By Max A. Joseph Jr
The most disturbing aspect of economic liberalism, the mainstay of the present geopolitical order, is the overemphasis on systemic stability at the expense of economic development. In Haiti, where the mercenary military force that once could be counted on to neutralize any threats to the status quo is no more, free and democratic elections, advertised as a structural cornerstone of the system, may become a liability that must be avoided at all costs. In previous instances where elections produced unapproved winners, which the architects of the system considered a hindrance to its implementation, the results were tampered with or simply voided.
It should be noted that every United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution of the last three years basically mandated the Haitian government to hold the long-delayed legislative and local elections, yet these requests were deliberately ignored. Needless to say, Haiti’s leadership has powerful friends in the UNSC that allow them to ignore these resolutions at the expense of the welfare of the Haitian people, which the Council boldly claims to be its primary goal.
In light of the fact the many UNSC resolutions on Haiti are seldom debated, there is a strong possibility its members were not even privy of the contents of the texts. Disregarding the security council’s resolutions and getting away with it remains an exception to the rules, seeing that such offense has earned many offenders a one-way-trip ticket to the Hague, Netherlands, the site of the International Colonial Court (ICC), as some critics assert. The late Slobodan Milosevic of Serbia, Charles Taylor of Liberia and Laurent Gbabgo of Ivory Coast form a non-exhaustive list of foreign leaders that ran afoul of the absolute power of the UNSC and paid for their stubbornness.
Economic development and political stability, the twin pillars of human progress, are not a straightforward case of “Blanc bonnet et bonnet blanc,” whereas the same result is guaranteed regardless of the order in which these concepts are applied. Historically, the former has always outpaced the latter, as it facilitated the social and civic responsibilities that formed the foundation of successful political order. Likewise, the many instances in which totalitarian governments opted for political stability over economic development always have had disastrous results. Nevertheless, the architects of the “Haiti experiment” continue to rely on this discredited method which has caused so much harm to countless generations of humans.
Contrary to deep-rooted beliefs of their proponents; economic systems are not one-size-fits-all undertakings. Regardless of documented successes in other venues, they remain concepts that may or may not work somewhere else because of variables such as political maturity and cultural idiosyncrasies. Besides the suffocating foreign meddling; sub-racial and class divisions, dictatorial tendencies, non-conformism, and long-held grudges are potent factors that must not be discounted in Haiti’s attempt at adapting to an unbendable geopolitical reality. For these reasons, no one would be surprised, if economic liberalism were to suffer a fate similar to whatever has been tried for two centuries in the country, regardless of invasions, Minustah and UNSC resolutions.
Indeed, it is safe to assume that the international community’s dogmatic emphasis on political stability in Haiti at the expense of economic development does not rise to the level of a practical idea. Whatever the nation-builders and globalists expect to come out of their policy in Haiti would not come to pass, because the strategy is essentially flawed. The law of unintended consequences will ultimately show its ugly head and the architects of the policy would only have themselves to blame for putting a cart before a horse and expecting a smooth ride.
Meanwhile, Haiti’s current leadership, which has committed itself to executing the designs of the international community (lock, stock, and barrel) without the benefit of a national consensus, may be causing irreparable harm to the country and its people. With its absurd slogan “Haiti is open for business” and tax-holiday (15 years minimum) for a volatile, non-sustainable and embargo-prone industry, like tourism, the Martelly-Lamothe government is trekking blindfolded into an abyss.
Haiti cannot go back to the economy of subsistence (small plots of land tended by illiterate peasant families) that characterizes much of its existence. Conversely, it must not fully embrace the economic model created in the dark rooms of the IMF and World Bank by faceless supremacists and globalists that do not have the best interests of the Haitian people in mind. Given the paternalistic and racist character of the international community’s engagement in Haiti, the outcome is likely to be detrimental to the people’s aspirations and welfare. Persecuted nations, like Haiti, need a siege mentality to survive. Unfortunately, the suitable leadership to help Haitians out of their stupor is missing.
Political stability is not a euphemism for a well-organized and just society; it is rather a means to an end for globalists, anti-democratic forces, autocrats and totalitarians. In case anyone missed it, the concept has been the common denominator in political systems that are now gathering dust in the ash bins of history. Nevertheless, it remains an organic component of economic liberalism which, by the way, ought to be considered a misnomer because its major objective (political control) has nothing to do with economic development nor liberal ideas. Ironically, the economic model being imposed on Haiti under the aegis of the UN may be proof that capitalism has become too complicated a concept for capitalists to handle.