By Max A. Joseph Jr.
Throughout the Enlightenment Era, the consensus was that the days of evilness and predatory behavior in this world were practically numbered. This rather optimistic view of humans’ ability to pursue an uncharted course turned out to be a fantasy, as subsequent events indicated. European nationalism, infused with a perverted sense of cultural superiority, not only neutralized the precepts of the “Age of Reason” but also introduced a universal order (colonialism), which was a more sadistic version of feudalism. Accordingly, subjugation and annihilation of non-Europeans were promoted as compassionate attempts at enlightening “unintelligent races and ethnic groups” not an immoral endeavor that should be frowned upon.
Two decades into the 21st century, this evil, narcissistic and predatory conduct somewhat endures. From 1945-onward, the European-dominated order metamorphosed itself into a Trans-Atlantic syndicate, with the United Nations as its main pillar, and the absurd has since become the norm. The system has been so well-refined that actual and potential victims have, for all intents and purposes, converted into its gatekeepers and most zealous defenders. The interventionist forces consisting mostly of Third World soldiers that are patrolling the streets of Port-au-Prince, Haiti and Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire; the Malian desert and the jungles of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are cases in point. The only appropriate analogy to this illogically would be that of Jews defending the Nazi regime (1933-45) political philosophy and protecting the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Despite the cultural, religious and racial dissimilarities spanning millennia, not to mention uneven levels of economic development, there isn’t any doubt planet earth has become more interconnected and interdependent. On the other hand, does this reality warrant the imposition of “universal values” upon Third World nations by notorious predatory powers using the United Nations as a facilitator? Seeing that the architects and enforcers of this universal order never intended to abide by their own prescribed rules, this policy poses an existential threat to humanity as a whole. It not only encourages and institutionalizes supremacist tendencies but also creates a culture of dependency and hopelessness throughout the Third World.
Presently, the enforcers of the system are officially and innocuously engaging in the noble task of “protecting peace and security in the world,” which naturally masks their true motive. Through conventions and U.N. Security Council-imposed resolutions, even the principle of equal rights and self-determination, a mainstay of the U.N Charter has essentially been abolished. As per these conventions and resolutions, all grievances must be addressed at the convenience of the predator which, more often than not, happens to be one of the enforcers of the rules. Persecuted groups (ethnic and religious) seeking redresses for legitimate grievances through armed insurrections are automatically labeled “terrorists,’ ostracized and dealt with accordingly.
While every corner of the globe is affected by this rather abnormal arrangement, Haiti and Africa remain its primary victims. Even abstract rules cannot be violated. For example: electing the wrong candidate is ground for persecutions ranging from economic sanctions to outright military invasion. Haiti, a small nation whose heroic struggle against slavery culminated in the decisive defeat of its then-tormentor (France) at Vertières on November 18, 1803, became a prominent victim of the syndicate on February 29, 2004 while commemorating its bi-centennial. Another example of the imperial power of the syndicate is the farcical indictment of Kenya’s president, Uhuru Kenyatta, by the ICC (International Criminal Court) for alleged “crimes against humanity”. Unable to prove its absurd case, the ICC is now resorting to asking the defendant to provide it with proof of his alleged culpability.
Because of the syndicate’s predisposition to punish nonconformism, Haiti, a poor country with a documented history of resistance will always get the short end of the stick. The February 29, 2004 episode and countless others underscore the lawlessness of the global system that essentially condemns poor and defenseless nations to unwarranted abuses. Reeling under a foreign-instigated insurrection and a comprehensive economic embargo meant to marginalize its then-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti was invaded by US and French forces and declared “a threat to international peace and security” by the UN Security Council, hours into the invasion. Adding insult to injury, then-US Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell, stated that France had a right to intervene in Haiti because of its past colonial ties to the country. Based on this statement, would we get to see French paratroopers patrolling the streets of Montreal in support of Quebec independence? I doubt this very much.
The only solution would be for Haiti to extricate itself from the clutch of this oppressive syndicate and chart its own course by opting for bilateral relationships based on mutual respects. Its recurrent victimization by predatory powers bent on imposing their will on its people by any means makes the case for it. Does it really make sense for a country with documented history of victimization to be a signatory to the Geneva Conventions (1949), which purposely protect occupation forces from local retributions?
Though the precepts of the “Enlightenment Era” were never intended to benefit non-Europeans, Haitians have nonetheless embraced them during their epic struggle against tyranny (1791-1803.) Hence compliance with these non-negotiable UN-sponsored absurdities not only negate our raison d’être but is akin to signing away the country’s fundamental rights to self-defense. All that Haitians want is an atmosphere conducive to the development of their country, not one-size-fits-all international arrangements that subjugate and punish non-conformist but powerless little nations. There is an alternative.