They have no government left. They have little infrastructure. Their social fabric is in tatters. How much time, effort and money do we spend trying to make things right? Do we just take care of the immediate crisis and then move on? Politically, how can we sustain a relief and rebuilding effort for Haiti that's longer than a few months? I think a good case can be made for a long-term commitment to Haiti for hemispheric stability, but I suspect some folks will start to see political advantage in opposing aid at some point in the near future. This will be a tough problem for the Obama Administration for the remainder of his term.
i imagine that we are not talking about it here because it is so obviously an epic tragedy that t here is nothing to "debate." i hope it's not because nobody cares.
they're talking about it in the Hangout, you're right, there's nothing to debate. I have been thinking about the same thing, how do you move forward, I don't know much about the country other than its extreme poverty. sometimes I think we should just annex these places
who knows how this is going to work out? if the world abandons Haiti after the initial efforts and expects the US to foot the rest of the bills because of the close proximity, then a big middle finger to them. and, i will think twice about helping their disasters and tragedies in the future...on a case-by-case basis of course. i'm not saying that will happen...but we alone cannot rebuild an entire city with a population of 9 million people as our government is already seeing red and spending money they don't really have. there has to be limits to our generosity. after all, this tragedy isn't our fault. this isn't the freaking land of 'star trek' where everyone is on everyone's side, money doesn't exist, and everyone lives in harmony. we should make a valiant effort to help Haiti...but at some point we are going to have to slow it down and pull back. money doesn't grow on trees and, yet, our government spends it like it does.
Apparently they have a very strong (not entirely unfounded) distrust of foreigners in Haiti. I remember hearing that there are persistent rumors, for instance, that the UN peacekeeping troops are essentially gangsters and corrupt sybarites. I've seen legal efforts to give them debt relief. I also saw something about giving Haiti free trade access to American textile markets and a couple of other targeted areas of production.. I think these kind of efforts would be more efficacious than "heavy handed" direct interventions. I think there are some things we could do with the best of intentions that wouldn't work out so well.
It doesn't have to always be us. The UN still has a presence there and the lead country is Brazil, not us. I'd love to see Brazil take the lead role in saving Haiti and let the US play second fiddle, lending assistance where it makes sense. Brazil thought they were moving out at the end of this year, but they must be rethinking that now.
I suspect some profitteering and some 'business' men will be there to make some $$ afterwards Will it benefit the local people? that remains to be seen but history would seem to say no Rocket River
The thing that's going to get lost in this disaster is the fact that things were actually, for the first time, really improving in Haiti over the last few years. There was some real, sustainable progress being made that's now gone.
I've long been a proponent of "forceful" US interventions for humanitarian purposes (see: Sudan, Darfur) not because there's any strategic US interest at stake, but because, well, there are people in need, and the US has the means to deliver (a substantial part) of their relief. now is not the time to speculate on what form the haitian government should take going forward, but i hope Obama doesn't shy away from a commitment of US forces for the long term. whether or not it's the politically correct thing to do (and i'm struggling to figure out who could possibly object, and on what grounds), it's the morally correct thing. again, not because we're obligated, but simply because we can.
I totally agree with you on this. I would expand this to other world powers too. Reading through Shake Hands with the Devil by General Dalliere (recommend it to anyone here, it's a memoir of the Rwanda genocide that really shows how apathy lead to around a million deaths), it was almost utterly pathetic that UNAMIR (the UN mission to Rwanda that had to witness the horrific 1993 genocide powerless to fully intervene) was supported by nations like Ghana and Bangladesh who sent their soldiers in with absolutely nothing but the clothes on their back. America's resources and army vastly outstrip the demands of domestic security and prosperity, unlike these other countries which stepped up to the plate. As a world power that prides itself on ideals like the universality of human rights, it would be nice to see the United States step up to the plate more often.
First of all the USA doesn't or shouldn't do diddly squat! If the private sector wants to donate money and / or time to help them out that is great. But the government has no business delving out tax payer dollars in foreign aid. And to top it off we don't even have the money, we have to borrow it before we can send it to them. And before all the haters chime in, I take this same stance on ALL foreign aid.
i've also been hearing crap like "oh...we should be helping americans first and not foreigners". uh...even poor americans living in desperation have it much better than these people. they have shelters they can go to. they have food banks they can get food at. they have options. i mean...get serious.
Tacit admission that foreign lives are worth much less then American ones? You remind me of the writer who quibbled over the fact that sending 5000 American troops to Rwanda would've "only" saved 500,000 lives. Who's going to secure Port-au-Prince? Blackwater?
