward, the vote was anticlimactic. Though many Haitians were understandably angry and frustrated, the legislators’ action was justified and in conformity with Parliament’s constitutional prerogatives. History might record this vote as a milestone in the principle of separation of powers in Haiti, as Michel Martelly, fresh from his electoral victory, adopted a cavalier attitude toward the opposition-controlled parliament. In essence, it was a necessary step toward breaking the executive branch’s arrogance that has turned the country into a playground for strongmen. The next step would be for the legislators to insist on a supervisory role over the supranational Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF) that doubles as a conduit for the sinister objectives of the elite and international finance.
As expected the Web was abuzz with vitriolic remarks toward the legislators who stood accused of insensitivity to the plight of their countrymen or worse. But isn’t the legislators’ rejection of Rouzier’s nomination in line with the implementation of the “rule of law” which the president, Michel Martelly, has vowed to institute in the notoriously lawless country? With the stickling points being tax evasion and misgivings about the nominee’s nationality, the legislators’ action should not be the end of the matter. Besides the unwarranted foreign interferences in the internal affairs of the country, the Rouzier episode is at the core of what is wrong with Haiti: endemic corruption, arrogance, and impunity. How can Daniel-Gérard Rouzier explain not paying taxes for the last three years? What about his flagrant disregard for the country’s Constitution which explicitly forbids any Haitian who has acquired another nationality from becoming prime minister? Though his accountant could be made to take the fall for the tax evasion, Rouzier’s unsuccessful bid to becoming prime minister, while holding a foreign nationality, epitomizes the arrogance which the Haitian elite is famous for. Like many children of well-to-do Haitians, it is quite possible that he was actually born overseas rather than Haiti.
Building the administrative, political, and legal foundation of a modern state is an infinite process. It involves a firm commitment by the state to protecting the rights of its constituent groups and erecting barriers to deter repeated malevolent actions by groups or individuals. The Rouzier fiasco should not have happened, as the Rudolph Henry Boulos affair should have served as a catalyst for the adoption of a legislation that criminalizes “willful intent to violate the Constitution”, the supreme law of the land. In 2008, Rudolph Boulos, a scion of one of Haiti’s most powerful families, was forced to resign his senate seat due to the fact that he was a US citizen, therefore ineligible to seek and hold elective offices in Haiti. Strangely enough, the judicial system did not follow through with his prosecution which would have served as a deterrent to other would be impostors. Either the legal mechanism did not exist or most importantly the Boulos family influence was too much for the state to bear.
As a result of this go along get along attitude of the political class, nothing was done to prevent such embarrassing incident from recurring, and Daniel-Gérard Rouzier, the man, who would have become the second most important personality in the country, never felt the need to abide by the Constitution. Contextually many individuals, who sit on the Haiti Reconstruction Fund (HRF) governing board (the supranational entity in charge of the reconstruction) as legitimate representatives of the Haitian people and their interests, are in fact foreign citizens owing allegiance to other countries. This is an anomaly that must be corrected as it contradicts the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enumerated in the United Nations Charter and makes a mockery of that organization.” Not tacking this important issue amounts to accepting international supervision by proxy which forms the essence of the UN policy in Haiti.
A thorough investigation of the matter is a necessary step toward establishing the “rule of law” in Haiti. If, Daniel-Gérard Rouzier is found to have willfully concealed his foreign nationality, which makes him ineligible for the post of prime minister under the Constitution, he should be prosecuted for the offense. Likewise, Michel Martelly should be made to answer for showing disrespect to the Constitution (intended or not) which, as president, he has sworn to protect because he failed to apply due diligence in vetting his nominee. The fact that neither the president nor Daniel-Gérard Rouzier, who advocated “Establishing a free trade/free port regime with zero import tariffs”, has apologized to the nation for the awkward affair is proof that the system of impunity that characterizes Haitian history will endure.
Indeed there are a million of other pressing issues that should be of concerns to the president and the legislators; no full-blooded Haitian can dispute that fact. However, stability and prosperity can never be achieved under the current framework which binds Haiti to an uncertain future. As Daniel-Gérard Rouzier said in his testimony before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on March 18th 2004 “Stability can only come through institution building.” For once, he, Daniel-Gérard Rouzier, was right.

The Mischaracterization of Haiti’s Situation

If one refers to the UN Human Development Index (a complex measurement of levels of income, education, health, sustainable development, security, gender and social inequalities in the countries of the world) Haiti ranks 145th out of 195. For a nation which, from 1804 to 1957 (the year Ghana became independent), assumed the destiny of the Negroid race in the white-dominated world, its ranking on the human development index could have been worse for reasons that were and remains external. Throughout that period, the country was the subject of concerted political isolation, unrelenting economic embargoes and unprovoked military invasions. In assessing Haiti’s situation, anyone who fails to factor these unfortunate events is doing a disservice to history. As Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier accurately told a French journalist “It was hard for people (the western world) to accept a Negro civilization in the middle of the Americas.” Unfortunately, this unwritten policy, born out of the then colonial powers’ vindictiveness toward the little nation, still endures 207 years after Haiti’s epic victory against slavery and the forces of oppression.
Based on the UN Security Council resolutions mandating the occupation of Haiti on the ground of it being “a failed state”, therefore a threat to international peace and security, the responsibility of the self-appointed nation-builders is challenging because theoretically the countries that rank lower on the HDI are also “failed states.” But do not expect the international community to embark on a worldwide nation-building program, because the occupation of Haiti on February 29th, 2004 never had anything to do with UN benevolence toward the least developed of its members. The Wikileaks cables highlight the insidious nature of the international community’s policy toward Haiti which centers on nullifying that country’s historic achievement and establishing a protectorate by proxy, using unsavory politicians and the repugnant elite.
Coincidentally, the notion of Haiti being “a failed state”, which served as basis for the occupation (2004-?), has vanished from official UN communiqués and foreign media. It has been replaced with the more benign term “politically unstable” which is, as one would expect, “bonnet blanc et blanc bonnet” seeing that the premise of the occupation remains unchanged: nullifying Haiti’s historic feat and obstructing the changes in the socio-economic structure of the country that appeared inevitable following the departure of Jean Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier on February 7th 1986. Through a long term military occupation, the architects of the policy insist on “managing the occupation and these changes” with the same structure and same individuals or groups that made the “yearning for change” possible while ignoring the consequences. Must this irresponsible policy be seen as the apex of arrogance or a mischaracterization of the situation that led the international community to a faulty conclusion?
Arrogance, the most conspicuous aspect of the absolute power of the UN Security Council, undoubtedly plays a role in the occupation of Haiti which enters its 8th year on March 1st 2011. However, the mischaracterization of the situation is likely the culprit since the international community remains oblivious to what is really at stake in Haiti. Its emphasis on protecting the interests of a select group of reactionaries at the expense of the larger population and, concurrently, sabotaging reforms will have dire consequences for the entire region. Only a fool would choose to disregard the lop-sided socio-economic conditions in place in Haiti which, in turn, create an explosive situation that could erupt at any given moment. Jean-Bertrand Aristide and Lavalas were a means to an end rather than the indispensable tools needed to bring the people’s aspirations to fruition, because the causes of the situation are deep-seated as is the resentment of the masses toward their oppressors (foreign and domestic). The international community needs only to remember that social and economic justice is not a peculiar Haitian characteristic but a fundamental right of every human being. Sooner rather than later, its imperial policy, the gluttony of the elite, and the masses’ legitimate aspirations will collide.
“The proletariat goes through various stages of development” (read political and social awareness) correctly wrote Karl-Marx and Friedrich Engels who elaborated as well on the various stages that led to the destruction of corrupt and oppressive systems. A quarter of century into what should plainly be called “Le réveil” of the masses in Haiti, no one can ascertain for sure the extent of their political awareness, a fact which, in itself, is indicative of the fluidity of the situation. Nothing is more suicidal for a political system than the indiscriminate use of violence to stifle legitimate demands, as it radicalizes the oppressed and closes the doors to compromises. England would be a republic today, had King John not given up his absolute power to rule in 1215. Conversely Louis XVI of France and Nicholas II of Russia thought otherwise and both were executed. Yet, despite numerous historical precedents, this discredited method for shoring up failing political systems remains the preferred course of action of the international community and the Haitian elite.
The imposition of Michel Martelly on the unsuspecting masses, albeit a fraction of the population, and marginalization of the movement born out of a popular aspiration for “comprehensive structural changes” are indicative of the international community’s misunderstanding of the situation. “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come” said 19th century French literary great Victor Hugo. Apparently, the international community’s self-awareness of the infallibility of its power precludes it from agreeing with Victor Hugo.

Haiti: Who Is in Charge?

Since February 29th 2004, a day which will be recorded as the darkest in Haiti’s tumultuous history, any initiative emanating from the occupied-country has had one purpose: consolidating the strangled hold of the international community on the country through confusion. From demonizing a man who built more than a hundred of schools to calling Haiti a “failed state” that needs to be restructured or rebuilt from scratch or converting a newly-built university into a garrison for foreign soldiers, the true nature of the elaborate scheme is too obvious to ignore. Not surprisingly, even the local actors are not briefed on their proper roles and the end result is more confusions. Everyone agrees that the 27-member Haiti Interim Recovery Commission (HIRC) co-chaired by Bill Clinton, the former US president, is not performing to its expectations and revamping or abolishing it is necessary. Unfortunately, replacing or restructuring it remains beyond the sovereign authority of the Haitian government, something that Daniel-Gérard Rouzier, the prime minister-designee, apparently did not understand or deliberately chose to ignore.
“What I can tell you is that the (commission) as it exists today will not continue," Rouzier cavalierly said in a videotaped interview with the Associated Press. Though the prime minister-designee was also careful in praising the concept, he nonetheless failed to consult with the powers-that-be before addressing the issue and was promptly reminded of the breach of protocol. The swift retraction of the proposal, even without any public reaction by the representatives of the powers-that-be, highlights Haiti’s government diminished authority under the MINUSTAH mandate and establishes that such unilateral action (a fundamental right of any sovereign country), will not be tolerated by the international community under any circumstances. In a worst case scenario, Daniel-Gérard Rouzier’s political career could be over before it has begun because of his unpredictability which, no doubt, does not sit well with the international community’s unmitigated preferences for earnest collaborators rather than independent thinkers.
Apparently, the idea of having been invested with a popular mandate, albeit the great majority of the electorate boycotted the last presidential election, has emboldened the current regime in Haiti, a situation eerily analogous to Jean Bertrand Aristide’s idealism which provoked the military coup in 1991 and the occupation 2004-?. Michel Martelly and Daniel-Gérard Rouzier, both political novices, should acquaint themselves with the true meaning of UN Security Council Resolutions which are usually broad in scope, interpretation and execution. Accordingly, “a no-fly zone resolution” may signify bombing a government to submission or out of existence while an innocuously named “mission to restore peace and stability”, which happens to the case with Haiti, meant revoking the country’s sovereignty.
In any country or political system, missteps by new governments are the norm rather than an exception. Aptly, one can only hope that this unfortunate incident does not evolve into a pattern of ill-advised decisions that could cause Haiti’s problems to endure and multiply. The fact that the Haitian government promptly distanced itself from the prime minister-designee’s imprudent remark is evidence of the international community’s supreme authority in Haitian affairs. At the New York University’s 179th commencement exercises held at Yankee Stadium this year, Bill Clinton, the main speaker and co-chair of the HIRC was nonchalant about the international community’s role in Haiti. Praising the graduates and lecturing them on their responsibilities in an ever interdependent world and the structural deficiencies of the underdeveloped countries, the 42nd US president said: In Haiti where I spend much of my life now, “We have just installed a new government.” The paternalistic statement, in itself, is a remainder to Martelly & Co that removing the threat to international peace and security (the underlying principle of the MINUSTAH mandate) will not be consigned to the care of the new government, regardless of their affinity with the occupiers’ goals.
True to form nothing actually happens in Haiti without the input or approval of the international community. The USAID report questioning the validity of the official statistics ( deaths and homelessness) of the January 12th 2010 earthquake that turned Port-au-Prince into a pile of rubbles unquestionably established the rationale behind the forced removal of squatters in tent cities at Delmas. The method employed is a harbinger of things to come under the current regime, as getting rid of robbers, rapists and other anti-social elements, the same argument used under Gérard Latortue (2004-06) that led to summary executions and disappearances of thousands of Haitians, transcends the need of the homeless families living in the tent cities.
At a neighborhood reunion party on May 28th, a well-known friend of Michel Martelly publicly declared “This government is condemned to succeed”, a quote he did not attribute it to anyone. I attended primary school with the FOM (friend of Martelly), but remains doubtful that such masterfully articulated quote could be his. Considering the magnitude of the task facing the newly-installed government, this is grandiloquence and optimism at their most superlative meaning. Every Haitian wants the new government to succeed, except that “The Great Experiment” conceived in the dark rooms of the IMF and World Bank has had the effect of generating many skeptics because of its overreliance on the local economic elite. One can only hope that expropriating college campuses for the purpose of garrisoning soldiers is no longer part of the plan. Well, the onus is now on the government to show the Haitian people that success and what it entails.

Time to Get Down to Business

At this juncture, every Haitian, even those responsible for the present order, want the new president, Michel J. Martelly, to succeed because a further deterioration of the situation would engulf everyone. Haiti can no longer afford to be stalling nor moving backward, and Martelly, in spite of his right wing political philosophy, should keep that in mind. While much have been made of Michel Martelly’s hard to believe victory in the March 20th presidential run-off, the fact that 77.5% of the electorate did not participate in the phony contest seems to escape the attention of the major players, particularly the international community. As the keeper of the present order, the international community can certainly help by stepping aside and giving the new government a chance to set the course. The repatriation of the Nepalese suspected of bringing the South Asian strain of cholera to Haiti would be a first step in that direction, but that is not going to happen because of the UN’s utter disregard for Haitian lives. With the rainy season likely to bring more cases of cholera and the recently released sanitized report by the Ban Ki-Moon-appointed panel that nonetheless confirmed the culpability of the Nepalese, the matter could be a major distraction for the new president.
Haiti’s situation is certainly a complicated one that requires adroit political skills and Martelly cannot claim to have those necessary to navigate his way through the arcane corridors of Haitian politics. This lack of political skills, however, could be his greatest asset since the discredited political establishment would be hard pressed to resist any reforms in the face of its embarrassing rejection by an angry electorate yearning for concrete changes. Though many of the new president’s campaign promises were blatantly unrealistic, a fact he subtlety alluded to in an interview with the Miami Herald in the aftermath of his victory over Myrlande Manigat, he should be given the benefit of the doubt nevertheless. "Hand in hand, shoulder to shoulder, we're going to change Haiti," said Michel Martelly during his inauguration. But as Haitians love to say “Tande ak wè se de” (listening and seeing are two different takes).
The new president’s greatest challenge will be Haiti’s rapacious economic elite; the main beneficiary of the present order, the international community, the implacable foe of anything remotely resembling populism, and the thousands of Haitians who rent to or work for the MINUSTAH. Substance must take precedence over empty promises; besides instituting the rule of law, Martelly’s agenda must include a pledge to reduce Haiti’s dependency on foreign aid that causes it to lose its sovereignty to predators of all stripes. The legal structure of the MINUSTAH mandate looks as if the Security Council stumbles upon a primitive tribe right in the middle of the Caribbean Sea and sets out to bring it to the norms of civilization. This paternalism has got to change, if Haiti were to extricate itself from this seemingly intractable situation, because this cycle of foreign interventions and punishments that characterized Haitian history (1804-?) creates the main impediment to the country’s development.
History commands it. If a person looks at an historical issue from the wrong perspective, he or she will end up with the wrong conclusion. While it is easy to associate Haiti’s troubles with its idiosyncrasies (personality cult, class consciousness, etc), it would be wrong to ignore the role played by the international community in instigating division within Haitian society and promoting insecurity and other nefarious projects.
Have the international community’s compulsory policies of lowering tariffs on imports and banning government subsidies to local producers, which have been the mainstay of its efforts in Haiti in the last 25 years, brought any improvement in the lives of Haitians? The IMF’s laissez-faire economic program in Haiti has practically destroyed the Haitian peasantry, the backbone of the country’s economic life; more than 800.000 farmers lost their livelihood and Haiti now imports 80% of its food needs. What about the arming of mercenaries (Guy Philippe and his associates) to bring down a democratically elected government that strayed from the script? Because the Organization of the American States (OAS) and the UN never objected to the use of the territory of the Dominican Republic as a base for the destabilization of Haiti, they have forfeited their moral obligations toward the Haitian people, hence deceitful in their intentions under the present order. Was Gérard Latortue’s reign of terror (2004-06), during which thousands of Haitians lost their lives, necessary to bring stability in Haiti? As per the international community’s emphasis on human rights, any Third World head of government with Gérard Latortue’s genocidal record would be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), tried and imprisoned. Unfortunately for the thousands of Haitians who lost their lives under his rule, the man was doing the bidding of the power behind the edict, thus immune to prosecutions.
No one expects Haiti, in the next 5 years, to free itself from this paternalism and the culture of dependency in light of the magnitude of what needs to be accomplished; however, the right approach may set it on course to disentangle itself from that curse and recover its independence. Having earned himself a place in Haitian history by virtue of his electoral victory on March 20th, 2011, Michel Martelly must now show his fellow countrymen that he truly deserves it.

Mission Accomplished

Like the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7th 1941; the JFK assassination on November 22nd 1963 and the destruction of the World Trace Center on September 11th 2001, May 1st 2011 is forever inscribed in American history. That day, Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the worst terrorist act on US soil, was killed by Navy Seals raiders at a fortified compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, (62 miles) north of Islamabad Pakistan’s capital city. It was a day many Americans wish should have come on September 12th, 2001, but as the old saying goes: better late than never, since Bin laden had, in the past 9 ½ years, become a legendary figure among terror groups for his ability to escape the dragnet of some the world’s most powerful military forces. Most importantly, his bold act had fundamentally altered the American way of life in a way no one could have anticipated, as the need to protect the country from further attacks now takes precedence over civil liberties, those quintessential values that gave birth to the American nation.
Without a doubt, it was a bitter sweet victory for the families of the victims of the 9/11 attack and the thousands of soldiers who fought and died in Afghanistan and Iraq. Had the Al-Qeada leader, who was rumored to have been afflicted with a kidney disease, died of natural causes, US intelligence agencies, the most sophisticated and best funded in the world, would have suffered a terrible blow. Indeed, the war on terror is not over as the threat of terrorist attacks did not dissipate with the demise of Bin Laden. In fact, Ayman al-Zawahri, Al-Qeada’s number two man and its chief organizer, is still alive and will no doubt try to avenge the death of his leader. And then there is the Taliban, the fundamentalist Islamic group that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, whose leader Mullah Omar remains an implacable foe of the US.
Former US president George W. Bush, whose presidency (2001-09) was defined by the September 11th 2001 attack, was philosophical about the historic event "The fight against terror goes on, but tonight America has sent an unmistakable message: No matter how long it takes, justice will be done," he said in a statement that echoed the sentiment of president Obama, Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, and other world leaders. Another important fact in the Bin Laden saga is that until US government papers are declassified decades into the future, conspiracy theories are bound to flourish and for good reasons. It certainly did not escape the attention of anyone that the late Al-Qeada leader practically lived for years within the confines of Pakistan’s seat of power while that country’s inter-services intelligence agency (ISI) steadfastly claimed not to know his whereabouts.
Americans are known to close rank in times like this one. Even Rush Limbaugh was considerate toward the commander-in-chief “Thank God for president Obama” said the radio commentator and virulent critic of the president. Nevertheless, as soon as the smoke clears, Congress is likely to demand a detailed explanation as to what happened in the last 9 ½ years during which the search for Bin Laden ended up costing the US treasury well over a trillion of dollars, notwithstanding the lives of thousands US soldiers who died on the fields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Make no mistakes; no one should think that George Bush or Barack Obama deliberately pursued a policy of concealment for insidious purposes or geopolitical consideration, but someone or entity is responsible for this mind-boggling tale of deception that makes the American people look like fools. The probable culprits are renegade members of the ISI, who sheltered Bin Laden while Pakistan reaped billions of US taxpayers’ dollars during the protracted search for the Al-Qaeda leader.
Applying conventional wisdom, one was certain that the capture of lower and mi-level Al-Qaeda operatives would ultimately lead to Osama Bin Laden, but no one could have anticipated that he was actually living in a town that is home to retired Pakistani military officers, let alone so close to that country’s premier military academy. Deception is the most common tool utilized by intelligence services to achieve their aims, and the 27 million of dollars bounty offered by the US government for the fugitive leader’s capture was derisory in comparison to the billions Pakistan was reaping while he was alive and in hiding. This simple consideration, along with anti-US sentiment within influential sectors of Pakistani society, may have facilitated the double-crossing of US interests by the ISI. Conversely, an ISI member, who may have been passed over for a promotion, could have tipped the US about the elaborate deception, which may explain why Washington, fearing a larger Pakistani government role in the scheme, did not inform Islamabad of the raid beforehand.
In defending its worldwide security interests, the US sometimes made convenient alliances that ultimately come back to haunt it. In Libya, where the US and NATO are military supporting a ragtag group of rebels against Moammar Khaddafi, the emergence of an Islamic fundamentalist leader is a possibility that should not be discounted, as these people’s aspirations may not square with those of the US and its allies. Terrorism is here to stay; however, the fact that Al-Qaeda is now incapable of mounting a 9/11-style attack or something bigger should be considered the greatest victory against terror rather than Bin Laden’s death.