Numerous stories on Australian television tonight indicated that aid, rescue efforts, and medical care are all reaching Haitians belatedly, very inadequately, and in a somewhat disorganised fashion. The logistical and other challenges involved in responding to a catastrophe of this magnitude are, of course, considerable. However, La Figa cites a number of reports which have not been widely disseminated in the US and other western media*:
Flights with aid, support and life saving equipment from other nations are being turned away from the airport as thousands of armed US and US troops arrive.
Full details are here. If accurate, this is very disturbing.
Previous LP discussion of the Haitian earthquake is here.
*Update: But see also this comment from jo.
Elsewhere: The latest from Médecins Sans Frontières.
Update [dk.au]: The Boston Globe has an amazing photo editor. They’ve compiled this series of photos (via Global Soc Prof)
in the last thread there was a lot of disagreement with people who thought that nations might be bringing their own goals into play in their dispensing of aid. I came to the thread late, and read it having read these reports of the US actions at the airport. It was interesting, to say the least, seeing people laughing at the anti-imperialism crowd in light of this disturbing new development.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly sinister to it, though. America thinks they can do best, but they can’t, so it’s a big fuck up at Haiti’s expense. Par for the course, really.
I put up a longish comment on the other thread from what I was reading online over the past few days, but whatever, it seems that airport is clearing, and that only two flights were diverted on Sunday their time, although there are many more flights arriving than the airport can accommodate in a timely fashion:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60H00020100118
And I read about the delays and diversion of direct aid, on big US MSM sites.
Oh, ok, Jo, thanks. Was just going on what the link said. Perhaps the implication was that it wasn’t being reported on tv news bulletins or the like. I don’t recall having seen any mention of it in the dead tree Australian papers I’ve read over the last few days.
Elsewhere: The latest from Médecins Sans Frontières.
this is not the time nor the place
Good analysis, sg. In the moronic sense.
I recommend Michael Keizer’s post on the logs issues around the Haiti response. Yes there are challenges due the size of the response here, and the quantity of supplies that will need to be shipped in over a long period. But compared to other recent disasters (the Pakistan earthquake of 2005 in particular – high altitude isolated townships/villages, smashed bridges, requiring long and expensive heli lift ops), PAP’s ocean-side, dock-side and airport-side location makes the logs issues here a lot easier. In 1-2 weeks at the outside getting materiel in will no longer be a/the problem, but effective coord will be.
Should also say that given the shattering of the Haitian government administrative capacity – one would hope we might see a fairly open skies / open doors approach to aid materiel being shipped into the country, at least for a while. Try importing life-saving generators & pumps (for clean water from boreholes) into some countries in africa during a cholera epidemic, and you learn the true meaning of deadly bureaucratic ineptitude and intransigence.
Ah, relying on local dead tree for news over thar – good luck!
I think maybe what is occurring is that, (besides getting their citizens out first and that other nationals like ah, the French for eg. & others weren’t so ‘appy about their citizens not getting out etc) – is that the US military have determined their own strategies and priorities and everyone has been made to fall into line and I don’t mean for nefarious motives – I mean in terms of deploying their aid effort – but with their priorities.
It’s not hard to imagine that the US military have certain strategies and protocols in the way they deploy and this maybe considerably different to the way NGO’s operate – who are much more likely to very flexible, fast, first in line, and get ‘some’ aid out fast, rather than some systematic deployment of first troops to secure airport – then troops to set up the landing of ships, then infrastructure to handle supplies, then massive shipments of blah.
In the short term it seems crazy, but maybe they are looking at watering and then feeding 1-2 million people over the coming weeks and months and have prioritised this above MSF’s inflatable hospital to deal with the badly injured in the very short term and so on. It was reported that those in charge of the airport had decided that the priorities of plane landings were “first water, then equipment for distributing supplies, then food, then medical personnel, then medicine”. It seems that’s a pretty bald statement of their secondary priorities. Anyway, hopefully this is already somewhat in the past already, as the airport is being freed up as reported and these priorities are no longer operational.
I also read that the helicopters from the Carl Vinson have already been making drops and picking up the injured etc since Saturday as the beginning of their direct deployment, so again without involving other agencies they are putting in place their own medical emergency infrastructure – the US Comfort hospital ship will be arriving soon etc.
Again, hopefully, this bottleneck is over and every agencies and countries resources are now being deployed as they arrive. As you said Mark the “logistical and other challenges involved in responding to a catastrophe of this magnitude are, of course, considerable.”
In respect of the unilateral decisions about the first use of the airport and whether this was the right strategy – we’ll have to wait and see, not only over the coming week(s) but from detailed reports in due course.
New high resolution pictures on the destruction from the 2010 Haiti Earthquake have been posted from on the ground in Port-Au-Prince and Jacmel
http://www.jlaforums.com/album.php?search=haiti&search_cond=Pic%20Description&sort_order=&start=0
http://www.jlaforums.com/album.php?search=haiti&search_cond=Pic%20Title&sort_order=&start=0
I got this in an e-mail.
January 14, 2010
DEMOCRACY_NOW
Naomi Klein Issues Haiti Disaster Capitalism Alert: Stop Them Before
They Shock Again
Journalist and author Naomi Klein spoke in New York last night and
addressed the crisis in Haiti: “We have to be absolutely clear that
this tragedy-which is part natural, part unnatural-must, under no
circumstances, be used to, one, further indebt Haiti and, two, to
push through unpopular corporatist policies in the interest of our
corporations. This is not conspiracy theory. They have done it again
and again.” [includes rush transcript]
Naomi Klein, author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster
Capitalism.
AMY GOODMAN: Let´s go back to Naomi Klein. We´re going to try that
tape again, her commenting on what is going on in Haiti right now and
who is profiting already.
NAOMI KLEIN: But as I write about in The Shock Doctrine, crises are
often used now as the pretext for pushing through policies that you
cannot push through under times of stability. Countries in periods of
extreme crisis are desperate for any kind of aid, any kind of money,
and are not in a position to negotiate fairly the terms of that
exchange.
And I just want to pause for a second and read you something, which
is pretty extraordinary. I just put this up on my website. The
headline is “Haiti: Stop Them Before They Shock Again.” This went up
a few hours ago, three hours ago, I believe, on the Heritage
Foundation website.
“Amidst the Suffering, Crisis in Haiti Offers Opportunities to the
U.S.
In addition to providing immediate humanitarian assistance, the U.S.
response to the tragic earthquake in Haiti earthquake offers
opportunities to re-shape Haiti´s long-dysfunctional government and
economy as well as to improve the image of the United States in the
region.” And then goes on.
Now, I don´t know whether things are improving or not, because it
took the Heritage Foundation thirteen days before they issued thirty-
two free market solutions for Hurricane Katrina. We put that document
up on our website, as well. It was close down the housing projects,
turn the Gulf Coast into a tax-free free enterprise zone, get rid of
the labor laws that forces contractors to pay a living wage. Yeah, so
it took them thirteen days before they did that in the case of
Katrina. In the case of Haiti, they didn´t even wait twenty-four
hours.
Now, why I say I don´t know whether it´s improving or not is that two
hours ago they took this down. So somebody told them that it wasn´t
couth. And then they put up something that was much more delicate.
Fortunately, the investigative reporters at Democracy Now! managed to
find that earlier document in a Google cache. But what you´ll find
now is a much gentler “Things to Remember While Helping Haiti.” And
buried down there, it says, “Long-term reforms for Haitian democracy
and its economy are also badly overdue.”
But the point is, we need to make sure that the aid that goes to
Haiti is, one, grants, not loans. This is absolutely crucial. This is
an already heavily indebted country. This is a disaster that, as Amy
said, on the one hand is nature, is, you know, an earthquake; on the
other hand is the creation, is worsened by the poverty that our
governments have been so complicit in deepening. Crises-natural
disasters are so much worse in countries like Haiti, because you have
soil erosion because the poverty means people are building in very,
very precarious ways, so houses just slide down because they are
built in places where they shouldn´t be built. All of this is
interconnected.
But we have to be absolutely clear that this tragedy, which is part
natural, part unnatural, must, under no circumstances, be used to,
one, further indebt Haiti, and, two, to push through unpopular
corporatist policies in the interests of our corporations. And this
is not a conspiracy theory. They have done it again and again.
AMY GOODMAN: Naomi Klein speaking last night at the Ethical Culture
Society. She´s the author of The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster
Capitalism.
This comment from an American blog:
I made a number of comments on the previous thread that I won’t repeat here. Regrettably, many people persist on conflating the separate themes of how can we get aid to people in the short term and what ‘we’ can/ought to do in the long term to help countries like Haiti if we decide they are unable to manage their affairs to our satisfaction.
The only additional contribution I would make is to caution the people calling for the yanks to get in and fix things and to hell with observing proprieties that cause delays – don’t be surprised or resentful if they [continue to] adopt exactly the same mentality in other international issues. If you want the USA to be a kind of global SES/police service, you can’t expect to pick and choose the issues where it acts unilaterally.
I understand your concern Ken, but I think that sometimes you do have to pick and choose. Haiti has been stationed with 10,000 UN soldiers since 2004. Presumably if the United Nations has an objection to the current US role in Haiti then Ban would say something.
US Dept of State
You don’t have to blindly trust US intentions to not, for now, take this at face value.
What would the alternative even look like?
Wbb you are doing exactly what I noted in my first comment: ‘conflating the separate themes of how can we get aid to people in the short term and what ‘we’ can/ought to do in the long term to help countries like Haiti if we decide they are unable to manage their affairs to our satisfaction.’
Neocons and even many mainstream US conservatives have long insisted that if people expect them to tidy up other countries’ messes then they have the right to tell those countries how to behave. If we keep accepting that they have the responsibility we can hardly deny them the authority.
I was trying no to conflate them – but ok, so in the long term, yes, I agree – the USA must not take control. Am only trying to say that I believe that the risk of long-term US misbehaviour needs to be taken for now.
Laura Freschi, who contributes to the excellent Aid Watch blog has a very interesting piece in Forbes comparing the situation to the Bam earthquake in southern Iraq and highlighting the importance of utilizing local knowledge and infrastructure.
Read the whole thing.
Reiterating what wbb said, unfortunately Ken, at this time there is no other choice than the US military. It’s not a matter of choosing one over another, there is them and then everyone else together making up the numbers to get the medical, water, food, security, temp housing, and all the urgent repairs to ports & airports, roads and communications.
I very much hope that the Haitian Govt. and the UN can re-group quickly and take back control and then coordinate the emergency and the longer term reconstruction effort. And from from dk.au’s link above it seems the UN is already in control of 12 different sectors:
Also as the article points out, unlike Bam or Aceh, Haiti has even less infrastructure and public hospitals etc to deal with the injured.
Neither Indonesia nor Iran were failed states. Both have expertise and local resources available in the terms of their own Govt personnel and military to bring to bear. And although Burma is of a less developed scale again, there is an organised military and Govt in situ who once mobilised etc etc.
I also don’t know why pointing out the obvious, is being taken for what I’d prefer was happening – actually what I’d prefer is that the earthquake didn’t happen and that thousands and thousands of people weren’t killed and badly injured and all the rest. – that’s what I’d prefer.
Jo of course it’s entirely appropriate that the USA make the greatest contribution to relief efforts in this instance, just as it would be for Australia to take the lead in a disaster in Micronesia. However it’s quite consistent to acknowledge the immediate relief needs while criticising the USA’s refusal to participate under UN control, and to warn against attempts to use the tragedy to pursue long-term imperialist goals. Some of the commentary I have read argues that the latter points are somehow incompatible with the first; I’m simply pointing out that they are not.
I was equally critical BTW of Australia’s refusal to participate in an international relief effort after the tsunami, demanding that we keep direct control of our donation and insultingly implying that those damn natives would just waste it if we let them get their hands on it.
Ken Lovell @21: “…implying that those damn natives would just waste it if we let them get their hands on it.”
Unfortunately, Ken, the historical evidence is that highly corrupt nations do exactly that.
Not saying that everyone is corrupt there and not here, but that the legal and policing system is unable to control it.
Corruption appears to be a function of law and order, not of nationality. We have enough trouble with our own pollies trying to arrange favours for mates.
True Elise; there is a powerful argument that the American Empire is in the global interest. I don’t accept it, but it’s perfectly rational and coherent.
All I ask is that people understand you can’t pick and choose the situations where you want the Empire to call the shots. If you want them to run global disaster relief then you have to accept they’ll also run global wars on terror. People can’t have it both ways.
Ken, have the US “refused to participate under UN control”?
And what does under ‘UN control’ mean, when I think about it – does it mean they don’t come under the direct control of the UN, but only cooperate and coordinate, due a host of legal and other stuff in terms of armed troops/international courts etc. I would suspect the US military never cedes ‘control’ to anyone other than the POTUS – does anyone know?
And in terms of the Australian Govt aid package to Indonesia, wasn’t more than half of it already allocated just prior to the Tsunami to a range of projects identified and agreed to by Jakarta, and they just upped it and then announced. I think a lot went to major highway upgrades across Indo, IIRC.
And depending on the host Govt or agencies involved there may be good reasons for holding onto donations and at other times no good reasons at all, as you state. It’s not a one size fits all scenario and many agencies and other Govts would likewise make determinations based on a pile of variables which are often wrong, and stupid, including unfortunately maximising contractor profits in the case of many donor nations.
In terms of acknowledging the very obvious issues in respect of US involvement at the level and spread in this current emergency , most esp. in the planning and medium-longer term reconstruction phase, I know all of my posts on the other thread, clearly mentioned these, so I’ll excuse any incompatibility on my part.
And of course, Port-au-Prince is both capital and epicentre, unlike Bam & Aceh, only adding to the lack of local resources available.
Anyway, more than enough from me, as I said, it’s the Obama Administration’s first global humanitarian response and I’m interested, like many people, to see if this administration can work more cooperatively with the UN and all regional partners, and the host Government and the local people, than may have been the case under the previous administration.
Ken Lovell @23: “If … global disaster relief, then … global wars on terror.”
Are you sure that logic string IF…THEN would stand up to close scrutiny?
If I tied your shoe laces when you had a broken arm, then I would throw other people’s shoes in the bin. Because, erm, ah…some different reason???
As the old song goes, “It aint necessarily so.”
It would seem to me that the US military are going to have the biggest presence there and as a single entity the biggest positive impact over the next few months. They don’t play well with others and like doing things their own way. Other, perhaps more chaotic systems by NGOs will conflict with the US system, and one is going to have to take control. This will be the US, and this will get some NGOs noses out of joint. Some of them may even have conspiracy theories. That’s why there’s scary reports about troops on the ground. Personally I would have thought armed uniforms to restore order would have been a good thing. Nobody seriously thinks that the US is going to formally colonise Haiti do they?
Blog threads are poor venues for this kind of discussion. Of course people can argue the merits of US actions on a case-by-case basis if they want; all I am pointing out is that this will probably produce anomalous, inconsistent opinions over time because each discussion occurs in a theoretical vacuum.
If on the other hand you are concerned to devise a normative but practical model of international relationships that produces consistent, predictable outcomes in any given situation, you simply cannot adopt this attitude that US unilateralism is OK when we like the results but not OK when we don’t. You need to define the role of the US in global affairs in terms of abstract principles of general application.
As I said, not something to be done satisfactorily on a blog, but I stick to my argument that you can’t have a model in which the US is authorised to act unilaterally in some kinds of global crises but not others.
Ken Lovell @27: “…US is authorised to act unilaterally”
Who “authorised” them?
Or do they just authorise themselves?
@dk.au: The anecdote in the Forbes piece about the fully equipped and staffed hospital north of Port-au-Prince hardly receiving any casualties is heartbreaking. Hopefully, that’s been rectified since the piece was written.
This brings to mind the fact that, until the early 2000s, Haiti had more millionaires per capita than any other Latin American country (so much for being a failed state/poorest nation in the Western hemisphere etc). Since then, their numbers haven’t dwindled; it’s just that other countries like Brazil have overtaken them.
The big earthquake-proof mansions of all these fabulously wealthy and beautiful people could provide shelter for thousands, and their cars could be used to drive aid workers and medical staff around, as well as ferrying the injured to hospital. And while they’re at it, they could provide some decent donations to aid the relief efforts (just by texting their US and Swiss banks).
@elise: ‘Who “authorised” them [the US]? Or do they just authorise themselves?’
That’s the part that always gets me. Whenever anything happens internationally, anywhere, anytime, anyhow to anyone, it’s assumed that the US has to play a major role in the proceedings. The idea that the US could just stay at home and leave the properly equipped, trained and RELEVANT international bodies to deal with the situation is out of the question – at least to the US and its sycophantic following of Western leaders and media groupies. Even liberal-progressive Americans assume this ‘world benefactor’ role to be a given.
I agree Ken. We haven’t moved much closer to the UN regaining the already forgotten pre-eminence it had, prior Bush 2.
It was obvious the place needed serious reforms to meet new challenges well before the the Bush Doctrine. (Automatically veto-ing every Israel resolution for fifty years thereby providing every other shit-head a get out of jail free card is where the rot set in, imo.)
I think Keating wrote an article awhile back about greatly expanding the Security Council. I can’t see the point of having rotated members on the Council from countries that can bought off with a couple of swimming pools, but I wonder if you gave the all current members of the G20 permanent seats on the Security Council, how that would change the game overnight. Hhm.
OMG!! World Government Ken, run for the hills……………..
iorarua, that is the very definition of a failed state when 60% of your budget is foreign aid and you have one of the highest per capita numbers of millionaires in the region. (Not billionaires, btw. A quarter of the people in Sydney are nominally millionaires via home ownership these days.)The poorer the country the worse the percentages of, and disparities between rich and poor, that is how it is measured.
Stars & Stripes, an editorially independent newspaper produced mainly for US military personnel, reports in a blog post today:
Previously the airport, which has been damaged in the quake, accommodated around 30-40 flights a day. 180 aircraft represent 360 movements. Spread over 24 hours that is one movement every 4 minutes, a scary number for an airport whose navigational aids are probably pretty rudimentary.
A contributor at an aviation forum wrote on 14 Jan:
With no control over the origin and numbers of aircraft setting out from a variety of nations to arrive in Haiti, it is not surprising that there have been aerial log jams.
#28 Elise
As far as I am aware: US Authorised via MOU to control airport by Haitian Govt last week. Given that US would bring in most air traffic – proximity, military and civilian aircraft probably predominate, airspace etc, makes sense to have US military traffic control. I also understand that they have a crack team operating traffic control from the ground – not a tower – bloody hell.
UN peacekeepers already authorised by Haitians . They will probably need about 25000-30000 including US troops. Maybe more – depends on what they are finding on the ground.
State of emergency declared by Haitian Govt in last few days which effectively authorised US troops (and possibly others but not sure on this) to land and help with security and distribution. I suspect that more MOUs/etc will be required for other intitatives to extend scope of operations/reconstruction etc. US military simply has to sheer numbers (1000s) to do this on a few days notice. (2-3 days for reservists).
I am not an apologist for the US – my experience is otherwise but US is patently trying not to be seen acting unilaterally in Haiti in present situation. I actually think Obama is trying to change US ‘attitude’ but this is a tough call – the man must be made of real stuff to even try.
Jo#24 there are complications as you say for legals etc, US military only answerable to POTUS as Commander in Chief (Article 2 Executive Power Section 2 Constitution)- authority cannot be ceded to others (including UN) -unless probably approved by Congress or even plebiscite.
You may recall that in recent times Australians have insisted on being involved in chain of command where Australian troops are involved in joint operations. This is a novel diplomatic experience for US as they are tied to a Constitution which tends to literal interpretation eg right to bear arms. Realisitcally also US and UN are only now reconciling differences.
I read reports about Haiti and in the Australian media and I watched International News Broadcasts. I also have disappointments about the conduct of the USA from time to time in History. Like they only entered WW2 to stop the Japanese invading Russia. Lost the VN war resulting in 80,000 Vietnamese coming to Aust. 200,000 dying at sea. 400,000 fleeing to USA. Also 2million more dead in Cambodia. 50,000 Nth Korean children starve to dead each year because USA would not win the war in Nth Korea. The Baltics and the Balkans and Eastern Block Countries where enslaved by USSR due to the pro-Soviet stance of previous US admins. Not until Ronald Reagan’s fight for freedom crumbled the Berlin Wall did 260million European people have the rights of life limb and property that we think we have in the ‘West’. Much evidence has been exposed to show how the KGB exerted influence and social planning on the USA people. (And to this day in OZ i.e. Bill Heffernan, Kevin Rudd)
About Haiti and World input there. I saw no evidence in the first 3days from the earthquake of locals helping locals. I am sure some must have. I did not see a film of it. I remember Grandville Train Disaster. I remember Police having to stop more inexperience rescuers from climbing into the holes to pull people out. I do want to draw the comparison between ‘on the grounders’ in that terrible Caribbean natural disaster. And ‘on the grounders’ in disaster events in Australia. I know which country I would rather be burried alive in. Remembering Threadbo. I did see film of Haitian collapsed buildings everywhere with locals mingling all around. I saw no one digging. I head a man screaming “Send us INTERNATIONAL aid, we demand International aid now”. His hands and cloths were dust and dirt free. I saw lines of people queuing for something, I presume food or water, I saw no lines of people passing rubble. I saw congolines of people moving, I don’t know where to or from, they where not carrying or passing rubble. I saw no one in all the film I watched digging in the rubble. The cameraman never said to anyone “Hey you guys lets get some shots of you digging under that collapsed floor and pass the rubble over there and see if we can save someone here”. Then rescue workers began to arrive, they dug they carted rubble. They wore non-Haitian garments, they had hard hats on. Some where black most where white. There are lots of blacks in USA ‘in the programme’ gey wiz they even have a black President. So no doubt blacks came from USA or somewhere to help dig the locals out. So I ask what sort of society is it in Haiti where the locals did not appear to want to dig out their own? How can there be a nation where one in 50 has a job? This situation can not be blamed on USA any more than it can be blamed on Cuba.
Rudd gave them $10m of my money. And they call for more. The front page of The Australia Monday 18th Jan shows appox 20 looters. All black, all in clean clothes. Strong good looking healthy men who were looting cloth from a destroyed shop. They were not digging they were looting on that corner and crying for aid on the next. I do expect Haiti has the Pacific Ocean Social disease of ‘joint land tenure’. Where citizens are not afforded the right to own title, where on Palau everyone helps themselves to everyone elses garden patch resulting in few garden patches. And the dope grows 12ft tall. Like Nuie where a resident will not replace fly screens or fix the spectic tank as to have a nice house means people will move in with you. Lack of title is the reason for the disaster that is Fiji. . I don’t know if that is the case in Haiti and frankly I asking you instead of researching it. In any country where there is no title there is no capital and no hope.
If I where to blame USA for the state of Haiti my blame would be that free aid was given them. All that had to take place is a title system of land ownership.
Democracy is pathetic, we have a democracy and we ended up with Rudd and The Teachers Federation. Democracy is still the best answer. Australia is tearing up democracy by allowing our teachers to teach socialist tripe and allowing immigrants who are not of the view one must live a life of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
I am keen to find a solution for the likes of Somoa and Haiti. If a solution is not found for them they are all going to want to come here.
One last thing about USA that really knarls me. Bush invaded Afganistan, fair enough, payback for 9-11. Totally agree.
Then the stupid USA administration fails Afganistan. They failed to introduce a land title system protected by a Constitution. So Afganistan never rebuilt it self and never will.
Had Afganistan been converted to a Capitalist country of property, employment and hope there would have been no need to take out Saddam. His citizens would have got him.
Then we the non islam world destroyed ourselves helping out islamists by taking out Saddam. And we stayed there without taking the oil back off them.
There is the usual confusion on this blog about what Capitalism is. I give you my defination. An ‘individual’ could strech to a Company. When the Company becomes an identity that does not fit the defination then its not Capitalism at work nor is it a Capitalist Organisation. It’s National (or International) Fasist CoOperative. Or in the case of the WTO an International OWG Trading Front.
“Capitalism is the economic system without Govt licence where the tools of industry, distribution, production and exchange have profound irrevocable personal title and are inheritable and bequeathable. Where the moral and ethical perpetuation of the business is the voluntary responsibility of the owning individual.”
The very fine photo editor at the Boston Globe (surely one of the best in the business) has assembled this series of photos. Truly amazing/heart-breaking. There are some World Press Photo contenders in there for sure.
Also, to jo and anyone else wanting to talk about ‘failed states’ (and I don’t disagree that Haiti would meet a definition, fwiw), this is worth keeping in mind.
James, your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
CNN discovers Haiti has hundreds of Cuban doctors.
Amazing, awful pictures dk.au
I don’t like the ‘failed state’ label either. There was some discussion on other thread as to why Haiti was being ‘coerced’ into handing control to US and even the UN etc, and quickly became short-hand & then used in comparsion to other recent disasters in Iran, Indonesia and Burma, countries which aren’t in this position.
Thanks, and I’ll choose my words more carefully, and unfortunately Haiti ticks so many boxes on the possible sources list.
I put a little quote up on the other thread Lefty E, about Cuba quickly allowing the US to use Cuban airspace to save up to 90 mins flying time etc. Cross fingers this small example of high level cooperation leads on to further normalisation.
The scale of the disaster is just so terribly huge – just read another round of reports from a number of US, UK, Euro sites and it’s just a logistical nightmare.
Sometimes no fuel, or nor security or personnel or no supplies to hand out – and then stuff coming from all over the place – hospital teams from a huge range of countries beginning to mobilise eg. Russia, Jordan, Israel etc etc – some aid agencies wanting the US take control, and blaming the UN for poor distribution, others blaming the US for not prioritising medical supplies and wanting the UN to take more control…rescue teams again from all over the planet working to find people, worsening security and then reports that the security is actually pretty ok according to the US mil. and good news with more aid getting through and water drops etc and some hospitals working flat out etc etc. And the Red Cross now estimating that possibly 3 million people will need assistance, the UN Food Program requiring 100 million meals just for next 30 days and need more money, and the US General-in-charge estimating 200,000 dead.
@Jo: Figures vary, but Haiti’s budget is probably only 30-40% foreign aid – not 60% – and even that is poorly distributed by corrupt foreign NGOs. And the high concentration of millionaires per capita indicates that the problem is in the distribution of Haiti’s wealth, not its capacity to create it. If ever a country cried out for a semi-socialist reorganisation of its social, political and economic structures, Haiti does.
Unfortunately, we all know why that can never happen. As soon as any Haitian leader even looks sideways at a socialist principle, they become the target of a prolonged US-led smear campaign, followed by destabilisation, the usual coup and sometimes a free midnight flight to an undisclosed destination.
And, on many criteria, the US well qualifies for ‘failed state’ status – massive foreign debt, weak political structure, extreme inequality of wealth, high poverty levels, inadequate health care amidst a failed medical system, near-collapsed industrial sector, higher than average prison population, increasing reliance on militarised policing, and a massive military budget to finance its engagement in perpetual warfare.
More on Cuban doctors, etc. A whole lot more.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/the-social-historical-context-of-%E2%80%9Cnatural-disasters%E2%80%9D-haiti
Personally I would have thought armed uniforms to restore order would have been a good thing.
Yes, by all means let’s waste time and resources, let’s turn away aid flights from the airport in preference for landing troops, to solve a problem that does not exist.
Yes local TV coverage here in Manila has featured lots of pictures of American soldiers in full battle array, standing in the streets looking grimly menacing. Quite what they have to do with disaster relief isn’t apparent … it could have been file footage from Baghdad, I suppose.
Ken @42, Anyone know what kind of TV coverage is being shown in the Middle Eastern nations that have a serious issue with US influence?
Unlikely to be flattering and complimentary, at a wild guess.
Perhaps go to Al Jazeera
I see Andy Kershaw has a good piece in The Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/andy-kershaw-stop-treating-these-people-like-savages-1874218.html
“This self-imposed blockade by bureaucracy is a scandal but could be easily overcome. The NGOs and the military should recognise the hysteria over “security” for what it is and make use of Haiti’s best resource and its most efficient distribution network: the Haitians themselves. Stop treating them as children. Or worse. Hand over to them immediately what they need at the airport. They will find the means to collect it. Fill up their trucks and cars with free fuel. Any further restriction on, and control of, the supply of aid is not only patronising but it is in that control and restriction where any “security issues” will really lurk. And it is the Haitians who best know where the aid is needed.”