Haiti VS. Empirical Powers what are the Strings?
Solutions are much better than criticism; it gives the criticizer the power to critique.
The protest in Harlem against Clinton role in Haiti did not meet the expectation it intended to accomplish. If the protest was to be heard, it was certainly hardly heard. Nearly two dozen people showed up, and those in the street weren’t even motivated to join the crowd. Why was this protest so discouraging? Was it timing issue? Was it the issue being addressed or was it simply the wrong protest for the time being?
It is hard to convince people who are in need to change their mind against a promise to gain over a cause that is not so promising. Considering that they was no recourse as to what plan would be in place once US representatives leave Haiti. If they were any it certainly wasn’t mentioned at the rally.
It doesn’t matter how good the intent of the protest; if those whom the protest is against are making promises to do something good they have a better chance of gaining leverages over those who wishes to remove them from their occupation. If we want Clinton out of Haiti, what we need to ask ourselves than is what will be the consequences for it? and what is the recourse? If we don’t want UN or any imperial powers then how do we intend to develop Haiti’s infrastructure? We're going to be as real as we can get, and from there hopefully some understanding will come to light. These are the questions that should have been addressed at the rally. The people of Haiti don’t just want to hear the criticism; they also want to hear the solution to the problem.
If Clinton is no good for Haiti then who is good, and how can we help whoever is good fix Haiti? Solutions are much better than criticism; it gives the critique the power to criticize. On a different note, that 10 billion dollars promised to Haiti should not be thought as money being offered without any string attached. They have never been any country that has given money to another country without any strings attach; if the string is not visible then the attachment is said to have built the relationship between the two nations. A relationship that is tied in with opposition for another party’s interest; supposedly as to keep the other guys out. American citizens dished out a lot of money for Haiti's reconstruction. In economic term this is call capital flight; which in plain English is known as money leaving the American economy to be accessed in Haiti. Reasonably speaking, can we actually discourage the idea of American contractors in Haiti when the a good portion of this money is coming from the United States. It would seem that it is within their right to have wanted some of that money to return back to the US economy. Therefore, it is not American contractors that we oppose, but instead fake contract negotiators, because it is there the problem reside. We understands that when a product is said to be valuable the value is never within the product itself, but from those who are willing to pay what they think the product is worth. We understand that without any buyers the product has no value. Likewise, if they want to devalue Haiti they can choose not to promote it to their interest groups; which could have negotiated to pay for the Haitian commodities they value as good.
The competitors are never friends; otherwise they would have devalued the product for their own economic interest. Which then indicate to us that they must be other interest group in Haiti who opposed US involvement which have made us realized that Haiti's value is deeper than what the naked eye can see.
They are absolutely nothing wrong with the idea of Haiti being put up for sale if has Haitian people we can use the revenues from the sale to strengthen our long term growth, and that of our people. Competition promote leverages, and thereby secure economic growth to balance the people’s well being.
The problem however, arises when we don’t know the point of view of those other interest groups who opposes the United States and the United Nation role in Haiti. It has become clear what the people’s concern with US intervention is when considering the natural resources of the Haitian people, but if there is another interest opposing the US what is it exactly that they want? We can't value that which we do not yet understand. We can only value the intent of a proposition that means well for the Haitian people. But before we can do that, we need to know the viewpoint of both sides of the coin so that we can balance our decisions with a view that is in the people's interest.
This is not saying US intervention is the best thing for Haiti, but what is the point of view of the other interest groups, and what are their plans if United States and the United Nation were to leave Haiti? We are no way implying that Haiti can’t do for itself if given the proper guidance, but at what cost? Haiti is not being offered help because it isn't valuable in the eyes of many because it natural resources is kept as a secret. Haiti can become more valuable if it is marketed to the right interest groups. Whether or not the return on its investment will be positive os going to depend on how the stock market grow for future projections.
There is no commodity that is worth marketing if the product for sale is not promising. We just have to make sure that Haitians gets their share gain out of the deal. We have to be realist about the power that governs Haiti, and find it within our means to know exactly what these powers really want; otherwise we will always be faced with catastrophe.
Globalization promote one universal economic system with capitalism as it marketing tool. It uses the stock market as a trading facility for countries to exchange their goods and services for a manipulated return on investment. What we need in Haiti is social capitalism not socialism or capitalism. We cannot have a socialist country when we are at the mercy of other countries. Socialism promote self empowerment and as Haitian people we are far from being powered. In this particular case the word “self” represent an individual country working independently from other countries for the benefit of social gain.
The capitalist system is the capital of laissez-faire. It permits less restriction among the transactions of private sectors. It served as a stepping stone to economic inequality, and it allows the economy to stagnate long enough to be confused with real economic growth. Socialism discourages productivity because it doesn't offer any incentive for us the workers to want to work. We don't work because we love to work; we work because we need money. And socialism without any alteration for incentives discourages competition. Obviously, we don't think socialism is good either. Although socialism offers some sort of egalitarianism for its people, it can also diminish the strength of the economic system. Therefore, it is that middle ground of both economic systems that we're looking for; which is "social capitalism".
The plan to bring investors in Haiti is not so much of a bad idea; on the contrary it is a great idea. Haiti needs jobs, and if the lands are just sitting there than what good is it to anyone if they’re not being used. The ten billion dollars that is promised for donation in Haiti can only be useful if it is going into infrastructure, education, jobs and health care. Those four important needs are necessary for Haiti’s reconstruction at this present moment; anything else is secondary.
You cannot have infrastructure without the involvement of multinational corporations. Realistically speaking who’s more equipped to build the roads if it is not companies that have long stands in third world reconstructions. The focus should be on cost - allocation as it pertains to contractors. How will the money distribute to benefit Haiti’s population, and the investors? And what kind of transparency will be in place to make sure that the money is being well allocated?
The Haitian government wants the money to be allocated to them, and think that they’ll make the right judgment call in the best interest of the country; while the people are left out of the negotiation process. Now, what if all negotiations were made public; all contractors were bided on, and their credentials were made available to the public; could we say Haiti would have had a better chance of distributing that money to the right contractor?
We can predict from historical facts that when it comes to money being exchange hands, honestly speaking there is no such thing as 100% transparency. For that matter, wherever money is being distributed some will pass beneath the table to avoid from being transparent. This has always been the law of dishonesty. Any focus to remove investors from Haiti cannot be welcome until the people know which one is helpful to their needs. We are well aware that not every investment will be in the best interest of the Haitian people. This is where the string is attached to the money that is yet to be offered to the Haitian people. We have to be aware that globalization discourages all sanction on trades. If you have globalization you shouldn't have sanction; to have sanction would have imply a violation of globalization itself. Unless globalization is a funt and that we pick and choose who gets to trade under globalization.
This reasoning is backed by historical facts. What a person has to do is to think back on how things were before globalization, and there it will become clear to you that commerce was local and less competitive. Anyone who thinks that imperial powers are going to help Haiti’s economy without having their interest in mind is delusional to have thought that. The very reason why they share interest in Haiti is because it is valuable to them, and they can benefit from it economically. This should not be looked upon as a discouragement, this is simply the truth which does not mean they's no advantages associated with it.
The Haitian people should not think that no good help can come out from it; it would be unresponsive to think that. Economic study teaches us that when a commodity is valuable everyone who can afford one wants to own one. While It is true that Haiti is not for sale; the commodities that makes it so attractive to those imperial powers are starting to look more attractive to them as global competition tightens up.
Haiti and the investors share one thing in common; they see Haiti as a place to transfer their liquidity assets into hard assets. They are interested in the lands; what are the Haitian people doing with all those beautiful beaches they have laying out there? Are these underdeveloped places not a true representation for creative possibilities that can attract job creation? Does the term resort ring a bell or perhaps hotels? I don’t know what you see, but if you ask me,l I see jobs for the Haitian people.
United States citizens and addition to other countries have donated billion of dollars into the Haiti relief fund. That money is still pending distribution, and yet some Haitians in addition with some foreign interest are asking US representatives to leave the country.
Are the Haitian people actually serious to think that they are being offered this money without US interest being part of the deal? Who is in charge of this money? is it foreign interest or the US government? We ought to find out what the strings are, and see if they’re liable enough for Haiti's long term growth. But the only catch their is one where if the new Haitian government can’t understand the level of liability of the strings that are attached to US interest; they won’t understand the intent of the policies they are signing to take effect.
Therefore, instead of trying to push US representative out of Haiti; the Haitian government that will be in place after the relief, or the educated Haitians who have studied foreign policies abroad; should try to understand how the US economic policy can be in the interest of Haiti’s economy; if not what are the suggestions available to help improve the relationship?
If the Haitian government that will be in place can’t understand US foreign trade policies; they won’t know if the policy they are signing in place will be in the interest of their country’s economic viability.
We need investors that will help Haitian people build their agribusiness so that they can become less dependent on imported food. One of the most important focus should be in agriculture. Agriculture is the only life source of a free nation, without it freedom is only an illusion. Any people that have the right to claim their nation as being an independent country must have been able to feed their own population. Any country that cannot do that is not free, and therefore has no right to claim the title as being a free nation.
The foreign powers couldn’t care less about Haiti being the first freed black nation. It is not about patriotism when it comes to business. It is about valuables, nationalism is used as a font to hide the real interest, but it is always about money nothing else. Haiti is not hated amongst the interest group because they‘re the first freed black nation; they're hated because they refuse to allow the opportunity to flow.
How can Haiti be free if the most basic life source "food" which keeps us standing is imported? Then if we don’t compel to those who feed us (imperial powers) than we are left to starve -- is that what you call freedom?
If we want Haiti to become a free nation then help us get investors who will be willing to help Haitian people rebuild their agriculture, and reduce on foreign import so that the peasant won’t have to populate the city. As Jean Bertrand Aristide once said “if the peasants don’t come down the city won’t eat”. Let us help revitalize this historical fact, and make the villagers into cultivators; working for a profitable means.
As we have seen in some countries of Africa the agribusiness is sometime not promising. There is a growing need for organic produce in the world, and investors can help Haitian agribusiness target those needs. But the interests that are attached with this concept should not be overlooked; for it can be at times a disadvantage for the peasant.
We should also keep in mind that whenever investors are involved, the need to maximize their profit will always be a priority. For that reason alone, investors should never be considered guaranteed relief for Haitian struggle. They are the salt that combines with the ingredients that make the food tasteful; if you add too much salt; the food become unbearable.
The tax on exported food can be so costly that it offset the peasant profit margin; in which case the peasant would be working for nothing. We should keep in mind that by producing food to be exported we can at the same time starve our own population. This can happen because the income level of the population is well below the profit margin of exported goods.
For example: if 2 organic sweet potatoes are selling at $3.50 US and the average Haitian population makes $85 a month; that monthly salary would not be feasible enough to keep the peasant selling to the inhabitants. There are about 28 – 31 days in a month. And if there were to buy 2 potatoes to eat every day, that $85.00 would only be sufficient enough to keeps them eating for 24 days.
Now, the question becomes can empirical powers support Haitian agribusiness and still keep their people starving? The answer is yes. These countries protect their farmers by placing regulation on imported food; making it impossible for outsiders to make a profit they can rely on.
We all know that former president Clinton has good intention for Haiti; he wishes to revitalize Haitian agriculture which he himself have apologized for having help shred. Therefore, the idea that he is not needed in Haiti is not a good response if he wishes to reverse the situation. A better one would have been to allow him to prove himself worthy of his word.
However, to know whether he is worthy of his words, the Haitian people must know the difference between a good deal and a bad one, and they can only know this by putting people in place who understand US foreign trade policies.