On Conan O’Brien’s final Tonight Show Friday night, he said, “Don’t be cynical. Cynicism is my least favorite trait.” I don’t want to be cynical. It’s not constructive. But on that spectrum between frustrated and cynical, I’m not in a very good place right now. Just hours before that show, the four big networks joined together to broadcast a telethon to raise emergency aid for Haiti. America cares. We’re coming to the rescue. When people are in need, it brings out the best in the American people — regardless of our politics, we are united in support. Locally, my church is collecting “health kits for Haiti.” There’s a button on its website to help raise money. I’m inspired by the outpouring of goodwill. It’s good and necessary and motivated by love. But at the same time, I’m troubled that no one seems to be asking why Haiti is so wretchedly poor to begin with — so poor that even their presidential palace can be toppled by an earthquake. As soon as the passion of this moment fades, the US government will continue contributing to repressive trade policies that keep places like Haiti impoverished. Am I the only one disillusioned…concerned that almost nobody — especially those in our media or government — is talking about this? Charity is good. It helps people. It feels good. It’s easy to do, and easy to understand. But addressing the roots of structural poverty is the real challenge. A Toys for Tots-type organization collecting toys (“new and in their original packaging please”) brings cheer to poor kids who might not otherwise have a happy Christmas. And while caring people head to the mall with a longer shopping list, our society scuttles an opportunity to help those same families not to be impoverished by health care expenses. Again: simple charity…structural poverty. During tough economic times or when dealing with the human suffering caused by natural disasters at home or abroad, each of us is confronted with a personal choice. You can: ignore; respond; or ask why, learn, and act to address the root of problem. Most good people take door #2. It’s human nature. Nobody wants to open door #3. But we must. For example, seismic safety is a luxury only the privileged can afford. While the numbers aren’t in yet on Haiti’s quake, in 2001 a similar quake hit El Salvador and left nearly a quarter of the country (1.5 million people) homeless. (2001 was a momentous year for the USA, but imagine…a quarter of your country homeless.) An earthquake of the same magnitude hit my hometown that same year, and no one died. I was at work in our new-at-the-time building and remember riding it out like a hobby horse (suddenly thankful for the code requirements that made me spend extra for construction that could withstand such a quake). The best those living in a Haitian shantytown can afford for earthquake protection is to live in what’s called “miniskirt housing” — cinderblocks for the lower half of the wall, and light corrugated tin for the upper walls and roof. When a miniskirt house tumbles down, at least it won’t kill you. We can blame Haiti’s squalor on voodoo, on its heritage of slavery, on corruption, on the fact that its main export is topsoil (in a treeless land, each rainstorm flushes precious soil into the sea), or on many other factors. But we must also look at American and European trade policies that help keep nations like Haiti underdeveloped — tariffs that help keep them “banana republics.” A banana republic is a poor land whose economy is dominated by the export of its leading natural resource. It’s subjugated by First World trade policies that allow it to export raw materials but not finished products. Higher tariffs for processed goods make it nearly impossible to export anything but cheap raw materials to the already-developed world competitively. Put simply, Haiti can export raw sugar but not candy. Ghana can export cocoa but not chocolate bars. Honduras can export peanuts but not peanut butter. Compounding that are subsidies for American agricultural products. Haiti would love to compete fairly for the American market with its sugar, rice, and textiles, but tariffs and subsidies created by our government (to protect you and me) make it impossible. In Haiti, you’ll see fields that once grew rice now left unplanted. And across the street, a shack sells rice grown in the USA. That is an example of structural poverty put upon countless millions of people, in part by the trade policies of the wealthy world. Sure, it may be good business for us in the short term. But having squalor south of our border may not be in even the greediest American’s self-interest in the long term. The most widely used term for poor countries these days is “the Developing World.” But I find that label ironic, since so many First World economic policies systematically and actively keep places like Haiti underdeveloped. (The chapter on El Salvador in my Travel as a Political Act book explains this more thoroughly.) OK, I guess I am cynical. (I think that feeling’s stoked by the growing power of corporations to shape policies that impact real people — like the Haitians our hearts will go out to for next week or so. Even before everyone was dug out of the rubble that was once Port au Prince, the US Supreme Court gave American corporations the constitutional right to be protected as individuals. That means they have the right to buy our government in the name of “free speech.” I fear our “democracy” is fast becoming one with a government still “by, for, and of the people” — but via the corporations we own. And, as that happens, why would our government ever reconsider these trade policies?) Give aid or deal with the roots of the problem? That’s the question. Mother Teresa inspired us to feed the poor. Like everyone else, I loved her. El Salvador’s Archbishop Oscar Romero asked what were the roots of his nation’s poverty. He was shot. Today, my pastor worked a slide show on Haiti into his sermon: a series of horrific scenes of squalor. The last frame read: “Haiti before the earthquake.” On my last trip south of our border, I heard a local troubadour sing: “It’s not easy to see God in the orphan child who cleans the windshields at a traffic light…but we must.” So what do we do? I’m not sure. We can ask ourselves how costly it would be for the US to allow free trade so poor countries can compete with us. We can learn more about these issues. And we can support Bread for the World — see www.bread.org — which lobbies courageously, effectively, and against great odds for friendlier trade policies for people like the Haitians.
No Aid to Haiti
Comments
Thanks for bringing to light the truth about ‘banana republics.’ I have always thought of banana republic as a high end apparel shop in the mall, but the real thing is much less glamorous. Now the question is, “what do we do to change these policies on subsidies and tariffs so that ‘developing nations’ can begin to develop?”
Why does Rick find fault in everything the U. S. does? I find his logic flawed.
Ah Rick, so glad to hear you defend the idea of the free, unhindered transfer of goods (and labour?) on a level playing field…. in short, a defense of one of the central themes of capitalist economic theory. This is not a “left vs. right” issue, because both major political parties are guilty, whether they think they are protecting their friends in the corporate world or labour unions. Remember how the free trade deal with Columbia, one of our most loyal allies in South America, stalled in Congress because of objections from labour and the farm lobbies? And if the US is guilty in this regard, we look positively angelic compared to the EU’s “Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)”.
Steve, exactly how is Rick’s logic flawed? US agricultural policies only benefit US agricultural producers and manufacturers hurt US consumers (through higher prices) and producers in developing countries. I am a conservative “free marketeer”. Eliminating the tariffs would result in lower prices for US consumers and allow people in developing countries to earn enough to become customers for American products.
I’ve had similar thoughts, Rick. Why are we reactive instead of proactive?
I totally agree with everything you’ve said. I have a friend who, before the earthquake, worked in Haiti as a volunteer nurse for about a year. She was not the least bit surprised that there were so many casualties and damage, but expressed similar outrage that no one seemed to care about the well-being of Haiti until something horrible like this happened. We pat ourselves on the back for donating now, but where the hell were we before the earthquake? Why haven’t we given Haiti a fair opportunity to become prosperous and a full member of the international community in the first place?
Capitalism is our name and calamities are our game. The poorest of the poor only register on our collective radar if they can help us. Winning hearts and minds in places like Afghanistan and Vietnam and Kosovo and Iraq by building schools and hospitals suit our purposes. No such benefit is perceived in Haiti – although if tens of thousands start evacuating to our shores, we will soon be nation building in Haiti. But you can’t help but wonder if we weren’t spending trillions on wars, bailing out feckless financial institutions, and doling out corporate welfare whether our foreign and domestic policies wouldn’t be more constructive. You think?
Very thought-provoking piece. I applaud the people donating money, but also wonder how long before this ’cause of the moment’ joins New Orleans, Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. in the rear-view mirror of most Americans’ consciousness. That said, the question is still “what do we do?” Lower tariffs might help, but they are not a panacea, and they will likely also help those very corporations Rick talks about (i.e. free trade would create incentives for foreign multinationals–who have the managerial and technical expertise–to transform raw goods into finished products in Haiti themselves, a la maquiladoras in Mexico). The reality is that once the rubble is cleared away, Haitians will end up needing to do most of the heavy lifting themselves to fix structural deficiencies in their political and economic systems. It will not be easy, but as Chile has shown, it is possible.
A friend did research on the poverty in Haiti and one of the causes is the pregnancy rate. Women start bearing children at an early age and the country has the highest mortality rate for women in childbirth. Compounding that problem is that she may already have 3 or 4 children. I don’t know the answer to where the father is. This, he found, is why there are so many orphanages. I am passing on second hand information that was researched last week, but some may want to investigate further. Education on all levels should help many of the impoverished citizens of our world, including the young in America!
Rick, I agree with everything you’ve said, and it’s refreshing to read it. The only thing I can see that you left out is why there is lack of leadership in Haiti. Their duly elected president, Aristide, was overthrown by your government and mine (Canada) and France, out of fear that he might enact policies that would help the poor of Haiti, but hinder the ability of first world nations to have their consumer products made cheaply enough. Thanks again for your courage to speak out.
Rick, I can see your point on structural poverty in Haiti and why Haiti doe not need “charity”. Since you are an intellectually honest person, you must also be concerned with the structural poverty that exists in your own country, primarily in the African American community, where “charity” in the form of welfare policies put in place over the last 40 years has not given a hand up but instead keep a proud people down. You don’t have to look far to see the results of “charity” in the guise of helping people.
Thanks for the post. Like you, we all fight to keep our cynism in check even though it’s hard sometimes. I’ve often thought it was ironic that everyday people are starving and dying and with the internet and 24-hour news, we are all well aware of it. Yet, we only tend to actively care when somebody is throwing a concert or when a catastrophic disaster occurs. Nonsensical. The cynic in me says, sure we care, but only when it’s convenient or if we get a nice soundtrack out of it.
Rick I am with you on this. Bringing up another situation that seems impossible for the regular working class to do something about, makes my head hurt even more. My husband and I talk all the time on these subjects and it just goes in circles because you don’t know what to believe or what to do. I do know that it would be better for everyone in the world to work and have a purpose. It is so healthy for people to take care of themselves and families and be able to have pride in what they do. We need to focus on everyone world wide and the US to be able to work and produce.
Charity can also exacerbate a problem. We must distinguish between periodic emergencies which dictate a response from chronic problems. Your post addresses both but doesn’t quite distinguish them. Periodic emergencies, like this earthquake, require external support and relief, but in the case of chronic problems, like Haiti’s overall condition, require internal change and leadership. When we introduce external support to chronic problems we run the high risk of corruption and counter effect. As you allude, if you feed poverty, it doesn’t solve poverty, it only forestalls it. I wonder if it is arrogance for a rich country to believe it can solve the problems of a poor country? Especially when that rich country has the same problems, only not so concentrated, so not as noticeable. Real solutions will only come from inside, and I believe it must start with education. Perhaps the rest of the world can assist in that education, but as to the solution, we all must ultimately solve our own problems first. Maybe charity begins with first being the best example one can be?
I too agree with Rick. There are so many more underlying issues with some countries. I feel we need to help those here in our US. How many people here don’t have a roof, food or medical care. The economy has produced many more thousands of these here on our soil. I believe that some help is needed for Haiti. It needs to be limited. Where is the help for our local neighbors? Hurricane Katrina? Job Losses? Need I say More? May God bless all of us.
Good topic, but simplistic in approach. Haiti’s poverty is multifaceted and complex. Every society must first look at itself and ask why it functions the way it does. Why has there been such a leadership deficit in Haiti? Why do some countries in the world value education and others ignore it wholly? Is the value of individual freedom of worth when it means that some will fail and others succeed? Should government remove all consequences for poor decisions and actions? A capitalist society only functions well with a motivated, educated, moral populace. It fails almost completely for the lazy, the uneducated, and the weakest members of society. Regardless of the form of government humanity has never been able to produce a civilization without an elite group. Absolute equality in resources has never existed. I prefer a society that rewards hard work and moral behavior. I also realize that in stating that I also accept that some will fail miserably for a multitude of reasons. The question then becomes where do we set the safety net for the weakest and those who fail at life?
…almost nobody — especially those in our media or government — is talking about this… Bill Moyers presented a solid argument regarding this on his show last Friday, the 22nd of January. The following link leads to the clip and a transcript: http://bit.ly/7of9hS …the US Supreme Court gave American corporations the constitutional right to be protected as individuals. That means they have the right to buy our government in the name of “free speech.†The following opinion from analyst Karl Denninger is an interesting take on corporations’ freedom of speech. He also provides an idea on how we might continue to protect that freedom while also reining in potential abuses of it. See: http://bit.ly/7PfWmP And poster Steve, I find your two-sentence-long post to be fascinating. The first sentence—a question—is a classic logical fallacy and yet you then follow it by stating that you find Rick Steves’ “logic flawed.”
I feel like the pre-existing poverty in Haiti and the historical context has been brought up a lot in NPR stories. I don’t watch commercial television, so perhaps my view of what’s going on there is different. I do feel though, that Haiti’s corrupt government is a huge problem before the quake, and now in their noted absence and that is not being talked about as much.
I’ve seen and read a lot of coverage lately about the historical background for Haiti’s problems on both network news and the press, so this essay seemed simplistic to me as well.
I think this makes sense. I’ve been trying to find as many ways as I can to help those in Haiti and affected by the earthquake. But I’ve been doing a lot of research into their economy and why they were having a hard time before the earthquake. “When the rich wage war, it’s the poor who die.” Jean-Paul Sartre Economic war, is still violence.
So the article is called “No Aid to Haiti”, but then at the end, Rick suggests donating to Bread For The World, a group that is helping in Haiti. Rick, you make very good points in this article about the subjugation of Third World countries by Western trade policies. Those are all valid and true and those need to be addressed, and it’s something that hasn’t been brought to the American public’s consciousness, except maybe those who pay attention to Noam Chomsky or Thom Hartmann. But I can’t help but feel that calling your article “No Aid to Haiti” is actually a bit disingenuous, a ploy of sorts to get the Limbaugh fans of the world to come here expecting to cheer along some xenophobic rant. Those people aren’t smart enough to get the nuance, and I’m afraid they’ll just make assumptions from the title and assume you’re now a part of their crowd, a crowd you’ve justifiably spent your entire career being against.
Rick — one step in the right direction to solve the underlying problem in Haiti is to forgive their crushing debt. Please lend your voice to this effort. A quick google search will give all the numbers you need to see how this keeps them from “developing”. Tony
God right now we have so many of our own homeless and Rick believe it or not there are some parts of the US that are third world country conditions. Help home first
Marlie, just a question: Why “help home first”? I agree that the poor here are important. But are they somehow more important, more human, than the poor elsewhere? I often hear this kind of statement, but I’ve never really understood it. Thanks, Tildy
Rick, either love it or leave it. Enough of this left-wing hog wash.
Rick, thank you for speaking your true and very human opinion!! I just recently read “Travel as a Political Act” and it was an astonishingly honest and thought-provoking read. The chapter on El Salvador reminded me of the book “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins. Although Mr. Perkins’ “autobiography” has been discounted by many, including our gov’t, it was a good introduction to the issues “developing” countries have, often directly the fault of US and multi-national corporations. God bless Haiti, and may we all take some responsibility in relieving the plight of the world’s poorest.