Annotation of
“Tragedy and Opportunity for Haiti” by Kara C. Mc Donald. Council on Foreign Relations. January 14, 2010.
~ The Editors
An Annotation
The devastating impact of the earthquake in Haiti raises the fundamental question of whether or not the international community has the responsibility, political will, and capacity to deal effectively, and in a humane manner, with humanitarian crisis. As international aid pours into Haiti, this month's Roundtable examines what might be the best way to help fragile states like Haiti overcome chronic economic, political, and social vulnerabilities. These are long-term problems requiring sustained international attention; such challenges are unlikely to be met if the focus is exclusively on the context of crises within countries that are poorly protected against natural catastrophes. The centerpiece by Kara McDonald portrays the earthquake as a “tragedy and opportunity for Haiti,” indicating that “the desire to move fast and 'do something' must be matched to what is a bitter opportunity to secure a more consistent and lasting commitment to Haiti's political and social stability. Above all, this disaster is a reminder that the patchwork response to Haiti's problems that ebbs and flows with its crises must end now.”
As our panelists warn in their contributions, there is a current fear that a long-term humanitarian disaster might be on Haiti's horizon unless international actors are able to break with past patterns of international interventions. After decades of international involvement in Haiti, this Caribbean country remains the hungriest country in the world after Somalia and Afghanistan, ranking 149 out of 182 countries on the United Nations Development Index. According to the historical record, Haiti's future could resemble the same old failed international strategies. As McDonald puts it, “...it is hard to identify another country that has had as many peacekeeping forces, stabilization operations, and crisis responses at work in the last three decades. The quake must not become yet another opportunity to fail.”
What should be the right response this time? Our contributors provide a number of recommendations for current international efforts to rebuild Haiti, including:
Rethinking development aid. What constitutes development aid needs to be fundamentally reevaluated and re-conceptualized in Haiti and more generally, as Anthony Chase points out. Past relief and development strategies did not function properly; to insist otherwise is to condemn Haitian people to the same story of hunger, disease, and desperation. More of the same strategies do not seem to be a viable alternative at this point.
From charity to a human rights-based development approach. Past international interventions in Haiti were managed largely through the lens of charity. Understanding that charity alone does not provide a path for sustainable development is fundamental to the current humanitarian efforts there. Implementing a human rights-based development approach requires that the international community, state and non-state actors, focus their state-building efforts on Haitians as individual human beings entitled to human rights and put them at the center of political and economic development strategies. This would empower the Haitian community and build a more inclusive society as well as stronger state institutions. Several international organizations working on relief efforts are already trying to significantly include human rights considerations in their mandates to respond to the current situation in Haiti, as Anna Talbot points out in her piece.
Innovative solutions for fragile states. The recurrent failure of the old patterns of state-building efforts in Haiti prompts experts to think about innovative ways to address the same old problems. Richard Burchill, for example, calls for the international community to temporarily take over the Haitian state in order to assure the development of governmental and societal institutions. Needless to say, there might be strong opposition to this idea given the history of international intervention in Haiti and the prevailing international norms with respect to sovereignty and non-intervention.
These issues and others are considered in this month’s Roundtable.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
February 2010: Haiti and the International Community
Annotation of
“Tragedy and Opportunity for Haiti” by Kara C. Mc Donald. Council on Foreign Relations. January 14, 2010.
~ The Editors
What is the Best Use of the International Community’s Resources; Responding to Disasters or Trying to Strengthen Fragile States?
by Richard Burchill, University of Hull
“The idea of an international organization essentially taking over the functions of a state will be disagreeable to many. (…) But, with regard to certain cases, we must realistically ask what kinds of alternative solutions there are. Given the US history of intervention in Haiti, any talk of an external force taking control there will be disquieting. But the UN is already in Haiti, directly involved in trying to bring peace and security to the state. It is also clear that, in Haiti's current condition, there is no way the Haitian people will have the opportunity to effectively rebuild their lives, not just from the immediate disaster, but over the long term.”
The recent earthquake in Haiti is, beyond doubt, a truly tragic event. The impact of the quake in terms of the physical destruction of buildings and infrastructure, the massive loss of life, and the inability of the government to respond all demonstrated how fragile the Haitian state is. While Haiti is probably at the extreme end of fragility, it is not alone in terms of states struggling to survive in difficult conditions. And when something unexpected hits a fragile state, the response of the international community is crucial, because the impact is so much greater and the state's own ability to respond so severely limited.
In Haiti the current emphasis is, quite rightly, on response. But it is also appropriate for the international community to consider what can be done to support fragile states with regard to preventative measures so that, when emergencies do occur, the impact is not as devastating. Of course there is no way to prevent all disasters, be they natural or man-made, and no matter where such events occur the destructive impact will be substantial. But in fragile states (the term fragile being used in a general sense and potentially including crisis states or failed states ), where the public infrastructure is of poor quality in all aspects, where the government is unable or unwilling to do anything about improving this infrastructure, where the society is already suffering from endemic poverty, and where there is any combination of civil unrest, conflicting political factions, and susceptibility to natural disasters, the impact of a catastrophic event is, quite simply, a catastrophe. Ensuring there is an effective and adequate response to such events is all well and good, but would it not make more sense to focus more on preventative measures to strengthen fragile states, so that they are less fragile and hopefully less susceptible to the destructive impact that natural disasters bring.
One potential response to this suggestion might be that the international community has been making a substantial contribution to Haiti's development, as demonstrated by aid and development funding over the years. But for the most part, it appears that these measures have been ineffective, and McDonald's explanation of the history of international involvement in Haiti makes it clear that a purely responsive approach has not worked. As she explains, “it is hard to identify another country that has had as many peacekeeping forces, stabilization operations, and crisis responses at work in the last three decades.” Despite this, it remains a state “rife with the unfinished business of international operations that have come before.” In light of recent events, it is legitimate to ask how three decades of involvement by the international community have, to all appearances, resulted in no discernable evidence of Haiti being able to develop even the most basic infrastructure or government systems. Of course no state is immune to difficulties in coping with disasters, but the collapse and destruction of Port-au-Prince's high-security prison, the Presidential Palace, and the UN headquarters are all indications that the international community's involvement in the country has not been all that positive. McDonald raises the idea that the current disaster is “at a critical moment of opportunity and that now more than ever the support of the international community is needed to consolidate Haiti's nascent stability.” She rightly describes this as a “bitter opportunity,” but also as the moment “to secure a more consistent and lasting commitment to Haiti's political and social stability. Above all, this disaster is a reminder that the patchwork response to Haiti's problems that ebbs and flows with its crises must end now.”
As recent events demonstrate, when it comes to fragile states, international organizations need to be more than just transitional efforts that shy away from imposing any substantive domestic economic, political, or social arrangements. The common view of international law is that state sovereignty precludes international organizations from taking on a direct role in governance, as doing so would deny the population the ability to determine their own destiny. This view has become tempered over the years through ideas such as the responsibility to protect or for the purpose of saving strangers . Furthermore, there are even specific cases of crises involving fragile states and territories that have escalated to such intensity that international organizations took on the authority of administering the territory; this occurred in Bosnia, Kosovo, and East Timor/Timor-Leste. But it has been shown that even in these cases, the involvement of international organizations was always viewed as transitory. Substantive efforts were only dedicated to responding to the most immediate problems and the organizations withdrew as soon as possible.
In principle, this feels like the right way to go; societies should be able to develop and determine their own futures. But it is equally clear that, in some cases, the capability of a state to develop and ensure the basics of society is not there. These states are often very unstable and international organizations are already present in response to a crisis which often ends up being a long-term presence. The United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH) has been in the country since 2004, with other UN missions preceding it dating back to 1993. MINUSTAH's budget in its first year was just short of 400 million dollars and its budget for 2009-2010 topped 600 million dollars. This figure is clearly going to rise substantially for the next few years, with no real prospect of the UN force departing in the near future. Furthermore, the UN is not the only international organization working in Haiti; the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Caribbean Community are also undertaking activities. Given the amount of money and resources being provided by these international organizations, should they not take a more active role in building a state that is capable of handling basic, necessary functions? If a more proactive position is not adopted, international organizations (and, by extension, the states that constitute these organizations) will continue to spend colossal amounts of money on emergency response without ever contributing to effective prevention-based developments.
The idea of an international organization essentially taking over the functions of a state will be disagreeable to many. The experience of the UN in East Timor/Timor-Leste demonstrated the difficulties of international administration, such as the limited connection between the international body and the local population, the problem of creating a dependency culture, and the possibility of undermining local developments in governance. But, with regard to certain cases, we must realistically ask what kinds of alternative solutions there are. Given the US history of intervention in Haiti, any talk of an external force taking control there will be disquieting. But the UN is already in Haiti, directly involved in trying to bring peace and security to the state. It is also clear that, in Haiti's current condition, there is no way the Haitian people will have the opportunity to effectively rebuild their lives, not just from the immediate disaster, but over the long term. The UN or an appropriate regional organization should adopt a more proactive role of direct control and administration of the state if necessary to ensure that government and social structures do develop. If the matter is handled appropriately, with lessons learned from past territorial administrations undertaken by the UN, then efforts can be directed at strengthening the fragility of the Haitian state. To say this action would be contrary to the Haitian peoples' right to self-determination is wrong, as the current levels of corruption and ineffective government are serious obstacles to any effective self-determination developments.
When the next disaster hits a fragile state, the international community will be there to respond to events. But over the long term, would it not be more effective if the international community actively sought to develop fragile states into more stable entities?
Dr. Richard Burchill is the Director of the McCoubrey Centre for International Law, School of Law, University of Hull. His research interests cover the promotion and protection of democracy in international law including human rights protection. He is the author of Defining Civil and Political Rights: The Jurisprudence of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, 2nd ed. (2009, with Alex Conte) and the editor of Democracy and International Law: Library of Essays in International Law (2006) and has published widely in international journals and edited collections.
A Time for Anger and a Time for Rights, Not Charity
by Anthony Chase, Occidental College
"There are two alternatives. One is simply to provide charity and to be honest that such charity will not change much in Haiti or in other places around the globe, though it can ameliorate immediate suffering, which is, in itself, worthy. The second is to place human rights at the center of the development enterprise, such that it becomes less about saviors from abroad and more about empowering people on the ground to seize their own economic and political destinies."
Sadness, but also anger, is the immediate reaction to the deaths of 200,000 Haitians. Among the dead are Myriam Merlet, Magalie Marcelin, and Anne Marie Coriolan ( founders of three leading Haitian feminist organizations ), as well as 14 of the 16 members of SEROvie, the main Haitian organization providing HIV-related services for men who have sex with men and the transgendered. All of these victims are people who have been at the front line in pushing for political change from within Haiti. Kara McDonald's words that “it is hard to identify another country that has had as many peacekeeping forces, stabilization operations, and crisis responses at work in the last three decades” adds to the anger over the ineffectiveness of domestic governance and international aid that has outweighed the efforts of such local activists; anger toward corrupt domestic elites who have profited from the processes that sustain Haiti's poverty and underdevelopment; anger at a destructive superpower in the immediate neighborhood that has systematically disempowered Haiti for over two centuries; anger at international organizations that have been complicit in providing charity rather than change; and anger at transnational NGOs that, similarly, have raised money and reputations based on good works–good works that largely have ignored structures that cause Haiti to be so vulnerable to poverty and natural disasters, and so dependent on charity.
What should be the response? This is, of course, a time when charity is needed. Needs are immediate and massive and cannot be provided for solely from within Haiti. However, this is also a time when, in the long-term, the charity enterprise has to be questioned. Earthquakes happen, but this particular earthquake exposed not just literal fault lines, but also figurative fault lines; the latter can be seen in the systemic violation of rights that produce populations vulnerable to natural disasters, and also to the deadly poverty of everyday life that takes place outside the glare of international media, and which local activists and NGOs (such as those mentioned above) are best positioned to address.
Does that mean that aid should be stopped, as some argue? Absolutely not. It is naïve to act as if any country exists in isolation. This is particularly true when outside forces have been complicit in creating Haiti's underdevelopment and, thus, have a responsibility to help reverse it. It does mean, however, that what constitutes development aid needs to be subject to a fundamental critique in Haiti as well as more generally. The billions that have come to Haiti over the past decades have gone into everything from military missions and military assistance to infrastructure, governance programs, and community-based aid. Much of this has been well-intentioned and, undoubtedly, much of it has done good things in an immediate sense. Some (even many) individuals have been helped and, perhaps, that is all that can be done in terms of outside solidarity. But it has not changed Haiti's underlying political and economic underdevelopment. More of the same is not good enough. Let's not kid ourselves that tinkering with aid levels will change anything fundamental; indeed, it risks simply further entrenching the status quo.
The irony is that the critique of development aid as something that does not accomplish its goals is not novel. The UNDP Human Development Reports in the 1990s and Kofi Annan's call for human rights to be mainstreamed into the work of all UN agencies were preceded by pioneering work on human rights-based approaches to development as fundamental to producing outcomes that sustain equitable and dynamic development, in contrast to charity and resource transfer models. And, as a result, many of the largest donors now make pro forma nods toward the importance of governance, transparency, and human rights, and undoubtedly will make more such nods to accompany new flows of aid that will be directed toward Haiti.
What is shocking, however, is how little has actually changed. Whether it be the United States under Obama, the UN's Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), or transnational NGOs that work in Haiti such as Partners in Health (PIH), there is much rhetoric about stakeholders and working with the community and human rights. The reality in Haiti as elsewhere, however, is that most often this rhetoric has just been a new bottle from which the same old wine has been dispensed, leaving issues of governance and rights-based empowerment untouched. That failed model needs to be discarded once and forever.
There are two alternatives. One is simply to provide charity and to be honest that such charity will not change much in Haiti or in other places around the globe, though it can ameliorate immediate suffering, which is, in itself, worthy. The second is to place human rights at the center of the development enterprise, such that it becomes less about saviors from abroad and more about empowering people on the ground to seize their own economic and political destinies. And this returns us to grieving for the sorts of activists I mentioned at the start of this piece, who had been working to put Haitians at the center of political and economic development, and who so tragically were among the earthquake's victims. They leave, however, a worthy legacy: that the sort of rights-based empowerment at the center of their work, rather than charity, is what must be the focus of development.
Anthony Tirado Chase is Associate Professor of Diplomacy & World Affairs at Occidental College. Chase is currently completing Human Rights Debates in the Transnational Muslim World: Politics, Economics, and Society. Drawing on Professor Chase's training in international law, Islamic law, and international relations theory, this book explores when, how, and why the international human rights regime has mattered to some of the transnational Muslim world's most important debates - including those over free expression, economic development, and the treatment of sexual minorities. Other forthcoming works include "Mutual Renewal: On the Relationship of Human Rights to the Muslim World" and "On Justifications for Human Rights in Difficult Circumstances: Why 'Pushing the Envelope' is Essential to Human Rights Continued Global Resonance," each scheduled to be published as chapters in edited volumes. Previous works include Human Rights in the Arab World: Independent Voices (University of Pennsylvania Press), a range of peer reviewed articles, and guest editorship of a Muslim World Journal of Human Rights special volume on The Transnational Muslim World, Human Rights, and the Rights of Women and Sexual Minorities.
Hope for Haiti?
By Kurt Mills, University of Glasgow
"In the end, the world is going to leave Haiti in the gutter, just as it has the DRC, Somalia, and many other places. After all, once the aid agencies leave and the earthquake disappears from the front pages, all we will be left with is the political context of rebuilding Haiti within a global system of inequalities. That does not bode well for long-term international support for Haiti."
Kara McDonald raises the question of whether or not the international community will go beyond its patchwork response to Haiti's problems. One wonders why the question is even asked, given the international community's track record in Haiti, as well as in other parts of the world. Indeed, setting aside the many positive acts of individuals and states to address the suffering after the earthquake, the response to Haiti illustrates the inability of the international community to respond in a coherent and humane manner to many crises around the world.
Let us consider the primary response we have seen in Haiti: saturation media coverage— de rigueur for such a catastrophe. And this coverage extends beyond TV, newspapers, and the Web. As with Ethiopia in 1984, we have a major popular figure gathering together lots of pop icons to record a song to raise money for the poor people of Haiti. And who is this major humanitarian, lending his public image (or, perhaps more precisely, enhancing his public image) to the cause? None other than the king of global karaoke, the master of the pop star-hopeful put-down—Simon Cowell. While the media coverage has raised gobs of money from people in rich countries to help people in Haiti, these apparent acts of altruism raise many other questions. For example, why exactly do we need a mean-spirited media kingmaker to be the one to appeal to our better angels (or, indeed, the likes of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, who flooded the twitter verse with their impassioned pleas to help Haiti)? Is this not just an example of famous people using tragedy to become more famous?
Of course, one should not underestimate the outpouring of sympathy and resources for Haiti. But does Haiti not exemplify the persistent global inequalities that have left it in such poor condition for so long? One needs more than money to address the situation. Consider the response of the US in sending in its military as it has a number of times before, to both undermine (more often) and support democracy (once). While one assumes that most of the soldiers sent into Haiti see their mission as a positive operation—and it is difficult to envision what other country might have responded so quickly—the military has also come under significant criticism for putting its own security above the needs of the Haitian people. If many nongovernmental organizations were able to operate in the perceived insecure environment in post-earthquake Haiti, why couldn't the US military be more proactive from the very beginning in getting aid out rather than securing its own perimeters first? It is not invading a hostile nation.
Perhaps the most egregious element of the response by the US is the reaffirmation of the inviolability of its borders. The US fears a mass exodus in the weeks to come. It wants to avoid hordes of poor Haitians climbing onto boats and trying to get to the US, and has put in place plans to intercept Haitians and take them to Guantánamo Bay, a place synonymous with torture and the most demeaning of treatment against humans. How could anybody in this supposedly enlightened Obama administration think this is a good idea? Is this not just a repetition of previous actions? The Clinton administration had Haitians intercepted at sea and either forcibly repatriated or distributed to various places around the Caribbean, including Guantánamo Bay. Basically, when the US fears poor people are getting too close to its shores, it deploys the military to prevent this intrusion. In 1994, Clinton sent in the military after tens of thousands of Haitians were interdicted. This time, the military has been sent in before the feared waves of refugees can even leave Haiti. The US has also denied visas to many people with serious injuries seeking treatment in the US, apparently concerned that…I don't know. I really can't fathom it. Maybe the US government thinks that these people, who not only have lost everything—family, friends, and home—but are also physically incapacitated, could pose a threat to the national security of the country. It sounds bizarre, but given that the US continues to be scared of a little country 90 miles off its shores, I suppose any delusion is possible. It hardly seems humanitarian, however, which certainly calls into question the motives of the US military operation in the first place.
Global inequalities are evident in the case of International SOS. This is a private company which helps rich people from corporations, governments, and other organizations in times of crisis. While aid organizations were trying to organize transportation to get relief to those most affected by the earthquake, International SOS came in, snatched up hard-to-get airplane tickets, hired helicopters and cars, and swooped in with satellite phones and guns to evacuate a few people. One wonders how many people died as a result of national and international organizations not being able to get to the affected in time because the transportation had already been bought by this company. One does not want to dismiss the situation of these wealthy internationals caught in the earthquake, but this highlights the persistence of global disparities, which are not going to go away after a few hundred million dollars are sent to Haiti and the world subsequently turns its attention elsewhere.
Why has so much money been donated to the relief effort in Haiti? And why do we feel the need to get something (i.e. music) in return for our donation? Certainly anybody who bought the Hope for Haiti album was already familiar with the suffering there. Perhaps Simon Cowell and the organizers of Hope for Haiti have something to do with it, but would so many have donated if the situation wasn't so depoliticized? It's certainly easier to give money to a situation which does not seem political. Politics did not cause the earthquake, but politics (both local and global) might have been responsible for the lack of infrastructure which exacerbated the situation and made the humanitarian response that much more difficult. But, we don't think about that. If humanitarian crises are placed within their proper political context, it becomes easier to dismiss the situation: “Oh, those poor Rwandans or Darfuris. It's terrible, really, but it's all tribal. Why encourage them with money?” If there are no politics involved, if the suffering seems in some way “pure,” then we can give money. Further, if the suffering is dramatic and photogenic, so much the better. That photo of a girl trapped in the rubble that every single news outlet was running the day after the earthquake must have been a godsend to the aid agencies, as were the mounting numbers.
Again, I am certainly not dismissing the many of tens of thousands of people who have been killed and the millions made homeless by the earthquake. But why have we not seen the same response to war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)? In the last 15 years, this conflict (or rather series of conflicts), facilitated by the lack of robust response to the Rwandan genocide and its aftermath, has resulted in perhaps somewhere between three and six million deaths. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people have died each year from the fighting and the resulting disease and malnourishment, despite the presence of a large peacekeeping mission. Yet, where is Simon Cowell? Even Darfur has spawned its own global social movement, merging religious fervor (it was the fundamentalists, after all, who first got Sudan on the US radar screen) and international norm entrepreneurs who latched on to Darfur as an issue of international responsibility to protect. But the DRC does not have its own global social movement, and it does not have saturation media coverage, and it does not have the king of karaoke, and, perhaps most importantly of all, the humanitarian crisis is wrapped in political turmoil. What exactly does it take to create sustained interest in the DRC? It would seem to have everything against it. We don't see starving Congolese children on TV every day. Beyond the occasional appearance of Angelina Jolie and George Clooney, it doesn't have a vast array of media stars. And, most importantly, it has a political context in which the major global powers are seriously implicated (although, on the rare occasions that people do think about the DRC,they are more likely to imagine tribalism than the complete and utter failure of their governments to live up to their international responsibilities).
Kara McDonald holds out hope that this time, things will be different in Haiti. We have already seen that they are not. Indeed, we have seen more of the same. In the end, the world is going to leave Haiti in the gutter, just as it has the DRC, Somalia, and many other places. After all, once the aid agencies leave and the earthquake disappears from the front pages, all we will be left with is the political context of rebuilding Haiti within a global system of inequalities. That does not bode well for long-term international support for Haiti. Perhaps I am being unfair; the international response has undoubtedly saved many lives, and the many people who have donated money have not done so for bad reasons. But the political theater, media frenzy, and hypocrisy being repeated, yet again, in another humanitarian crisis, in yet another poor country of little real interest to the powers that be, do not foreshadow true, sustained, effective humanitarian and political action in Haiti or elsewhere.
Kurt Mills is a Senior Lecturer in International Human Rights at the University of Glasgow. He previously taught at The American University in Cairo, Mt. Holyoke College, James Madison University, and Gettysburg College, and served as the Assistant Director of the Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College. Publications include Human Rights in the Emerging Global Order: A New Sovereignty?, and numerous articles on human rights and humanitarian issues in, among other journals, Civil Wars, Global Governance, Global Responsibility to Protect, Global Society, Journal of Human Rights, International Politics, Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, and Peace Review. He is currently working on a book examining international responses to mass atrocities in Africa. He is the founder of the Human Rights Section of the International Studies Association, and founder and co-editor of the H-Human-Rights listserv. His web page is: http://web.mac.com/vicfalls/
Can They Stay the Distance? The International Response to the Earthquake in Haiti
by Anna Talbot, Amnesty International
“Certainly, Haiti is in a lot of trouble. Repeated natural disasters, combined with serious ongoing challenges to government and human rights, mean that this trouble is likely to continue for some time. The international community is rallying, however, and a significant amount of assistance is getting through and saving lives. By incorporating human rights considerations into the response, further trauma can be minimized."
Haiti is devastated again. Over one hundred thousand people are presumed dead. Reports of looting and violence are emerging. The international community is responding, with a statement from the Secretary-General of the UN, a resolution by the Security Council, a Special Session, and resolution from the UN Human Rights Council and numerous aid and UN agencies in the country seeking to help as many survivors as possible. Various commentators, including Kara McDonald, have claimed this is an opportunity for a stronger Haiti. Whether this opportunity is realized or not depends in large part on the international community, and whether it can stay the distance.
History of Trauma
This is not the first time Haiti has faced disaster and instability. Recovery from the series of hurricanes that devastated the country in 2008 had still not been completed when the earthquake hit. Political instability has also taken its toll. Challenges persist at almost every turn: the judiciary is severely under-resourced; the police force is still weakened by corruption. Even before the earthquake, infrastructure was insufficient to service the needs of the population. Now it barely exists.
The confusion and unrest that currently reign within Haiti mean that, in addition to the massive humanitarian crisis that is unfolding, there is a real risk that human rights abuses will increase. This risk has already been identified by UN bodies such as the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), for example, which noted that sexual violence can become acute in the wake of a national disaster such as this one.
In a statement to the Ministerial Meeting on Haiti in Montreal on January 25, Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of Mission for the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), Edmond Mulet, noted that Haiti had been on the path to stabilization before the earthquake. Elections were being prepared for, economic reforms were under way, and progress was being seen in reductions in violence. The tragedy of this disaster, then, could well go beyond the unimaginable loss of life and human suffering, if care is not taken to preserve and build on this progress in the rebuilding efforts. Ensuring that human rights considerations are involved in the recovery will be fundamental to avoiding this kind of backsliding.
Faced alongside a supportive international community, these challenges can be met. With careful planning, rebuilding efforts can present an opportunity to assist Haiti in tackling both political and humanitarian challenges in a way that ensures respect for the human rights of all.
International Response
The UN response to this earthquake has been swift. Statements have been made, money has been released, and the Human Rights Council convened a Special Session, all in pursuit of protecting human rights after this tragedy.
The day after the earthquake, on January 13, the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki Moon, gave a briefing to the General Assembly. In his remarks, he dispatched Edmond Mulet to Haiti that day. He also ordered that US$10 million be released from the Central Emergency Response Fund to “kick-start” the UN response. This was supported by a Security Council resolution on January 18, expanding the MINUSTAH force levels to support the recovery, reconstruction, and stability efforts.
The human rights community is also engaging in the response, seeking to ensure a human rights perspective is incorporated into recovery efforts. Early signs are positive. On January 27, the Human Rights Council held a Special Session entitled, “The support of the Human Rights Council to the Recovery Process in Haiti after the Earthquake of January 12, 2010: a Human Rights Approach.” The resulting draft resolution underlined the importance of protecting children and emphasized the need to apply a gender-based approach to the recovery process. In addition to the CEDAW statement referred to above, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child also released a statement encouraging relief workers to pay attention to the needs of vulnerable children. By encouraging a human rights-based approach to the recovery effort, these international bodies are seeking to ensure that the very high risks faced by women and children (such as trafficking or sexual assault) are minimized. By being aware of these risks, and taking steps to ensure their prevention, agencies can prevent further tragedies from occurring.
Certainly, Haiti is in a lot of trouble. Repeated natural disasters, combined with serious ongoing challenges to government and human rights, mean that this trouble is likely to continue for some time. The international community is rallying, however, and a significant amount of assistance is getting through and saving lives. By incorporating human rights considerations into the response, further trauma can be minimized. As Mulet noted, it is now up to the international community to follow through. Slow progress must not be seen as failure, but rather accepted with patience and perseverance. By staying after the news cameras leave, the international community can make progress on many of the humanitarian and human rights problems that exist in Haiti.
Anna Talbot has worked in the legal department of Amnesty International since January 2008. Before that she graduated with honors in Law and History from the Australian National University and qualified as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Australia) in 2007. She has also completed the Advance Course on the International Protection of Human Rights through the Institute for Human Rights at Åbo Akademi University in 2009.
Posts
