Haiti and the International Community: Vindictiveness or Altruism

Bombarded with constant doses of propaganda and slanted reports by self-styled experts on Haitian affairs, most of the planet’s inhabitants may, months from now, come to the conclusion that Haitians are unreasonable people who need constant supervision, if Haiti were to reposition itself from its current status of a dependent state to the category of stable nations. Naturally, the role of the international community, which financed and organized the recent general elections, in which the country’s largest political party was pointedly excluded, will be omitted from the equation. Advertized as crucial to Haiti’s recovery from a host of problems, these elections, if anything, will amplify rather than solve the country’s woes. Accordingly, the aspirations of the Haitian people, impeded by the politicians’ willful ignorance of the culture of dependency that has institutionalized the international community’s role in shaping the country’s future, will be deferred.
Contextually, the exclusion of Fanmi Lavalas, Haiti’s largest political party, from the electoral process; the Wyclef Jean comedy act, the imposition of Michel Martelly on the unsuspecting population and the thousands of NGO’s operating as sovereign entities within the state not only strengthen the culture of dependency but also highlight the designs of the international community. It was not by accident that neither Manigat nor Martelly sought to address the issue, which remains the primary obstacle to Haitians acquiring the self-confidence needed to build a stable and prosperous state. But contrary to the dispositions of whoever is declared the winner of the sham election, the Haitian people have not resigned themselves to this ignoble fate, and the customary honeymoon period extended to the new president will be short-lived.
Was Haiti a sick nation in 2004, the year of the bicentennial of its independence? The answers is unquestionably yes. Since the beginning and throughout its history, Haiti has been the singular victim of a concerted western paternalism, at times vengeful, that had the effect of hindering its social, political and economic development. The most egregious episode of this evil policy being the 1825 decision by Charles X of France to ransom the nascent little country for the loss of French properties that occurred during the war (1791-1803), notwithstanding the fact that over 100.000 African men, women and children were slaughtered in the struggle. Alone in a world that was to remain dominated by the colonial powers until the post-WWII decolonization period (1947-75), Haiti had no other choice but to capitulate to the French’s outrageous demand. Subsequently Haiti was subjected to recurring political isolation, economic embargoes, threats of military interventions by European powers and finally a U.S military occupation (1915-34), which eroded its sovereignty and led to the institutionalization of a pyramidal social system on top of which sits a tiny western-backed elite.
Meanwhile the attempts at toppling or reforming the system, which is similar to the Apartheid system that prevailed in South Africa (1948-92) were invariably met with stubborn and violent resistance: military coups or foreign interventions, like the ones that took place on July 28, 1915 and February 29th, 2004. Though this struggle for dignity, respect and political independence has been a revolving cycle for successive generations of Haitians, the abhorrent system endures because of the international community’s intrinsic aversion to this simple and noble idea. Historians will agree that Haiti was not a victim of benign neglect, a theory put forward by western academics that rationalizes the need for foreign interventions in Haitian affairs, but a casualty of a deliberate and vindictive policy meant to subjugate and humiliate its people.
It is therefore highly hypocritical for Raymond Mulet, the representative of the UN General Secretary in Haiti, to insinuate “there are Haitians who don’t love their country.” His paternalistic comment indicates that he is a poor student of Haitian history or rather a shortsighted individual totally dedicated to preserving the status quo in what is arguably a tinderbox. So entrenched is the zombification of Haitian society that the man was never made to account for his undiplomatic statement. Under normal circumstances, this arrogant diplomat would apologize for his thoughtless remark or be declared persona non grata and asked to leave the country.
Was Haiti’s invasion and occupation on February 29th, 2004 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which deals with threats to international peace and security, justified? The answer is unquestionably no, because the occupation is based on a false premise and has anything to do with altruism. The recently released Wikileaks cables revealing the extent of the international community’s opposition to progressive forces in Haiti are testament to that discriminatory and ignoble policy of subjugation. The sight of UN soldiers patrolling the streets of Haitian cities with armored personal cars and heavy machine guns seems geared toward intimidating the population rather than protecting it, as there is no armed insurrection in the country that requires such display of force. The late Chinese leader, Mao Tse Tung, once said “Power come through the barrel of a gun”, but what he failed to acknowledge or rather not understood is that historically guns have proven powerless against ideas whose time has come. Contextually, the inalienable right of the Haitian people to self-determination, though perpetually deferred, will sooner or later be a part of their identity. Jean Bertrand Aristide could not be more insightful about it when he said upon returning to his native soil “Nou la, ak tout moun ki la, pou nal-la.”

Aristide: Villain or Victim

Since the advent of constituent modern-states, anyone embracing the notion of social and economic justice has always been considered subversive by the Powers-That-Be. Even in the world’s greatest Democracies, which today pride themselves as paragon of virtues as they relate to human rights and civil liberties, the road to these fundamental rights has always been treacherous and unforgiving. In Europe and the US, countless thousands were murdered or ostracized for advocating the right of assembly and to speak freely without government interferences, to popular participation and other entreaties that today form the quintessence of civil liberties. This epic triumph of enlightenment over ignorance in the US and the European countries validates a simple reality: repression, a potent symbol of obscurantism, does have a natural life spam.
It is thus surprising that a disproportionate number of the planet’s inhabitants is still fighting for those rights in many areas of the globe, particularly in Haiti where an unholy alliance between the international community and the repugnant local elite is stalling the inevitable march toward these inalienable rights. For starters, it takes two to tango. The notion of calling a citizen’s presence in his own country “a destabilizing factor” is not only superfluous but also implies that the status quos is more desirable than the potential albeit abstract change that Aristide’s return to Haiti may bring to the tortured and exhausted poor. After seven years in exile, the man commands more popular support than any other politician in Haiti, a reality which, by itself, is an indictment of the system in place under the aegis of the purported UN stabilization mission.
To understand what is at stake, one needs to analyze the conditions that facilitated Aristide’s rise and earned him the enmity of the elite and the international community. In the 1980’s, there was not a political and economic system in the world that remotely resembled that of Haiti, where a tiny elite systematically terrorized the overwhelmingly poor majority with the support of the international community. That is unfortunately still the case with the UN occupation (2004-?) By speaking passionately on behalf of the downtrodden and calling Capitalism “A mortal sin”, the man came to be regarded by the local barons and the international community as a dangerous subversive who needed to be silenced. At the urging of his supporters and despite numerous assassinations attempts against his person, Aristide entered Haiti’s 1990 presidential fray and was elected by a whopping two-third of the vote. On September 30, 1991, seven months into his presidency, he was overthrown by the military in a bloody coup that subsequently took the lives of thousands of his supporters. Despite the stated will of then-US president Bill Clinton, the CIA was so absorbed on keeping Aristide out of power that it circulated a fake anti-psychosis drug prescription supposedly written by a Canadian doctor proving that the exiled president suffers from some form of mental disease. In the context of the post-Cold War geopolitical reality, a Third World leader defying Washington may conceivably be considered mentally ill, but faking an anti-psychosis drug prescription to prove the point is a stretch.
Brought back to power by American troops in 1994, Aristide presided over the first peaceful transfer of power in Haitian history. Reelected in 2001, he was immediately confronted with an unofficial embargo imposed by the international community, foreign-instigated political unrests and finally an armed revolt by mercenaries trained in the DR, Haiti’s next door neighbor. On February 29th, 2004, French and U.S forces invaded Haiti and Aristide was flown into exile, first in the Central African Republic (CAR) and later South Africa. Then-US National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, famously said that she did not want that man to set foot in the Western Hemisphere, a dictum that were to remain valid for 7 years. Meanwhile thousands of his supporters were murdered under the UN-backed Latortue regime (2004-06); his political party (Fanmi Lavalas) banned from ensuing elections while the poor continue to suffer under the repressive rule of the elite/ MINUSTAH.
This is the reality in Haiti for the last two decades and the saga of the man who presumably will destabilize that country upon his return. As of now, the first salvos in the blaming game of “Who is destabilizing Haiti” are being fired. In an interview with Time Magazine, U.S. Ambassador to Haiti, Kenneth Merten, bluntly stated "Aristide could be a disruption or a distraction" to a democratic process that American taxpayers had put a lot of money into. "Nothing should be done to create instability or to intensify the existing problems of Haiti, and that is the responsibility of all, not just the candidates, but former politicians" concurred the Organization of American States Assistant Secretary-General Albert Ramdin. And, when Raymond Mulet, the representative of the UN General Secretary in Haiti asserted “there are Haitians who don’t love their country”, he was apparently referring to the former president and his supporters under the twisted logic put forward by the international community.
Having returned to the lion’s den, Aristide’s travails and those of the destitute peasants and slum dwellers are far from over since the elite/MINUSTAH rule is well entrenched. Thus solving Haiti’s problems requires a thorough restructuring, if not the obliteration, of the present system. And, as the present situation dictates, only one man possesses the power to extricate the poor out of their lethargic state and galvanize them into actions against their oppressors, and that is Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

Needed: An Emancipator

Sunday March 20th, 2011 is slated to go down as a turning point in Haitian history when Mrs. Myrlande Manigat, a former first lady and seasoned politician, faces Michel Martelly, a Kompa singer and political neophyte, in the runoff for the presidency of that country. Interestingly enough, the fate of the once proud little nation, beset by an array of
seemingly intractable economic, political and social ills, will be decided by the impoverished majority, the country’s least powerful constituency. Disenfranchised, humiliated and scorned for the last 207 years, the poor, who make up the bulk of the electorate, may well deliver the coup de grâce to the dying country by electing Michel Martelly aka Sweet Micky, the Manchurian candidate of the elite and a sociopath by any definitions. On the other hand, in the event Myrlande Manigat is elected, Haiti’s current situation, the result of unwarranted foreign interferences, noted indifference of the political class and rapacious instinct of the elite, is not expected to change either, hence the dilemma.
Though politicians are known for their ability to inspire their countrymen, few are men and women of unassailable convictions, a paradox that explains the public’s low regard for this elite group. As the needs of society remains in constant evolution, political expediency is a reality that does not necessarily take away a politician’s ability to ascent to greatness. Nevertheless, it provides the public with an invaluable insight into a politician’s character, which remains the primary indicator of his or her political philosophy or acumen. In Haiti, where the philosophical and political divide between those holding the lever of economic powers and the destitute majority is unbridgeable, the country’s politicians inevitably find themselves having to make unpalatable choices. This may be what is happening with Myrlande Manigat whose latest pronouncement on the occupation force (MINUSTAH) leaves many wondering about her ability to negotiate its departure without embracing the irrational idea of restoring the dreaded Haitian Armed Forces (F.A.d’H).
Making matters worse, Manigat has to contend with the international community, a powerful constituency whose self-appointed role of savior of the nation is backed by 13000 U.N soldiers and the power to frustrate her ability to implement any program that runs contrary to its designs. That said, it did not surprise anyone that Myrlande Manigat, the underdog in the March 20th presidential runoff in Haiti, is backtracking on her earlier position to bring an end to the military occupation (2004-?). Yet, the relevant question remains: Was her statement a subtle attempt at winning the backing of the international community, which tacitly supports her opponent, or a reaffirmation of the long-established approach by Haitian politicians to disregard the aspirations of the majority? Most importantly, does Manigat also believe, as is the case with her opponent, that the restoration of the F.A.d’H will bring peace and security in Haiti?
Any Haitian with an iota of reasoning, let alone the politically-savvy Manigat, knows full well that this nonsense is being propagated by the international community and the local collaborators. As a former first lady, she had a first hand experience with the predatory instinct of the defunct Haitian military when her husband, Lesly Manigat, was overthrown in a military coup led by Gen. Henri Namphy on June 20th 1988, 4 months into his presidency. It is therefore inconceivable that she would even entertain that thought when the basic structure of the Haitian state has been obliterated by the January 12th, 2010 earthquake and everything needs to be rebuilt, while the country is practically bankrupt. Truth be told, Haiti cannot afford an institution that once consumed 40% of the national budget; acted as an insurance policy for the elite against legitimate popular demands and terrorized the citizenry into submission, while millions were deprived of the basic necessities to survive. Apparently, Manigat is treading a fine line on this politically and emotionally charged issue, as a significant portion of the electorate is sold on the idea of restoring the Haitian army amid the insecurity that has been a reality in Haiti for the last decade.
Neither Manigat nor Martelly has offered a detailed explanation as to how their grandiose programs of providing the population with housing and other social services that have been lacking during the preliminary phase of the reconstruction will be funded. That is understandable given that Haiti is bankrupt and the international community’s promised financial assistance is subject to political blackmail. Ricardo Seitenfus, former special representative of the Secretary General of the OAS (Organization of American States) said it best: “The United Nations mission in Haiti is to freeze the government and to transform Haitians in prisoners of their own island. More than ever, Haiti needs an emancipator and neither candidate fits that profile; thus its liberation from the oppressive clutch of the international community will not be forthcoming this March 20th 2011.
As they await an eventual liberation of their country, the Haitian people must now make do with the lesser of two evils. Though Manigat seems unwilling to address the culture of dependency that has turned Haiti into a Republic of 12000 NGO’s where the constitutional prerogatives of the state exist on paper only, she nonetheless understands the need to reassert the authority of the state, more so than her depraved opponent. While her election will not bring salvation, she remains the logical choice, among the two candidates, to lead the country during this troubled period.

May God Save Haiti

With the introduction of Democracy in Haiti in 1991, the Haitian people were duped into believing that two centuries of repression at the hands of unsavory strongmen would be a thing of the past, a fallacy that turned out to be a recurring nightmare for which there seems to be no cure. Even the people’s right to elect leaders of their own choosing is not protected under the present conditions. Under the widely publicized and accepted version of the ills afflicting Haiti, one man, Jean Bertrand Aristide, twice elected by the people and twice evicted from power by the now-defunct Haitian military (1991) and a US-French invasion (2004) has been personally held responsible for this current state of affairs. Naturally this orchestrated propaganda campaign, meant to obscure the true role of economic liberalism, which accelerated the country’s descent into wretched poverty and despair beginning in the mid-1980’s, had had the desired effect.
Although kidnappings, gross human rights violations, political violence, systemic corruption, drug trafficking and armed gangs were a fact of life for millions of Haitians during the military dictatorships that ruled the country from 1986 through 1994, Aristide is invariably blamed for their introduction in Haiti. For two centuries, the impoverished masses’ dream of participating in the political and economic life of the country was an integral part of their existence, yet the man is somewhat blamed for having encouraged the pursuit of this inalienable right. Though the man was simply trying to hold the line against the forced induction of a not-yet-ready Haiti into the unforgiving enceinte of economic liberalism, he is accused of having unnecessarily provoked the wrath of the international community through his supposedly narrow-minded political vision.
These help explain the exclusion of his political party in the last two elections and the concerted resolve of the ruling elite and the international community to keep the man from returning to his native soil before the March 20th run-off, although his presence will not change the dynamic of the present order. Some cynics even attributed the calamities that befell Haiti since Aristide’s forced exile in 2004 (hurricanes, earthquakes and the cholera epidemic) to his supposedly demonic powers, an illogical assertion that has become a credo among Aristide’s legions of enemies. Meanwhile, the saga of a cornered, impoverished and humiliated nation continues while those in charge are either oblivious of the reality or unwilling to change course.
On March 20th, in the most delicate moment in the history of their nation, millions of Haitians go to the polls to elect a successor to René Préval, a man whose tenure at the helm of the impoverished nation will be summarized by future historians as the apex of incompetence and indifference. Unfortunately, the electorate’ desire to move away from the status quo may not be forthcoming in that election because of the vile actions of the current regime, whose attempt at prolonging its rule by proxy resulted in the improper and heavy handed meddling of the international community. Rather than vote for a leader of their own choosing, the Haitian people will therefore be dealing with the ghost of their storied and turbulent past in the upcoming run-off pitting Michel Martelly, a sociopath and Kompa singer, and Myrlande Manigat, a tantrums-prone Grande Dame of Haitian politics.
With so much at stake, even the often-used terminology “none of the above” does not come close to describing the stark choices facing the electorate on March 20th. The cynicism warped into populism of Michel Martelly and the unreconstructed elitism of Myrlande Manigat no doubt do not coalesce with the aspirations of the electorate that is being pushed into a corner. Basically, the Haitian people are called upon to participate in a masquerade whose only claim to legitimacy and fairness remains its approval by the international community. The consolation prize would neither be economic development nor stability, but an implied understanding that whomever they choose on that fateful day will not be spirited out of the country for insubordination to the power of the status quo before the end of his or her term. Accordingly, it will be politic as usual and the despair that characterizes their existence over the last 25 years will continue to endure under the watchful presence of thousands of UN soldiers of the MINUSTAH.
This inflexible stance of the elite, the arrogance of the international community, the myopic attitude of the political class, the apathy of the middle-class and resilience of the poor are contributing factors that allow the repugnant system to endure. Arrogance, the most conspicuous symbol of power, makes these people oblivious of the danger looming on the horizon. Inevitably, the wind of change presently blowing against organized repression and entrenched dictatorships, so prevalent in many areas of the world, will reach the shores of Haiti and jolt its people out of their stupor. Indeed, it is inconceivable that the destiny of a country which, 207 years ago, said “no to organized repression and arrogance” could be so cavalierly handled by an ever expanding group of native sons and daughters doing the bidding of sworn enemies of the nation either willfully or unknowingly.
The election of Michel Martelly which, thus far, seems a probability rather than a possibility due to the dullness and elitist posture of Myrlande Manigat, his opponent, will bring ridicule to the a nation already burdened by a long list of idiosyncrasies. In this hour of desperation, may God save the nation.