Because of the interdependency of our world, any policy emanated from the UN Security Council (the world’s governing body grouping China, Britain, France, Russia and the US) is part of a larger scheme. The February 29th 2004 invasion of Haiti was the introduction of a new geopolitical arrangement meant to replace the post-colonial order (1947-77) which had become unmanageable, thus in need to be revamped. The rulers of our world, no longer satisfied with neo-colonialism (rule by proxies) because of the emergence of new centers of power or so-called rogue nations that is threatening or challenging their hegemony, decided to put an end to the experiment. Fittingly, in less than a century, the world has witnessed the conclusion of the colonial period, the neo-colonialism experiment, and the dawn of re-colonialism.
Historians will agree that WWII instigated the demise of the colonial period (1492 when Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas to 1977 when Djibouti became the last African colony to be given its independence by France), because the new centers of power (the US and, to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union) could not countenance European colonialism, which was archaic and incompatible to their own interests. They will also concur that the post-WWII order (neo-colonialism) was a natural transfer of hegemony from one center of power (Europe) to two continent-size nations (The US and the Soviet Union). In 1991, the Soviet Union, weakened under the weight of its own militarism and beset with economic problems, simply imploded.
With Russia, the successor to the Soviet Union, incapacitated, and new centers of power, China, Brazil, India and the so-called rogue states (Iran and North Korea) vying to be taken seriously or defying the post-WWII arrangement, a new order protecting the interests of the primary beneficiaries of the old became a necessity. With the most to lose, the western nations settled on the once discarded approach to domination: direct rule. Through unilateral actions and the expert use of the instruments of the post-WWII order such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Criminal Court (ICC), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Security Council, they set out to institute a new order: re-colonialism.
Under the new arrangement, any attempt by a Third World country at projecting political and economic independence is confronted in its embryonic stage so as to prevent the copycats efforts that were common in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and preclude political, economic and military alliances with the emerging powers. Recalcitrant governments are hounded and subjected to harsh measures that include financial, economic and political isolation calibrated to create internal dissent or armed revolts. Isolated, noncompliant leaders inevitably resort to repressive measures against the foreign-funded provocateurs and that naturally paves the way for their indictment by the ICC for “crimes against humanity” which has become a generic term under the new policy.
In one worst case scenario, Haiti, a poor country not at war with anyone, was invaded by French and US forces on February 29th, 2004 and arbitrarily labeled “ a threat to international peace and security” by the UN Security Council the day after the invasion. The country has since been under a mandated-Security Council occupation that is responsible for untold numbers of political deaths and a cholera epidemic that has thus far took the lives of 6000 Haitians. Though scientific evidences have established that the Nepalese battalion attached to MINUSTAH (the UN occupation force) was responsible for the outbreak of the epidemic, the UN steadfastly refuses to acknowledge guilt.
Not surprisingly, the core principles enumerated in the United Nations Charter are selectively applied depending on the circumstance. For example, threats to collective peace and security, which mandate UN military interventions, invariably take precedence over the principle of self-determination of peoples whenever the western powers (Britain, France and the US) perceive any transgression as such. Alternatively, the principle of self-determination of peoples is automatically ignored whenever it collides with the interests of any member of the Big Five, which encompass everything under the sun.
Strangely enough, the re-colonization is being enforced by Third World countries which may later be victimized under the same policy. Like the disposable hired guns of the colonial period, the nation-enforcers went about their allotted assignment with a zeal that sometimes surpassed the expectations of their masters, which explains the arbitrary shootings and enduring harassments of Haitian civilians under the UN occupation 2004-?. Besides the contractual and enforcing role of the mercenary nations, the administrative side of the policy is handled by an army of NGOs (the modern-day equivalent of settlers) acting as an independent entity within the state. A motley crew of adventurers, religious zealots, perverts, entrepreneurs, opportunists, racists, pedophiles and, of course, a number of idealists, the NGOs constitute the greatest threat to auto-determination of peoples and sovereignty of poor nations.
When the Security Council, the all-powerful body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security in our world, is arming insurgents to destabilize an accredited UN member-state, it is not only discrediting the organization’s stated purpose but also destroying the very foundation of its power. Undeniably, the old demons that conceived slavery, the extermination of the Amerindians, the Holocaust and innumerable human sufferings have yet to be exorcized. Given that re-colonization naturally collides with the aspirations of its targeted victims, not even the architects of the policy can confidently predict the outcome. Time will tell.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *