The end of Haiti?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/01/end_haiti_0

by cwan • 17 years ago

182 99 17 years ago

jleyank• 17 years ago

Perhaps it's (finally) time to see the OPEC and other resource-rich countries step up and rebuild Haiti?

maxklein• 17 years ago

Why OPEC countries? These are oil producing countries, but very few of them belong to the rich countries in the world. I think that perhaps the richest countries in the world should help rebuild the devastation of one of the poorest countries in the world.

jfornear• 17 years ago

I think he meant OECD countries.

brettnak• 17 years ago

He just had to bring up climate change at the end. Great way to get everyone to miss the point of your post.

borism6• 17 years ago

What's wrong with that? (Although I fail to see which island nation will need to be rescued next - actually most likely next humanitarian catastrophe of comparable scale is Bangladesh, in my opinion)

DaniFong2• 17 years ago

Isn't climate change (as a consequence of man-made deforestation) a large part of the problems that face Haiti today?

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002600/a002640/

sailormoon8• 17 years ago

The deforestation depicted in those photos is not the result of climate change, but of ill-advised logging activity.

sharms• 17 years ago

What I haven't seen explained is what exactly needs to be rebuilt? If someone has nothing, and there is an earthquake, exactly how does billions of dollars restore nothing?

Or because of this earthquake the world should build their infrastructure for free?

tptacek2• 17 years ago

Hospitals, prisons, drinking water distribution, sewage, housing, electricity, police stations, firefighting capability. Is this a trick question?

Haiti didn't have nothing; it had a very crappy version of most things.

Charge Haiti whatever you'd like to build a basic survivable level of civilization. They'll never pay, but that doesn't matter. The alternative is Somalia in the Carribean.

pbhjpbhj7• 17 years ago

I think it is a reasonable question. There are plenty of places without drinking water and sewage infrastructure of any real note. Why then does this earthquake mean that we should fix Haiti's water/sewage. Why not fix Somalia's instead?

Given the comments about Haiti's resources it seems it should be quite rich monetarily, certainly enough to pay for the rapid construction of Hospitals and the like. Yes, we'd want to help with skilled workers if sufficient don't exist locally for the timescales sought.

I don't think (hope) that the parent is saying we shouldn't help Haiti, just asking why only help them or help them in preference to others that are suffering as much.

alex_c• 17 years ago

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/earthquake_in_haiti...

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/haiti_48_hours_late...

Most pictures show the human suffering, but there are a few that show the destruction to infrastructure. I wouldn't say "nothing" is the right word for what Haiti had, but it's a good description of what's left.

philwelch2• 17 years ago

As far as failed states go, this could push Haiti from Haiti level to maybe even Somalia level. So I have to wonder what the repercussions of this could be. Somalia is a "safe" distance away from most of the rich and powerful countries--it's kind of a distant problem that Somalia has no government and even the piracy is kept to a sustainable level. Haiti's a lot closer to home. The US was pushed to action in Haiti in the 1990's, and chances are we'll have to do so again.

kiba2• 17 years ago

The Somali have customary laws which allow them to operate and grow their economy despite political chaos.

However, it would seem to me that that Haitians have no common law system or a customary kind which would permit the growth of an informal economy.

mahmud4• 17 years ago

That's just offensive to Haitians and downright wrong. Somali traditions are the #1 cause of our strife; tribalism. We don't have any "laws", neither written nor verbal. It's all tribal handshakes and the whims of whoever is in charge.

If you're referring to Islam, well, that hasn't saved us, or the Iraqis, or Afghanis .. come to think of it, maybe they're better off without a prominent political religious establishment there. Where there is a will for violence and anarchy, the dominant or pre-existing "laws" only become pretexts, never deterrents, or they become marginalized by "circumstances". You have never seen evil until you have seen religion under the Marshall law of the religious, curbed to the side temporarily, until the faithful reach a given objective, promising to resume their piety later when it's more convenient. (a bit meta here, but I am thinking more of Communism than Abrahimic faiths.)

Haiti is from the exact same Moor embryo that gave birth to the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Suriname, and the two Guyanas. Sure, they might not become a world-class economy any time soon, but nationhood is within their collective conscious. Never underestimate the will of a regional minority to rise up: francophone Haitians are in the middle of Spanish and English Caribbean. Give them sometime, they will be back up better and stronger.

mahmud4• 17 years ago

I am from Somalia, and I have witnessed its decay right to its downfall, including the three days during which the government dispersed and the central bank threw out its stash of local currency in large garbage bins.

Haiti will not die. For one, the suffering has been universally afflicted on all Haitians. This will strengthen their bond more than anything. Even if warlords and gangs form their own fiefdoms throughout the country, the humanitarian efforts, whenever they're ready a year or ten from now, can always tap into that shared Haitian identity, forged through an equally-endured hardship.

An earthquake has no one to blame. Probably as many Somalis died as in Haiti (though not in one day) but we only have ourselves to blame, and each victim left a blood debt on his killer, which "must" be avenged (or it has been avenged, and now the victim's family are awaiting reprisals)

sailormoon8• 17 years ago

An earthquake has no one to blame.

The event itself does not, it's true. But there certainly is someone to blame for the shoddy construction standards and grievous lack of preparation. The government is entirely accountable for these things.

cpr• 17 years ago

There has been no government, in effect, to date, or worse, a corrupt government that was hurting its own people.

dunstad• 17 years ago

The buildings were made to withstand hurricanes, not earthquakes. They chose the less frequent of two disasters to be exposed to.

abalashov• 17 years ago

Easy to say if you're coming from the vantage point of someone living in a rich country.

adrianwaj• 17 years ago

This will strengthen their bond more than anything

The end of hate, not Haiti.

joubert2• 17 years ago

"An earthquake has no one to blame"

I agree. However, you can get spin doctors and loonies who manage to convince others that some group is to blame. Once they have done that they can manipulate the situation in a direction that pleases them. Witness for example demented Pat Robertson who makes the superstitious claim that the misery in Haiti is a direct result of a pact with the devil when Haiti's people (then slaves) overthrew their French masters two centuries ago.

pbhjpbhj7• 17 years ago

I've heard this name Pat Robertson a few times on the 'net. I assume he's in the USA? Can anyone give an audio/video link to his talk where he suggests Haiti's slaves shouldn't have overthrown their French masters as they did?

---

Oh never mind, found it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59NCduEhkBM#t=0m48s on a show called The Young Turks (TYT).

If you listen to what he says, rather than the commentary, then here is the progression.

1) Haitians were under the heel of the French colonialists

2) Some Haitians [in 1804] made a deal with the devil for release from slavery

3) They were cursed because of that deal

4) Bad stuff has happened to Haiti since, including this earthquake

Note, he doesn't say it's the Haitians fault - though I'm sure he would say it was the fault in part of whichever small group made the pact in (1) 200 years ago. Nor does he say they shouldn't have revolted; just that they did it wrong. He seems genuinely concerned to me. He rightly notes that DR is a lot better off and they share the island with Haiti. This last point makes the tragedy of Haitian poverty as much about politics as anything else.

If you don't believe in the Devil then you can ignore his statement as it will be nonsensical to you. To the TYT guy I'd say that he shouldn't be too shocked - people do "make deals with the Devil". Robertson may also be using it as a metaphor for rejecting the Gospel.

Edit: there is actually some evidence to support Robertson's claim, eg[...]

Edit2: cut and pasted to my blog, http://alicious.com/2010/haitian-revolution-devil-pact/ as is OT here.

gizmomagico2• 17 years ago

> Probably as many Somalis died as in Haiti (though not in one day) but we only have ourselves to blame, and each victim left a blood debt on his killer, which "must" be avenged (or it has been avenged, and now the victim's family are awaiting reprisals)

What are you talking about?

mahmud4• 17 years ago

Mostly killings in Somalia are for revenge.

ars2• 17 years ago

Historically disasters (and wars) have the opposite effect.

In the short term it's terrible, but long term a disaster usually spurs rebuilding and economic activity that results in a better situation than what was there before.

borism6• 17 years ago

Pretty ridiculous statement in my opinion.

Life goes on, disaster or not.

There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to claim that wars and cataclysms accelerate long term development.

timwiseman4• 17 years ago

There's supposedly always better situation in the future, it is pretty dubious to claim that wars and cataclysms accelerate long term development.

It depends on what you mean. Wars have historically accelerated technology development, at least in the short term.

If you mean development more generally, then no probably not. The civilian technology would eventually get developped, if more slowly without the major push of a war. In the process, people and resources are destroyed.

seldo2• 17 years ago

It depends where you're talking about. In an area reasonably prepared for disasters, they actually do bring about increased prosperity -- Florida has periodic construction booms after hurricanes, and a majority are insured, so financial losses are constrained to the big insurance companies.

On the other hand, even in a developed nation, a major disaster can end the life of an area -- New Orleans is perhaps two-thirds of its former size and looks unlikely to grow.

In this case of Haiti, a steady and dedicated stream of aid could help rebuild the country, but history has shown that the international community's attention to the desperate plight of that nation has always been short-lived.

Sadly, I fear it will be worse than before, and remain so.

jacoblyles2• 17 years ago

It's Mancur Olson's "Institutional Sclerosis" growth theory. He claimed to have shown that growth rates increase after a large shock to the existing order. His explanation for this is that institutions tend to be corrupted by special interests over time, feeding on the wealth of society. Shocks give people a chance to start afresh.

JimmyL• 17 years ago

The problem with using that model is that it assumes that once the war/disaster ends, there is a reasonable amount of time (10-15 years) in which the rebuilding can take hold and the economy can develop.

Haiti gets a significant natural disaster every three to four years - generally hurricanes and floods, but in this case, an earthquake. So every time they start to rebuild, they get hit again and it all gets undone.

simplicissimus• 17 years ago

Somalia is a rather compelling, and modern, example of a sovereign nation damaged beyond recovery by war. Rebuilding might occur on such a scale if the country had recently sustained such economic capacity sometime in the past. Haiti sadly has not, and its gov't even before the earthquake would not have been capable of stewarding any such renaissance.

ugh• 17 years ago

In Europe, maybe. Where there was - even after the devastation of the second world war - still enough infrastructure left to rebuild. Where both the Soviet Union and the US wanted to win over allies becasue Europe hat just become a cold war front.

yread• 17 years ago

The 1755 Lisbon earthquake suggests otherwise. If the disaster is big enough it can wipe out a country.

gills• 17 years ago

The end of conflating failed states, earthquakes, and AGW?

LostInTheWoods• 17 years ago

Some countries should be disbanded. Their citizens should be given a passport to the country of their choice along with a 1-way ticket and a small stipend.

borism6• 17 years ago

All countries should be disbanded.

Thank you very much for your exceptionalism.

tennisman120• 17 years ago

This earthquake can be noting but good for Haiti. People saw and heard there were problems and poverty here, but did nothing. Now due to the earthquake, people see and and millions of dollars are pouring and and will continue too. It is going to spur growth and economic activity. like ars said, bad initially, but great in the long run.

kingkawn• 17 years ago

nothing but good? seriously?

adharmad2• 17 years ago

Broken window fallacy

timwiseman4• 17 years ago

This does not apply in this case because it is bringing in resources from outside of the country. The broken window fallacy only applies in a relatively closed system.

Of course, even if this DOES improve the economy (and I am not saying it will, just that it does not violate the broken window fallacy if it does) this was a horrible tragedy with an enormous deathtoll.

timwiseman4• 17 years ago

This MAY end up being good the economy of Haiti in the long run, but it is a huge tragedy in a human scale.

Also, remember that for it to help their economy, that humanitarian aid has to stick around for the rebuilding. If everyone makes a huge push to help right now, but then stops as soon as all the bodies are collected, it will not help.

flogic• 17 years ago

I seriously doubt aid will continue. It's a passing fad in a month or so we'll have another concern.

patrickgzill• 17 years ago

Does the Dominican Republic want Haiti? I don't think so considering how hard they are on Haitians who try to go to the DR part of the island.

Will the USA take on Haiti and make it a second Puerto Rico? I don't think so; for one, it would be expensive; two, all the Haitians would move to the USA as soon as they could; and there are probably other reasons as well.

So my analysis shows that Haiti will remain a barely functioning country as it was before and it will not "end". After all, Bangladesh has it bad every year due to the extensive flooding and naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater; but they still exist.

datums• 17 years ago

Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States. Haiti has great sadness in it's history. A large portion of their population is > 19 yrs old. There's a well known problem of child sex slaves in Haiti.

yardie• 17 years ago

I think you mean <.

drinian• 17 years ago

Unfortunately, the other two recent American protectorates, Iraq and Afghanistan, have had mixed results. Iraq seems to be doing better because it had pre-existing infrastructure. Afghanistan might be a better analogy. At least it's geographically far smaller, and easy to support from the continental US.

There are currently several thousand US troops in Haiti performing aid activities; I would bet that we could get a UN mandate if so desired.

Alex3917• 17 years ago

Did anyone else hear the NPR special on Haiti the day before the earthquake? They were saying how even though the country was extremely poor, investors were lining up to put in money to train workers and start companies, in part because of Clinton. They were saying how this was probably Haiti's last chance, and if anything else went wrong it would probably be the end of the country. Then this.

furyg3• 17 years ago

I can't find that anywhere on NPR's site. Got a link?

minder• 17 years ago

The story of hope for Haiti prior to the earthquake was on PBS NewsHour:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june10/hait...

roundsquare• 17 years ago

Potentially relevant TED talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_collier_s_new_rules_for_rebuil...

gphil• 17 years ago

Given the fact that even before the quake, Haiti was a hotbed of gang activity, and now that many more of its criminals have escaped from prison, I can't help but worry that all of this aid money being handed over is going to ultimately fall into the wrong hands.

1gor• 17 years ago

The concluding remark about 'climate refugees' is out of place in this otherwise very important discussion about failed states.

Climate change and its perceived influence on the mankind is a very controversial subject, and today most of people's suffering from poverty and misgovernment has nothing to do with it. Advancing your own pet theories using a real-life tragedy as a prop is a bad taste.

sukuriant• 17 years ago

Agreed, and I quarreled with that statement briefly. What I think the author is trying to say is that soon, there will be climate refugees, and when that happens, we'll need to know what to do with them, and we can use this event as an example on how the world should handle it.

It wasn't necessary in the argument, and yes, he was pushing his theories, but it may not have been so completely insulting as: "climate changed caused an earthquake!"

borism6• 17 years ago

Climate change and its perceived influence on the mankind is a very controversial subject, and today most of people's suffering from poverty and misgovernment has nothing to do with it.

The fact that a lot of people today suffer from poverty and misgovernment is indeed not entirely due to climate change (although there is dutch disease/resource curse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse)

However it is not hard to realize that those suffering right now will suffer even more were climate change effects as severe as some scientist predict, is it?

The end of Haiti?

Related Stories