Martelly Needs to Broaden his Circle of Advisers

Though Garry Conille had always been viewed with suspicions because of his cozy relationship with the international community, his resignation as prime minister pushes back the timeline for an end to the occupation of Haiti. Coming on the heels of the so-called fact-finding mission by the members of the Security Council during which the country’s politicians were admonished to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the Haitian people, the blame game will likely be intense and unforgiving. But one man, more than any of the other actors, bears the ultimate responsibility for this unfolding drama and that is the Haitian president, Michel Martelly.
Ten months into Michel J. Martelly’s accidental presidency, Haiti is again experiencing a political crisis that has its genesis in the stubbornness of its president and the political philosophy he espouses. Lauded as a resolute leader by Bill Clinton, the UN Special Envoy to Haiti and former US president, Martelly sees himself as “the man of the hour”, anointed by a higher power to guide the trouble country into the Promised Land, irrespective of his inexperience and lack of support among the population. Though he succeeded in moving the stalled reconstruction project forward, he did so through intimidations and a noticeable disdain for political compromises and constitutional niceties despite his pledge to establish the “rule of law” in Haiti.
Since almost everyone was fed up with the political deadlock that practically froze the project of reconstruction, Martelly’s unorthodox approach to governing was initially overlooked and even applauded. His political adversaries however were biding their time seeing that politics is a game of opportunities. Fittingly, Martelly’s political adversaries went back to the drawing board and dusted up an old issue that may well derail his presidency: his suspected foreign nationality, which the Haitian Constitution forbids, under any circumstances, for the country’s elected officials.
Like the birther movement in the US, which alleges that Barack Obama is not a natural born US citizen and is therefore ineligible to be president, the issue of Martelly’s possible double nationality will not go away. Michel Martelly needs to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he had never acquired another nationality, and the sooner he addresses the issue, the better. Moreover, Martelly’s confrontational attitude in the matter is providing ammunitions to his critics in a country whose core attitude toward unsubstantiated rumors has always been “Il n’y a pas de fumée sans feu.” Where’s there is smoke, there is fire would be a correct translation to this Haitian idiosyncrasy.
With the resignation of the prime minister, this issue is no longer a political football but a serious matter that could impede the project of reconstruction of the country’s political, physical and administrative structures. Most importantly, the many entities (foreign and domestic) that facilitated the occupation of Haiti will seize upon this political infighting as irrefutable proof of immaturity on the part of the country’s leadership. Were this event happened in any other country; it will be viewed by the international community as an unmistakable sign of a vibrant democracy but Haiti being a special case with special needs makes it an alarming development that must be contained.
For Haiti’s sake, Martelly can do the right thing by addressing the issue expeditiously or let it develop into a full blown crisis, which will inevitably bring the unwanted meddling of the international community. With his narrow base of political support, the Haitian president can ill afford to further alienate the international community which, in all likelihoods, does not condone his treatment of Garry Conille whom it wholeheartedly supports. A consummate bureaucrat, Conille felt that the lawmakers’ demand for proof of citizenship for the members of his cabinet and that of the president was within of their constitutional prerogatives and that compliance was the way to go. But the president and his inner circle apparently disagreed.
There is a school of thought that supports the Haitian president’s calculated decision to orchestrate the resignation of a prime minister he did not control, nor had any confidence in, but did he consider the alternative? Elected with the support of less than 18% of the electorate, Michel Martelly does not have a political base that can act as trooper for his vision, whatever it may be. Parliament, which must ratify the next prime minister, is controlled by the opposition. In the ten months he has been in office, Michel Martelly managed to alienate every sector of the population, save his core supporters.
Replacing Conille with a member of his inner circle, which remains the cherished dream of Michel Martelly, would be the greatest political triumph ever in the history of Haiti. But unless the Haitian president has something up his sleeves, the possibility of this happening at this juncture is non-existent. Seeing that the resignation of Garry Conille does not advance the cause of stability nor strengthen Martelly’s position in his perennial struggle with the opposition-controlled Parliament, it is hard to fathom the rationale behind his move. But considering that Martelly’s closest advisers were authenticated members of the movement that facilitated the invasion and occupation of Haiti in the year of its bi-centennial (2004), the uncertainty that comes with this crisis may be a means to an end for the group. Having beaten the odds of improbability by becoming president of Haiti, Martelly must not be underestimated. But does he measure up to his group of advisers?

Reforming the UN must become a Priority

On January 31, 1933, a twisted political ideology, which firmly believed in the cultural and genetic supremacy of the Aryan race (Nordic peoples whom the Nazi considered the purest of the white race) gained power in Germany and set in motion a mass hysteria that resulted in the most horrific conflict the world has experienced to date (1939-45). The magnitude of the carnage led many to conclude that unless humans repudiate these fallacies, they could be on a collision course with their demise. This reasoning naturally led to the creation of the United Nations, an organization dedicated to the promotion and protection of peace in the world.
As the last 67 years have shown, this utopian dream or rather calculated deception has become a nightmare for much of the world. Every concept emanated from the organization has a double meaning. Ironically, the nations, which today use subterfuges and other means to further their interests or engage in alleged illicit activities, may have learned these behaviors from the master, namely the United Nations Security Council. Throughout the existence of the Council (1945-present), its permanent members have used deceit, lies and intimidations to further their hegemonic designs while promoting their role as keepers of peace and security in the world.
In retrospect the concept of a community of nations working together for the well-being of humanity, as the preambles of the United Nations Charter manifestly suggest, may be the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on humans. It legitimizes the long-established tradition of domination, which characterizes inter-human relationships since the dawn of civilization, by bestowing on a few powerful nations sole authority to define what is right and, of course, correct perceived wrongs by force. As you would expect, it also creates an unstable world where the line that separates righteousness from wickedness is constantly shifting, and the contrast between the two is a matter of perspectives.
Though it was obvious, from its inception, that the United Nations could not be counted on to solve or mitigate the myriad of problems facing humanity because of the fundamental differences between its then two most powerful members, the US and USSR, its stated purposed represented the only hope for a better future, nevertheless. But over the years, the organization’s actual purpose could no longer be concealed and its ugly mask was unveiled. From its purported role of global peacemaker, the organization evolved into a totalitarian and militaristic entity that has been undermining peace and security in the world. Superagencies such as the IMF and World Bank, whose tentacles reach every nation on the planet, act as promoters of the organization’s nefarious designs. Recalcitrant nations that questioned these agencies’ methods or refused to comply with their directives are ostracized and made to suffer for their impertinence.
With the changes that are taking place outside the traditional centers of power likely to alter the current geopolitical reality, a restructuring of the organization has become a necessity that must be addressed in earnest. Besides the need to reform the all-powerful and autocratic Security Council, amending the UN Charter might be needed to face the challenges and realities of the 21st century. Under its actual structure, which reflects the political reality that existed in 1945, the UN is ill-prepared to tackle the challenges that are propping up in every corner of the planet. The ramifications of not reforming the UN are too scary to contemplate seeing that the decaying organization is likely to remain the heartbeat of the world for the foreseeable future.
To make matters worse, the all-powerful Security Council, the UN governing body, has become more dysfunctional with the apparent political and economic decline of the West and the rise of other centers of power. As a result, militarism and disdain for established conventions have become the primary tools in international relations. In the aftermath of the twin vetoes by China and Russia of a resolution condemning the ongoing violence in Syria, which Damascus sees as foreign-instigated, there is a widespread sentiment among member-nations and ordinary folks that the system is irretrievably broken, hence must be reformed.
The strongly-held belief by Britain, France and the US that western values are universal is undoubtedly the crux of the matter. The recent assertion by the French interior minister that “Some civilizations, notably France’s, are worth more than others” epitomizes the narcissistic view of the western powers which holds that the Western civilization is superior to all the others, past and present, and must therefore dominate. Given that all civilizations are extensions or progressive versions of earlier ones, Mr. Claude Guéant’s comment is senseless; it discredits the French’s reputation as a nation that expects first-rate intellect from its leaders. Not surprisingly, such flawed doctrine is anathema to many countries, notably Iran (formerly Persia) and China, whose civilizations existed millennia before the West’s own.
The western powers need to reassess their self-belief in the supremacy of their values and perceived shortcomings of other countries, seeing that misconceptions, more often than not, are the perfect recipe for miscalculations. The notion that all nations must conform to the values of western civilization, as decreed by its keepers, is anachronistic and a threat to the concept of “community of nations” enumerated in the preambles of the UN Charter. In the thermonuclear age, such nonsense could well bring the demise of humanity, insofar as this planet is the only place suitable for humans.

The UN is violating the Fourth Geneva Convention in Haiti

Under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, “All individuals who do not belong to the armed forces, take no part in the hostilities and find themselves in the hands of the Enemy or an Occupying Power” shall in all circumstances be treated humanely by the occupying army. As such, they must not be subjected to “outrages upon their personal dignity, particularly humiliating and degrading treatment.”
Unfortunately for millions of Haitians, who find themselves living under an army of occupation (MINUSTAH) through an abuse of authority of the UN Security Council in the form of a resolution (1529) labeling Haiti “a threat to international peace and security”, the forbidden crimes under the Fourth Geneva Convention (rapes, tortures, beatings and untimely deaths) have been a fact of life since February 29th, 2004. To make matters worse, they are being subjected to these humiliating and degrading treatments by the very organization entrusted to upholding the tenets of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Human relations and social development being naturally asymmetrical effectively negate the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples prominently enumerated in the preambles of the United Nations Charter. It is all the more absurd that a small country, like Haiti, would want to be a member of the United Nations, an organization whose fundamental principles are rather utopian, if not deceptive. As the history of human social development and interactions is littered with trials and errors, I want to believe that the United Nations is one of those instances rather than a concerted effort by a few powerful nations to deceive and subjugate the rest of its member-states. Is the United Nations, as presently organized, indispensable for the survival of humanity or an impediment to human development, given the interdependency of our world and its less than stellar record at promoting peace?
The atrocities committed by the Nazis throughout Europe (1939-45), the Italians in Abyssinia (1938) and the Japanese in Asia (1936-45) undoubtedly made the case for the creation of the UN in 1945 as an alternative to the ineffectual League of Nations (1919-46) which failed to suppress the genocidal designs of Germany, Italy and Japan. Aptly, the United Nations’ founding is an emotional reaction to a repulsive episode in human history rather than a genuine attempt at promoting peace among its members. From its inception, it has been the domain of a few powerful countries intent on imposing their cultural, political and economic values on the rest of the world, therefore a nightmare for humanity as its purposes and goals conflicted with the history of human interactions and social development.
Because of the Nuremberg (1945-46) and the Tokyo (1946-48) War Crimes Trials in which high ranking Germans and Japanese political and military officers were convicted under non-existing statutes for crimes against humanity, the victorious allies then decided to make such crimes punishable under international laws. Hence, the rationale behind the Geneva Conventions that outlaw the inhumane treatment of civilians under military occupation (a time-honored hobby of invaders) and condone today’s generic use of “crimes against humanity” as an instrument for political oppression by the Security Council, the UN body in charge of enforcing the statutes. Even an invading soldier, who came to terrorize a peaceful population, is protected under these Conventions, which range from the necessary to the unenforceable to the downright absurd. The fact that no Italians were ever prosecuted for the genocidal assault upon the people of Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia) was evidence of the duplicitous nature of the UN and its lofty purposes.
In 1993, the plenipotentiary powers of the UN Security Council were evident when it adopted a report from then-Secretary General, Kofi Annan, and a Commission of Experts which recommended that the Geneva Conventions be part of the body of Customary International Humanitarian Laws, therefore binding on non-signatories to these Conventions whenever they engage in armed conflicts. (Customary International Humanitarian Laws are sets of rules that are generally accepted as laws, irrespective of precedents or biding treaties.) Fittingly, a civilian, who killed a soldier of an occupation army in self-defense, could be criminally charged under the Geneva Convention, which legally protects his tormentor from retaliatory actions by civilians under military occupation.
Seeing that laws are enacted and treaties signed in response to unfortunate incidents, MINUSTAH’s reign of terror in Haiti ought to serve as rationale for the revision of any accord that grants blanket immunity to UN peacekeepers. Signing treaties under duress is incompatible with the principles of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. Nonetheless, any elected official, who acquiesces to this abomination, is legally and morally responsible for the deaths, beatings, sexual assaults and daily humiliations of Haitians at the hands of the MINUSTAH soldiers. As a remedy, the victims and their families should seek compensations by suing Gérard Latortue, René Préval and Michel Martelly for their annual endorsement of this absurdity.
It is simply unacceptable that Haitians, who find themselves under an unprovoked military occupation, would continue to be humiliated and degraded with the implicit support of the political class. Educated in the schools of legalism, internationalism and other isms that do not pertain to nationalism, Haiti’s political class refuses to see the reality as it is. Their blind embrace of the international conventions, which oppress and rob the Haitian people of their dignity, must not be tolerated.