Chris Matthews is on my tv carefully saying how much Haiti’s problems are due to its politics.
He is also congratulating the US on how much its image will be burnished because of how quickly it is responding to the crisis. Really. Yes, really. And aren’t we the greatest country in the world?
And most of the reporters that are on my tv are emphasizing how poor and desperate Haiti’s people were before the quake. And how sad isn’t it, that this country has never been able to get its act together oh my! But don’t worry, America’s there to save them now. And aren’t we the greatest country in the world? And not ONE of the assholes has mentioned that the United States and the French were and are a main cause of the poverty, and dictatorship and blood shed. Let me just add to the education going on all over lj and dreamwidth
What the US owes Haiti
In 1801, Thomas Jefferson – an owner of 180 slaves himself – became the third President of the United States. Jefferson, who was deeply troubled by the slaughter of plantation owners in St. Domingue, feared that the example of African slaves fighting for their liberties might spread northward.
“If something is not done, and soon done,” Jefferson wrote about the violence in St. Domingue in 1797, “we shall be the murderers of our own children.”
So, in 1801, the interests of Napoleon and Jefferson temporarily intersected. Napoleon was determined to restore French control of St. Domingue and Jefferson was eager to see the slave rebellion crushed.
Through secret diplomatic channels, Napoleon asked Jefferson if the United States would help a French army traveling by sea to St. Domingue. Jefferson replied that “nothing will be easier than to furnish your army and fleet with everything and reduce Toussaint [L’Ouverture] to starvation.”MORE
Catastrophe in Haiti
During the Cold War, the U.S. supported the dictatorships of Papa Doc Duvalier and then Baby Doc Duvalier–which ruled the country from 1957 to 1986–as an anti-communist counterweight to Castro’s Cuba nearby.
Under guidance from Washington, Baby Doc Duvalier opened the Haitian economy up to U.S. capital in the 1970s and 1980s. Floods of U.S. agricultural imports destroyed peasant agriculture. As a result, hundred of thousands of people flocked to the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince to labor for pitifully low wages in sweatshops located in U.S. export processing zones.MORE
Why is Haiti so poor and
Hidden from the Headlines: the US war against Haiti and
Democracy Now:US Policy in Haiti Over Decades “Lays the Foundation for Why Impact of Natural Disaster Is So Severe” and
Haiti and the global food crisis and
What you are not hearing about Haiti (but should be) Really, former US diplomat??!!? REALLY?????? and
IMF to Haiti: Freeze Public Wages.
Now, in its attempts to help Haiti, the IMF is pursuing the same kinds of policies that made Haiti a geography of precariousness even before the quake. To great fanfare, the IMF announced a new $100 million loan to Haiti on Thursday. In one crucial way, the loan is a good thing; Haiti is in dire straits and needs a massive cash infusion. But the new loan was made through the IMF’s extended credit facility, to which Haiti already has $165 million in debt. Debt relief activists tell me that these loans came with conditions, including raising prices for electricity, refusing pay increases to all public employees except those making minimum wage and keeping inflation low. They say that the new loans would impose these same conditions. In other words, in the face of this latest tragedy, the IMF is still using crisis and debt as leverage to compel neoliberal reforms.
(I pause here to let loose a hearty FUCK YOU! in the IMF’s direction. The blasted parasites!)
But aren’t we the greatest country in the world? So generous! And they’ll pay us back! After all, this is such an opportunity
to further exploit them! Oh come now, I hear you say. Those are just the far rightwing you say? We expect that from them! Oh yeah?
Let me just point out one more thing from
Catastrophe in Haiti:
In close collaboration with the new UN Special Envoy to Haiti, former President Bill Clinton, Obama has pushed for an economic program familiar to much of the rest of the Caribbean–tourism, textile sweatshops and weakening of state control of the economy through privatization and deregulation.
In particular, Clinton has orchestrated a plan for turning the north of Haiti into a tourist playground, as far away as possible from the teeming slums of Port-au-Prince. Clinton lured Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines into investing $55 million to build a pier along the coastline of Labadee, which it has leased until 2050.
From there, Haiti’s tourist industry hopes to lead expeditions to the mountaintop fortress Citadelle and the Palace of Sans Souci, both built by Henri Christophe, one of the leaders of Haiti’s slave revolution. According to the Miami Herald:
The $40 million plan involved transforming the now quaint town of Milot, home to the Citadelle and Palace of Sans Souci ruin, into a vibrant tourist village, with arts and crafts markets, restaurants and stoned streets. Guests would be ferried past a congested Cap-Haïtien to a bay, then transported by bus past peasant plantations. Once in Milot, they would either hike or horseback to the Citadelle…named a world heritage site in 1982…
Eco-tourism, archaeological exploration and voyeuristic visits to Vodou rituals are all being touted by Haiti’s struggling boutique tourism industry, as Royal Caribbean plans to bring the world largest cruise ship here, sparking the need for excursions.
So while Pat Robertson denounces Haiti’s great slave revolution as a pact with the devil, Clinton is helping to reduce it to a tourist trap.
Lovely. Having to commoditize one’s religion for the entertainment of strangers. And I wonder if the Haitians will be able to afford the entry fees into that historical monuments and archeological digs that all these tourists will be visiting? To say nothing of that good old standby of exploitation, the sweatshop. Some of whom have
fled the country in its hour of greatest need. What a solid economic linchpin. But aren’t we the greatest. most generous country in the World?
And if this all it would be bad but par for the course. But WTF is UP with
the insistent, slavering drumbeat anticipation of violence breaking out among the Haitian populace? EVERYONE, from Keith Olbermann, who with his disclaimers shows that HE FUCKING KNOW BETTER BUT CHOOSES TO DO IT ANYWAY, to Brian Williams and that CNN can-we-please-kick-this-stain-on-humanity-Wolf-Blitzer! To the point that they happily this morning seized on rumors that they had rifled a UN org’s food warehouse, and only reluctantly were forced to acknowledge that this was a fucking LIE. And of course there was much seizing on the boys carrying machetes around, completely ignoring the fact that machetes are a fucking farming implement, not a fucking weapon in and of itself!
Shades of fucking Katrina.
Of course, the trend of focusing and individualizing and humanizing the trapped and dead Americans, as opposed to the tragic undifferentiated mass of shell shocked dying and dead Haitians is par of the course in disaster reporting on American tv. “Thousands of Haitians are dead tonight (camera pans over shrouded bodies). ” ” Sarah American went to Haiti to study poverty (camera pans over Sarah’s famiy and friends and homes and dorm rooms and church members etc.”) I suppose its a sign of progress that that mantle of of “American” was bestowed on Americans of Haitian descent? This is actually the first time I have seen disasters happen outside of America and so many non-white Americans were interviewed. :/ And aren’t Americans the greatest country in the world, helping out those poor unfortunate souls and risking their own lives to do it!
To say nothing of sensationalizing the ordinary live sand actions of poor people THEY ARE DIGGING WITH THEIR BARE HANDS OMG THEY ARE SO DESPERATE AND POOR DID I TELL YOU HOW DESPERATE AND POOR THEY ARE??!?!?!??!?!?! THEY ARE DIGGING WITH THEIR BARE HANDS!!!!! What does everyone do if they can’t afford fancy rescue equipment? Or if said fancy equipment is held up at the airport? Why on EARTH was this treated as such a strange exotic novelty?
And then there is the subject of aid. You see, as far as US news networks are concerned, the only aid that matters is US Aid. In the broadcasts that I have seen, US Aid listed in detail, over and over again. 2000 marines, several ships, piles and piles of stuff, 100 million dollars. But aid from other countries is slipped over. Barely mentioned. Brian Williams for instance this evening, (this was yesterday) came out with Andrea Mitchell and they promised tell us about all the global aid that that was pouring into Haiti. Only to spend the majority of the segment talking about US aid, and them mentioning 6 or 7 countries in which aid was coming from. Nothing about the specifics. But isn’t the US the greatest country in the world? In fact at one point, Mr. Williams went on to comments that aid was coming in from the “free world”. I presume that China and Cuba and Venezula don’t count? Let me tell you what the rest of the world has been doing:
Brazil offers to build cemetery in Haiti and promises it will respect the Voodoo beliefs of part of the Caribbean country’s population, officials say. They are also “setting up of field hospitals, debris clearing, security, and the distribution of food and water.”
The Sun Online gives us the following info
The United Nations has released $10 million from its emergency funds
…
Meanwhile, China dispatched a chartered plane loaded up with 10 tons of tents, food, medical equipment and sniffer dogs that arrived in Haiti on Thursday. Accompanying the emergency materials were a 60-member earthquake relief team that had firsthand experience in the country’s own quake disaster two years ago.
…
Australia pledged an initial $9.3 million for emergency humanitarian relief and reconstruction assistance, with about half going for emergency water, food and shelter, while the remainder will be for rehabilitation efforts.
…
Japan will provide up to $5 million in aid, along with $330,000 worth of tents and blankets, a Foreign Ministry official said. A four-member fact-finding mission will also be sent to determine what Japan can do to help.
\…
South Korea will give emergency humanitarian aid worth $1 million, its Foreign Ministry spokesman Kim Young-sun said, and is considering sending rescue teams.
…
The European Commission has approved $4.37 million while member states Spain, the Netherlands and Germany promised millions more.
Rescue teams from France and Switzerland were on their way, while Spain dispatched three planeloads of rescuers and 100 tons of tents, blankets and cooking kits.
The Israeli army sent in two planeloads of rescue staff and equipment to set up a field hospital in Haiti that can serve up to 500 people a day. The crew will include 220 rescue workers, including 40 military doctors and 24 nurses.
Israel was sending in an elite Army rescue unit of engineers and doctors.
…
Canada sent a military reconnaissance team to assess and planned an initial donation of $4.8 million, with more aid to flow after reports to Ottawa by military reconnaissance team.
I am not counting the international orgs that are giving money and aid as well.
In
Haiti seeks aid after powerful quake we find that:
… search and rescue teams were said to be arriving from nearby Guadeloupe and the Dominican Republic with other rescue teams on their way from many other countries…
Russia was ready to dispatch an Il-76 plane with a mobile hospital, food and medicines to help the victims, said a spokeswoman for the Emergency Situations Ministry on Wednesday.
She said 45 people, including 20 doctors, would leave for Haiti on Thursday.
Germany would donate 1 million euros (about 1.45 million dollars) in immediate aid for the victims, the Foreign Ministry said Wednesday.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Germany had called together a rescue team that would help in rescue work and provide relief to victims.
Italy was ready to do its part in the relief operations, ANSA news agency quoted a Foreign Ministry official as saying on Wednesday.
An emergency cargo flight was to be sent to Haiti with food, medicines, tents and other supplies. On board the flight would also be a team from Italy’s civil protection department tasked to make a first-hand evaluation of the immediate needs of the Haitian population.
France had also decided to dispatch civil security service and gendarmes to participate in rescue operations in Haiti, said its Foreign Ministry.
The Brazilian government announced on Wednesday that it would send two planes with 28 tons of food and water to Haiti.
Earlier in the day, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced a 10-million-dollar aid to the country.
Venezuela sent the first airplane with humanitarian aid to Haiti on Wednesday. The help consists on doctors, medicines, water, search and rescue experts and damage assessment specialists.
Inside the previous Democracy Now Link you can find that
Cuba already had 400 people there and sent an additional
30 more doctors to help
Nicaragua on Thursday sent 31 military doctors of the Humanitarian Rescue Unit (URH) and humanitarian aid for the victims of a magnitude-7 earthquake that shocked Haiti on Tuesday…The 31 officers of the URH travel in one of the planes, while the other plane was loaded with portable beds and medicines to aid the victims in Haiti. The cost of this aid is of 100,000 U.S. dollars. Among the 31 URH officers there are experts to reestablish the electricity system and to provide the first aids.
In this article we find
Mexico will send doctors, search-and-rescue dogs and infrastructure damage experts.
…
Sweden has offered 6 million kronor (US$850,000), along with tents, water purification equipment and medical aid.
…
Denmark has donated 10 million kroner (US$1.9 million).
…
The Netherlands has donated euro2 million (US$2.91 million) and will send a 60-person search-and-rescue team.
…
The Irish telecommunications company Digicel said it would donate $5 million to aid agencies and help repair the damaged phone network.
…
Germany gave euro1.5 million (US$2.17 million) and sent an immediate response team. Another team with 20 rescue dogs is on standby.
…
Taiwan is flying in 23 rescue personnel and two tonnes of aid and equipment.
Jamaica sends 150 JDF soldiers, and supplies including generators, collapsable water containers, mattresses, water purification tablets and general purpose tents.
Trinidad is sending US 1 million dollars
Qatar sent 44 tons of supplies
Iceland sent a 37- strong team of search and rescue workers to Haiti to help in relief work after the massive earthquake on the island. The team was due to arrive in Haiti later Wednesday and would transport 10 tons of tools and equipment, including communications facilities and water purification gear.
South Africa is sending search and rescue teams
Lebanon will send tents and medical supplies
Panama sent 22 rescue workers and 15 tons of supplies
Turkey is sending a mobile hospital, two check-up devices, 20-member relief team, 10 tons of medicine and medical equipment.Also, Turkey will send 20 tons of tents, blankets, foodstuffs and kitchen sets by a General Staff plane.
Chairman of the Red Crescent Society of Iran Masoud Khatami reported that the society will send its aid…30 tons of food, tents, medicines and more.
The UAE (United Arab Emirates) Red Crescent Authority (RCA) is gearing up to send emergency aid…consisting of foodstuff, medical and sheltering stuff, will be dispatched to the survivors of the earthquake, in keeping with the directives of President His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan and H.H. Sheikh Hamdan bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Ruler’s Representative in the Western Region and Chairman of the RCA.”The first stage of the relief programme will involve provision of sheltering materials to the people who lost their homes,” added Am Mazrouei.
Georgia is gearing up to send …40 tons of humanitarian aid is available and 10 rescuers who are ready to go to the island at any moment, have been mobilized.
Liberia is sending US $50,000
Bangladesh is sending a medical team
Canada readied two warships, military helicopters and planes with medical supplies, as well as a large relief and rescue force, with a first aircraft expected to arrive in Port-au-Prince on Wednesday.
And I’m sure I’m missing some other countries. *sigh* Frankly, it weren’t for the fact that other people who insist on watching television in my house, I would have thrown it outside a very very long time ago.
And now a word from our sponsor...
Why is American tv coverage of the Haitian disaster driving me to drink?
This is a really good and really important post. The only thing I’d add, just to not leave the print media out of it, is this column from David Brooks in which I learned that the reason Haiti is so messed up is because they neglect and then beat their children.
FUCK YES! Thank you!
Thank you so much!
CNN had a segment about “Why Haiti Is So Poor.” The expert they interviewed was of course white.
His answer to the question started with, “Well, after independence…”
The U.S. is making it fucking worse: http://qlipoth.blogspot.com/2010/01/security-situation-ii.html
Also: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6990499.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
and an anecdote:
“Well, it’s been four days, the rescue is over. Except for a few isolated incidences there really was no rescue, it never happened. For the first two days there were numerous reports of people crying out for help from under collapsed buildings, but with no water or medical attention heading into the fourth day in that incredible heat nearly all of them will have died now. The UN finally started asking countries to stop sending rescuers today, quietly admitting it was all over. Many were still in their own countries anyway, still waiting to fly into Haiti. Most rescue teams never even made it off the ground. Locals couldn’t even dig anyone out themselves since they had no tools or machinery. The massive fuel bottleneck at the airport, along with the lack of coordination between rescue efforts, will probably have ended up having killed just as many people as the earthquake itself, although the true number of people who could have been rescued will now never be known. After a few more days the body of someone who died today waiting for help will look no different than someone who died the day of the earthquake.
Everyone involved had good intentions, there were just too many things that went wrong. There were no local government or organizations to coordinate with. The Haitian government collapsed. Local affiliates of aid groups that would have been the alternate for coordination efforts were destroyed or needed rescuing themselves, the UN alone lost 36 people. Local police/rescue presence was virtually non-existent, they were either helping their own families, killed or injured, or just left aimless by the collapse of the local command structure. The port was destroyed by the earthquake, leaving air the only way in. The airport ran out of jet fuel in about six hours and there was no infrastructure left to get any delivered. If planes cant get fueled they cant take off, if they cant take off then other planes cant land. So they closed the airport for around 24 hours, leaving most international rescue teams sitting at their own local airports told to wait. Many are just arriving now and being told it’s too late. Really it’s hard to pin direct blame on anyone, it’s just a clusterfuck and a tragedy.”
Pingback: Riot Nrrd - #5: Everybody wants to be Han
According to the comment thread here: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2010/01/haiti-getting-picture.html
The U.S. army is block aid.
update on U.N. Motivses via socialist worker: http://socialistworker.org/2010/01/18/witness-to-a-nightmare
It doesn’t look as though the US’s image is being “burnished” in some quarters:
“Lovely. Having to commoditize one’s religion for the entertainment of strangers. ”
As much as this a sad approach, I really can’t think of a better one. I mean, while prostituting their rich, unique culture to tourists might be tragic, I think it’s fair to say that other approaches in Haiti have failed. If that’s what it takes to bring Haiti out of the abyss, I’m all for it. Who are we to weigh “culture” higher than survival?
I’m curious as to where Mr. Emmanuel got his information about the American forces’ priority. Certainly not from the man in charge of setting them?
Which also answers for Brazil’s concerns regarding who’s in charge of the security forces.
The U.S. has the USS Carl Vinson at Haiti. The article dismisses it as a “floating airport”. But this excerpt from an article about the Indonesian tsunami relief effort of a few years back gives a better description of it’s role:
The carrier has food,water, doctors and the ability to transport the former two to people and the people to the latter. It also has a crew that is very highly trained in doing all those things on a 24 x 7 basis for a very long time. According to Wiki it delivered more than 5.3 million pounds of food and other relief materials in 33 days. It is far more than a “floating airport”, it is a primary source of aid.
All of which indicates that Mr. Emmanuel is ignorant of what the U.S. military’s mission is in Haiti and what it’s doing there.
Jenny’s Socialist Worker source seems to be similarly uninformed:
Perhaps if the source for this article would actually do some research into what the U.S. does to provide aid and what the U.S. military in particular does in disaster response they wouldn’t have made such a fool of themselves. People giving them water – and food, and medical help – is exactly what the the U.S. military is providing.
None of that fucking matters, Ron. The point is the U.S. is block the stuff that’s really needed and instead is a okay with Haitian police shooting at “looters”:
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/police-fire-on-starving-survivors-of-the-quake-2018339.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152403/Police-shoot-looters-as-anarchy-reigns-in-hell-on-earth-Haiti
The U.S. was shit from day 1 of the quake’s aftermath:
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-right-testicle-of-hell-history-of-a-haitian-holocaust/
its unclear why when the west exports their culture its considered cultural imperialism but when the the reverse happens its somehow not an example of the exporter flexing his power. I’m bothered by the easy denial of agency to POC. When whites commodify their culture its them doing it, but when other cultures are commodified its still whites doing it. POC always seem to play a passive role in this scheme.
Indeed, a whole cottage industry has developed, among some of the poorest of the poor, often fueled by microloans, selling their cultural commodities to the west. i have relatives still in the village and have yet to hear a complaint except from what Martha Nussbaum calls Hindu Fascists or from the arundhati roy crew, which I suspect are really just fasicsts with a human face, as susan sontag would say.
I agree with a lot of this post, but the denialim of the successes of globalization mixed wtih the complete silence on the failures and tyranny of socilism, is really creepy.
The IMF is far right? Tell that to the Birchers. Y’know there’s a reason Pat Buchanan agrees with you, far-right and far-left are united in their opposition to free-market globalization because they both find the empowerment of POC trouling, albeit for different reasons.
As for exploitation, i think the world leading leftwing economist put it best:
–Paul Krugman
I’ve looked over your cites. Aside from the U.S. deciding that it would not drop supplies by air – a decision that may well be a mistake – there is nothing in those posts that either indicates that the U.S. is blocking supplies or that indicates that the U.S. is O.K. with anything the Haitian police are doing. Greg Palast (in his point #7) seems singularly uninformed about what kind of aid an aircraft carrier can provide or how it does it. He seems to think that all it has is helicopters and missles. I guess he didn’t want to spoil his anti-US diatribe with actual research.
It may well be that the U.S. could have gotten aid to Haiti faster and more effectively. As with the Katrina disaster, the after-action analysis on that will likely be revealing and will show inefficiencies and will enable development of better procedures. I’ve already read one report that has Israel with a fully equipped and supplied field hospital on the ground. Why didn’t or couldn’t we do that? I don’t know, but I’d LIKE to know.
I won’t be surprised if it turns out that the U.S. could have done a much better job of providing timely aid. But if you’re going to state as a fact that the U.S. is blocking aid, is sending in troops to act as security agents instead of distributing aid and is watching Haitian police shoot looters you should probably post reports that actually give evidence or testimony of that.
As far as what the USS Carl Vinson and other U.S. military ships and personnel actually ARE doing and working on, perhaps you could read this, or this.
Doctors without borders plane is blocked-AGAIN: http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=4165&cat=press-release
and appropriately, the french prime minister weighs in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/18/french-minister-rips-us-t_n_427366.html
Here’s something I like about “Alas” –
I think I may agree with Ron. I mean, just that first Leninology link, putting the need for security in scare quotes like it’s laughable that security would be needed… today I listened to Haitians caring for 300 wounded friends and relatives with hardly even basic supplies *begging* for security, which they said they needed as much or more than the supplies since they had already had some provisions stolen from them by escaped prisoners. They were absolutely clear that they were desperate for order and protection so they could make use of any aid that would come.
And calling the blocked airport “asnine” like in the Socialist Worker story may make a great soundbite, but you cannot put planes down in the middle of the street. A FoaF just got back from a supply mission and said the single-runway airport, built to accomodate about 16 planes, had over 40, and they’re only now being able to clear some of the passenger airliners blocking usable space because they had no fuel to take off with.
Also, I am really glad I’m in a position to armchair quarterback this situation rather than having to be responsible for making important decisions or implementing them on the ground.
That wasn’t the French Prime Minister. HuffPo has that right in the linked article. I’d read a “French Minister” before, HuffPo says it’s their “Cooperation Minister.” The Foreign Minister basically told him to shut up.
Karnythia, who has guest-blogged at ABW I think, posted this succinct summary of her feelings today.
But, before you decide that U.S. soldiers are the villains in this piece, could you maybe take a minute to consider logistics? Getting this kind of aid to 3 million people is daunting on a good day, and Haiti is not having many of those right now. Yes I’m an American vet, but my brain didn’t get removed when I signed up to serve. Things are going to get worse before they get better so please do not think that any aid group can wave a magic wand and fix everything.
I just checked Le Figaro, Le Monde, and L’Humanite. (As right wing as sane French people get, left centrist, and ex-communist) In every single of these newspapers, the fact that the US has taken control of the aid operations is very prominent. The way they look at it is of course, slightly different.
Le Figaro is rather offended that the US is diverting planes, throwing its weight around and not coordinating with UN or local civilian authorities. But the view is: they are there, they can do it, it sucks we are no longer a superpower.
Le Monde is strangely understanding. The opinion pieces pretty much say “no one can do a better job, so lets try to be constructive”, but even elsewhere, the tone is very much friendly to the US. What’s strange is that there are three psychobabble articles about how the Obama White House is dealing with its own ghosts (race, Katrina, etc…)
L’Humanity is the one that quotes claims of Imperialism from the usual suspects (but does not really support them), and worries about the US long term goals. But even they do not go as far as saying that the US are deliberately sabotaging aid efforts.
Now, the French are pretty angry that our field hospital has been diverted while the Israeli’s is already functioning, but in every single newspaper, there was at least one article saying “we do not think that anyone would do a better job at coordinating”. Making the US into villains… would not inspire confidence in me, or in anyone I know in real space.
ahem: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/hait-j19.shtml
And Sebastian, Elusis, how would you explain the MSF plane being turned away twice??
P.S.: http://web1.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=4176&cat=press-release&ref=home-center-relatedlink
Jenny, I’m not an emergency resource coordinator and I assume neither are you. Thus neither of us in in a position to “explain” a particular plane not being allowed to land. The only thing I can reasonably say about it is that I presume they were continuing to have the same capacity programs at the airport that have been persisiting since the earthquake. It makes no sense to project a sinister motive.
Jenny, for someone so assertive in laying the blame, you should bother to read your own links. You make it sound if the US military has a beef with Médecins Sans Frontières. Yes, not two, but at least five planes of theirs have been diverted, but at least five other of their have been allowed to land. Yes, ‘allowed to land’ sounds ugly, but you must understand that someone has to control the airport. If too many planes land, it will be impossible to take off. If no fuel is brought to the airport, no one will be able to take off. Etc, etc, etc…
Yes, it is a damn screw up that the plane was assured they could land. Yes, I am 100% sure that the US Military will give their own planes priority. But I assure you that whoever is making the decisions has, high among his priorities, “Don’t look bad to the fur’ners”. According to one of the articles, for 16 hours at least air traffic was directed from a lean-to, by two sergeants. The airtraffic tower was unsafe, no one was doing it… should these two noncoms be blamed for trying and not doing a perfect job!?
The French and the Brasilians both admit that they did not have the means to do what the Americans are doing. I’m sure many would prefer it if the Americans would discuss, coordinate and cooperate with everyone else (not a single soldier worth of the name would suggest that) and I am sure that there are even people who would prefer if the Americans, not just officially, placed Haitians or Brazilians on top of their chain of command (yeah right).
But that is not going to happens, and I would bet that the result would be disaster, and I am glad I will never be proven wrong.
Anyway, go from logic. The Americans may or may not want to occupy Haiti, and plant their feet firmly there for a few decades. But doing a worse than the best possible job on the humanitarian front is counterproductive to that goal. So if they do worse that perfect, it’s because that’s the best they manage. And no one that I have read, in French, Russian, English or Spanish, no one worth of notice is suggesting that they could have done a better job themselves.
Are you?
Bull: http://socialistworker.org/2010/01/19/humanitarian-aid-or-occupation
Jenny – your discussion tactics here are pretty much non-existant. Posting links with one-word intros like “ahem” and “bull” and “p.s.” are the antithesis of actually having a conversation and engaging with one another. And while dismissing disagreement with comments like “none of that fucking matters” might feel satisfying, it doesn’t seem to be in service of the spirit of engaging either.
At this point I will bow out as I’m uninterested in further back and forth if you’re just posting links.
Jenny, Elusis is right. But those “Socialist Worker” links are so unintentionally ridiculous and self-parodying that I’ve enjoyed reading them.
There is one comment that has recurred in them that shows a breathtaking naievete. It generally goes like this:
To paraphrase – “We were able to invade Iraq, why haven’t we helped out Haiti? We didn’t do it in 24 or 48 hours so clearly it’s {racism, imperialism, etc.}.” Rather than go into a detailed explanation let me ask you a question – how long do you think it took the U.S. Military to determine what logistical obstacles they’d encounter in the invasion of Iraq, plan out methods for overcoming them, marshal the materials and men they’d need to do it and then train the troops in the methods using the materials? 24 hours? 48 hours?
Well, a prediction. We’ll see how true a prophet the author is. I bet … not much of one.
Really? The U.S. is sending soldiers instead of humanitarian aid to Haiti? Do I really need to flood you with links about all the aid coming from the U.S. to Haiti?
Really? Who’s going to open up and operate the airfields and ports that these people and materials will need to actually get into the country? Who’s going to secure them from theft? Who’s going to transport the people and materials throughout the country in the face of a lack of usable infrastructure that civilian vehicles and agencies require? Who’s going to keep them safe while they do their mission? Who, in short, is going to manage that flood? These are not jobs that civilian agencies can do. These and other such jobs are the mission of our military. They do it very well and far better than anyone else.
The crisis in Haiti will not last indefinitely, so I see no reason to extend TPS indefinitely. And opening the borders to any Haitian who has the resources to get to America means that the healthiest and most resourceful of Haitians will be in the U.S. instead of their home country where they are desperately needed. That makes no sense at all.
And with that I will henceforth abide by Elusis’ suggestion. If you have a point to make, make it yourself. And then support it with facts, not opinions.
Oh, and not that you’re responsible for this, but just a note in passing:
The UN’s special envoy to Haiti, Bill Clinton, had been hard at work implementing such proposals before the crisis.
And after the crisis the U.N.’s Special Envoy to Haiti, Bill Clinton, was hard at work campaigning for Martha Croakley in Massachusetts. Real special.
Here’s an interesting paragraph in one of those links:
They say this as if it was a bad thing. As far as I’m concerned this is not a bug – it’s a feature. Why should the U.S. government be the main conduit for financial aid from the American populace? I’d love to see ALL the financial donations come from private sources. It’s likely more efficient; I’ll wager the charities operate with much less overhead than the Federal government’s bureaucracy. It ties the American people much closer to the Haitian people. It lets the source of the money have much more control over what kind of aid is given and who the people who administer it are. Seems like a win-win to me. The American people are served by their government, they don’t serve it and are not dependent on it. They can and should act on their own behalf and represent themselves.
One other thing – does the $100,000,000 that the Federal government is being credited for consist solely of financial aid? If so, what do you think the total aid would be if you include the operating costs of the USS Carl Vinson, the USNS Mercy and all the other ships, aircraft, personnel and material that the Federal government has sent over?
Why should the U.S. government be the main conduit for financial aid from the American populace?
Because that’s what we have a government for: to represent the people of the country. Including in their acts of charity and aid to those in need.
I’d love to see ALL the financial donations come from private sources. It’s likely more efficient; I’ll wager the charities operate with much less overhead than the Federal government’s bureaucracy.
While some charities undoubtedly have lower overhead than the feds, I’d actually be surprised if all or even the majority do. Don’t have any numbers, though, so if you can find any, I’d love to see them and am open to being convinced on the subject.
A more serious problem with claiming the “efficiency” of charities is lack of organization between various groups. If the feds give $X billion dollars in aid as a single organization they can organize it so that minimal amounts are wasted in shipping, distributing, etc. If they work with other governments and NGOs then they can also ensure that critical aid is brought to the places it is needed the most and not blocked by non-critical input. An example might be the group sending e-bibles to Haiti. I have nothing against e-bibles, but really think that food, water, shelter, and medical care should come first. Private charities have their own, sometimes contradictory agendas and won’t see the overall picture as well either. So, for example, all the private aid might go to Port-au-Prince or to helping only a specific group that is considered most “worthy”, i.e. everyone might want to give money to help orphans and puppies but not adults, even though they may be currently in greater need.
It lets the source of the money have much more control over what kind of aid is given and who the people who administer it are.
You say that like it’s a good thing. To me it is the most damning condemnation of private charities there is. People are willing to give aid to the “deserving” but not to people they consider non-deserving. So, faith based charities may withhold aid from those not of their faith (to use the most obvious example, not because I want to condemn faith based charities.) And again, the people you most want to help may not be the people in the greatest need and the aid you want to give may not meet the most immediate needs. What if the current greatest need is for money to dig survivors out of the Haitian maximum security prison for the really hard core cases? What charity will fund that? Only a large bureaucracy like the government that can afford to not care so much about the photo ops. What if the current greatest unmet need is for condoms to prevent a very poorly timed baby boom next year? Will your church supply that need? Would they even think of that? Or other non-obvious needs like vaccines to prevent tetanus, water purification, oil to transport the supplies where they are needed, etc? The government, ideally, might.
Dianne, that’s not what the government is for.
that’s not what the government is for.
What, the government isn’t for representing the will of the people and acting as their agent in international and internal affairs? That’s always been my understanding. Of course, it is an imperfect agency, etc, but in principle, what else should a government be for?
The government is here to protect us from bandits, internal criminals, foreign enemies, bears, and to some degree itself: things that it behooves us all to ward against, where the cost of individual defense against every realistic threat would be prohibitive or impossible but a collective defense is achievable.
The government can act as our agent in international affairs in the sense that we need a national spokesman and someone who sets our foreign policy; we can’t each arrange a separate policy on Cuba. (“Don’t smoke that at the Johnsons, dear, they’re still at war with Cuba.”)
But in reading the Constitution I see nothing which empowers the government to tax Americans to provide humane relief for foreign citizens. If the government wishes to use its considerable powers of information to broadcast the need for aid in Haiti, links to the Red Cross and DWB etc., then godspeed to them in that good exercise of our nation’s charge to promote the general welfare. I don’t even mind if they step in to exercise the distribution of aid and help in situations such as Haiti, where the local civil power has failed and someone must run the traffic lights to get the trucks on the road.
But if I want to give to Haiti (and I do, and did) I can arrange that for myself. The government’s intervention isn’t required, and certainly isn’t part of their basic charter.
One can make the argument that by helping Haiti, your government is improving the US image around the world, and this is making the country stronger and more secure on the international arena. I doubt you are opposed to the government spending taxpayers’ money on a soiree at an embassy, and I bet that aid for Haiti is better bang for the buck.
Even if it is not, and you do not agree that it is appropriate, elected leaders are the ones who have to make that decision, and are allowed to follow their own counsel, even when they turn out to be wrong.
Bears?
I’m assuming, Robert, that you object to all foreign aid and not specifically to disaster relief in Haiti.
@Chingona: Yep. If any disaster scenario calls out for help, it’s this one.
“Bears”, Dianne, is shorthand for the dangers of the natural world.
“Bears”, Dianne, is shorthand for the dangers of the natural world.
Like, for example, hurricanes?
ETA: Or viruses, bacteria, mutagens, UV light, climate change…
Because that’s what we have a government for: to represent the people of the country.
Wherever did you get that idea? I see no evidence in the Constitution or any other documentation of the formation of our government for this claim. Can you cite a historical document that supports your assertion?
Here’s what it says in the Declaration of Independence, the statement that the founders of our country made to the world on why we rebelled against what up to that point was considered our lawful sovereign:
My emphasis. I elect certain individuals to represent me and my interests in the government. But the government’s job is not to represent me. It’s job is to secure my rights. It’s authority to act in foreign affairs is based on the need to be able to secure my rights against foreign interference. Giving money to Haiti, while a good thing to do, has nothing to do with securing my rights. I can quite well send money to Haiti without getting the government involved. If I can do something without the government getting involved, then it’s a good argument that the government shouldn’t be involved.
Now, one thing the U.S. Federal government can do a lot better than private actors is to send the USS Carl Vinson and the USNS Comfort and a bunch of other ships and aircraft over there so that airfields are cleared, ports are fixed up and physicians, etc. are immediately available to the people who need them. Fabulous. They can move faster and with better effectiveness at doing these things than private actors and I think it’s a good thing we do so – although as Robert says the Constitutional authority to do so is suspect at best. But money? I can do that as well as the government can.
It seems to me that what you are saying here is that what kind of charitable activities my money should support should be subject to popular vote rather than to my own will. Why? Why should the electorate – or their elected representatives – have more say on what charitable efforts are more deserving of my support than I do? My money is MINE. I earned it. When it comes to government functions (e.g., what road needs paving first, where a fire station should be built, whether we should buy more missles for the Air Force or more ships for the Navy, whether a bond should be raised to build the local school a new gym or science classroom) then yes, that’s a fit subject for a popular or legislative vote. But donations to charity?
Charitable giving is not a function of government. If you think a particular cause is more worthy than others then give them your money. But I see no Constitutional or frankly moral right for anyone to make a decision that one charitable cause is more deserving than another and on that basis to take MY money by force to support it.
Or other non-obvious needs like vaccines to prevent tetanus, water purification,
You’re talking to a guy who stood up in front of his parish one Sunday morning, draped himself with his own mosquito net in front of the congregation and begged for money to buy more nets for people in Africa to save them from diseases. Not real sexy (both on a specific and an overall basis). I do believe you’ll find that there are a number of (generally faith-based) charities that fund these very activities.
I have seen this argument advanced more than once. I’m getting to dislike it intensely. Name me some faith-based charities that limit their aid to those of their own faith.
And even if they did, so what? Charity begins at home.
In reading the Constitution, I see nothing that says we can charter a bank, but the Washington, Jefferson, and Madison Administrations all did that. Nothing that empowers the government to buy territory from foreign governments, but we were able to that; thanks, in part, to good old Haiti. Our Constitution starts with “We the People” the government exists to act as a filter for our wishes but it is, in the end, suppose to do what the people want.
We later decided that we shouldn’t be in the bank-chartering business, and got out of it.
The executive is authorized to make treaties (with the approval of the Senate) which (strongly) implies the power to negotiate the addition of lands to the United States.
Nothing that empowers the government to buy territory from foreign governments, but we were able to that
I remember reading somewhere or another (I think the Economist but am not sure) that the Louisiana Purchase was never ratified by Congress. So whether buying foreign territory is legal or not, the LP probably isn’t. Time to give it back to the French? Or maybe Montreal then they could break off from the rest of Canada…
The Louisiana Purchase was ratified by the Senate in 1803.
Not all territory was taken by treaty however, about a quater of it was taken by joint congressional resolution. Point being the Constitution leaves alot of things up in the air. Saying in ‘I do not see X action for Z reason allowed in the Constition’ is pointless because if the Constituion had to state everything the government could ever do, it would be a million pages long and meaningless.
because if the Constituion had to state everything the government could ever do, it would be a million pages long and meaningless.That depends on how much you want the government to be able to do. If you don’t want it to do much you can keep it pretty short and then say something along the lines of “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” and then let the States and the people sort it out locally.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Notice the term ‘expressly’ is missing from that phrase.
He’s right.
Let’s put it in there!
This is the best article I’ve read so far on Haiti and the fucked up nonsense that has turned – what could be a paradise – into a parasitic invasion – of a third world country, by some very queer deals.
The RCCL deal is the most questionable of the lot! RCCL (with the hlp of Baby Doc), Aronson (no doubt) and Clinton come up with a DEAL…
RCCL lends $55M to Haiti to build a dock, RCCL then gets paid back via the paltry $6 per head its charged for port charges per passenger, gets a 50 year lease on the land and Haiti gets what out of the fucking deal?
THEY GET TO PAY BACK A FUCKING LOAN TO RCCL AND MAY GET THEIR LAND BACK IN 50 YEARS!
Who came up with this idea? The loan washes the potential profits of the Labadee port out to FUCKING sea!
While Baby Doc was a dictator, RCCL (I believe) considers itself a Benevolent Dictator.
Hard to say. What were you wearing under the netting?
And have you ever considered running for the US Senate?
I was wearing my choir robe, in fact. A black cassock covered by a white surplice. We go for simple and traditional in my parish. Also cheap.
Senate? Hell, we’ve got Durbin and Burris in there now. Even I can’t compete with that level of crazy.
and Haiti gets what out of the fucking deal?
So Haiti borrows $55M to build a dock. They pay it back out of the $6/head they’re charging for a docking fee, which means that Haiti itself never pays out a single dollar, it all comes from the passengers. Haiti gets a free dock, albeit they give exclusive rights to it to the passenger line for 50 years. Meanwhile all the passengers traipse off the boat and spend God alone knows how much money at the locals’ shops, bars, etc. The locals get the benefit of the business, all of which I’m going to guess the Haitian government taxes to get a cut for itself (on top of the bribes that RCCL paid …), and none of which it would get if it hadn’t built the dock to enable the ship to make port. I wonder whether there’s anything in the deal preventing the Haitian government from charging MORE than $6/head and keeping the rest for itself.
It’s also worth asking whether the ship re-provisions or refuels at all at that dock. If so, there’s more profit for the locals and the Haitian government.
The Louisiana Purchase was ratified by the Senate in 1803.
So it was. Apologies for the brain fart.
An example of why aid from private charities doesn’t always work out so well.