Haiti - How the World Failed It

I have just finished reading Jonathan M. Katz's book - "The Big Truck That Went By". It is a depressing read. Katz, a reporter for the Associated Press was in Haiti when in 2010, that country experienced a massive earthquake. His book chronicles in a very personal way the consequences not just of the earthquake but as well the effect of the billions of dollars of poorly allocated donations, or in so many cases - the failure for that money or aid to come. However, for me, what was most alarming was the fact that I believed so many of the myths that are perpetuated when the stories of such disasters are reported. I should know better.

For example, there was no mass rioting or civil unrest in the aftermath of the earthquake. In fact, Katz reports that there have been numerous reports for the past century clearly stating that people, after a disaster, are far more likely to be supportive of each other than harmful. The press reported that Haitians were rioting. That was false. The press printed a retraction but no one remembers that. Forty-two different governments sent military aid, the USA sent more than 22,000 troops. The money that it cost to support those troops were counted as part of the cost of the humanitarian aid. Haitians did not need soldiers to control them - they needed people to assist with the disposals of thousands of bodies and to help to rebuild their destroyed homes and businesses. Any rioting that occurred was because the food distribution "system" created by outside governments and the various NGOs was at best, inadequate. The food in many cases just did not get to the various camps that the outside forces had created.

Another example - There were constant concerns and allegations about the leadership of the Haitian government stealing the money. Consequently, much of the money was left under the control of outside bodies who appear to have seldom understood the needs of the Haitian people. That may have been because, for the most part, there were few Haitians allowed to participate in the discussions as to how that money should be spent. The is no doubt that at a minor level bribery and/or manipulation may have occurred. But as Katz notes the level of financial manipulation at the highest level was all-pervasive. In Western governments it is perfectly allowable for a Senator, who receives campaign donations from a specific company, to ensure that that company gets a contract worth millions of dollars, to sell their product to the disaster relief effort, but it is not acceptable for a Haitian to attempt to influence who locally gets small contracts. The bureaucracy, from Katz's report, was unwieldy, expensive to operate and ineffective at delivering the needed supports. It was a star-driven (eg Bill Clinton, Shaw Penn) show that may have done more damage than good. The textile businesses that were supposedly created to create jobs and income for Haitians were only viable businesses if the rate of pay was so low that Haitians would not be able to sustain themselves. It is worthwhile to note who benefited from the sale of land to this business and who supported them.

It is equally as shameful of how countries trumpeted far and wide about how much they had donated when in fact most countries just never met their announced targets. Of the money given - much of it went to hire non-Haitian employees who got paid high salaries and living costs and to purchase items from outside of Haiti.

Another example - The cholera epidemic that occurred months after the disaster was not caused by poor hygiene habits or even the lack of infrastructure. It was the direct result of Nepalese armed forces (who were there to protect something that did not need protecting) and their poor hygiene habits. Cholera had never existed in Haiti until soldiers from Nepal who were infected came to Haiti and then dumped their raw sewage into a river.

The book is well worth reading only to be reminded that it is not enough for us to donate money to a disaster fund if we do not ensure that the NGO has the capacity to deliver the needed services. It is also not enough for us to pat ourselves on our collective backs about what a generous country Canada is. If we are to give money, then we must give money to the people and the organizations that need it. Giving it to corrupt governments (and there are many) or to fat NGOs does not help the people who are dealing with the consequences of the disaster. And finally we must not always believe the narrative of the donators - they may have a different agenda than you do.
,

Election #8 Winners and Losers

Of course, in every election there are winners and losers. In fact, there are always a lot more people who lose than those who win. But in this particular election, it seems to me that the number of losers is exceptionally high.

Ralph Goodale from Regina lost his seat after 26 years of serving his constituents. From all accounts - he was a good member of Parliament and he had served his country well. He lost not because he had done anything wrong, or the people running against him were better but because the people in his riding were convinced that another party could better protect their interest. Unfortunately, I think they were wrong and got sucked into the rhetoric of a party who had been in power for 8 years and did little to help the west.

Jane Philpott from the Markham area was a Liberal, was dismissed from cabinet and then from the party because she vocally supported a friend and colleague. She ran as an independent and lost - her friend won. It somehow feels wrong that she lost her job because she had enough integrity to support a friend. Perhaps she could have been more diplomatic about it - but she did not deserve to lose her job.

Elizabeth May - she won her seat and her party won one additional seat, but considering the Green's strength provincially in parts of the Maritimes and on Vancouver Island, I think most of us thought the party would do better. The Greens once again, are just a group of people - who do not have party status in the House and may have zero real influence in this session of Parliament. As much as I like her - the party needs to re-think its strategy for next time. A strategy that may not include her as leader.

Maxime Bernier - not only did not get elected, no one from his party did either. Proof that he should not have been at the leader's debate. With any luck that is the last we will see of him or his People's Party of Canada.

Justine Trudeau - while he won his seat and the party he leads will most likely form the next government, his star is significantly diminished. His party lost seats and more importantly, they have clearly lost the trust of some Canadians. I cannot imagine how he will keep the NDP (who I assume will form some sort of coalition with the Liberals) happy with his stance on climate control and pipelines while at the same time attempting to reach out to the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan. He is a bright man - he must know that in spite of the reins of power he holds, that he lost.

Andrew Sheer - the Conservatives won a slightly higher percentage of the public vote than did the Liberals. That could feel like a bit of win and it might be enough for him to withstand any sort of leadership review. But in spite of a rather nasty campaign with all sorts of misleading statements and sometimes intentional lies, Sheer is not going to be the Prime Minister anytime soon. He may have some leadership potential that is not obvious to me - but it was not obvious either to others in the East, central Canada or the west coast.

Jagmeet Singh - I am not sure if he is a winner or not. I suppose doing better than anyone thought you could do is sort of like winning - even if you lost seats. The NDP just didn't lose as many seats as people thought they might. However - he is the person who will decide if Trudeau gets to form a government and how long that government lasts. It may not be a total victory - but of all of the leaders of major Canadian parties - he perhaps came the closest to achieving what he needed.

It is going to be interesting in Ottawa during the next few weeks and months.

Election #7

Tomorrow the federal election campaign of 2019 will be over. - thank heavens! By almost any definition one could imagine the whole process has been a dismal failure. Policy has not been discussed in any real detail, debate has been defined as saying "I am right and you are wrong", social media's various bots and trolls have had a good time keeping the pot stirred with innuendo, misinformation and outright lies and at least according to some polls the two main parties are about where they were when they started.

I do not have a clue what this election has cost the Canadian public both in terms of Election Canada and the expenditures of the various parties. But I have to believe that there is a better use of the millions of dollars spent to be at the same spot as when we started. To be fair, the next Parliament will look significantly different than the last. No party will have an overwhelming majority that would allow them to ride roughshod over the House of Commons. In fact, it appears at least likely that whoever is asked to form the government will be able to do so only if at least one other party agrees to support them - which is always a tricky proposition. But because there has not been a real discussion as to what needs to happen in the next four years - for example, what to do about climate change or how to transition to a greener economy or how to manage our continuingly increasing health care costs, any changes that occur in the next few months regardless of who gets elected, will not be because of any type of collective consensus. The party will argue that we knew where they stood before we elected them - but how could we when none of the parties ever engage in a real discussion?

As the electoral process continues to devolve into a morass of poorly defined visions, petty accusations of the opposition's morality, deliberate attempts to deceive the electorate and a general inability to listen - the public is facing the ever increasingly difficult task of picking the party who is the least unattractive.

There is some good news - sort of. While the Green party will not win a significant number of seats, they have done their job by constantly reminding us that we do need to do something about the environment. It would be nice if they picked up a couple of new seats - perhaps one or two on Vancouver Island and maybe a few on the East Coast. As smart as Elizabeth May may be, I do not think she will be the kingmaker she dreams of being.

The NDP who from all polls before the election was called had nowhere to go but up. They have done exactly that. Jagmeet Singh has pleasantly surprised people with his capacity to connect with people in various communities. The NDP won't do exceptionally well in central Canada. They are likely to lose seats in Quebec, but they may pick up a few in BC, Northern Ontario and maybe in the Maritimes. What is particularly exciting is not the number of seats they will win, but rather the proof that some Canadians at least are very comfortable supporting a party whose leader wears a turban. Maybe there is hope for us after all.

It would be nice to believe that with both May and Singh demonstrating the capacity to engage in gentler and perhaps more rational discussions, that our next parliament will exhibit those traits.
For an older person - I am still surprised at my naivety.