Under the Radar

Over the years I have castigated Haiti’s mulatto elite for its selfishness, duplicity and arrogance toward the black majority, but failed to take into account the extent of the complicity of the country’s black middle class in what is arguably a conspiracy of silence in regard to the occupation. Henceforth, I apologize to my readers for my less than comprehensive if not somewhat biased analysis of the situation. A conspiracy of silence, the result of collective cynicism, apathy, or a tactical alliance of the black middle class and the mulatto elite against the impoverished black majority, has become the hallmark of the occupation. 

So far, the obvious loser under the occupation remains the country’s black middle class whose rank is steadily being decimated through emigration as the economic conditions continue to deteriorate. Nevertheless, its unconditional support of the occupation has not wavered, although the ultimate objective of the endeavor is to reverse that particular group’s monopoly on political power, which dates back to the mid-20th century. Aptly, the mulatto elite, the black middle class’ traditional adversary, is reaping all the fruits of the occupation. And, in an opportunistic move, it even attempted to seize political power by backing an iconoclast member of the group, Charles Henry Baker, for president in the sham election organized under the supervision of MINUSTAH in February of 2006.

 The unwritten agreement, in place since 1946, through which the black middle class holds political power while the mulatto elite controls the economic levers of the country, had run its course and there was a need for a new covenant that guarantees stability through repression and intimidation. Hence the rationale behind the event of February 29th 2004 in which a democratically elected president was forced to resign and replaced by an expatriate, Gerard Latortue, who zealously implemented the fundamentals of the new covenant. Not surprisingly, the systematic dismantlement of Haiti’s state-run economy leaves the middle class, the primary beneficiary of the old system, in a precarious economic situation, pushing a large number of that group to emigrate.  

Although Aristide served as a catalyst for the event of Feb. 29, 2004, the invasion and current occupation of Haiti has been in the making since the 1980’s because the country’s black middle class, holder of political authority under the 1946 covenant, failed to live up to its part of the bargain. With its pseudo-nationalism providing cover for personal enrichment, Haiti’s black middle class became a thorn on Washington’s side. The billions allocated to support the system were stolen or misappropriated and, without the minimal social improvements needed to keep peace, the old covenant was imperiled by a populist movement when Washington decided to step in. 

In the late 1970 and early 80’s, as the country’s economic situation deteriorated, thousands of Haitians took to the sea and landed in Florida, creating a humanitarian crisis that provoked the ire of Washington. No more free ride was allowed, and accountability became the sine qua non condition for U.S aid. The new doctrine however precipitated the collapse of the reliable “Baby Doc” Duvalier regime on February 7 1986 and, without a proper transitional mechanism in place, Haiti’s future became a free-for-all brawl. With no credible leader among the black middle class, and the mulatto elite unsure of its role in the post-Duvalier era, the deck was stacked against the wishes of Washington despite the cautionary mechanisms inserted into the 1987 constitution, a plutocratic document by any standard.  

Banking on the Haitian military to keep order, Washington supported a string of brutal military dictatorships (1986-90), (91-94) while forgetting that the disbanded militias (Tonton Macoutes) were the muscles that guaranteed stability from 1957 to 1986. In the face of the Haitian military’s murderous tactics that failed to control the situation, Washington reluctantly insisted on the democratic route knowing it was a risky gamble in a country unaccustomed to political compromises. 

In the meantime and not surprisingly, a powerful storm was brewing. The long-marginalized poor made a grab for power by electing a firebrand populist priest, Jean Bertrand Aristide, president of the country in December 1990. Aristide however, a believer in “Vox Populi, Vox Dei”, which theologically makes sense but irrelevant in the temporal world, innocently embarked on a moral crusade to remake Haitian society by marginalizing its two pillars, the black middle class and the mulatto elite, causing both group to form a marriage of convenience that conceived the bloody September 30 1991 coup and facilitated the February 29 2004 invasion by French and U.S forces. 

Unbeknownst to the middle class, Washington was no longer prepared to bank on a group it consider inept, disorganized, corrupt, and therefore responsible for Aristide’s ascendancy and his bold attempt to empower the poor. The first sign of Washington’s disenchantment with Haiti’s black middle class was the parachuting of Gerard Latortue, the man from nowhere, to lead a provisional government after the second exile of Aristide. And, so it goes. Sidetracked by the mulatto elite and marginalized by Washington, Haiti’s middle class, mortal enemy of the nation, finds itself fighting for relevancy under the occupation. Perhaps Luigi Einaudi, the fascist deputy secretary of the Organization of the American States, was right when he uttered this remark “All that was wrong with Haiti was that Haitians were running the place”. Aptly, Einaudi should have added “the wrong kind” to his inappropriate and racist comment. 

— Contact Max A. Joseph at ddjougan@yahoo.com.

Kidnapping innocent citizens for ransom is an abominable crime that must be condemned and eradicated, period. However the rush to institute the death penalty for kidnappings in Haiti, an emotionally-charged political issue, is not only shortsighted but also highlights the failure of the country’s institutions to deal with a problem that is destroying the fabric of Haitian society. Deterrence, by itself, is not a guaranteed solution as long the causal factors fester. If anything, the emotional calls by several politicians to institute the death penalty for kidnappings show that choosing the path of least resistance, which has always been the hallmark of weak-minded humans, has become a means to an end in Haitian politics.

In a country struggling to build its weak institutions, instituting the death penalty for kidnappings, which would violate Article 20 of the constitution, would take the country back to the era of illegality, arbitrariness and extrajudicial killings. Only two years have passed since habeas corpus, which was suspended under the Latortue-Boniface regime (2004-06), has been theoretically restored and the residual effects are still felt by the thousands of innocent victims of the state’s absolute authority. Besides, granting the government broad and unchecked powers could only reawaken the tendencies to use repressive measures to deal with legitimate popular grievances, since the present economic conditions make Haiti a natural setting for social disturbances. 

By the way, how exactly do these lawmakers intent to circumvent Article 20, which abolishes the death penalty in all cases? One lawmaker even suggested that the president use his extra-constitutional prerogatives to establish the death penalty to combat the wave of kidnappings. Then again, the lawmaker’s proposal highlights his poor intellect and judgment since extra-constitutional prerogatives simply refer to anything not explicitly allowed or forbidden by the constitution.

In all probability, they would pass a law instituting the death penalty and, given the political climate, the president would sign it, regardless of the fact the constitution explicitly forbids it. Hence lays the danger of opening a can of worms. That is, cherry-picking Articles of the constitution that do not satisfy the political needs of the current government and replacing them with expedient legislations. 

At a time when fascism is on the rise, the Haitian people, long a passive victim of totalitarianism, certainly do not want such system institutionalized. Since it has been proven that the judiciary and the National Police constitute the weakest links in the ongoing struggle between the Haitian state and the kidnappers, reforming and strengthening these institutions may be the only rational approach to solving the problem. At least, one official in charge of security, Luc Eucher Joseph, publicly rallies against the idea, which he sees as futile if the institutions charged with enforcing the law, i.e. the Police and the Judiciary, are not reformed and strengthened. This statement by itself shows that rationality can still prevail, because the above-mentioned official is considered a hawk when it comes to law and order. 

Apparently the fundamentals that make Haitian politics a natural venue for strongmen and dictatorships have not changed with the introduction of democracy whose checks and balances provide the framework for rational decisions, although the 1987 constitution, the pillar of the system, is in urgent need of a complete overhaul. However amending the constitution in conformity with Article 282, which clearly underscores the anti-democratic tendencies of its writers, may not be the best solution. The mechanism in place is too political, thus prone to subversion, as the executive or one of the two chambers of the legislature may recommend that the constitution be amended, although the full parliament with two-third of majority in both chambers would have to agree. 

Cumbersome as it may appear, the process is custom-made for political expediency and is undoubtedly anti-democratic since any amendment would basically be forced upon the electorate without its formal approval. Wouldn’t it proper and democratic for those who had approved the document, namely the Haitian people, to have the final word on amending it? Clearly bypassing Article 282 would open the door to political abuses, which have been the most conspicuous feature in Haiti since its founding on January 1st 1804, and the extra-constitutional powers could provide the perfect justification for repressive measures unrelated to combating kidnappings.

Do the Haitian need to be reminded of the excesses of the Latortue-Boniface regime which, under the guise of combating lawless gangs that were terrorizing whole sections of Port-au-Prince, decapitated the country’s largest political party? Do the Haitian people need to be reminded of the socio-economic conditions that make the kidnapping innocent citizens an attractive option to some Haitians? Do the Haitian people need to be reminded that the propensity of the country’s political leaders to use force is generally responsible for their torments and remains a real threat to establishing the rule of law in Haiti?

There should not be any argument that the problem needs to be tackled forcefully and expeditiously. However the notion of the president or parliament bypassing the constitution to confront a problem that can be solved with the existing means at the state’s disposal is a frontal assault against the democratic system which, even in its imperfect state, provides the only hope to Haiti’s renewal. Political expediency, a perfect tool for uninspiring politicians, would harm the country’s institutions and destroy the stated aspirations of the Haitian people and should not be allowed to take hold in the present circumstances.  

— Contact Max A. Joseph at ddjougan@yahoo.com.

The vote was overwhelming. Two weeks ago the Haitian Parliament, the lower chamber that is, rejected Ericq Pierre as Préval’s choice to replace ousted Prime Minister Jacques Edouard Alexis. Considering the speed in which the Senate (upper house) had ratified the choice, which happened to be that of the international community, the lower house’s decision was undeniably courageous. As you would expect, conspiracy theory abounded. There are those who believe that Préval, knowing that Ericq Pierre would be rejected, agreed to nominate the banker as a way to placate the international community. I doubt this scenario because the man is ideologically in line with Préval in regard to market economy.

Others think the vote has more to do with vindictiveness rather than common sense seeing that the country can ill afford the impasse. Such thought represents at best a misunderstanding of what was really at stake. The survival and viability of Haiti as a country were the main issues and the parliamentarians clearly understood that. Confirming Ericq Pierre as prime minister would have amounted to giving a blank check to the forces that created the present situation.

 Still others see the vote as an act of sabotage meant to obstruct the arduous task of building democracy in Haiti. Democracy whose imperfections work both ways can easily misunderstood by its most ardent supporters. The vote could not possibly be considered an act of sabotage since it epitomized the reality of democracy whose check and balance requirements are meant to prevent the imposition of unwanted values and policies on the citizenry.   

Moreover, the rejected nominee did not help matters. Of course, there is no short term solution to Haiti’s problems, which have been allowed to fester to a point where they seem intractable. However, a good leader motivates people not commiserates with them, and Ericq Pierre clearly epitomizes the latter. His statements mirrored those of Préval, the Teflon president, which have by now become a broken record that pertain to the impossibility of a short term solution. True as it may be, not doing anything and continuing on the same path, which would be likely had Ericq Pierre been confirmed as prime minister, would be a dereliction of duty.

In the murky world of Haitian politics, the expedited removal of Jacques Edouard Alexis by the Haitian senate was proof of the duplicity of some lawmakers playing enforcer of the international community will and the country’s business interests. While Alexis was too slow in implementing his policies, he was on the right track nevertheless. Any imposition of additional tariffs on imported rice, which was being contemplated by the ousted government, would have brought prices in line with the local product; a reduction in consumption and an increase in national production. Presently, local farmers, denied subsidies under the stringent requirement of the World Bank and the IMF, simply cannot compete with the subsidized imported rice, an anomaly resulting in the locally produced brands being more expensive than the import, which most Haitians regard as superior. Many farmers, faced with this troubling reality, simply abandoned the fields, leaving the country precariously close to becoming totally dependent on a commodity that has become a staple in Haitian diet within the last two decades.

Therefore, the government’s dismissal, far from being a people’s victory in the wake of the April’s food riots, was in reality that of a consortium of powerful interests acting in concert with the international community. With the reactionary Haitian senate acting as enforcer and René Préval’s treacherous attitude toward Alexis, the beleaguered government never stood a chance. In what amounted to a providential omen, Alexis’ proposed replacement, presumably anointed by the leadership of legislative branch, failed however to win confirmation. Commenting on his improbable defeat, Ericq Pierre put the blame squarely on corrupt political leaders vying for key ministerial posts, which he asserted was not for sale. This was indeed a grave accusation that highlighted Ericq Pierre’s political awkwardness, because political parties as a rule always bargained their support for specific policies that conform with their electoral platforms.

While it is too early to consider the vote as a sign of independence emanating from the Haitian Parliament, it was nonetheless an assertive act that should embolden the parliamentarians to mandate, through legislative measures, the end of the occupation. Fortunately for the Haitian people, the system of checks and balances worked this time, since it prevented a speedy implementation of the directives of the IMF and World Bank to which Préval and Ericq Pierre were deeply committed.

History will record that the rejection of Ericq Pierre was definitely a positive development for a nation that has for the last 4 years resigned itself to the blows of fate. It is possible some parliamentarians may have had ulterior motives in sinking Ericq Pierre’s nomination, but the end result was unquestionably beneficial to Haiti and its people. 

It shows that some Haitians could no longer tolerate the occupation when Haitian women are being raped, impregnated and introduced to prostitution by MINUSTAH troops, while nothing is being done to alleviate the abject poverty that makes Haiti a laughingstock among its neighbors. Indeed, the occupation constitutes an existential threat to Haiti and its people. Hence, Parliament should require from Préval’s new nominee, Robert Manuel, a binding pledge to work toward ending the occupation, which allows the country’s politicians, from the president on down, to ignore their constitutional responsibilities.  

— Contact Max A. Joseph at ddjougan@yahoo.com.

Today, May 14, the state of Israel celebrates its 60th birthday in a subdued and somber mood that contradicts it having reached a milestone because the anniversary is somewhat clouded by the intractable Palestinian question and anxiety over soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, which has been threatening the Jewish state with possible annihilation. A 20th century miracle by any means, the State of Israel (1948-2008) remains a case of contrasts: being the most developed and technologically advanced country in the region and permanently fighting for its survival and legitimacy. Only two of Israel’s neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, recognize the country’s right to exist, albeit grudgingly, although the history of the Jewish people in the Middle East spanned millennia of documented chronicles.      

I was 11 years old when I became fascinated with the state of Israel in the aftermath of its victories over the combined armies of Egypt and Syria during the Yom Kippur war (October 6-26) 1973, and became familiar with names such as Moshe Dayan, Arik Sharon, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Perez, Golda Meir and others. Thus, it was only fitting that by the tender age of 13, I have read the biography of David Ben-Gourion, which epitomized the tenacity and vision that formed the character of the men who founded the Jewish State.  

Since understanding modern Israel and the Jewish people would not certainly be complete without mentioning the Holocaust (1938-45), I also became an avid student of the Nazi era, which began with Hitler’s ascension to power in Germany on January 30 1933 and ended with the capitulation of German forces on May 7 1945. Appropriately, I have to thank the late William L. Shirer for his comprehensive albeit voluminous book “The rise and fall of the Third Reich” for my understanding of one of the most horrifying episodes in the history of humanity. 

The story of the Jewish people is indeed fascinating and tragic. Even the rebirth of the state of Israel on May 14th 1948 remains a subject of contention as some revisionists still insist it would not have happened without the Holocaust. Their rationale: it was a contrite act by a remorseful world troubled over its indifference to the plight of the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe that almost led to the extermination of the European Jewry. While this rationale has merits, it negates the valiant efforts of the pioneers who emigrated from faraway lands, principally Eastern Europe, and turned a hardscrabble desert into a thriving and dynamic place where every Jew could finally live in peace.     

Well, the many wars fought by the state of Israel against its neighbors, since its founding, proved that achieving peace and security would more difficult than conquering the desert. Indeed, another calamity at par with the Holocaust is not within the realm of impossibility considering the latent anti-Semitism that endures in Europe and the U.S, notwithstanding the eternal hatred of the Muslim world. Taking these realities into account, the Jewish people have since adopted the slogan “Never again”, meaning they would never, as in the past, stand idly and surrender to the ruthlessness of their capricious persecutors.  

To that effect, the state of Israel stands today as a defender of Jews around the world and its security depends on its ability to defend itself rather than relying on friends and allies, and its secret service, Shin Bet, is considered one of the world’s best, able to track down Israel’s enemies in the farthest corners of the globe. Even the U.S, Israel’s foremost friend and ally, is sometimes sidetracked by Israeli leaders on issues related to their country’s security, which, they claim, remains the sole responsibility of the Jewish state. 

The Israeli-Palestinian problem, as unfair as it may seem to the Palestinians, is a direct consequence of the indignities endured by the Jews over the millennia for which the defunct Ottoman Empire (1299-1923) and later Britain are to blame. The Sultans could have settled the problem by creating a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, the land of their forefathers from which they were systematically expelled, but desisted out of religious affinity with the Arabs. Contextually, Britain, which inherited the Ottoman Empire domain in the region in the aftermath of the Great War (1914-18) and chosen not to implement U.N resolution 181 that called for the partition of the land between Jews and Arabs, is ultimately responsible for the present quagmire. Moreover, Jordan, created by Britain, is a de facto Palestinian state as its population is almost 2/3 Palestinian. Hence creating another Palestinian state in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) would inevitably bring the destruction of Israel, something no Israeli leader would want to be remotely associated with. Therefore, as long as the world refuses to see the conflict through a historical and practical perspective, the status quo would endure.  

While my affinity with the Jewish people began with a simple case of admiration for their heroic victory against the numerically superior and determined enemies they faced during the Yom Kippur war, it evolved into something profound upon becoming more acquainted with their long and tragic story. For a nation that survived innumerable persecutions during the millennia of its existence and became an influential force to be reckoned with would not have been possible without sheer determination and a sense of destiny. Undoubtedly, the Jewish people’s resilience and fortitude in the face of adversities should be emulated anywhere by anyone wanting to break free of the indignities of persecutions. Happy birthday, Israel.

— Contact Max A. Joseph at ddjougan@yahoo.com.

On April 28, René G. Préval, after consultations with the leadership of the Legislative Branch, nominated  Ericq Pierre, a bona fide proponent of neo-liberalism whose free market orthodoxy was discussed during a 2005 colloquium on relations between the state and the private sector, to be Haiti’s new prime minister. An agronomist and senior official at the Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, Ericq Pierre is slated to replace Yvon Neptune who lost his job in the aftermath of the riots over the high cost of foods in which 7 Haitians lost their lives. 

One topic that will surely come up during Ericq Pierre’s confirmation is the question of dual-nationality, which would automatically disqualify the prime minister-designate under Article 157 of the 1987 Constitution. Back in 1997, Mr. Pierre was also nominated for the post by René Préval but his candidacy was subsequently rejected by Parliament over the issue. This time around, the prime minister-designate is expected to be confirmed despite his ineligibility but, as the Constitution does not grant any waiver on the matter, his government would theoretically be illegitimate. Once Ericq Pierre is confirmed, the businessmen claiming financial compensations for the losses occurred during the riots would be compensated while the hundreds of itinerant vendors, whose livelihood was destroyed by MINUSTAH soldiers in retaliation for the murder of Cpl Nagya Aminu of Nigeria, would be left to fend for themselves.

Being the chosen candidate of the World Bank and IMF, Ericq Pierre is expected to implement the directives of the international community with a zeal that may surpass that of another infamous transplant, Gerard Latortue, who ruled the country imperiously from March 2004 to May 2006, living a trail of destruction for which he was never held accountable. Indeed, it is déjà vu all over again, as Ericq Pierre could simply pack up and leave upon implementing his duty without having to answer to Parliament or the Haitian people.  

The nomination of Ericq Pierre confirms the international community’s strangled hold on a country whose desire to be left alone and chose its own destiny is being thwarted in the obscure chambers of the U.N Security Council and international financial institutions. Addressing the food crisis in Haiti, Pedro Medrano, the World Food Program director for the region, complained: “This is a major crisis” “Are we going to intervene when it’s too late”? Well, I cannot fathom what Medrano meant by intervention since the U.N already has absolute control of Haiti. Perhaps he was thinking of advocating the transfer of Haitians to Africa as a means to control the food crisis.

This is an historic opportunity for Parliament during the confirmation process to extract from the prime minister-designate a pledge that he would work toward ending the occupation that makes every Haitian politician a conscious collaborator, ultimately responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians by trigger-happy MINUSTAH soldiers. The effusion of praise to the nomination of Ericq Pierre coming from the powers behind the occupation indicates an inclination to remake the country according to what the international community considers appropriate, regardless of its impracticability and unorthodoxy. A country that essentially produces nothing and relies on the benevolence of capricious foreign donors for its basic needs is the wrong candidate for the inflexibility of neo-liberalism, which advocates minimum government intervention to correct social inequalities. The hands-off system further weakens the authority of a state in perpetual need of legitimacy and institutionalizes the power of the transnational and rapacious elite on whose behalf the occupation of Haiti was decided.

If the fundamental goals of the occupation, which were stability and the rule of law in Haiti, could be so arbitrarily disregarded, what exactly the occupiers hope to accomplish? At a time when unintended or deliberately overlooked consequences of neo-liberalism are impacting every country, including its architects, Haiti, the least structured for the experiment, remains under a mandated directive to stay the course. The policy simply provides the perfect rationale for a permanent occupation of the country on behalf of the elite, notwithstanding the fact it will incite a social implosion.  

The reality is that the relentless propaganda centering on Haitians’ inability to solve their country’s problems which, by the way, was the result of foreign interference, created a self-doubting pathology that permeates Haiti’s leadership. With the exception of the Tunisian Hedi Annabi, it is not a coincidence that all the MINUSTAH’s chiefs of mission to date were elitist white men. The psychological effect must be profound because no one among the current leadership has questioned the motives of the occupiers out of fear of being ostracized by the masters. The late Emperor Jean Jacques Dessalines, the foremost defender of his race, must be turning in his grave.    

This collective capitulation absolves Haitian politicians of their responsibilities before the Haitian people and creates a culture of subservience that condemns the country to misery, dependency, despair and humiliation. In acquiescing to the directives of the IMF and World Bank, Préval evidently forgets that his only constituency remains the Haitian people and not the international donors whose benevolence has historically been self-serving. Although, Préval was under pressure to stay the course, he had an obligation to address the nation before surrendering to any threats emanating from the occupiers. His failure to warn those most likely to be impacted by the unfortunate choice makes him therefore a willing accomplice to the mandated occupation of the country.

— Contact Max A. Joseph at ddjougan@yahoo.com.

Modern history is replete of visionaries from all walks of life and profession that changed humanity forever. This civilization would not certainly be where it is today without the extraordinary contributions of Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur and Thomas Edison, to name a few. However, despite these men’s exceptional scientific achievements, they never come close of attaining the level of influence that politicians have in shaping the course of human history, an exclusive club in which belongs the likes of Julius Cesar, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Peter the Great, Frederick the Great, Otto Von Bismarck, Vladimir Lenin, Mao Tse Dung, FDR and others.

Inexplicably, while this civilization’s unsurpassed scientific achievements rank it first among them all, the caliber of its political leaders has been on a continual decline, contributing to an imagination gap that could prove disastrous for humanity. Accordingly, no political leader from last half of the twentieth century to the present seems destined to join the rank of the above-mentioned great men who shaped humanity history. Future historians would certainly want to know whether these political leaders were overwhelmed by the complexity of the task or simply did not possess the visionary characteristics that could have enabled some of them to make the kind of difference that epitomizes greatness.

Though it would be imprudent to minimize the complexity of the geopolitical realities of today’s world, which frustrate or overwhelm many leaders, one must not however ignore the reality that modern leadership has become rather curative, complacent and unimaginative. Some issues that are relegated to the back burner because of a lack of vision or leadership inevitably become intractable, and none is more apparent than the food crisis that is causing upheavals in many Third World countries.

At a meeting in Washington, days after the riots in Haiti, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF’s Managing Director, straightforwardly foresaw widespread starvation and economic disruption if food prices did not come under control, adding “the consequences will be terrible”. This is coming from an organization that was instrumental in bringing the crisis with its emphasis on economic liberalism as conditions to extending loans to poor countries but miserably failed to anticipate the consequences. Considering the IMF pivotal role in managing the world, Strauss-Kahn’s unfortunate but truthful comment epitomizes the extent of the trouble facing humanity. It has become obvious the relentless drive toward globalization revolves around protecting the economic interests of the developed world in a rapidly changing environment and not the welfare of humanity as its architects continue to insinuate.

Because the IMF and the World Bank’s emphasis on a one-size-fit all approach to trade disproportionably favors the developed countries, the Third World, lacking the necessary structures to effectively compete, was guaranteed to experience economic and social upheavals. What is happening in many Third World countries today should not be regarded as transitional effects of globalization, since the playing could never be leveled, but as the beginning of something deeper that would ultimately affect the developed world itself. 

The resulting economic and social pressure is reactivating the migratory instinct of the inhabitants of the Third World, which, in turn, is forcing the developed world to adopt restrictive immigration policies aimed at protecting its way of life. Therefore, the likely repercussion of the global food crisis would be an increase in immigration to the developed world or conflicts between adjacent neighbors, as the combined effects of unemployment, poverty, lack of social safety net and hunger leave the affected no other option but migrate in search of better opportunities. This could not have come at a most unfortunate time, because the developed economies of Western Europe and the U.S can no longer absorb the throngs of low-skilled immigrants escaping social oppression and economic despair in their home country. 

Not surprisingly, fascist tendencies are on the rise and may soon become a threat to democratic ideals, as a siege mentality, fueled by transnational terrorism, economic insecurity, racism and an insidious fear of culture alteration, becomes a matter of survival for the developed world. The extent of immigration policies devoid of compassion was evident in this year’s deportation from Britain of a terminally ill Ghanaian woman whom the British government felt should not be a burden to British taxpayers. The woman died shortly thereafter because Ghana’s healthcare system was ill-equipped to provide the long-term dialysis treatment that could have extended her short and agonizing life.      

Blind nationalism, the incubator of the worse cases of man inhumanity to man, is gradually taking hold in many countries that traditionally provide respite to the world’s poor. Conversely, the growing hunger and desperation in the underdeveloped world are causing deep resentments that could easily spin out of control in an uncontrolled cycle of violence pitting governments and citizenries. One worrisome development was the killings of 5 native Haitians by MINUSTAH soldiers operating under a plenipotentiary mandate of the U.N Security Council, a clear indication of the international community’s inclination to use force to enforce its will on defenseless countries.

As hunger remains an unequaled powerful force whose ability to remake political system has been historically proven, the recent developments foretelling more turbulent times validate the impotency of modern political leaders to adroitly steer the planet away from dangers. Indeed, history happens whenever asymmetrical forces collide to create seminal events in which individuals serve as catalysts.

— To contact Max A. Joseph Jr., send e-mail to ddjougan@yahoo.com.

One must admit that even structurally sound political systems do not possess magic wands to tackle intractable social problems. Therefore, it would be presumptuous to imagine the Haitian government capable of solving the current crisis in which its ability to make a difference is severely limited, as the side effects of economic liberalism imposed by the IMF and World Bank on poorly structured economies like Haiti’s prove to be deadlier than the ailments. 

One of the basic tenets of economic liberalism centers on eliminating government subsidies which, its architects maintain, give local producers an unfair advantage over importers and restrict trade under the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). As a sweetener, the countries that acquiesce to the rules receive the expertise of the IMF and World Bank gurus in restructuring their economies to supposedly bring them to world’s standards. Conversely, the countries that resist are cut off from the international monetary system, thus unable to find funding for development projects necessary to prevent social implosions. Naturally, heavily indebted countries, finding themselves between a rock and a hard place, have no other alternative but cave in to the onerous conditions imposed by the IMF and the World Bank.

The developed countries whose exceptional productivity leaves them with surpluses of agricultural products simply take over these markets in a process called dumping, meaning selling the leftover at below the production price. Local farmers, devoid of government protection under the WTO rules and unable to fend off the competition, simply abandon or sell their farms to developers or big agro-businesses. And, because the increasing use of bio-fuels as an alternative to high oil prices is enticing farmers in the developed countries to sell more of their crops for much higher prices to energy companies producing these fuels, surplus turn to penury. 

This is a problem that must be treated with the same priority as global warming, because the acreage available for agricultural production is decreasing while the world’s population is steadily increasing. This lack of equilibrium is bound to create upheavals all over the planet, since farmers that lived off their lands for generations are gradually moving to overcrowded cities, making them fertile ground for social implosions. As less agricultural products become available on the global market, prices automatically rise, creating a peculiar situation where Third World inhabitants are paying prices comparable to the developed world under the unforgiving law of supply and demand, which regulates prices. 

One needs not be a genius to understand that the unbridgeable disparity between earning and purchasing power is behind the riots and protests, which are becoming a permanent fixture in many third world countries. What makes Haiti’s situation so appalling is the fact that 80% of population is chronically unemployed or underemployed. The crisis affects even Haitians with decent salaries, but in this class-conscious society, those slightly better off abstain from taking part in what they considered the exclusive battlefield of the vulgar proletariat. Unbeknownst to the proletariat, it is also fighting a war for a middle class irreversibly afflicted with a sentiment of “noblesse oblige” that prohibits the kind of alliances that historically prevail over oppression and injustice. 

 Meanwhile, Haitian politicians, instinctively prone to hysteria when confronted with legitimate social grievances resort to conspiracy theories by blaming smugglers, provocateurs, bandits, drug dealers and Lavalas sympathizers for the riots. If the Haitian government’s assumption that Lavalas provocateurs were behind the riots, which was also that of the German newspaper Deutsche Welle, is correct, then Lavalas is fast turning into a global ideology because the same has happened in India, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Philippines and host of other countries.

Governments, as supreme social arbiter, must shoulder responsibility for societal dysfunction. Appropriately, the Préval government is duly responsible, not for causing the situation but for ignoring Latortue’s policies which, it must be said, were the primary factors. The statements of government officials blaming infiltrators and other villains indicate an unwillingness to tackle the underlying factors behind the riots which, unless eradicated or neutralized, would continue to fuel discontent. Governments are constitutionally vested with rights but also responsibilities; therefore any government that forfeits the latter does not deserve the former. As the lawful representative of the people, the Haitian government has a constitutional responsibility to protect the nation’s best interests, first and foremost, irrespective of the demands of the international community, which, as the situation attest, prove calamitous for the country.     

When you have foreign troops killing natives over legitimate grievances while the dynamics of the crisis remain unchanged, it could only enflame nationalistic sentiments and foster a revolving cycle of violence. Moreover, the generic statements of U.N officials exulting incremental progress while simultaneously emphasizing the fragility of the situation mask the brutal reality of an occupation whose permanence is assured because of the intractability of the situation. 

Globalization, which has become a destabilizing factor in many Third World countries, must be revisited because it constitutes a potent threat to the very existence of humanity. With the Chinese presently consuming 40% of the world’s rice while Third World production continues to decline, worldwide hunger, causing widespread unrests, is fast becoming a distinct possibility. The ouster of Haiti’s prime minister over the unrests proves that political expediency is the only tool available to Haitian politicians facing a problem in which they are inconsequential bystanders. The next riot is just around the corner. 

— To contact Max A. Joseph Jr., send e-mail to ddjougan@yahoo.com.

Propaganda works as long as it is not challenged by tangible facts. Unfortunately, for the U.N, the recent riots in the southern city of Les Cayes over crushing poverty and inflation just lay bare the unreliability of its reports picturing the Haitian economy in glowing terms that baffle anyone with an ounce of common sense. As the layoffs at banks and other branches of the private sector indicate the Haitian economy continues to retract, and the state, operating under a stringent mandate from the IMF and the World Bank, cannot compensate for the loss of jobs by financing public works. Nevertheless, foreign newspapers and unscrupulous economists, acting as sycophants and apologists for the gravest injustice ever perpetuated on a vulnerable little nation, continue to paint a rosy picture of the Haitian economy, which they claim grew by 3.2 percent  last year. 

Such impressive numbers convey the impression that both government revenues and private investments, which could create an economic boom that would lessen Haiti’s dependence on foreign aid, are increasing, but the reality clearly tells a different story. With Haiti absurdly classified as one of the world’s most violent countries, behind Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, foreign investments are non-existent and local investors too insignificant to make a difference among the 80% of the population that is unemployed or underemployed.

Foreign aid which, besides the elite’s rapacious attitude and the political class’ servile mentality, remains the single most important threat to Haiti’s development and sovereignty, still accounts for two-third of the government expenditures. The figure was practically the same for preceding governments, with the notable exception of the Lavalas government (2001-04), which was subjected to a comprehensive boycott by the international community.  

It is therefore unconscionable that some economists, using speculative figures that do not conform to the reality, continue to advance preposterous statements in regard to the Haitian economy. 

Moreover, the helter skelter integration of the Haitian economy into the global economy by the lawless Latortue-Boniface regime (2004-06), which did not come with any protective mechanisms, has to be regarded as the most potent contributor to the crisis. The numbers put forward by economists simply do not add up, because a country that imports everything it needs, including foodstuffs, while producing nothing could not possibly withstand the unforgiving uncertainties of globalization, a reality that impedes the Haitian government’s ability to adopt any meaningful measures to regulate the price of basic commodities.

Burdened by a crushing external debt, the result of misappropriations of foreign loans by rapacious public officials, Haiti is indeed a basket case requiring drastic actions but not the kind being implemented under the threatening presence of the MINUSTAH. With the government, essentially hostage or willfully cooperating with the occupiers while the economic situation continues to deteriorate; it was only a matter of time before things exploded. Indeed, it happened last week in Les Cayes where 4 Haitians lost their lives and dozens were injured, as hunger and desperation forced them to take to the streets in protest of their wretched conditions.

In a pattern consistent with the generic statements and words that come to embody the occupation, the MINUSTAH promised an investigation into the killings and at the same time branded the protesters provocateurs that were out to cause mayhem. At a press conference, the Prime Minister, Jacques Edouard Alexis, reading from the same script, categorically put the blame on “drug dealers and other smugglers”, a statement reflecting the cynicism of Haitian politicians as it practically condones the killing of innocent Haitians by foreign troops.

Unfortunately, deaths of innocent civilians had to occur before the government felt the need to address the rampant inflation that is causing havoc among impoverished Haitians. Nonetheless, the government’s decision to allocate 10 millions of dollars to help neutralize the rising cost of basic foodstuffs immediately after the riots at Les Cayes in which 4 civilians were killed by U.N peacekeepers will not work, as long as the dynamics of the situation remain the same.

How exactly the so-called smugglers, who benefit from penury and high prices, would want to incite the people into protesting against the very conditions that guarantee their livelihood could never be rationally explained, but I have a theory. Because calling any opponent of the occupation, bandit or terrorist, only accentuates the MINUSTAH’s failure to eradicate the purported threat in the last 4 years, as fighting Lavalas terrorism and banditry were the primary goal of the occupation force, a new approach centering on semantic had to be devised. Replacing the words “terrorists and bandits” with “smugglers and drug dealers” implies a MINUSTAH’s victory over the former while guaranteeing its participation in the fight against the latter, a poor excuse for a permanent occupation.

The prime minister’s statement may be a sign that organized protests would no longer be tolerated and anyone playing a leadership role in what is a constitutional prerogative of the people would be branded a drug dealer or smuggler. Gerard Latortue may be gone, but his successful albeit ruthless tactics against popular organizations are being recycled by the Préval government, which is hiding behind its incompetence and servile acceptance of the IMF and World Bank’s diktats. If anything, more provocateurs are needed to get rid of the culture of dependency and blind subservience that make Haitian politicians oblivious of the sinister objectives of the occupation, because those answering the call would one day be vindicated.   

Whoever reads the New York Times is familiar with its prejudicial reporting on Haitian issues. Paradoxically, one could not possibly deny the paper’s position as the authoritative source of information on Haiti, especially on impending international policies toward the impoverished country. Because the New York Times is expansively read by politically savvy Haitians desiring to get an insider’s knowledge of calamities about to befall their tormented country, it was fitting that a March 23rd article, “Haiti’s Poverty Stirs Nostalgia for Old Ghosts” unleashed a torrent of emotional reactions that highlighted Haiti’s brutal past but also the paper’s seemingly infallible ability to ignite controversies.

Although the article’s main point was the poverty and insecurity that are forcing some Haitians to look nostalgically at the Duvaliers era (1957-86), when every citizen knew the demarcation line and even common criminality was a state monopoly, some people took offense at the very idea that anyone would praise the tyrants. Not surprisingly, the raw emotion was evident in some of the comments reported on the article, considering the Duvaliers have been invariably portrayed as bloodsucking monsters responsible for over 30.000 deaths during the course of their 29 years rule.

Aptly, the omnipresence of the state apparatus under the Duvaliers made it easier to allocate blames, whereas today, a consortium of impossibly arrogant Haitians with a medieval approach to governing is taking the country to the abyss while no one is accusing them of doing anything improper. Under the criminal regime of Gerard Latortue (2004-06), death squads, composed of former members of the decommissioned Haitian Army, roamed the poor neighborhoods of Bel-Air and Cité Soley and murdered politically suspect citizens who were posthumously accused of banditry.  

Moreover, in a gross violation of the spirit of their mandate, MINUSTAH soldiers are waging war on unarmed civilians, while the current government, elected under the occupation, is praising the occupiers’ effort against criminality, which incidentally is less than those of our immediate neighbors, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. 

 Therefore, the topic was legitimate seeing that under the democratic government, Haitian citizens are still disappearing without leaving a trace, the hallmark of the Duvalier regimes. The current democratic experiment, chaotic, uninspired and brutal and the Duvalier regimes, allegedly Haiti’s worst form of dictatorship, may be theoretically distinct but the similarities could not be more fundamental.

 The only way to address the perennial debate on country’s destructive past is by putting in place the mechanisms that could prevent a return of strongmen in Haitian politics. Unfortunately, the democratic experiment is definitely not the answer because it is still based on the old principles of exclusion, arrogance, impunity and cynicism, therefore custom-built for impenitent collaborators, agent provocateurs and political bandits. Meanwhile, the Préval government, attempting to deflect the people’s attention from its inability to solve or address the country’s problems, is using the Duvaliers as bogeymen by contemplating the erection of a museum in honor of their victims. 

No one could possibly be against honoring the memories of those Haitians who were murdered under the Duvaliers, except that focusing solely on the Duvaliers rather than all dictatorships amounts to a de facto exculpation of Gerard Latortue (2004-06) and the military regimes (1986-90)-(1991-94). It shows a selective compassion toward the victims of dictatorships, especially those who hailed primarily from the proletariat, as was the case under Gerard Latortue and the military regimes. 

This brings me to a very interesting conversation with a disillusioned mid-level bureaucrat, who fled Haiti in 2006 and remained convince of the righteousness of the actions against Aristide on February 29 2004, notwithstanding the fact his unofficial status of economic refugee was unequivocally linked to that fateful enterprise. This is arguably a typical reaction of dupes who knew what they were against but had no idea what they stood for. Strangely enough, he is not an isolated case, because a significant number of Haitians has yet to grasp the human and economic consequences of the UN-imposed plutocracy that is incidentally more repressive than Aristide’s democratic dictatorship. This collective failure to distinguish the rationale behind the events of February 29th 2004 is costing the country dearly, as the anticipated benefits may never come under an occupation based on false premises.  

Inexplicably, the pundits who regularly praise the MINUSTAH role in helping stabilize the country never mentioned the appropriation of a medical school for the purpose of housing the invading force, which was clearly incompatible with the purported goal of the mission. Even if Haiti were to prosper under the occupation, this singular act would remain a stain in the history of international relations, since it could never be made palatable to the majority of Haitian citizens who suffer from a chronic shortage of doctors and other healthcare professionals. 

Unlike the many injurious articles on Haiti published by the New York Times over the years, the one in question was a philosophical essay on the country’s transition from dictatorship to experimental democracy that is confounding the nation. Freedom, as a concept, is relative, therefore subject to speculative interpretations. Accordingly, the emotion-laden article shows that democracy and dictatorship, although theoretically different, have the same connotation to Haitians because of an aversion to the rule of law inherently anchored into the national psyche. Accusing people of nostalgia or amnesia without taking into account the despair that comes with the present plutocracy epitomizes the intolerance that makes Haiti a fertile ground for dictatorships. 

Whenever Haiti is the object of international inquiries or interests, the pundits’ credibility is as always questionable; their judgment condescending or downright hostile. That said, labeling Haiti, one of the most dangerous places in the world clearly indicates a deliberate attempt by shadowy forces at tarnishing the country’s reputation through innuendoes, defamations and other deceitful tactics. The extent of this elaborate conspiracy was also evident in the character assassination of Dr Francois Duvalier “Papa Doc”, a nationalist and zealous promoter of black empowerment, who survived numerous assassination attempts and foreign-backed invasions during his 14-year presidency (1957-71). 

Although 20th century Haiti was marked by extraordinary events ranging from the 1915-34 U.S occupation to the 1990 election of a populist priest whose invectives against capitalism threatened to unleash an apocalyptic insurrection in the revolution-ready country, no other event has generated so much ink as the reign of Dr Francois Duvalier. Universally known as Papa Doc, the long departed leader continues, 37 years after his death, to inspire venomous reactions from a particularly vindictive group of people intent on belittling anything he ever realized, even the tangible social advancements under his regime.  

Unfairly ranked among the worst tyrants of the 20th century, Papa Doc (1907-71) was a bona fide nationalist who grew up experiencing the intolerant apartheid system left in place by the American occupation, which institutionalized mulatto control over the impoverished black majority, and decided to correct the irregularities despite the odds. How exactly Papa Doc’s made the list of infamous tyrants, which included Joseph Stalin of the late USSR. Adolf Hitler of Germany, Mao Tse Dung of China and Pol Pot of Cambodia, remains a case study of cynicism in international relations. Using a death/year ratio, the arrogant regime of Latortue-Boniface (2004-06), which missed the twentieth century by four years, clearly outpaced Papa Doc in the number of deaths, disappearances and arbitrary imprisonment of Haitian citizens and, inexplicably, was highly regarded by the international community. 

Contemplating what might have been instead of evaluating governments within the framework of the challenges they face has become the most effective aspect of propagandizing. Fittingly, those historians, who continue to blame “Papa Doc” for Haiti’s precipitous economic decline in the second-half of the 20th century while omitting the subversive actions of his opponents, foreign and domestic, are propagandists imbued with an intrinsic aversion for the truth. 

Historically, Haiti’s economic elite’s sentiment of entitlement has poisoned the political atmosphere to the point where “compromise, moderation and common cause” are dirty words that can be potentially harmful to their promoters. Although Papa Doc and Jean Bertrand Aristide’s political visions were different, at least in substance, both faced the same latent threat from a powerful and foreign-supported elite determined on protecting its privileges by any means necessary, a reality that explains the current occupation of Haiti by U.N troops.

Appropriately, the shrewd Papa Doc practiced the politic of “fait accompli”, an effective blueprint for dealing with powerful opponents, which gave him extraordinary leverage in negotiations with his adversaries and their backers, something the indecisive Aristide failed to grasp and resulted in him serving two truncated presidential terms. For example, had Aristide imprisoned every member of the seditious group that established a parallel government on February 7th 2001 following an election in which they chose not to participate, February 29 2004 would not have happened.

In the golden age of conspiracy theories, it makes one wonder the extent of Aristide’s complicity in the humiliating occupation of Haiti, less than two months into its bicentennial. The exiled former president’s failure to deal resolutely and expeditiously with the foreign-sponsored terror groups led by Haiti’s prominent businessmen and crooked politicians, ultimately nullify the sacrifices of our ancestors. Today, UN troops from the planet’s worst human rights violators are raping and killing Haitians with impunity while the political class, from the president on down, applauds the occupiers and condemns the victims. 

History will acknowledge that Papa Doc’s brand of social engineering, although controversial to his opponents and detractors, was nonetheless successful since it created a significant black middle-class that could ultimately act as a counterweight to the oppressive mulatto minority. Therefore, condemning Papa Doc’s so-called reign of terror without a thorough analysis of the period during which the mulattoes’ hold on the nation was pervasive and suffocating is thoughtless or purposely inaccurate.

In politics, facts can be explained, distorted or even tailored for propagandizing, although these well-planned subterfuges invariably have side effects. Perceptions, however, can leave a permanent imprint on the recipients for which there is practically no antidote and that is unfortunately the reality in Haiti. As a result of willful falsehoods gone unchallenged, my generation grew up believing Papa Doc’s was solely responsible for Haiti’s trauma, when, in fact it was his opponents, foreign and domestic, who created the environment that made his legendary brutality possible. 

Like Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the father of Black Nationalism, ostracized years after his death by the revengeful mulattoes, Papa Doc Duvalier remains the object of half-baked propaganda masqueraded as historical truths. Nonetheless, the mere fact Papa Doc survived the malevolent machinations of his opponents makes the case for his veneration by politically-literate Haitians, traumatized by the unsavory actions of collaborators who ironically benefited from the empowerment program that was the hallmark of Duvalierism. Indeed, perception triumphed over rationale thinking and the Haitian nation is still paying for its gullibility.