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.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply