The tragedy comes to Haiti especially cruel way problematic global order at the time of globalization. Who does what Especially when facing fury of nature or the madness of men, whether it be an earthquake or an ethnic massacre, the time factor is decisive. Intervene early is to save lives. There is a major contradiction between the political need to "build coalitions" to make more "acceptable" intervention politically and the inability to practice to do so if one wants to intervene quickly. Build coalitions takes time that victims do not have.
"He is helping Haiti." It does not occupy. "The French Secretary of State for cooperation, Alain Joyandet, is doubly unfortunate. In the absence of a credible United Nations and force to collapse in the sense of one of the poorest States and the lowest in the world, was there an alternative to commitment muscular but effective forces us
Their intervention was not seen by a majority of Haitians as marking the beginning of an invasion, but as the beginning of an issuing a situation of distress and absolute solitude. That can mean respect for the sovereignty, when there is more State to address the essential While the temptation to "recolonize" is always present, often with the best intentions in the world. The formula of Régis Debray, who wishes to Haiti "a pupil of humanity" is noble and generous, but is it consistent with the desires of the Haitians Weakness and susceptibility go hand in hand, especially when the glaucous realities of the present do not transcend the legacy and the horrors of the past and to project itself positively in the future.
How to rethink the intervention at the time of globalization and in the context of a world that is becoming multi-polar In Haiti, were the Chinese not present, beyond their men already on the ground in the mission of the United States, very shortly after the Americans
In terms of geopolitics, at least two lessons are to remember the tragedy of Haiti. The first is that in a world where we have lost the privilege of ignorance, we follow in real time the tragedies through the modern tools of communication, suasion to intervene will become still stronger. The second is that should rethink the issue of the reform of the United Nations, in terms of the issue of intervention.
At the end of the 1990s, the Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan and the President of the United States Bill Clinton had "dotted" sketched the broad outlines of a new international order based on the alliance of the right-l' UN - and force - the United States. Today, while we enter by steps in the world of multipolarity, America is "default strength" and the United Nations suffers from a crisis of ever-greater legitimacy, in terms of incarnation at the level of its Secretary-General, composition at the level of his Security Council, and more generally in terms of efficiency.
In this context, the G2O, probably a bit reduced and recomposed, is it not in fact the new United Nations Security Council And the new Council should not to "make a difference" have civil and military intervention instruments supportive at best the requirements of effectiveness, i.e., the ability to intervene in emergency and those concerning respect for the feelings of the inhabitants of the country that is meant to save In other words, response forces can be formed and grouped after the disaster. They must also to tragedy and be ready to intervene in their forms of "coalition forces".
With the prestige comes responsibility and therefore the duty of intervention. It is primarily up to the new members of the Security Council to provide contingents to the UN intervention force. It is nevertheless clear that for a long period of transition, the United States will continue to play a pre-eminent role in the response.