Saturday, August 23, 2008

Haiti’s Occupation: Case Study Of Relentless Persecutions

By Max A. Joseph, Jr

It is patently absurd for anyone to think that Haiti, a country with a non-existent industrial base and a primitive political structure, can be assimilated within the global economy without the social dislocations that are tailor-made for revolutions. Truth be told, those who persist in taking this course are either guilty of shortsightedness or blatantly engaging in the willful destruction of the country.

I have read the U.N Charter, and nowhere does it stipulate that a sovereign country has to belong to the organization. As things stand now, it is embarrassing or inappropriate for a powerless little country like Haiti to be in it, since its basic rights as a member were arbitrarily revoked under the Security Council Resolution 1529.

Appropriately, the best course of action for Haiti is to withdraw from the U.N and establish bilateral relations with friendly countries. While such course of action does not guarantee prosperity and stability, it will however spare Haiti the ignominies associated with being a member of the United Nations. Case in point Chapter 1, Article 2(7) states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter”, yet the Security Council, exercising its absolute power as guarantor of peace and security in the world, mandated the occupation of Haiti on February 29 2004.

If political infighting in a member-state, like the one that existed in Haiti in 2004, constituted “a threat to international peace and security”, then many unstable countries in the world, among them Belgium, could also be targeted for preemptive or curative interventions by the Security Council. In all likelihood, this will never happened, as Haiti has always been the target of big power play even before the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, and therefore remains a special case. Not surprisingly, the occupation of Haiti was mandated under Chapter VII, Article 39, which deals with “threats to peace and acts of aggression”, although the facts that led to the decision did not fall under these categories. Moreover, the decision has never been clarified to anyone, even though Article 40 under Chapter 7 mandates the Security Council “to call upon the concerned parties to comply with any measures it deems necessary or desirable before making recommendations or deciding upon the measures provided in Article 39.”

Even a last minute attempt at mediation by Caricom, the regional organization in which Haiti is a member, was summarily dismissed by the Security Council.Therefore, Article 39, stating that “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 41 and 42 to maintain and restore international peace and security”, was arbitrarily used without any legal or factual justification. With this unlawful act, the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations “We, the peoples of the United Nations…United for a better world” no longer applies to Haiti and its people.

Moreover, the edict of the IMF and World Bank prohibiting the Haitian government from spending money on public projects such as schools, hospitals and roads is incomprehensible and downright malicious.How exactly the bureaucrats/nation builders of the IMF and World Bank expect Haiti to reduce its dependency on foreign aid, attract investments and carve out its future without a modern infrastructure and an educated pool of workers, would baffle historians for years to come.Without a doubt, the international community’s attitude toward Haiti extends beyond the realm of neo-colonialism and remains unprecedented in scope and intent.Not surprisingly, the political situation, which brought forth the occupation, was instigated by some permanent members of the Security Council and carried out by impenitent collaborators who somehow forget that treason, as a villainous crime, has no statute of limitations. Besides, the notable collaborators, a majority of Haiti’s intellectuals, apparently seeking enlightenment or acceptance from the occupiers, wholeheartedly support the occupation. Extricating Haiti from this unwarranted and unlawful situation is therefore an uphill struggle requiring the same underhanded tactics of the collaborators.

What makes the occupation all the more remarkable is that it remains the only instance in the history of the United Nations in which all the members of the Security Council unanimously agreed on an issue.Obviously, it is a concerted endeavor meant to humiliate a poor nation for its remarkable act of standing up against oppression over 200 years ago. Since Haiti’s occupation conveniently happens on the bi-centennial of its independence, the point is well taken and the rationale clearly understood.In the meantime, 10 percent of Haiti’s population survives on daily food rations provided by a myriad of non-governmental organizations, but behind the benevolence lays a sinister purpose: de-legitimizing the authority of the Haitian state and making the population more amenable to the ideas of their benefactors/tormentors. What would it take for the collaborators to understand that the occupation, far from being a mission of mercy, is an ominous sign that sterilization or mass deportations could be in the offing. Taking history as a guide, Haitians should not put anything pass these people.

After all, slavery, the Holocaust, genocide and ethnic cleansing are familiar words in our vocabulary.— Contact Max A. Joseph at

Source: HaitianTimes.Com

No comments:

Post a Comment