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a large number of services (much as they always have) Last month US soldiers secured the camp, but they have since withdrawn.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.
Showing posts with label Haiti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Haiti. Show all posts
Monday, March 22, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)