Was the US using Haiti as an instrument for their own glorification? Food was brought swiftly and thrown from airplanes, but this method of distribution caused many injuries. While this distribution method looks dramatic and innovative in the movies, in real life injuries could have been avoided from safer methods of distribution. Water bottles still litter the streets of Haiti today, whereas water filters would have brought much less waste. This is a case where US intentions were benign, but relief efforts could have been much more fruitful in saving Haitian lives.
Humanitarian aid was largely due to American lives in Haiti. Mobilization for Americans was aided by the fact that there were Americans living in Haiti during the earthquake that were directly affected by the damage. Regardless of who these Americans are or what they believed in, Americans tend to identify with other Americans and mobilize for their safety. The problem with this is the tendency to hold American lives at a higher standard than any other lives. Of course, fewer American citizens were affected compared to Haitians, yet this was one of the main motivations for intervening. Aid would have been very different if all Haitians had been treated like American citizens. There should have been much more improvement in the last six years, given the amount of resources allocated for Haiti.
The American people were willing to donate, but the money did not make it to Haiti directly. According to NPR reporter Richard Knox, “A single penny of every dollar out of US aid goes to Haitian organizations.” Aid was diverted from the Haitian government because of the decades of political turmoil and corruption. Haiti’s government was weak long before the earthquake hit. NGOs involved in aid were problematic because they directed the money in many different locations outside of Haiti. For example, some of the money was used for lobbying in order to receive even more aid for Haiti. While intentions were good, this money ended up cycling in economies far from Haiti’s borders.There were unprecedented amounts of humanitarian aid, yet in reality so little of it went to Haiti itself.
Levels of media coverage were directly correlated to the higher levels of aid in Port au Prince compared to other less recognized towns. Port au Prince has various hotels and resorts for tourists who are drawn to the extensive coastline and favorable climate Haiti has to offer. American journalists were attracted to cities such as Port au Prince for their economic value. Many Americans are likely to be familiar with the more developed parts of Haiti, and therefore, the media was attracted to these areas. Cities outside of Port au Prince were largely ignored and many are still in shambles today; the focus for aid was on areas with high levels of tourism. Media coverage meant more efficient and effective means of aid; funds weren’t allocated to places where the media wasn’t active.
The US has a desire to help countries ravaged by natural disasters but shies away from conflict crises. For example, the Syrian refugee crisis in Europe has caused widespread fear in Americans and foreign policy has reflected this. President-elect Donald Trump wants to halt Syrian immigration completely. Because Syrian immigrants have been perceived as terrorists, the US government is hesitant in helping them. An environmental crisis such as an earthquake in Haiti is confined to a single area; Americans don’t see Haiti as a threat that could spread and affect Americans as well. America intervenes when there is no perceived threat to American citizens.
The short term effects of aid have long term consequences for Haiti. The immediate aid deterred business away from local vendors in Haiti’s already struggling economy. While immediate aid was very important in recovering Haiti, the US should have incorporated methods of strengthening local services so that they could reintegrate into a more stable life. The US took a top down approach, giving aid to NGOs, instead of strengthening Haiti from the bottom up. While the immediacy of the situation required swift help, aid continued in Haiti for a while. In that time, improvements should have been made to be sure that the help Haiti received was what they needed. There seemed to be little contact with the Haitian government and its people, who were most directly affected by the impact. Help for Haiti came quickly, but it did not come effectively.
_______________________
Richard Knox. “5 Years After Haiti’s Earthquake, Where Did the $13.5 Billion Go?” NPR. January 12, 2015. http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/01/12/376138864/5-years-after-haiti-s-earthquake-why-aren-t-things-better.
I completely agree with you that measures could have been taken care of more effectively than they were when it came to delivering money and food/provisions to Haiti. Even more important, they needed much more help rebuilding than we offered to them. I think the United States could have sent over much more money than we did but the problem is that there is little way for us to know where this money is going and what it will fund. This seems very difficult to control to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that it was a risky situation to give money to a government that had been so corrupt in the past. It is true that the Haitian government was not properly equipped to provide the help that Haitians needed. The discretion of the international community can be helpful when it cooperates with nations in need on a federal and local level. A lot of the problem was the failure to ask the people of Haiti what they needed, whereas the US approach was assuming what they needed. Intentions were in the right place, but a lot of aid was wasted and counterintuitive to helping Haiti recover.
ReplyDeleteWhen a natural disaster happens, it is extremely difficult to get effective aid. For example, when hurricane Katrina hit, the aid that New Orleans received was not enough for the damage that was done. The timing of the aid also was received extremely late. It has been over 10 years since that natural disaster, and New Orleans still receives daily volunteers to help with relief efforts and rebuilding. This is the same situation for Haiti. The aid that they were given was not enough for the damage that the earthquake left behind. I think you made a really good point when you said that if it doesn't affect American citizens directly, the US doesn't put in their best effort. This is an issue, because places like Haiti require the maximum effort from all the countries that can stand up and help them. So much more could and should have been done to help Haiti lift up.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you think the money should have gone? Just to the government?
ReplyDeleteAnd in class we said that it was possible some of the help given by the US people and government was because they feared an uprise or diseases spreading and aid might prevent that. Do you think that this was not a factor to why the US gave aid?