Haiti Earthquake

[Maciek]

Maybe so, but I strongly doubt that Haiti would be anywhere near the top ten list of most peoples travel destinations, if they were going to travel.

Visiting Haiti specifically has absolutely nothing to do with my point. What worries me is that people who have never in their entire lives set foot on "developing country" soil are ready to offer condescending ("expert"?) opinions about those countries' fates.

[Lethevich]

These were no "child Traffickers" or "kidnappers", just a group of Christian missionaries who were perhaps a little over zealous in attempting to help these children.

Being overzealous is no excuse. It doesn't matter what they were going to do with the children - if they wanted to help children they should spend their resources on food and temporary shelter rather than tickets to other countries, and as per Christian values, doing this would be morally absolutely just and not breaking the law to boot.

If he had parents, why was he at an orphanage run by Christian missionaries?

His parents could be mangled in a hospital or all number of things.

Did those missionaries know he had parents?

Exactly my point. They were completely unqualified to make the decision that they did, and once made it is irreversible. Who knows where the parents would be rehoused? They could be impossible to find even if the child somehow had the resources to begin a search.

Funny how with all the REAL crimes, child trafficking and other incalculable problems going on over there, and with the almost nonexistent police force and functional government, they are wasting their time and resources arresting these well meaning American's, who probably did more for those kids then they ever would have.   

So we should trust them because they are American Christians, regardless of their lawbreaking and zero accountability due to not being qualified to do what they did and nobody being aware of what they were doing? This is what laws are for - to protect people from the harm caused by this kind of activity, regardless of good intentions.

Them expecting everything to be fine in uprooting any child over the age of a baby and expecting it to just get used to the new situation you have ditched it in demonstrates an amazing lack of sensitivity - countless children in this situation go off the rails even within first world countries child protection services, let alone in this hamfisted plan. Losing a parent is traumatic, but losing the entire community you have grown up in - your grounding and sense of security? It takes amazing leaps of faith to feel that these factors can just be "ironed out".

By now enough aid is getting through to keep people going, and will inevitably improve all the time, so these children were not being saved from death. If they were being saved from illness, why didn't the organisation pay for medical aid and not tickets to the Dominican Republic? I don't see anything justifiable on a moral ground about their approach.

You may have good reason to look at the facts available so far and feel that these people were harmless, but I look at the same facts and see something different - signs of inconsideration and saviour complex-driven bravado. Who is right? It's probably somewhere in the middle. Also, the police would probably rather be helping out other Haitians than having to arrest these people The notion that this is a "lesser crime" which could be ignored in the face of others is not acceptable - even if their arrest is being used as a deterrent, that is an important precedent to set so that this doesn't continue to happen with who knows how many diverse consequences (some positive, some disastrous) for the children involved.

[Cristofori]

Visiting Haiti specifically has absolutely nothing to do with my point. What worries me is that people who have never in their entire lives set foot on "developing country" soil are ready to offer condescending ("expert"?) opinions about those countries' fates.

Unless your with the National Geographic, a missionary, or a thrill seeking daredevil, it may be best to let books and the internet do the traveling for you, because it appears that actually setting foot in some "developing countries" can be downright foolhardy and dangerous:

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1134.html

And this was BEFORE the earthquake!

Enormous efforts and sacrifices, and untold billions of dollars have been poured into places like Haiti around the world by the west (taxpayers like me who had no say), yet they always seem to remain in a perpetual state of "development", and offer little or nothing in return, except more immigrants, refugees and "asylum seekers". I shudder to think of what some of these places would be like if they were left totally on their own?

It shouldn't be a big mystery as to why some people are a bit cynical and unimpressed with the "progress" being made.

[Lilas Pastia]

You underestimate the usefulness of that excellent US Department of State web site.  Right on top there's a convenient drop down menu of countries you can inquire about. You might have fun checking Sudan , Sri Lanka, Honduras and a lot of dangerous places  where only the foolhardy would consider setting foot.

Better than that: if you can't be bothered checking them individually, there's a convenient link to a list of all 'Travel Alert' and 'Worldwide caution' places not recommended for travel : . It's on the same page as the Haiti link you list, and on each of those countries' descriptive page. True, it seems that most of these places are not in the civilized world as you understand it. You know, Africa, South and Central Asia... There are 31 countries on that list. It's a dangerous world out there.

................................................................................................

The saviour syndrome is the unfortunate result of an exalted sense of mission (litterally: these people describe themselves as misisonaries). In Chad, 2 years ago a group of 16 french and spanish citizens from an organization called L'Arche de Zoé attempted to smuggle 103 children out of the country (Note: in French, Noah's Ark is called L'Arche de Noé). The group was arrested at the border, detained, judged and sentenced to 8 years of hard labour. A joint inquest by the UN, International Red Cross and Unicef found that 85% of the children were not orphans (75% even had two parents). The whole thing was quite bizarre. Officially the association was founded to help children and provide humanitarian aid in 2004, following the tsunami disaster. One of its founders is also assistant manager to a firm called Paris Biotech Santé, with links to universities and research centers in the field of applied medical research. Accusations of organ trafficking and pedophile networks were made by tchadian President Idriss Déby. Although these sounded farfetched at first, many clues have been uncovered linking the group to these medical facilities, including evidence of direct financing by Paris Biotech. To this day, organ trafficking rumours still persist about this affair. Direct involvement by President Sarkozy was prominent in the transfer to french prisons and subsequent freedom of those involved. President Sarkozy's younger brother François is one of Paris Biotech's bord of directors...

Obviously, actions such as these could be the brainchild of well-meaning individuals. They could also cover darker, sinister  motives. What's astonishing with the Haiti incident is that the Tchad one is very recent (December 2007), its political and judiciary consequences are still not settled, and it was heavily publicized the world over. How on earth could the american group have entertained the notion of doing the very same thing without clearing their action with local (haitian) authorities ? Or asking american authorities about their project: the Department of State web site even has an entry they should have looked at:

# Responding to inquiries about the intercountry adoption process;
# Producing and maintaining country specific adoption information;
# Issuing Adoption Alerts in crisis situations; and
# Working with U.S. Embassies on diplomatic efforts with host governments about adoption laws and procedures.

How could these churches' directors (or panel of elders or whatnot) not have raised the prospect of "complications" for that action? The whole thing probably cost them tens of thousands of dollars, and counting (of course the church will foot the legal bills).  Following the Tchad incident, such actions have been described as  'compassionate neocolonialism'. No amount of compassion can be an excuse for such behaviour. Sheer stupidity is also not an excuse.

[Lethevich]

The saviour syndrome is the unfortunate result of an exalted sense of mission (litterally: these people describe themselves as misisonaries). In Chad, 2 years ago a group of 16 french and spanish citizens from an organization called L'Arche de Zoé attempted to smuggle 103 children out of the country (Note: in French, Noah's Ark is called L'Arche de Noé). The group was arrested at the border, detained, judged and sentenced to 8 years of hard labour. A joint inquest by the UN, International Red Cross and Unicef found that 85% of the children were not orphans (75% even had two parents).

According to an interviewed UNICEF representative on the TV news today, the same thing happened in Somalia - children were stolen away to Italy, presumably given families, and then the Somali families tracked their kids down and went through legal proceedings to try to get their children back. Imagine how screwed up that is for kids involved. It's one thing to be poor, it's another to be poor, relocated (in some cases through deception), wealthy with a "new improved" family, then poor again - and all because of some lawless crusaders thundering around doing their own thing.

[Cristofori]

Being overzealous is no excuse. It doesn't matter what they were going to do with the children - if they wanted to help children they should spend their resources on food and temporary shelter rather than tickets to other countries, and as per Christian values, doing this would be morally absolutely just and not breaking the law to boot.

Hello Lethe,

Foreign aid workers should respect and obey another laws in most circumstances, except for oppressive freedom of speech/religion laws (looking at it from the missionaries point of view that is). They would be under no moral obligation to obey those. They believe in obeying Jesus commandments first and not man's. They are supposed to "preach the gospel" so to speak. Which of course often lands them in hot water in many places.

However, stealing children usually isn't part of the plan! Mind you, I have no problem with these people over there helping them, but trying to ship them over to the U.S. permanently (if that's the case) in an attempt to run from their problems isn't the answer.

However, you or I may have a disregard for some laws in certain circumstances if we sincerely believed we were doing the right thing, and I don't blame them. With almost 400,000 Haitian Orphans BEFORE the quake (a ridiculous high number for such a small land), perhaps they felt (knew) that the government would fail miserably in doing what's best for these children.

It's easy to talk about rules and regulations when it's involving people we don't know or care about.

His parents could be mangled in a hospital or all number of things.

Possibly, with a chance they were whisked over to a U.S. hospital as well, where many of it's own citizens can't even afford health care.

Of course the Haitian officials don't seem to have any objections about that!

They were completely unqualified to make the decision that they did, and once made it is irreversible

Probably so, but I'm not the one living and working over there or dealing with the problems. One things for certain though, what's left of the government there may be the least qualified in making decisions of all.

Who knows where the parents would be rehoused? They could be impossible to find even if the child somehow had the resources to begin a search.

If things are that bad, they would have had a hard time finding them regardless. Were they supposed to sit waiting around in a cesspool in the meantime? Having a brief stay at another baptist orphanage in the Dominican Republic, a place considerably better off then Haiti would not have been unreasonable.

However, if they planned on taking them from there to the U.S., to be put up for adoption, then I have a problem with it. Also, these comments from the 8 year old girl might lead me to believe her parent couldn't take care of her and didn't really want to be found, as is frequently the case:

One eight-year-old girl told aid workers that she thought her mother had arranged a short holiday for her and sobbed: 'I am not an orphan. I still have my parents.'


Why would you drop off your child at a foreign baptist missionary orphange of all places, tell your kid she's going to summer camp, and then disappear? Didn't any of the missionaries meet or speak with these parents? How long was this little girl there? Also, then there are these comments from the pastor of their church:

Drew Ham, a pastor at the Central Valley Baptist Church in Meridian, Idaho, where most of the group were parishioners, said last night: 'From all accounts this is a paperwork issue. And the next thing our folks know, they're being arrested.'


He insisted the children had been verified as orphans and had come from an established orphanage in Port-au-Prince, although he couldn't provide the name.

Doesn't anybody speak French or English here? Why didn't the kids scream and holler to anybody that they were not orphans until now? If it was me, I would have been fighting tooth and nail to get out of there.

If it's true that they definitely were kidnapped against their will in some harebrained scheme, then let the chips fall as they may, but there seems to be some serious confusion here to say the least.

So we should trust them because they are American Christians, regardless of their lawbreaking and zero accountability due to not being qualified to do what they did and nobody being aware of what they were doing?

No, we shouldn't,  but I'd trust even less the words of a group of earthquake shocked 6-10 year old Haitians, who may only think that their parents are still around somewhere, or were coming back to get them.

I have yet to see anything really concrete from news sources that they were indeed not orphans. If it turns out that some of them were not orphans after all, I'd still like to know how they ended up with the missionaries. We shall wait for the updates.

Also, according to the missionaries, there were supposedly some Haitians "officials" and people from the Dominican Republic who OK'd the children going across the border. It now looks like these officials were not the right ones in authority, so some people may have been aware of what was going on.

This is what laws are for - to protect people from the harm caused by this kind of activity, regardless of good intentions.

There doesn't appear to be much law going around Haiti at the moment.

Them expecting everything to be fine in uprooting any child over the age of a baby and expecting it to just get used to the new situation you have ditched it in demonstrates an amazing lack of sensitivity - countless children in this situation go off the rails even within first world countries child protection services, let alone in this hamfisted plan.

Not to argue the rudiments of adoption, but PLENTY of people grow up adopted with few problems and lead normal, successful lives. Asian children in particular do very well, but I'd agree with you that for these Haitian children, things probably wouldn't work out so well, for anybody involved.

losing the entire community you have grown up in - your grounding and sense of security? It takes amazing leaps of faith to feel that these factors can just be "ironed out".

Many third world immigrants (and their children) are just up and leaving their communities and sense of security and in some cases, risking their lives and flocking to the west in droves, and once they are there they never want to go back, and I don't blame them.

Amazing leaps of faith can do wonders. 

By now enough aid is getting through to keep people going, and will inevitably improve all the time, so these children were not being saved from death. If they were being saved from illness, why didn't the organization pay for medical aid and not tickets to the Dominican Republic? I don't see anything justifiable on a moral ground about their approach.

Yes, I'm not sure what it was they were trying to do, but I'm quite sure it wasn't for any child selling, sex/slave trade or any heinous thing like that, which is what the initial reports over the web made it sound like.

You may have good reason to look at the facts available so far and feel that these people were harmless, but I look at the same facts and see something different - signs of inconsideration and saviour complex-driven bravado.

No, just that whenever the world see's the words "Baptist" or "Evangelical Christian" tied in with some mishap somewhere, they automatically assume the worst (Jim Jones - David Koresh), and waste no time getting out the hammer and nails to crucify them as fast as possible with out having all the facts.

Also, the police would probably rather be helping out other Haitians than having to arrest these people

Hmm... I'd really like to believe that. There were no police to be found after the earthquake for days, then they suddenly show up and shot two men execution style over their bag of rice, claiming that they were stealing food, which turned out to be a fallacy. One of the men survived, and stated they were given then food by relief workers.

http://www.prevalhaiti.com/messages.php/18688

With police like this, who needs criminals?

The notion that this is a "lesser crime" which could be ignored in the face of others is not acceptable - even if their arrest is being used as a deterrent, that is an important precedent to set so that this doesn't continue to happen

Yes, not acceptable under normal circumstances (whatever is normal for them) However, the current situation is abnormal, turned upside down if you will. Just like in war time, some priorities are in order. The Haitian government has bigger fish to fry. I suspect that they will realize this, (with pressure by some U.S. officials) and the American Baptists will get off somewhat lightly (by their standards) and eventually be sent back to the states.

And sadly, I don't think this will deter the real child traffickers one bit. They may even prosper more than ever now. There are now a lot of very desperate Haitian officials, police and military personal who could easily be bribed to look the other way.

Nice conversion though...

[Bulldog]

That's really great, Secondwind! That kind of spontaneous unselfish gesture is something that is quite new to the disaster aid scene.

In a sense, I think the whole world is fascinated by the prospect of rebuilding a whole country from scratch. How will it be done? What will they make of it? It's like a lab experiment on a huge scale.

You make it sound like a utopian project; I see a giant and nasty mess.

The day after the earthquake, I mentioned to my wife that Obama and Congress needed to start giving serious thought as to what the U.S. was going to do about Haiti after the emergency is over.  I don't have any answers, but your posting raises a first question:

Is the U.S. really going to do for Haiti what it wasn't willing to do for New Orleans?

[Cristofori]

You make it sound like a utopian project; I see a giant and nasty mess.

The day after the earthquake, I mentioned to my wife that Obama and Congress needed to start giving serious thought as to what the U.S. was going to do about Haiti after the emergency is over.  I don't have any answers, but your posting raises a first question:

Is the U.S. really going to do for Haiti what it wasn't willing to do for New Orleans?

Oh yes, our favorite past time. Nation rebuilding!
Obama could just tack that on to the 3.5 trillion deficit.

No thanks, I have absolutely no desire to see Haiti become the 51st state of the union.

We have enough problems already.

[Lilas Pastia]

Is the U.S. really going to do for Haiti what it wasn't willing to do for New Orleans?

Very good question. In the press today, an official from one of the countless non-government organizations at work there was asked by the reporter "who is running Haiti right now". The answer: the US government, the NGOs, and the US military. He immediately corrected himself by heading the list with 'the haitian government'. Too late. The truth had been spoken. The haitian governament is invisible and is to all extants and purposes MIA.

The US Government has huge stakes there. First, to show that it cares (it's close to the Land, and there are 1.5 million haitians on the continent). Then that it can. It sure does. But it has to demonstrate that effectiveness. Any little glitch will be pointed at. And finally, that it has the will and capacity to bring the whole process to a successful conclusion. That is the most difficult. Huge efforts will be required. Failures will be pooh-pooed. Achievements will be credited to the local government. The whole reconstruction process will take about a decade to be brought to term. Obama's Administration will not see the end of it. Another President will either take the blame or the credit for the results.

[Cristofori]

The US Government has huge stakes there. First, to show that it cares (it's close to the Land, and there are 1.5 million haitians on the continent). Then that it can. It sure does. But it has to demonstrate that effectiveness. Any little glitch will be pointed at. And finally, that it has the will and capacity to bring the whole process to a successful conclusion. That is the most difficult. Huge efforts will be required. Failures will be pooh-pooed. Achievements will be credited to the local government. The whole reconstruction process will take about a decade to be brought to term. Obama's Administration will not see the end of it. Another President will either take the blame or the credit for the results.

This is all assuming that a hole host of possible scenarios doesn't happen; war with Iran, war with China/Taiwan, escalating war in Afghanistan, a catastrophic terrorist attack, a prolonged big recession, etc.

Any one or more of these could put a damper on the Haitian's hopes in a quick hurry.

I do hope you are right on one of your predictions though, that the Obama administration will not see the end of it, and will preferably be done with it in 2012.

[Bulldog]

Very good question. In the press today, an official from one of the countless non-government organizations at work there was asked by the reporter "who is running Haiti right now". The answer: the US government, the NGOs, and the US military. He immediately corrected himself by heading the list with 'the haitian government'. Too late. The truth had been spoken. The haitian governament is invisible and is to all extants and purposes MIA.

The US Government has huge stakes there. First, to show that it cares (it's close to the Land, and there are 1.5 million haitians on the continent). Then that it can. It sure does. But it has to demonstrate that effectiveness. Any little glitch will be pointed at. And finally, that it has the will and capacity to bring the whole process to a successful conclusion. That is the most difficult. Huge efforts will be required. Failures will be pooh-pooed. Achievements will be credited to the local government. The whole reconstruction process will take about a decade to be brought to term. Obama's Administration will not see the end of it. Another President will either take the blame or the credit for the results.

Sorry, but I don't see a 10 year huge effort on the part of the U.S. - short attention span if nothing else.

[Florestan]

No offense meant, ladies and gentlemen, but has anyone of you considered going to Haiti and offering your help in the most direct way? I ask this because some of you seem to know exactly what should be done, how and by whom. Maybe your expertise and ideas are just the missing link for clearing up the Haitian mess...

[Scarpia]

Very good question. In the press today, an official from one of the countless non-government organizations at work there was asked by the reporter "who is running Haiti right now". The answer: the US government, the NGOs, and the US military. He immediately corrected himself by heading the list with 'the haitian government'. Too late. The truth had been spoken. The haitian governament is invisible and is to all extants and purposes MIA.

The US Government has huge stakes there. First, to show that it cares (it's close to the Land, and there are 1.5 million haitians on the continent). Then that it can. It sure does. But it has to demonstrate that effectiveness. Any little glitch will be pointed at. And finally, that it has the will and capacity to bring the whole process to a successful conclusion. That is the most difficult. Huge efforts will be required. Failures will be pooh-pooed. Achievements will be credited to the local government. The whole reconstruction process will take about a decade to be brought to term. Obama's Administration will not see the end of it. Another President will either take the blame or the credit for the results.

I don't concur.  The US should help them  bury the dead and provide emergency relief to the seriously injured.  Perhaps they should reconstruct the port and airport.  Rebuilding the country is their job. 

[Lethevich]

Cristofori - I didn't ignore your post, but it'd make me go cross-eyed writing a reply of the required length I agree with a fair bit of what you say, though, especially about the state of the country. You also make good points about the amount of the population who if given a choice would like to emmigrate to somewhere like the US, but there are also plenty who wouldn't (kind of like me living in Europe, I would be financially better off working the same job in the US, but like it here), and at such a young age children are not sufficiently mentally developed to make a balanced choice - this is before the many other factors such as family ties.

Rebuilding the country is their job. 

This is where degrees of morality most strongly work their way into the subject I suppose, because to say such a thing means an acceptance that this will happen again and again, as there is no way that Haitians can afford to build anything resembling earthquake-resistant buildings...

[Scarpia]

This is where degrees of morality most strongly work their way into the subject I suppose, because to say such a thing means an acceptance that this will happen again and again, as there is no way that Haitians can afford to build anything resembling earthquake-resistant buildings...

Earthquakes happen every 250 years or so, it is not their main problem.  In 1978, Haiti and China had roughly the same standard of living.  Would China be better off now if the US had gone over there in 1978 and build nice little houses for the Chinese to live in?  What happened was Mao died.  There is no question of the need for disaster relief.  If Haiti is to become anything other than the hell-hole it was before the earth quake Haitians will have to do it.

[secondwind]

No offense meant, ladies and gentlemen, but has anyone of you considered going to Haiti and offering your help in the most direct way? I ask this because some of you seem to know exactly what should be done, how and by whom. Maybe your expertise and ideas are just the missing link for clearing up the Haitian mess...

I know just about enough about disaster relief to know I wouldn't have any idea where to start, so I limit my decisions to selecting which group gets this week's donation--Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Oxfam, Habitat for Humanity. . . .There are people who have training and experience in dealing with these terrible situations, and I've met a few.  I'm just not one of them.

[Lilas Pastia]

There are two huge problems in Haiti. First, the earthquake and its destructive consequences. Second, the chronic state of disarray, corruption and technical bankruptcy of the haitian governments. The latter certainly shouldn't be minimized, let alone dismissed. But it shouldn't serve as a 'punishment' by which we rub those haitian noses into the mud.

Right now the government has to all extents and purposes abdicated all leadership in the current crisis. The US Ambassador is the de facto head honcho in Port-au-Prince (from today's newspaper reports - I'm not making that up). What will happen in the future is anybody's guess. But in the present, there are huge very immediate problems that need to be addressed.

I don't have a solution. If the problem was simple, there wouldn't be a problem. I think we should support what is done now by those involved that are working around the clock in difficult conditions (military, relief groups, volunteers) and what will be proposed in March by the panel of countries to find a long term solution.

[oyasumi]

[Lilas Pastia]

"Good night", Oyasumi. Tthis being your first contribution to this thread, I expect you have something truly important to say. Somehow, I fail to get the meaning of your post. Maybe you can explain how te haitian people can count on people like you  . God bless you !

[DavidW]

Oyasumi, that was funny and a little levity is welcome on this thread.