Monday 18 January 2010

Don't take the soup, do send your money

Haiti was hardly a natural disaster. Other countries in the area have survived recent disasters in far better shape - such as Cuba and Dominica, the country which shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti.

Haiti has been an international football for basically all its existence, colonised by France and Spain, punished for its wonderful slave rebellion, occupied by the US, and toyed with during the Cold War, then abandoned when it was no longer useful. It has never had a stable, altruistic government, enduring a litany of dictators who ravaged the place for personal gain while following orders from the nearby superpower, or self-styled saviours who, failing to make any headway with a society that filled the void where government should be with gangs, ended up selfish or incompetent. If Haiti was a Muslim country ripe for 'radicalisation', or it had oil, then it would never have reached this condition. Experts in all areas would have been dispatched to help, food would have appeared, elections would have been held. Instead, we get a token UN force and medical aid from Cuba, which is on a major diplomatic mission to South America and its neighbours.

The earthquake was bad, but the massive death toll and damage are entirely caused by historical conditions. Without stable government, Haiti never had the money or inclination to develop boring institutions like an Inland Revenue, a Forestry Commission, a Trade Ministry, or a Buildings Inspectorate. Without managed trade, the Haitians had little access to hard currency, and therefore taxation was difficult. No tax = no importation of fuel for cooking. No fuel = massive deforestation: I saw a picture the other day of the Haiti/Dominica border. The Haitian side was totally denuded of trees, whereas the Dominican side was thickly wooded.

Without trees, topsoil is eroded and land is destabilised. Without town planners and buildings inspectors, Port-au-Prince became a jungle of flimsy concrete buildings sited on destabilised, deforested land. When the earthquake hit, the hills collapsed and the buildings fell down on top of each other, leading to the horrendous death toll we have.

Pat Robertson saw the disaster as God's punishment, and plenty of people would like to see it as an unforeseeable Act of God. It wasn't. We caused it, through neglect. Boring organisations like the Department for International Development fund botanists, architects and infrastructure experts to do this kind of thing, but their budgets are too low because we hate paying tax, and their attention is diverted to whatever country we've invaded most recently. No doubt their budgets will be cut even further under whichever government we're getting next.

Meanwhile, what to do with your money. Haunted by racial memories of 'taking the soup' (the British habit, in Famine Ireland, of feeding the starving only if they converted to Protestantism), I'm wary of religious aid. Even if their motivation is getting to heaven by doing good works, I'd rather give to secular charities. Richard Dawkins has made it easy: send your money here and every penny will be given to the International Red Cross and/or Médècins Sans Frontières. He'll even cover the administration costs if you use PayPal.

Send your money, and ask hard questions of your politicians.

5 comments:

Samantha Shaw said...

Haiti is awful isn't it. I really feel for them. I feel helpless watching it on TV. I've resorted to donations that I can't really afford and avoiding the news.

Maybe I should traing with search and rescue after this English degree... lol

Anonymous said...

OOops typo

Some Chilean Woman said...

I want to know how you feel about Senegal and what they are offering to Haiti...if only America was that kind. I thought for sure you would do a post on that.

neal said...

Nice post Vole.

SCW - I hadn't heard about this till you posted it, doesn't seem to have been picked up much here. It's an amazingly generous offer, I do wonder how it will go down in Senegal though. It's a pretty small country, it's population is not that much more than Haiti's, and although one of the more stable African countries, not that wealthy. Could it really just give away a chunk of it's most productive land like that? How well thought through is this? Was it just an off the cuff policy given in an interview? I guess the UN or someone would have to coordinate the process, pay for transport, if it even happens. Perhaps it will open up a debate and get other African countries involved. Reducing the population of Haiti would certainly help, but without some serious reforestation, soil regeneration and infrastructure investment it will never improve.

The Plashing Vole said...

Hi SCW. Sorry, been busy today, and I wanted to look at the details of this Senegal offer.

I think it's a bit of a fantasy - Senegal's mostly democratic and stable, but most of the population is in the fertile area - only the arid east is largely empty, and I can't help thinking that an influx of several million will cause huge problems. Of course, the president may be thinking that several million grateful Haitians may vote for him forever… Senegal is pretty poor and riven by tribal rivalries, which may have informed his thinking.

I'm more inclined to think that it's a quixotic gesture designed to improve Senegal's image and to remind the rich world that there's an awful lot more they could do.

The offer is also an echo of the Pan-African Nationalist movement and of the Return movement (which gave rise to Sierra Leone and other colonies of freed slaves who tried to return, with varying degrees of success). Haiti and Senegal are both francophone too: there's some postcolonial solidarity too.

It's a nice idea, but it's a romantic gesture more than anything else. What we should be doing is restoring Haiti. It's the least the colonialist countries can do.