One incident that escaped the attention of the public in the week following Haiti’s November 28th general elections was the role of the European Union-financed Election Observation Council, whose premature release of incomplete results ahead of those of the Provisional Electoral Council provoked the riots when the official results were announced on Dec, 7th. Bear in mind that the Election Observation Council’s (EOC) results, which showed Michel Martelly leading the pack, were based on observation of voting patterns, not actual votes, in 1500 polling sites out of 9000, an indication that the outcome could have changed with the tally of the vote. Notwithstanding the widely reported irregularities, the EOC decision is consistent with the marginalization of the Haitian state and its institutions under the occupation 2004-? The organization’s members should be investigated by the Haitian authorities, and the data they used thoroughly examined for proof of subversive activities.
That said, was the international community’s swift endorsement of the elections, despite the documented irregularities, based on a predetermined decision to disregard the tally of the CEP? Why would the international community finance these elections and concurrently create an alternate structure independent of the official supervisory body? These questions epitomize what is going on in Haiti where the constitutional prerogatives of the government are usurped by the international community, acting as self-appointed guarantor of stability and protector of constitutional rights of Haitians. This paternalism violates the doctrine of self-determination and sovereignty enumerated in the Charter of the United Nations, the international body whose Security Council acts as guarantor of peace and security in our world. The UN Security Council-mandated occupation of Haiti under Chapter VII, which deals with threats to peace and security, surely invalidates its ability to foster stability in that country.
This paternalism is linked to the discredited notion of white supremacy inherited from slavery, which presumed Africans and their descendants to be developmentally and intellectually inferior to other races, therefore perpetually in need of supervision. This preconceived and twisted logic helps explain why the situation in Haiti parallels that of Côte d’Ivoire, wherein a disputed election is used by the international community as basis for unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign UN member. Acting as landlords of a plantation, the European Union and the Security Council are threatening Laurent Gbagbo, that country’s president, with a future appearance before the ICC (International Criminal Court) for refusing to hand over power to Alassane Ouattara, the presumed winner in the U.N-supervised and fraud-marred presidential election.
Instead of taking a principled stand against the threat and vilification of one of its members, the African Union got on the bandwagon and also demanded that Gbagbo step down. Nigeria, the regional superpower with ethnic, religious and sectarian issues of its own, the result of British imperialism, is leading the pack; its president Jonathan Goodluck has offered asylum to Gbagbo, provided that he turns over power to Alassane Ouattara. Seeing that the power of the masters dwells in the absolute obedience of their servants, Laurent Gbagbo, like Liberia’s Charles Taylor before him, could end up on the dock at The Hague for having defied France, the former colonial master and the U.N.
The EU and the U.N declarations, allegedly based on Gbagbo’s non-adherence to democratic principles, should warrant the same measure against Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, dubbed Europe’s last dictator, for his blatant subversion of Democracy in that country. Unfortunately for Democracy and its virtuous principles, such ultimatum only applies to Sub-Saharan Africa and Haiti, homes to a generic version of humans that must be supervised since they represent a threat to world peace and security. Prodded by the Ivorian government to remove its mission (UNOCI) from the country, the Security Council responded by extending the mandate for another 6 months. The Ivoirians are in fact lucky, because Haiti’s mandate (MINUSTAH) is routinely renewed for a year.
Back to Haiti and the fraudulent elections which saw the surprise emergence of Michel Martelly as a serious contender and powerbroker. Why did Martelly ask for the annulment of the vote only to reverse himself a day later? He was apparently in contact with the E.U-financed destabilizing agents whose premature release of voting patterns, which contrasted with the official tally of the CEP, caused the country to erupt in riots. Like Préval in 2006, Martelly is the Manchurian candidate in these elections, ostensibly harmless but totally dedicated to preserving the status quos. The popular discontent over his ineligibility in the second round is a misplaced sense of connection from an electorate despondent over the apathy of the country’s politicians that resembles outright hostility toward the people’s aspirations. With the postponement of the definitive results stipulated by the international community, the constitutionally-mandated run-off will not be held as scheduled and the Haitian Constitution once more swept under the feet of the occupiers.
The slanderous accusations of genocide and mass graves in Côte d’Ivoire further erode the credibility of the United Nations and could have unintended consequences for peace and stability in that country as is the case with Haiti (2004-?). With the Security Council, the foremost undemocratic institution in our world, promoting Democracy in Africa and Haiti, something sinister must be in the offing. Out of these nonsensical interventions in Haiti and Côte d’Ivoire, madness will inevitably follow and the victims, Haitians and Ivoirians, hold responsible for choosing obscurantism over enlightenment.
ddjougan@gmail.com
Promoting Democracy: A New form of Colonialism
