The earthquake and disaster in Haiti immediately brought to my mind the Christmas Tsunami of 2004. Some may remember that when that horrific event struck, President George W. Bush immediately dispatched naval (and other) assistance and committed $350 million dollars (pdf) to relief efforts, to start.
There ensued a discussion on whether prosperous nations were “stingy” or not in their assistance to other countries.
I had no doubt we would see that discussion revived within the first week of Haiti’s grief, and here it is. From Nicholas Kristof:
First, a fact check. In 2008, the most recent year for which we have figures, the United States donated 92 cents per American to Haiti. Granted, any year can fluctuate, so look at three-year totals. The United States contributed $2.32 per American to Haiti over the last three years for which we have data (about 80 cents a year). That’s much less than other countries do, even though Haiti is in our hemisphere and has historic close ties to the U.S. For example, Canada contributes $12.13 per person to Haiti annually, and Norway sends $8.44. Other countries that contribute more, per capita, to Haiti than the U.S. are Luxembourg, Sweden, Ireland, France, Switzerland, Spain and Belgium. True, there are more Americans, so collectively our aid amounts to more than one-quarter of the pot in Haiti, but that’s only because we’re such a big country. Given the per capita sums, we have no right to be bragging about our generosity in Haiti.
Nice of Kristof to note that, yes, we are more populated—vastly so—than those countries. In 2008, the US Population was 304,059,724. Canada: 33,212,696. Norway: 4,769,274.
It is disappointing that a man of such privilege and influence cannot see anything commendable in the US “only” funding “one-quarter of Haiti’s pot each year,” or that the value of our readiness seems too intangible to warrant consideration, but more to the point: none of the nations listed by Kristof have the capacity to send 10,000 military personnel for security and assistance, to deploy naval vessels bringing medical care, potable water and medical supplies, to commit millions (perhaps billions) of dollars in reconstruction aid and so forth, at a moment’s notice.
I’m sure Kristof would prefer we spent less on maintaining our military in order to double our annual aid to Haiti, but given the historic corruption and mismanagement of Haiti, doubling our aid—while sounding wonderful—would have very likely accomplished little, in any given year. That is not an argument against foreign aid; as a prosperous nation, we have a duty to give real help to our less-fortunate neighbors.
Truthfully, however, neither the American taxpayer nor the people of Haiti have gotten much “bang” for the the US’ annual $243 million ($705,418,559.00 over three years). When you consider that Haiti is a small nation of less than ten million, the billions in annual aid given internationally should have fomented something better than the perpetual poverty, homelessness, and hopelessness to which the Haitian people have long-seemed consigned. When looking at the money that has gone into Haiti, and the third-world conditions which continue, one must—if one is being honest—admit that something is terribly out of joint and that simply throwing more money into a historical void cannot be the only answer.
Our aid to Haiti may seem insufficient to some, foolhardy to others, and people of good will can argue in either case. But let us consider the other hand, which holds this invaluable (and incomparable) intangible: we are in the position, right now, today, to do something real and concrete for the stricken people of Haiti, because we have done what other nations will not do: we’ve sufficiently equipped our military to be able to give these people real, on-the-ground aid and comfort, and security, at the risk to our own people.
Money is nice, but being able to get in-country and bind up wounds and rescue the stranded, and feed the hungry, and erect emergency shelter beats a feel-good bottom line in a blotter, any day. That America can both contribute a quarter of a billion dollars annually to Haiti and bring full-out assistance to her in a dreadful hour, suggests to me that balance matters.
I am proud of our military and emergency personnel. I am proud of the United States for being the nation that is always the willing first responder. I am proud of Americans, who run to help others when they can, and who dig deeply into their own pockets—even in a time of great economic hardship—to donate to an organization like Catholic Relief Services, at a rate of approximately $200,000 an hour, in order to help—simply because they see the need.
America may not donate as much cold, hard cash per person to Haiti, on a yearly basis, but in a time of serious crisis, she has puts human and productive resources at that nation’s disposal. I think that is worth a lot. I think it is nearly priceless.
I think that’s something to be take a bit of pride in, frankly.
By the way, when the “stingy” discussion was going on in 2005, Kristof wrote:
. . . the bottom line is that this month and every month, more people will die of malaria (165,000 or more) and AIDS (240,000) than died in the tsunamis, and almost as many will die because of diarrhea (140,000).
And that’s where we’re stingy.
He was one of the few journalists to even bother acknowledging the good work done by the Bush administration in helping to lessen those tragic numbers, and I do not doubt that Kristof is as proud of America as anyone. Further, I do not even mind that no matter what great thing America does, it is never enough for him—someone needs to be the needle in the comforter, to keep us from growing complacent.
But as America begins yet another heavy (and very likely thankless) humanitarian undertaking, it would be great if Kristof could manage to praise America, just once, without the qualifying “but . . .” Americans are not feeling great about much of anything right now, including her society, her industries or her president. How America feels about herself matters. If she stops believing in her goodness, and in her exceptional nature, Kristof may discover down the road that she is no longer able to do all the good he would like to see her do; she will be too depressed, and depression turns inward. Considered from that angle, perhaps a little flag-waving, a little puffing out of the chest, would constitute a real and urgent aid the generous-natured Kristof could offer to his fellow countrymen
America is going to go into Haiti, and we are going to help shovel out and comfort and feed and rebuild. But it will come to naught if we do not also find a way to influence the Haitian leadership toward the marketplace of goods and ideas, so that the Haitian people can do more than merely survive from day to day: so that they may grow, and dream and prosper. If America can help Haiti to do that, then she will, deservingly, feel very good about herself, indeed.
Elizabeth Scalia is a contributing writer for First Things. She blogs at The Anchoress.
Comments:
Jimmy Carter to the contrary, adding up both government and private charity, the US stands at or near the top of the charity league
You can find these data at the Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
Country Non-Profit Expenditure Philanthropy fraction Philanthropic
% of GDP of non-profit exp % of GDP)
Canada 7% 13% 0.87%
Norway 4% 9% 0.33%
Sweden 4% 9% 0.37%
US 8% 21% 1.58%
Source: Center for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins University, http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/index.php?section=content&view=16&sub=91&tri=93
Not to heap scorn on fair Canada, but Athabaskan is a destroyer and Hallifax is a frigate, more or less making Ms Scalia's point for her. 10,000 tons of shipping compared to the 100,000 ton Carl Vinson and the 70,000 ton purpose built hospital ship Comfort plus all the small boys and the 5500 troops aboard No other nation can do that.
I am a Canadian and I was working on an aid project in Haiti in 84, 85 and 86. I speak French and Creole, so I think my opinion is somewhat informed at least. In my opinion, the U.S.A. really blew it when it not only did not support Father Aristide ("Titid" to the Haitians) when he first got elected, but did everything in its power to make him fail. You see, "America" (as you like to call yourselves) wanted Marc Bazin to become President and labelled Aristide as an evil socialist. Aristide was a priest for heavens sake! He had no concept of politics, or public administration or anything of that nature. All he knew was that his people were suffering terribly under a dictatorship supported by capitalists, so he figured socialism must be better. He led a coalition of 57 political parties. Just imagine trying to manage that! But he had the support of the people, and there was tremendous positive energy behind it. America killed it - just when he would likely have been glad to accept help. America forbid France and Canada from intervening to support his reinstatement, and Clinton only reinstated him when 300,000 black faces took to the streets of New York for a peaceful demonstration to have Clinton respect his promise to reinstate Aristide. I guess he figured the next demonstration might not be so peaceful .
So OK, feel good about what you are doing, that's fine. But pay more attention to what is really going on around the world and you won't make so many dumb mistakes.
By the way, is USAID's prime directive still the pursuit of American interests?
While I feel for the earthquake victims on an individual basis, we can already see where this is going. Whatever good we or other countries provide will not be enough, and no good turn will go unpunished.
I know that real change must be internalized and there are plenty of reasons why Haitians may reject western solutions and even the personally and culturally transformative power of the Gospel. I know many Catholics and evangelicals have devoted their lives and/or riches to effecting real change in Haiti. I know I don't have specific knowledge of what foreign aid bureaus need to do to be effective. However, I do know if we can send ever Haitian on a luxury cruise for the rest of their lives for far cheaper than what we're spending now to let them eat mud pies that something is seriously broken with the way our governments are spending/distributing aid. I wonder what Marvin Olasky would have to say...
The United States isn't the main bogeyman in Haiti's history - it is France, who demanded its former colony Haiti pay them compensation in return for it's recognition. It took until 1947 for Haiti to repay that debt, crippling the country from the start. And you whitewashed Aristide. He was not a man of peace. He turned out to be just another corrupt dictator. God bless.
The hate and the quake
BY SIR HILARY BECKLES
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES is in the process of conceiving how best to deliver a major conference on the theme Rethinking And Rebuilding Haiti.
I am very keen to provide an input into this exercise because for too long there has been a popular perception that somehow the Haitian nation-building project, launched on January 1, 1804, has failed on account of mismanagement, ineptitude, corruption.
Buried beneath the rubble of imperial propaganda, out of both Western Europe and the United States, is the evidence which shows that Haiti's independence was defeated by an aggressive North-Atlantic alliance that could not imagine their world inhabited by a free regime of Africans as representatives of the newly emerging democracy.
The evidence is striking, especially in the context of France.
The Haitians fought for their freedom and won, as did the Americans fifty years earlier. The Americans declared their independence and crafted an extraordinary constitution that set out a clear message about the value of humanity and the right to freedom, justice, and liberty.
In the midst of this brilliant discourse, they chose to retain slavery as the basis of the new nation state. The founding fathers therefore could not see beyond race, as the free state was built on a slavery foundation.
The water was poisoned in the well; the Americans went back to the battlefield a century later to resolve the fact that slavery and freedom could not comfortably co-exist in the same place.
The French, also, declared freedom, fraternity and equality as the new philosophies of their national transformation and gave the modern world a tremendous progressive boost by so doing.
They abolished slavery, but Napoleon Bonaparte could not imagine the republic without slavery and targeted the Haitians for a new, more intense regime of slavery. The British agreed, as did the Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese.
All were linked in communion over the 500 000 Blacks in Haiti, the most populous and prosperous Caribbean colony.
As the jewel of the Caribbean, they all wanted to get their hands on it. With a massive slave base, the English, French and Dutch salivated over owning it - and the people.
The people won a ten-year war, the bloodiest in modern history, and declared their independence. Every other country in the Americas was based on slavery.
Haiti was freedom, and proceeded to place in its 1805 Independence Constitution that any person of African descent who arrived on its shores would be declared free, and a citizen of the republic.
For the first time since slavery had commenced, Blacks were the subjects of mass freedom and citizenship in a nation.
The French refused to recognize Haiti's independence and declared it an illegal pariah state. The Americans, whom the Haitians looked to in solidarity as their mentor in independence, refused to recognize them, and offered solidarity instead to the French. The British, who were negotiating with the French to obtain the ownership title to Haiti, also moved in solidarity, as did every other nation-state the Western world.
Haiti was isolated at birth - ostracized and denied access to world trade, finance, and institutional development. It was the most vicious example of national strangulation recorded in modern history.
The Cubans, at least, have had Russia, China, and Vietnam. The Haitians were alone from inception. The crumbling began.
Then came 1825; the moment of full truth. The republic is celebrating its 21st anniversary. There is national euphoria in the streets of Port-au-Prince.
The economy is bankrupt; the political leadership isolated. The cabinet took the decision that the state of affairs could not continue.
The country had to find a way to be inserted back into the world economy. The French government was invited to a summit.
Officials arrived and told the Haitian government that they were willing to recognize the country as a sovereign nation but it would have to pay compensation and reparation in exchange. The Haitians, with backs to the wall, agreed to pay the French.
The French government sent a team of accountants and actuaries into Haiti in order to place a value on all lands, all physical assets, the 500 000 citizens were who formerly enslaved, animals, and all other commercial properties and services.
The sums amounted to 150 million gold francs. Haiti was told to pay this reparation to France in return for national recognition.
The Haitian government agreed; payments began immediately. Members of the Cabinet were also valued because they had been enslaved people before independence.
Thus began the systematic destruction of the Republic of Haiti. The French government bled the nation and rendered it a failed state. It was a merciless exploitation that was designed and guaranteed to collapse the Haitian economy and society.
Haiti was forced to pay this sum until 1922 when the last installment was made. During the long 19th century, the payment to France amounted to up to 70 per cent of the country's foreign exchange earnings.
Jamaica today pays up to 70 per cent in order to service its international and domestic debt. Haiti was crushed by this debt payment. It descended into financial and social chaos.
The republic did not stand a chance. France was enriched and it took pleasure from the fact that having been defeated by Haitians on the battlefield, it had won on the field of finance. In the years when the coffee crops failed, or the sugar yield was down, the Haitian government borrowed on the French money market at double the going interest rate in order to repay the French government.
When the Americans invaded the country in the early 20th century, one of the reasons offered was to assist the French in collecting its reparations.
The collapse of the Haitian nation resides at the feet of France and America, especially. These two nations betrayed, failed, and destroyed the dream that was Haiti; crushed to dust in an effort to destroy the flower of freedom and the seed of justice.
Haiti did not fail. It was destroyed by two of the most powerful nations on earth, both of which continue to have a primary interest in its current condition.
The sudden quake has come in the aftermath of summers of hate. In many ways the quake has been less destructive than the hate.
Human life was snuffed out by the quake, while the hate has been a long and inhumane suffocation - a crime against humanity.
During the 2001 UN Conference on Race in Durban, South Africa, strong representation was made to the French government to repay the 150 million francs.
The value of this amount was estimated by financial actuaries as US$21 billion. This sum of capital could rebuild Haiti and place it in a position to re-engage the modern world. It was illegally extracted from the Haitian people and should be repaid.
It is stolen wealth. In so doing, France could discharge its moral obligation to the Haitian people.
For a nation that prides itself in the celebration of modern diplomacy, France, in order to exist with the moral authority of this diplomacy in this post-modern world, should do the just and legal thing.
Such an act at the outset of this century would open the door for a sophisticated interface of past and present, and set the Haitian nation free at last.
