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.