This is from the economist news; I thought it fit well with my comment about Haiti and Shashank's comment about government's interests.
"For now, Haiti is at least benefiting from the international attention. Both Hillary Clinton, the American secretary of state, and Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, visited over the weekend. America has granted undocumented Haitian immigrants an 18-month reprieve and France has temporarily stopped deporting them. Senegal has even offered free land to Haitians who want to move there.
But such attention will have to be sustained for years if the country is to recover from the worst catastrophe in its tragic history. The state and its infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, which will cost much more than even the hundreds of millions of dollars pledged as aid so far. The reconstruction bill after Hurricane Mitch, which caused far less damage when it struck Central America in 1998, reached $6.3 billion. Shortly after the Haitian quake, Barack Obama promised Haitians that “you will not be forsaken, you will not be forgotten”. Given Haiti’s extreme poverty and its lack of strategic importance, the American president's words will be truly tested in the months and years ahead."
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15320716&source=features_box3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Very interesting. Although many nations are helping out now, this article poses a very valid concern: who will still be helping out in the future when the state of emergency is over? It's true that Haiti doesn't bring a lot to the table in either the political or economic world...so how much will nation-states continue to invest in Haiti after all is said and done?
ReplyDeletet also highlights a source of tension: what is the purpose of aid? Governments seem poised to respond at the sign of emergency (e.g. Haiti) and, according to Moss, feel obliged to intervene in the case of genocide. Beyond emergency - after the dust settles in Port au Prince - who's left?
ReplyDeleteGovernments' slogan very well could be "Furthering Our Interests through Aid." I've been thinking about Moss's comment that African "big men" used the parlance of Communism or Capitalism, but only to play the system - what they actually practiced was neither here nor there. It may be that it's this conflict of interest that keeps development assistance from working.
So, what's to be done? I think the private and non-profit sectors definitely have something to offer, but it's a two-level game. High politicking can undo years of work in a matter of weeks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI concur.
ReplyDelete