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.