Paddy Ashdown goes back the the Balkans?

Article: Paddy Ashdown Proposed as European Special Envoy for Balkans 

Paddy Ashdown is going back to the Balkans? If they send him back, the European Union would be sending quite a powerful message. It would certainly look like they're taking the region seriously and putting their money where their mouth is. He could work out if they really are going to do that. Perhaps the Europeans wish to push relations in the region along- in recent months there has been some notable progress. There have been numerous meetings and visits between the region's leaders. The Croatian president visited Bosnia's Republika Srpska for the first time (the previous Croatian president had threatened to invade the region should it declare independence). Meanwhile the Serbian president met with Bosnia's Bosniak president in Turkey recently as well.

Despite improvements in the relationships at the top, there are still dangers in the region. Is Ashdown's "muscle" what's needed at this time?

Paddy Ashdown has quite a long history in the Balkans- and Bosnia in particular, where he led the international state building effort from 2002 to 2006. He was the longest serving High Representative and was by far the most controversial. During his time he was liberal (but not necessarily democratic) in his use of his office's powers to pass laws and fire reticent officials.

Regardless of any controversy surrounding Ashdown's  prospective role- a regional approach is the right one for the Europeans to take. People, economies and problems all cross borders in the Balkans, and the countries are not large in either population or geography. The goal in the long run is to reintegrate the region under the mantle of the EU- a map for getting there has been lacking however. As someone who spent a great deal of time reading Paddy Ashdown's speeches, I do think he can push progress in the region in the short term at least. This would have to be backed up with a clearer plan and a process for the region- which has been in somewhat of a drift for the last several years.

Pictures of Kabul

I will be writing shortly on the meeting between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Afghan President Hamid Karzai at USIP this week. In the mean time, I came across a slideshow on BBC on the state of physical rebuilding in Afghanistan's capital.

After:
Click here for the slideshow

Of course this got me thinking- if this is an after then we need a before.

Before:
Click here for the gallery


So I did a bit of digging and found the above gallery from 2002 on the website of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), an anti-fundamentalist, anti-war political organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The first thing one notices on comparing these two galleries is the sudden preponderance of glass and steel buildings. This begs the question of what is being "rebuilt"? These buildings really do look like examples of an economy focused on the money of Afghans employed by the international community. Afterall Afghanistan is one of the most impoverished nations in the world. The citizens are far more likely to patronize one of those Naan sellers than a place that looks like the guitar shop.

But these days Kabul is both, and a bit more for that matter. One of the things that struck me when I first looked at Kabul in Google Maps was that it really seemed to be three cities- there was the old Kabul: tightly clustered clay brick homes that ring the city.


View Larger Map

Then there is the Soviet style Kabul: A sea of regimented apartments that would look just as out of place in Moscow or Sofia.


View Larger Map

And last but not least, the shiniest of them all: The American style Kabul.



View Larger Map

In this case- these aren't brand new buildings (built in the 60's and early 70's) but are homes to many of the international community living in the city.

The buildings of Kabul are a metaphor for the country as a whole. Beyond the glitz of the steel and metal buildings Afghanistan remains deeply troubled place with a whole lot of history.

Repairing Relationships in the Balkans

Story: Bosnia, Serbia pledge to mend ties, lure investors.

There hasn't been a whole lot of good news out of Bosnia-Herzegovina in the last several years. This year however has seen some progress in repairing the relationship between Serbia and Bosnia. At the end of March, the Serbian parliament voted to condemn the Srebrenica massacre- and Serbian president Boris Tadić agreed to attend this year's commemorations of the massacre. These are huge steps forward for the region- and I would venture to say aren't without risks as nationalism remains a potent force in Serbia.

However this relationship is complex (in a way that the article doesn't touch on). Bosnian Serbs and Republika Srpska have a rather close relationship with the Republic of Serbia (and its precedents) dating back before the 1992-95 war. Since the war this relationship has been exclusive to Bosnian Serbs (a previous visit by Tadić to the Republika Srpska- without an matching visit to national level institutions or the Federation- caused quite a few waves).

The Bosnian Serb member of the presidency is frustrated with recent improvements in the relationship between Bosnia and Serbia. On the surface this seems a paradox. But its not so much the close ties as much as it is who the close ties are with.

The meeting in Turkey threatens the Bosnian Serb leadership's exclusive hold on close ties with Serbia- and that likely plays into the objections of the Serb member of the Bosnian presidency. This time it was a Bosniak president of a state level institution that met with the president of Serbia, and not members of a Serb affiliated party or a someone associated with Republika Srpska. This does little to nurture the secessionist dreams still held by some leaders in Republika Srpska.

Bosnia and its people have suffered from these damaged dysfunctional relationships. For much of the late 1990s Croatian and Serbian nationalists funneled resources to obstructionist leaders in Bosnia and paralyzed its politics. Since 2000 changes in leadership in these neighboring countries have improved relationships, but progress is slow.

Upcoming Stories

Its going to be a rather exiting couple of weeks here in DC and I'm going to have quite a bit of writing to do.

In case someone in DC hasn't heard, we're having a big summit on Nuclear Weapons reduction and nonproliferation. Delegations from over 40 countries will be present. 

American University is currently hosting an exhibit on Post Civil War Lebanese art. I'll be posting pictures when I get a chance to see it.

The Carnegie Endowment will be hosting an event on Armenian-Turkish rapprochement on Friday.

"Armenia and Turkey: Bridging the Gap
Date: Friday, April 9, 2010
Time: 12:15 to 2:00 p.m.
Location: Carnegie Endowment for International
Speakers: Henri Barkey, Tom de Waal, David L. Phillips, Amb. James F. Collins"

Apparently Carnegie does these things by invitation? AU's PCR list serve got an invitation so I'm going!

On Monday Dr. Abdul Aziz Said is speaking on the continuing mismatch in American and Muslim perceptions on global issues and conflict. I look forward to hearing him speak, as I've had too few opportunities to do so. 


Moreover the Afghan-Karzai-election row continues to get even more heated, and I daresay quite personal.

Is Robert McDonnell Whistling Dixie in Virginia?

Washington Post: McDonnell's Confederate History Month proclamation irks civil rights leaders

Some 150 years after the end of our Civil War it continues to deeply impact our politics and exerts a powerful tug on many. This story is a reminder that conflicts simply do not vanish when one side triumphs militarily over the other or a peace agreement is made.

The long and the short of this article is that McDonnell was reaching out to part of his base- Sons of Confederate Veterans and their ilk, but neglecting to mention that the Civil War involved slavery. Richmond, the capital of Virginia was also the capital of the Confederacy and was site of a large slave market.

For Virginians and many other people in the southern states it would make sense that the war has a much stronger legacy- the battles were fought on their land and they were on the losing end of the war. Also the ancestors of a considerable number of people in these states were owned by the ancestors of other people living in these states. Altogether that's a considerable amount of resentment to overcome.

Its not so much that McDonnell is talking about commemorating fallen soldiers as much as he chose to ignore the experiences of another large chunk of his state. It seems to me rather unnecessary and backwards to have done this. Both groups of people have valid histories. Virginia's history is in all of their stories, not just in that of fallen Confederate soldiers or freed slaves. McDonnell was elected as the governor of all Virginians, he really ought to seek to honor the histories of and lead all Virginians. History does not need to be a zero sum game- especially 150 years after the end of a war.

I must confess that as a Michigander the Civil War is somewhat academic to me. It was a war that happened a long time ago and its battlegrounds were hundreds of miles away. In my particular hometown the War of 1812 and the Indian Wars loom larger (Monroe, Michigan was the site of the Battle of Frenchtown, which was made notorious when 68 Kentucky militiamen were massacred in the aftermath of the battle). Monroe was also home to General Armstrong Custer who fought in the Civil War (and advocated a moderate approach towards the South in the post war era), but is better known today for his bloody battles against the Cheyenne and Lakotah and his last stand at the Battle of Little Bighorn.

The racial dynamics are somewhat different in this part of the country than back home. People mix quite a bit more in Washington DC than they do up in the de facto segregation that is Michigan. Virginia too, is quite a different sort of place.

I attended a panel discussion last month on the subject of race and conflict in the United States, one of the panelists, Rob Corcoran, national director of the US chapter of Initiatives of Change works on racial reconciliation in Richmond, Virginia. In his work, he's worked alongside group on both sides of the divide mentioned in this article. I'm certain this event will give his organization quite a bit more work to do in the near future.

President Karzai Points His Finger

Afghan President Karzai accuses UN over election Fraud

President Hamid Karzai is pointing his finger at the west today, accusing them of attempting to push him out of office. During President Karzai's statement he singled out American Ambassador Peter Galbraith. Incidentally I had planned on writing on the Ambassador before I read this story.

Last week I attended a presentation given by Ambassador Galbraith on this very subject, called Afghanistan: War of Necessity or Quagmire. A web search reveals that he's been traveling to quite a few places to give this presentation. Something he hinted at during his speech. Here's a link to a similar speech given to the Vermont Council on World Affairs.

Altogether I found him to be rather interesting, covering topic areas such as the country's need for decentralization and Afghanistan's recent history with Pakistan and the election:

The long and the short of it is that both Ambassador Galbraith and President Karzai have a lot of bad blood over last year's election fraud. According to Ambassador Galbraith the election was plauged with "wholesale" election fraud perpetrated by members of the election commission appointed by Karzai.

Karzai did manage to eke out a reelection- basically by getting his opponent to decline to stand for the runoff. Galbraith was dismissed from his role in the United Nations mission for criticizing events. Since then he has made it a point to speak out against Karzai's ongoing attempts to steal power in Afghanistan.

Galbraith is rightly angry- it it is NATO soldiers that protect his regime and Western dollars that fund his government and pay for elections. Karzai's vote rigging has made Afghanistan more dangerous and more expensive for its western allies. Karzai has since attempted to change election laws to remove international oversight of elections and replace them with his political allies. He did this over the objections of Afghanistan's parliament, and less than a year before this year's parliamentary elections.

Ambassador Galbraith had a couple suggestions for fixing Afghanistan's election system; first, truly remove the election officials appointed by Karzai and actually fire those found with their hands stuffing the ballot box. And in the long run constitutional reform designed to decentralize the country's governance structure- something that the Ambassador doesn't suspect is very high on the country's agenda. Galbraith  also states an alternative "If Afghans want to have a fraudulent election, they should pay for it themselves."

This is the heart of the issue. The international community is not in Afghanistan because they want to be. It is an expensive intervention in a remote region. There is little to no economic gain out of being there. The country is a source of drugs and is a potential threat to international security. These issues are important, but the international community's patience is very limited and there are other countries that have the same problems and are easier to get to. What does President Karzai think he'll be the president of without his allies? Does he think his government will last long when he can't exercise its authority outside of Kabul? Or does he think that Afghanistan is so indispensable to the international community that they will stay there forever no matter what?  Members of the Dutch government recently thought otherwise.

Self Help in Haiti

Entrenched Transience at Golf Club Dramatizes Haiti's Limbo


Since the earthquake displaced Haitians have been living in ad hoc camps arranged around aid providers. This story discusses one particular camp, located at the Pétionville Club, a private golf course. Conditions remain poor in the camp due to the seasonal rains, but the Haitians have organized themselves to solve many of the camp's problems such as sanitation and security. Conditions are bad, but for many of Haiti's displaced they are even worse


To the people in these camps, the Haitian government (which was never really there for them) is a minimal presence- however NGOs offer a large number of services (much as they always have) Last month US soldiers secured the camp, but they have since withdrawn. Haitian authorities were not there to replace them so the people in the camp took up this very task- handling most internal disputes internally.  Serious matters are still referred to the police.

In Pétionville there is a mixture of Haitian self help led by a local elected leader built around a number of services provided by the international community with other services staffed by members of the camp itself. It is a vibrant but transient community with a question hovering over its head-- what happens next?

What role will the Haitians play in transitioning from relief to reconstruction? Camps like Pétionville are not yet making the transition- although their inhabitants currently have the energy and enthusiasm. All they need is a plan, leadership and some resources.  At the moment the disaster has recreated the community, however this too could well be transient.

In this sense Pétionville is a microcosm for the country. The earthquake's aftermath is an opportunity, but one that won't last forever. If the transition from relief to recovery is not handled well, or if it is one that does not create stronger, more democratic institutions then Haitians will be worse off and more vulnerable than they were before the earthquake. This is something that cannot be done through aid and the provision of services by international NGOs, but can only be done by harnessing the Haitians energy and initiative. This can only be done through partnerships on the ground and by cultivating local leaders who have emerged in places like Pétionville.

Redeveolopment in the Motor City

Story:  Survey finds third of Detroit lots vacant; Positive news uncovered, too

This week I'm shifting gears a little bit and talking about a domestic case of reconstruction; Detroit. Detroit's isn't just facing declines in its population and economy but is also facing a continuing legacy of regional distrust, de facto segregation and wasteful development patterns. The result of these and other factors is that the city has been plauged with corruption and poor governance.

Detroit's current mayor took office with promises to dramatically change the way the city did business- and face up to the state of the city.  At its height the city was home to 1.8 million people, and is only home to 900 thousand today. Because Detroiters (and most Michiganders) live in houses rather than large apartment buildings this means lots of empty space. Already this emptiness can be pretty astounding- and according to Mayor Bing is extremely expensive to maintain (far more than the city has resources to do).

The Detroit Parcel Survey has just released its report quantifying the state of the city, and has revealed the city's most damaged and depopulated neighborhoods.

The following maps show which parts of the city are in the worst shape:

http://www.detroitparcelsurvey.org/pdf/reports/DRPS_citywide_vacancy_housing.pdf

http://www.detroitparcelsurvey.org/pdf/reports/DRPS_citywide_VOD_fire.pdf

Its obvious the current state of affairs isn't working. There are lots of ideas floating around for how to fix the city- many of which are alternatives to the traditional "rebuild everything to its orignal glory" model which appears to be an increasingly remote possibility.

"Along with the mayor, a number of academics and philanthropic groups are sketching visions of a different Detroit. One such vision has urban farms and park spaces filling the acres of barren patches where people once lived and worked. In a city of roughly 140 square miles, vacant residential and commercial property accounts for an estimated 40 square miles, an area larger than the city of Miami." WSJ

One answer being tossed around is to cut services and move people to more densly populated parts of the city. This approach- called "planned shrinkage" was used in New York City during the 1970s. Its worth taking a look at this Wikipedia article for an illustration on how they did it. Its rather ugly. In the New York case the city cut funding or did not raise funding This plays into the fears of many in the city- there is a history of demolishing neighborhoods in Detroit in the name of development, as was the case when interstate highways were built in the city.

Reasonably not everyone is convinced that this is going to go well for the people of Detroit. If Detroit were to follow through with a similar plan it would be a back-handed way of forcing people from their homes, and without compensation. They would be better off paying people to move.

Ultimately this is a matter of who gets to make the decisions. Detroit needs to leave these decisions in the hands of the communities its serving. There is a danger with mountains of external funding redevelopment policy becomes much more about making it look good for the investors. Detroit's people and its grassroots need to be at the heart of its transformation. They know best what they need for their communities. Can a master plan take into account these things? The corruption scandals of the last decade have done much to marginalize the community, and at best represent time wasted.

Who will redevelop these places, and who will benefit are the big questions. If the process of greening and repoulating the city degenerates into a land grab where agricultural companies and out- of-town landowners gentrify the rest this would not only be a crime, but would undermine some of Detroit's great strengths; such as its virbant and growing arts and non-profit communities.

I suggesst they add a criteria to these plans that would- the nature of community in these "suspect" parts of town. How well organized are people- an area might have a diminished population but also might be tight knit. It would be conterproductive to displace the people there. The data revealed by the survey will be instrumental to anyone making plans for the city- but building the future is about much more than how many people live in a place, but about what sort of community lives there.

The maps and data are from the Detroit Parcel Survey

Afghanistan gets murkier

Article: Karzai Criticized Over Afghan poll watchdog move

President Hamid Karzai "won" last year's elections amidst wide spread allegations of vote fraud- many of which were documented by the country's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). It ended up that about a third of Karzai's votes were illegal.

He managed to keep his job, but has now fired all the internationally appointed members of the EEC. Its likely that Karzai will continue to keep his job for quite some time, as long as he can continue to keep the international community engaged. Its a stupid move all around designed to "win" some elections for Karzai's allies.

This doesn't work well for the people of Afghanistan- who already have to deal with grinding poverty and chronic insecurity, and now have a leader that is transparently crooked. It doesn't work terribly well for the United States, whose troops are fighting the Taliban and whom has poured billions of dollars into the country to build something lasting. Its a serious step backwards for the country, and legitimatizes its fledgling institions.

Does it even really work well for Karzai? The timing is rather good for people in the international community not to notice- with much of the world's focus on the Olympic games. If last year's elections were not an Emperor has no clothes moment, then firing the truth tellers certainly is. In the short run it will probably help Karzai win elections. In the long run, it is self destructive. It undermines his international backers will to continue to supply money and troops. 

One group it does work out rather well for the Taliban. Karzai really shouldn't be doing their propaganda work for them.

There needs to be accountability for this behavior. Otherwise the effort is little more than putting up a strawman (not even a strongman, as the government's influence is limited) and calling it a day. This will do nothing to make the country safer for anyone, will do nothing to make the country more just. It does nothing to save the lives of civilians or soldiers. All it serves to do is aggrandize Karzai and delegitimze his government. The Afghan people deserve better than this.

What about Afghan accountability for this? What about the country's civil society and the opposition parties? The future will tell if they will be able to use this power grab to hold the government to account. However with the election commission under the president's thumb, loudly boycotting the elections may be the best choice. 

Its tragic that our country is supporting a vote rigging leader in Afghanistan while condemning one next door in Iran.

Trading Women's Rights for an Agreement in Afghanistan?

Article
What will deal with Taliban mean fo Afghan women?

An excellent article addressing some of the difficulties of potentially making peace with the Taliban.

The gist of the warning in this article is this.

"A recent law has undermined Shia women's rights, a warning to others that political expediency can trump their promised equality, and an unsettling hint for the future. Under international pressure, Karzai allowed the law to be amended. But doubts remain about how far the West would be prepared to support women's rights once its troops have departed."

This issue will become increasingly  pressing as the discussion of exit strategies and end states come to mind. If Afghanistan is going to have any sort of peaceful future it will have to be one in which women can contribute to society. NATO and the United States will be working against themselves if they decide to sell out Afghanistan's women to save face.

That being said the effort to build strong institutions in Afghanistan has a long way to go before they'll be strong enough to remain intact after the departure of western troops. A good place to start would be getting the government to influence events outside of the capital.

A broadening of political debate in Bosnia?

Yesterday I attended this event hosted at the US Institute of Peace;



Bosnia Herzegovina: One Country or Not

The title of this event proved to be quite controversial. The Bosniak American Advisory Council for Bosnia and Herzegovina sent a representative with a letter explaining their displeasure. Copies were available at the front desk, of which I have one. I don't really know much about this organization, but I could see their point: Bosnia suffered an extremely violent and bloody war from 1992-95. From a Bosniak perspective they lost many people to maintain a unified Bosnia.

So the event began with a brief mea culpa from the moderator about the title- the offense was quite unintentional. Moreover the speaker was more likely than not to agree with the BAACBH.

The panel only had one speaker, Fahrudin Radončić a Bosnian media magnate, critic of the country's current politicians and founder of a new political party called Union for a Better Future of BH. He and his party argue that the main reason for Bosnia's ongoing political crisis and tenacious nationalism is due to a lack of economic development.

He actually spent very little time talking about the subject in the title- only mentioning that he didn't belive that Milrad Dodik, (Prime Minister of one of the country's two major political entities) wasn't serious about joining his entity with Serbia. He rather snarkily stated that if he did that he did he could no longer be Prime Minister- and enjoy the legal and illicit benefits of that office.

Many of the problems he identified weren't new to me- the need to combat corruption for example. Other ones were specific and were new. For example, he had some specific examples of corruption that he would address. The most prominent of these was prosecuting war profiteers who had used the war in the 1990s to privatize Bosnia's government owned enterprises. They used their political connections to take over said businesses. Although he didn't use names- he knew, and I suspect other people in the room knew as well exactly who he was talking about. The result of all this corruption he argued was that the country was unable to spend its reconstruction funds and most were sitting in the bank.

Mr. Radončić gave his perspective on political participation in Bosnian politics. Bosnians had to contend with heavily entrenched interests if they wanted to participate in politics. He argued that he was justified in using his media empire as a base of power politically because Bosnia's current leaders use their influence to freeze most citizens out of political discussion. There is a bit of a "can't make omelets without breaking eggs" mentality here. It is notable that he looks up to Italy's Silvio Berlusconi. 

In many ways he talked the talk. He was a moderate and spoke of the value of including all Bosnians, and even working closely with Croatia and Serbia.

My impression was that he had picked up the politician thing rather well-- he was very good at using the questions to explain his message (and avoiding their uncomfortable aspects) and he stuck with his message. I'm not so certain that his fusion of politics and media is really a great direction for Bosnia's still emerging institutions. Sure, the goals seem good enough- put people to work on public works projects (Bosnia has an excessively high unemployment rate and needs work on its physical infrastructure) but in a sense he is proposing the exchange of one type of elite for another.

Most importantly he didn't address the social trust issue, which is a huge obstacle to broadening the inclusivity of the country's social and political institutions.

The Importance of the Haitian Children.

Story: Case Stokes Haiti’s Fear for Children, and Itself 

On the surface this story is about some Americans who ran off with Haitian children and tried to take them across a border in a bus. While they claimed that the children were orphans, this was not the case for all of the them. Regardless, it is bizarre that they expected to (as complete strangers and English speaking foreigners) just drive into a French-speaking country, round up a hundred children and then call it a day.

It's a bit surreal to read their plan for finding the children:

"Sun Jan 23rd: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR [Dominican Republic]"

I'm not quite sure what the thought process was there. Between this agenda item and some of their quotes they really thought it was just that simple. In reality things weren't quite that simple.



Here is where things get relevant to the subject matter of this blog. Regardless of their intentions these outsiders (blancs in Haitian parlance) they were tone-deaf culturally and politically. These people unknowingly played into many of Haiti's well-founded fears about outsiders meddling in its affairs- and at a time when its especially vulnerable.

While most of us don't know it in the United States we have a long and checkered history in Haiti . The point here is not to point fingers, but to highlight that this regrettable history still shapes Haitian perceptions of the United States. When Haiti rarely emerges in the American consciousness it is seen through the lens of our own race relations. Mostly Haiti emerges as an issue once every decade (usually as a problem to be bandaged) or so and then falls back out of its perception. Indeed; the United States' last dealings in Haiti were hardly noticed here. For Haiti, the effect of previous US actions weighs heavily.

In responding to this orphan incident Haitian officials have to navigate this legacy. They are not simply responding to a specific incident but they are responding to the history between our countries. They have to do something- especially since there are few things they can do about it.

The challenge is to do justice for everyone involved while navigating the difficulties posed by this history. It will be extremely difficult to try this case in Haiti- given the state of the country's courts. Officially at least the US government has deferred to Haiti on the matter- which is the right thing to do in the meantime. The Haitian government does have the right to prosecute.

The underlying difficulty exposed by this problem will not go away. Americans have the luxury of forgetting the past, Haitians do not. Thus Americans will likely continue to do things that evoke its past in Haiti- regardless of their intentions. Navigating these difficulties is crucial if the United States wishes to play any sort a positive role in Haiti.

It would also help to come to terms with this history as well-- but that may be a bit overly optimistic.

Empowering Who in Haiti?

Welcome to the first entry of Equanimity! Everyone is welcome to read, comment and stay awhile. Since this blog is in its early stages I’m open to input on its content and format. Thank you very much for taking the time to drop by.

For this first essay I’m going to be writing about the crisis in Haiti.

Haitian government gets just 1 cent of every aid dollar.
And
Haiti - a UN protectorate?

Together these two articles address the issue of who should be responsible for the relief and reconstruction of Haiti. The gist of the first article is that donors from the United States are bypassing the Haitian government and relying on established organizations inside the country to provide disaster relief aid. The second article underscores the international community’s obligation to help in Haiti, but then suggests that the best way it can help is by taking over control of the country. If the analysis conducted in the first article is to be believed than the sidelining of Haitians has already begun.

There are compelling reasons for relying on outside actors at the current time, when lives depend on receiving aid promptly, but this not good for the country in the long run. Bypassing the governments of corrupt countries is nothing new. Few donors want their money to go towards a new Mercedes for some corrupt official- thus it is common for money and resources to non-governmental organizations which then provide the service.

The problem in Haiti is that this is already established practice. NGOs provide many services that governments are responsible for. This has contributed to the privatization of the government’s functions. Thus the government performs fewer services and has less responsibility and less accountability. A government like this has less and less to do with the needs of Haitians and more to do with the adventures and intrigues of the elite.

Yes the government is corrupt, but continuing the long running trend of bypassing the government will continue to erode Haiti's government and the country’s independence. It was not only homes and schools that were destroyed in the earthquake, but the very institutions of Haiti's government. These institutions had already been in decline before the disaster. They will certainly need rebuilding after it. NGOs, for all the good work that they do are not a substitute for a government.

Haiti’s government will need reconstruction, but more importantly it needs a change in philosophy.

The protectorate article addresses this very thing, but comes to the wrong conclusions The most striking statement is at the tail-end this article.

"Given the enormity of this disaster aid alone cannot save Haiti, and certainly not with its existing institutions. Undemocratic as it sounds I believe the United Nations should declare Haiti a UN protectorate and take direct control of all institutions and the economy for a period of not less than ten years. During this period Haiti should be a tax-free zone with the cost of reconstruction borne by the international community (especially the US and France) as a form of reparation. During that period institutions can be rebuilt under UN supervision with local leadership in an advisory role. Democracy can wait until after economic recovery. And may God help Haiti."

The academic the author quotes (Prof Sir Hilary Beckles of the University of the West Indies) says several things. One the United Nations should act as the government and administration of the country. Second that Haiti shall not collect taxes, and the costs of governance and reconstruction should be covered by the international community. Third, Haitians will only serve in an advisory capacity; Haitian democracy will wait until there is an "economic recovery".

Can a protectorate be effective in building a clean and efficient government? A protectorate is essentially foreign rule. The problem with a protectorate is that it can be easy to get into one, but very difficult to achieve the goals needed to get out. In Bosnia and Herzegovina for example, the international community established a protectorate that has governed the country since 1997.  In Bosnia the international community oversaw an elected Parliament (this is less ambitious than what the author is suggesting here). Even with elections and somewhat functioning institutions this protectorate has been unable to achieve the goals for its closure- despite working towards this since 2005!  The approach employed by the international community in Bosnia has been unable to cultivate the things that make democracy work such as an empowered and engaged citizenry.

In Haiti the author is suggesting that a completely new state be rebuilt by the international community for Haitians. It will have an indefinite timeline based on the economic recovery of a country that has been in economic and ecological freefall for decades (I mention ecological because Haiti’s economy remains based on agriculture). Haitians are invited to participate as advisors not leaders in their own country.

How is this going to build local leadership? How is this going to empower Haitians? If the international community (or whoever takes over) creates a new set of institutions from above it will fail to address the politics that contributed to Haiti’s misery.

I’m not opposed to the international community taking a prominent role in Haiti. However any intervention in the national government should temporary and linked to discrete and achievable goals. The international community should avoid acting as a grand engineer of new Haitian institutions, but instead use its resources towards supporting and restoring institutions at the local level. The goal should be to create an environment where the Haitians can build their confidence and the tools they need to improve their government. This will mean pursuing both economic and political initiatives simultaneously- not waiting for an economic recovery before emphasizing democracy.

At the same time it’s necessary to address the issue of corruption and reconstruction at the national level in the near future. Taking responsibility for reconstruction would limit corruption but would further undermine the nation’s independence (further delegitimizing the government). Instead of bypassing the government more aid needs to be sent thought it, but with strict conditions on reporting and how resources can be used. These funds would not be allocated towards specific projects per se, but could be allocated towards specific competencies (roads, hospitals, clean water). These reports should be made available to all Haitians. Not only would Haitian leaders be accountable to their donors (funding would be reallocated to more honest players), but their constituents would know when and how much their leaders have cost them as it happens.

This approach would help reinforce accountability in Haiti’s politicians while empowering the Haitian people. This would do far more to rebuild Haiti’s institutions and improve the quality of life than a semi-permanent protectorate. In the years to come, Haitians need to be given more initiative and leadership in their country, not less. While in the short term it is necessary for the international community to take a leading role so that lives can be saved, if it stays in this role too long it risks undermining the very goals it seeks to promote.