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.