Now, the world has decided to lend a hand to this country’s ruined people. However, this help’s modalities have sparked huge controversies. First, there was the question of how much money was needed. European Union countries discussed that within their usual institutional bodies and organized a series of meetings, thus preferring a normative and very slow procedure. It’s understandable to think thoroughly when great sums are at stake, but was their first motive to help more people or just to determine who will be more influential during the reconstruction process?
The second debate was about the omnipresence of the United States and this country’s assistance methods. Haiti has always been under US supervision, and it’s not known if Haitians were against this. Anyway, they probably noticed that while the EU and the UN were delayed in bureaucratic meanders, the US rescue teams were already at ground zero. In addition, the atmosphere is chaotic in Haiti, and the distribution of help is a real security matter. Of course, insecurity existed before the quake, too, and Haitians are the first ones to know that the UN could never handle it correctly. Still, the US’s ability and speed in providing help and security simultaneously make some people uneasy.
The UN secretary-general has proposed coordinating the help through UN mechanisms. The US didn’t oppose the idea, but it made people ask why this organization couldn’t manage it before. Besides, it’s hard to understand why a country that is providing the biggest part of the assistance must discuss this with more minor contributors. But the EU has supported the UN secretary-general’s views. Additionally, France seems to be quite doubtful about the US’s real intentions. There is an implicit supposition that the US is actually occupying Haiti; thus assuring stability or security after a natural disaster is just a pretext. It reminds us of Charles de Gaulle, who always preferred to emphasize that following World War II, France was not “saved” by US soldiers but was “occupied” by them. Nevertheless, US forces have had a hard time maintaining security in Haiti. So maybe they are not that close to occupying anywhere, but the criticism still goes on. Then, there are others who argue that Haitians should decide if they want to be literally attached to the US, as if Haitians had any chance before today to decide their own destiny or as if a democratic referendum would be possible under the present circumstances. Let’s imagine that the Haitian president managed to get parliamentary approval, the result would not be accepted as sufficiently democratic; if he manages to hold a referendum, the result will be seen as influenced by US aid. So, France would never cease to believe that it had lost Haiti in favor of the US.
Was it imaginable before now to witness a diplomatic struggle of that caliber when people are dying under wreckage? Now it is. We are not certain about the US’s goals in Haiti, but we’ll soon learn them. Even if the US is ill-intentioned, the outcome can still be positive for Haitians. On the other hand, we are almost sure about the intentions of those who criticize the US. But the question of why they didn’t help more effectively and quickly and save more people remains unanswered. What a shame.
