Photo Credit: http://notmytribe.com/2008/the-united-nations-pushes-war-and-starvation-onto-the-peoples-of-iraq-afghanistan-somalia-congo-and-haiti-85613.html
By Andrew Brimer
February 7, 2010
Filed under Opinion & Editorial
Haunting images of starving, dehydrated children, homeless refugees, and corpses in the streets of Port-Au-Prince have filled the internet and our television screens for several weeks now. In the aftermath of this terrible disaster, the United States, UNICEF, and dozens of other nations have contributed personnel, equipment, resources, and money to the stricken nation of Haiti. Groups like the Red Cross now accept donations made through text messages. Celebrities put on concerts for Earthquake relief in Haiti. The governor of Pennsylvania flew down to Florida personally to escort a newly nationalized group of Haitian orphans to their new homes. Barack Obama even wrote a piece for Newsweek entitled, “Why Haiti Matters.” (Of course the piece gave way too much credit to the highly deficient United Nations presence in Haiti and manages to both praise the United States while at the same time claiming we are too weak to accomplish anything without coalitional help from other nations, but at this point what else might one expect from President Obama?)
The reason I list all of these – fundraisers, donations, mission trips, concerts, troop movements, speeches, and articles – is that they show one thing. Helping Haiti is the in/cool/hip thing to do. To all of these overnight bleeding hearts and concerned citizens, I must ask- Where were YOU the day before the Earthquake?
The fact that Haiti is one of the poorest nations in the world, with many of its residents impoverished, malnourished and uneducated, even at the best of times, is no secret. Prior to the earthquake, a simple Google search or trip on Wikipedia could tell a person all about Haiti’s troubles. World Governments and the UN knew all about Haitian struggles; in fact, the U.S. has occupied Haiti multiple times in the last century, most recently in 1994.
Knowledge of the Haitian predicament, however, did not ensue in Haitian relief; no, it took an earthquake to move the world to help Haiti. In fact, the U.S. in recent years has shown greater interest in fighting AIDs in Africa, curing cancer, or stopping “global warming” than it has in helping an impoverished nation just a few hundred miles from our shores.
Essentially we must face the cold hard truth: help for Haiti only came about because of the pure sensational nature of a tragedy such as the earthquake. So when global governments speak of the international outpouring of care for Haiti, we need to remember: Haitians were starving just as much before the earthquake and Haitians suffered from poor medical care and poverty before the earthquake.
I must ask, what happens to Haiti when our relief efforts are concluded? When the victims of an earthquake return to just being the victims of poverty, will the international conscious still feel as compelled to assist?
Loading ...
February 20th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Mr. Brimer,
I find your article, while particularly relevant, important and valid, quite ironic considering your last editorial.
In the same media outlet that you use to object to the United States extending precious resources to support problematic, troubled nations like Iraq and Afghanistan because we have other problems to deal with (Yemen), you’re advocating for us (and other countries) to extend our resources to countries who have problems. Do you see a logical disconnect here? I do.
You only want the United States to employ the use of resources when it’s in dealing with countries who present threat to the US, i.e., the brewing problems in Yemen. In contrast, countries in Africa, particularly the ones who are suffering from issues with AIDS, are suffering because of the lack of institutional resources and proper government structures, meaning their threat to the US is no where near as relevant or severe. By your reasoning (from your previous article), really we have no reason to assist. Those countries don’t present a significant threat to us, and neither does Haiti, for that matter, and therefore, our obligation is non-existent. If we apply your reasoning to the perspectives of other countries, *no one* has an incentive to help countries in Africa, and therefore we should allow countries like Niger, Botswana, Lesotho, Kenya, Malawi and the like to simply suffer, because there’s no personal gain from expending resources to a country we have no obligation to.
Simply put, if you cannot support the US extending aid to a country we are already occupying, why would you support the US giving money to a country that has nothing to do with us?
And additionally, I’d like to ask you where exactly you would like to place Haiti on our radar after it turns into another poverty stricken country and were more removed from the recency earthquake–when the media stops covering poor images of impoverished children, should the US even continue to care once the global spotlight on their good deeds burns out? And what about the rest of the world? From where does this moral and ethical responsibility for nations like the US and multi-national governing bodies like the UN (which, as a personal aside, I know you don’t even respect or support!) originate from?
Best,
Ms. Chowdhery
PS: I think you’re referring to the international “conscience” in your last paragraph.
[Reply]