Wednesday, October 21, 2015


Humanitarianism in Haiti
           
            Last year in my French 101 class, my professor played a documentary about the awful earthquake that struck Haiti on January 10, 2010. This documentary delved into the complex issues that the aftermath of the earthquake had for the Haitian people. More specifically, the documentary described the problems that the Haitian government was facing when it came to reconstruction efforts in the country. Many countries all around the globe like the United States and organizations such as the United Nations tried to help the Haitians repair their decimated country through humanitarian aid. This included money donations, home and school reconstructions, food donations, and more. While I believe that humanitarian action is incredibly important when a disaster strikes a nation, I also think that the aid that was given to the Haitians has actually had unintended negative effects on the country’s recovery from the natural disaster.
            
             As more and more foreign organizations and countries tried to help the Haitian people, it only created more problems for the nation. One example is that groups of people that were predominantly white were building new housing developments and teaching in schools, however all of those jobs were going to the wealthy white volunteers and not to the people who actually needed those jobs- the Haitians. This was, and continues to be, problematic because if willing and able Haitian citizens couldn’t get jobs because the jobs were going to volunteers instead of them, money wasn’t circulating through the Haitian economy. This means that the economy had no chance of growing because people didn’t have an income that they could buy goods and services with. This ties in with the colonialism aspect or humanitarianism that we talked about in class. A common criticism of humanitarian acts are that it can be seen as colonialism. This could definitely be seen throughout Haiti’s earthquake relief. One example was how after the earthquake, there was a new presidential election in Haiti. However, the election was heavily tampered with, and Bill Clinton and other presidents from other nations were donating money and supporting candidates in Haiti that they wanted to win, instead of letting the Haitian people vote and decide who the best fit for their struggling nation was. Even though the US wasn’t overtly trying to control the Haitians, the money that we donated to the candidates that we wanted to win is an example of how we got involved in an election that we had really no place in. Our attempts to shape Haiti’s government might have come from a place of good intentions, but it really ended up hurting the Haitian people, and it heavily tampered with their new election which has caused a lot of political turmoil in Haiti till this day.

            
            I think humanitarian efforts are extremely important when a natural disaster or a domestic disaster strikes a nation that doesn’t know how to deal with the problems. However, I believe that the people of the nation have to have a say in the restoration of their country and be able to make choices about their politics and their economy by themselves. 

5 comments:

  1. Hi Baylie,
    I understand your argument from the viewpoint that some aid can be seen as colonialism given that the more powerful nation coming in can influence the state to do things their way, instead of how the people of that nation want to. Although I agree that this can be negative, I think in some cases it is a necessary evil because some states, like Haiti, couldn't rebuild themselves at all without this aid from more powerful countries. How do you think these powerful countries could aid countries like Haiti without it appearing too much like colonialism?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello,
    I like that you discussed the issues in Haiti. I actually traveled there 2 summers ago to help distribute food and help in a school. While I wholeheartedly agree with your point about how tampering with Haiti's elections was wrong, I disagree with your point regarding the donations of food and the reconstruction of the country. Haiti, as an island, lacked the resources to rebuild within their country (for food especially). Most of the land in Haiti is not conducive to growing crops or supporting any kind of means of producing food, which makes it hard for the state, without outside help to feed all of its people. In addition to this, there are many children that were orphaned after the earthquake. Due to the fact that orphanages do not bring in any income, outside donations and volunteer work have been critical for both their construction and continued functioning. I agree that in some instances outside help has hurt the Haitian economy, but for the most part outside help saved many lives in Haiti.

    -Ben

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nice blog Baylie! I agree with you that we did shape Haiti into a country that we could work with. However, I also agree with Jonathan that we had to help Haiti. It is a very poor country that without out other countries' help, it would not have been able to rebuild itself. I like his point that this is colonialism. We do not tend to think of that anymore since it is not as widely seen as much as it has in the past. We made Haiti into a country that could benefit us. That is a realist outcome. The only way that I can think of helping another country after a disaster without it being colonialism would be to just send volunteers and money and have the government in place decide what to do with them and it. With this comes the problem that the government might not use it to help its country as much as the United States might want it. It is a double-edge sword. There are no guarantees in this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I really enjoyed this alternative look at humanitarian intervention. Since it's usually only associated with intentionally positive effects or negative effects, this is the first instance I've seen where humanitarian aid was supported by the international community and still failed in an unconventional fashion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I really enjoyed this alternative look at humanitarian intervention. Since it's usually only associated with intentionally positive effects or negative effects, this is the first instance I've seen where humanitarian aid was supported by the international community and still failed in an unconventional fashion.

    ReplyDelete