I’ve lived in California most of my life, so earthquakes are a fact of life. We pride ourselves on our aplomb when one hits — in fact, a quake generally needs to be at least a 5.0 even to get our attention. Additionally, I live where sonic booms rattle the windows on a regular basis. I know the basics of preparedness, and I have a level of security in knowing that our buildings are designed to withstand all but the most severe of quakes.
But the extent of damage in Haiti is almost beyond comprehension. That beleaguered nation’s minimal infrastructure has been decimated. Following major quakes in other countries, we’ve seen heavy equipment arrive within hours to assist in rescuing people trapped in the rubble, and while there have frequently been hundreds and even thousands of deaths, there has been a sense that the possibility exists for rescues. Here it is, with the first 48 hours nearly gone, and the arrival of the needed heavy equipment has been stalled. The good news is that the cause is too much air traffic — too much help on the way. But that doesn’t bring any comfort to the thousands of people who may still be alive under the rubble.
Americans and others have opened their hearts and their wallets, donating millions of dollars to relief efforts. The United States has, to our credit, taken a lead role in coordinating the international efforts and has pledged an ongoing effort in helping Haiti recover.
But against that backdrop, a few noteworthy sour notes have been heard. First came Pat Robertson’s pronouncement that, in effect, the Haitians deserved their present suffering. The irony in Robertson’s comments is that the Louisiana Purchase was a direct consequence of the Haitians’ rebellion against their French slave masters. I can’t help but feel some sympathy for Don Imus’ suggestion that it might be time to put the good reverend to sleep.
Not to be outdone, Rush Limbaugh showed his understanding of Christian compassion and charity for those in need by suggesting that President Obama’s rapid commitment of US assistance was done to cement his standing with people of color. As if that weren’t bad enough, he then claimed that the relative pittance of foreign aid we send to Haiti in foreign aid via our taxes was more than enough and that people shouldn’t bother to donate any more.
Limbaugh’s compassion was echoed by the communications director for Chuck DeVore, a GOP candidate here in California who announced that our efforts (and that of the world community) should be limited to burying the dead and tending the wounded before beating a rapid departure.
These people are certainly entitled to their opinions. They’re even entitled to communicate them via whatever means at their disposal to as many people as possible. That doesn’t mean, however, that they should be unanswered. We’ve just lived through an administration that came to power initially on the claim of being compassionate conservatives. Compassion and charity are hallmark Christian activities — as they are of most religions. Charity is one of the five pillars of Islam, for example.
If any readers are interested in showing the sort of compassion and charity that can help to relieve the suffering in Haiti, here are some opportunities:
- American Red Cross — how simple they’re making donations! Text Haiti to 90999 to donate $10. The charge will show up on your next cell phone bill.
- Similarly, Haitian-American musician has set up a relief fund. To donate $5, text 501501.
- Oxfam is also accepting donations. Go to http://www.oxfam.org.uk. Just be aware that the amount is in pounds sterling not dollars.
- And here’s a link to long list of organizations accepting donations.
Give early and give often. The need is staggering and will continue long after the initial rescue and recovery. How about setting up an automatic contribution plan?
Hello hello. Actually, it wasn’t Chuck DeVore — the comment in question is mine, and he has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Happy to discuss as you wish — otherwise I do want to correct the record on this one.
My apologies for not picking up on the distinction. However, because of your position as his communications director, it’s not unreasonable for people to make the leap that your views and his are similar. If not, your comment did him a grave disservice. Given the magnitude of the Haitian disaster, and the fact that this is an election year, it’s naive to assume that such callous comments wouldn’t be given a wider airing. If I were running for office and my communications director voiced a comment that didn’t reflect my own views, he or she would immediately be looking for a new employer.
During my career as a records manager, I cautioned staff to make sure that they didn’t say anything in an email that would embarrass them if their mothers read it in the newspaper. It seems that Twitter users, and especially communications directors, could also benefit from that advice.
It’s only callous if it’s being demagogued by a HuffPo hack for partisan purposes, or if you don’t know the field. As it happens, I worked in international aid and public health for quite some time (among other things, I led a tsunami-response design team in 2005, and made several PEPFAR-related trips to eastern and southern Africa). The contention that aid beyond immediate relief is a societal corrosive for the recipient is not new, and has quite a bit of currency. See the work of James Shikwati of Kenya, George Ayittey of Ghana, Dambisa Moyo of Zambia, or Graham Hancock of the UK for starters. None of this argues or implies that disaster relief is uncalled for: what it does contend is that a standing or indefinite aid operation does more harm than good in the long run. They tend to suppress local industry, supplant local leadership, and inculcate dependency.
In Haiti’s case, this is exactly what I call for: disaster relief, not standing aid. There’s nothing wrong with Haitians, nor inferior about their entrepreneurialism. We’ve done a poor job over the past century in taking them under our tutelage — first via the USMC in the decades following 1915, and then via a plethora of aid agencies after. Time for us to help bind their wounds as humanity demands, and then stop pretending they’re a nation of children awaiting our paternal care. They’re not. They’re a nation, period. That’s not callousness — that’s respect.
In any case, thanks for hearing me out on this. If I may ask, a correction in the main post would be sincerely appreciated.
Joshua, I’ve made the edit you suggested. Characterizing the response in HuffPo as demagoguery is a bit over the top. If your comment was taken out of context, well, that has unfortunately become par for the course in reportage of any candidate by opposing news sources — it shouldn’t have been a surprise. And you still haven’t addressed whether Mr. DeVore agrees with your comment.
The question of when to discontinue aid is an ancient one. Does one give a man a fish or teach him to fish? But how people define “disaster relief” can be an open discussion. The aid that was given Germany following WWII went far beyond tending the wounded and burying the dead. In fact, it also served to provide an environment in which civil society and entrepreneurship could again flourish.
The magnitude of the situation in Haiti is almost beyond comprehension. Consider a natural disaster in the US that preliminary estimates indicated 550,000 to 1,100,000 dead, the White House and Capital destroyed along with many cabinet department buildings, possibly 1/3 of all buildings, most hospitals, a significant percentage of the schools and infrastructure, and left 110,000,000 people in need of immediate emergency aid in the form of food, water, shelter and medical attention. That is the magnitude of the situation in Haiti. Now, consider that the average person survived on less than $2 a day.
It would seem to me that Haiti has so many immediate needs beyond mere tending the wounded and burying the dead — even if one does not support permanent aid. So the discussion needs to focus on how to define “disaster relief” and what sort of aid is needed to allow them to build a civil society that can meet the people’s needs. I agree that too often aid has been provided in ways that benefit the donor nation (or interests in it) more than the recipient nation. That is indeed paternalism. But can we learn from our past mistakes and does the international community have a role to play that indeed teaches them to fish, catching those fish that exist in their waters? By that, I mean teaching them how to rebuild in ways that are sustainable and consistent with their cultural values.
The discussion of what kind of aid and for how long is a needed one, but perhaps ill-timed when the scale of suffering is so massive and the immediate means of survival is in question.
Once upon a time, Haitians beat the French Empire. Twice. They don’t need us to “teach them to fish.” Handing them a pole when theirs breaks is sufficient. If you truly believe we should discuss “what sort of aid is needed to allow them to build a civil society,” you’re just walking down the same failed path of paternalist intervention.
I’m not trying to imply that they are incapable of rebuilding. But you cannot deny that they have been “blessed” with governments who saw their role as amassing as much personal wealth as possible, to the detriment of the general populace. In light of the economic circumstances both before the quake and now with the extent of devastation, just where is the needed capital to come from? Does disaster relief include providing the funding that will allow them to rebuild roads, schools, hospitals, government buildings, commercial buildings, homes? I agree that long term aid when no natural disaster has occurred can be detrimental, but just where does disaster aid end?