Haitian earthquake was used as an excuse for US invasion

[KingMerv00]

Has anyone established any rational reasons for the massive military build up...

There was an earthquake followed by looting and Haiti did not have the resources to handle it on its own.

...and the pathetically slow response?

It takes a long time to organize people, ship things, load them onto aircraft carriers, move said carrier into position, and finally unload said carrier.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Has anyone established any rational reasons for the massive military build up, and the pathetically slow response?

This reminds me of the old joke, "The food here stinks! And why are the portions so small?"

 

[perseus]

I would strongly disagree that the relief was well organised for a disaster of this kind which requires immediate aid not a slow build up. Whether I go as far as the comments of the French guy is open to debate. Only in the later stages did they change their mind and decide to airdrop at all. I'm afraid criticism has been far more widespread than the Indonesian disaster 5 years back. Infrastructure worse Yes, but very near to military bases.

CO-OPERATION
The US Army has been deployed in vast numbers in Haiti, both to help with the aid effort and to help maintain law and order.

The US has tens of thousands of troops in the country Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) has complained that the rush to get troops into the country has been at the expense of the delivery of humanitarian supplies.

"Everything has been mixed together and the urgent and vital attention to the people have been delayed while military logistics - which is useful but not on day three, not on day four, but maybe on day eight - has really jammed the airport and led to this mismanagement."

MSF say one of its planes carrying 12 tonnes of medical supplies was repeatedly turned away from the airport despite having prior permission to land.

John O'Shea of Goal said the failure of the UN and US to work together was leading to "a situation of utter chaos".

The UN has dismissed such criticism, saying it "underestimated the logistical difficulties" and that the US was the only country in the region capable of providing logistical support on the scale needed.

"We are not talking about politics, this is humanitarian. Our goal is to delivery assistance as soon as possible and co-ordination is vital - without it you can't get the right aid to the most vulnerable," said spokeswoman Ms Byrs.

French Cooperation Minister Alain Joyandet that the United States was giving priority to its own military and relief flights ahead of other nations' aid flights. Joyandet, a member of Sarkozy's ruling UMP party, went as far as demanding a U.N. investigation into U.S. aid efforts.

"This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti," Joyandet said Monday.

A day later, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner tried to smooth over Joyandet's abrasive tone.

 

[Pardalis]

French Cooperation Minister Alain Joyandet that the United States was giving priority to its own military and relief flights ahead of other nations' aid flights.

Notice the bolded part.

Port-au-Prince has a relatively small airport, the US has taken over it to better manage the influx of aid flights. There is a limited number of airplanes that can occupy that airfield at a given time. Some planes have been rerouted and have had to wait to land, but that's the deal in this situation, alot of people want to get in, and there's a finite number of landing space.

Since they took control the situation has gotten better.

A U.N. spokeswoman in Geneva echoed Sarkozy, insisting that aid coordination is improving in Haiti and dismissing criticism over how the U.S. controls the clogged airport in the capital of Port-au-Prince.
"In the sphere of logistics, we really have to thank them," spokeswoman Elisabeth Byrs said of the U.S. military. "Without them, the airport wouldn't work."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/18/french-minister-rips-us-t_n_427366.html

 

[aggle-rithm]

I would strongly disagree that the relief was well organised for a disaster of this kind which requires immediate aid not a slow build up.

Requires?

While we're imposing requirements, why don't we require Haitian builders to construct earthquake-resistant buildings? It's their country, after all.

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Why invade Haiti?

It has a barely functional government and a non-existant economy.

They'd probably give us the whole flamin' country if we asked them too.

 

[perseus]

I think if Haiti had been flooded with Venezuelan or Cuban troops you would be singing a different tune. Then of course the US is different it doesn't do 'revolutions'.

 

[JihadJane]

Why invade Haiti?

It has a barely functional government and a non-existant economy.

They'd probably give us the whole flamin' country if we asked them too.

Well, there's oil prospects... and dirt cheap labor for Walt Disney etc. and, now, lots of reconstruction projects.

Primarily, though, they must be saved from Socialism at all costs!

 

[Rogue1stclass]

I think if Haiti had been flooded with Venezuelan or Cuban troops you would be singing a different tune. Then of course the US is different it doesn't do 'revolutions'.

Seriously?

"Hey, Haiti, we want your half of Hispanola. Let us make you a territory and we'll grant you American citizenship and the power and wealth of the US economy."

They'd through the keys at us before we finish "Hispanola".

 

[JihadJane]

Seriously?

"Hey, Haiti, we want your half of Hispanola. Let us make you a territory and we'll grant you American citizenship and the power and wealth of the US economy."

They'd through the keys at us before we finish "Hispanola".

Sorry, I don't get your analogies or your reference to the (collapsing) power and wealth of the US economy. Can you expand a bit?

 

[Rogue1stclass]

Sorry, I don't get your analogies or your reference to the (collapsing) power and wealth of the US economy. Can you expand a bit?

Throw us the keys, is what I meant.

As for the rest, The United States of America is by far the richest country in the world. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. If we lost the entirety or our wealth overnight, Haiti would still envy our luxurious living standards. I mean, we'd still have our paved roads and houses and public utilities and such.

Also, if that happened, the economy of the entire rest of the world would follow with us. That's kind of how a global economy works.

 

[JihadJane]

Throw us the keys, is what I meant.

As for the rest, The United States of America is by far the richest country in the world. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. If we lost the entirety or our wealth overnight, Haiti would still envy our luxurious living standards. I mean, we'd still have our paved roads and houses and public utilities and such.

Also, if that happened, the economy of the entire rest of the world would follow with us. That's kind of how a global economy works.

Who is the "us"?

Haitians didn't vote for US-style luxurious living standards. They voted for Jean-Bertrand Aristide and a minimum wage.


[BTW: By what measure is the US "the richest country in the world"? Where would California fit into such an equation?]

 

[Travis]

I think if Haiti had been flooded with Venezuelan or Cuban troops you would be singing a different tune. Then of course the US is different it doesn't do 'revolutions'.

Perhaps, but we'd also likely be singing a different tune if Haiti were flooded with alien unicorns on jet packs with laser eyes. Since neither is happening we can relegate both notions to the world of "What If Land."

As for the response, moving supplies to support large numbers of people is something the US military is uniquely proficient at and it knows what it needs to do to accomplish that. One of the first things that need to happen is to first put in place the people and equipment to move goods and then bring in the mountains of supplies. This was a lesson learned in the early days of Operation Desert Shield when cargo shipments arrived in Saudi Arabia with few people to offload it and with no one to distribute it. The consequence was supplies just stacking up in seaports and airports the very thing that would have happened in Haiti if all they did was land supplies with no way to efficiently distribute it to the people.

It's also prudent to keep in mind that the so-called US exploitation of Haiti is just that: "so-called." As in some think that was the case while those in the realm of reality understand that it is largely a fiction.

 

[JihadJane]

Perhaps, but we'd also likely be singing a different tune if Haiti were flooded with alien unicorns on jet packs with laser eyes. Since neither is happening we can relegate both notions to the world of "What If Land."

As for the response, moving supplies to support large numbers of people is something the US military is uniquely proficient at and it knows what it needs to do to accomplish that. One of the first things that need to happen is to first put in place the people and equipment to move goods and then bring in the mountains of supplies. This was a lesson learned in the early days of Operation Desert Shield when cargo shipments arrived in Saudi Arabia with few people to offload it and with no one to distribute it. The consequence was supplies just stacking up in seaports and airports the very thing that would have happened in Haiti if all they did was land supplies with no way to efficiently distribute it to the people.

It's also prudent to keep in mind that the so-called US exploitation of Haiti is just that: "so-called." As in some think that was the case while those in the realm of reality understand that it is largely a fiction.

In what way is US exploitation of Haiti "so-called"?

 

[Klimax]

In what way is US exploitation of Haiti "so-called"?

It is fictional? Not existing. Not happening.

 

[Travis]

In what way is US exploitation of Haiti "so-called"?

For example: portraying US sugar protectionism as some sort of diabolical anti-Haiti plot. Another is portraying World Bank reforms of Haiti's economy as "evil."

 

[Michael Redman]

I would strongly disagree that the relief was well organised for a disaster of this kind which requires immediate aid not a slow build up. Whether I go as far as the comments of the French guy is open to debate.

That French guy was complaining that the US was moving too fast to deploy its assets.

I'm afraid criticism has been far more widespread than the Indonesian disaster 5 years back.

There hasn't been widespread criticism.

 

[JihadJane]

For example: portraying US sugar protectionism as some sort of diabolical anti-Haiti plot. Another is portraying World Bank reforms of Haiti's economy as "evil."

Please show where either of these claims has been made.

 

[perseus]

Requires?

While we're imposing requirements, why don't we require Haitian builders to construct earthquake-resistant buildings? It's their country, after all.

Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future......Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered.

add the http www thing in front of this link

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/our-role-in-haitis-plight

 

[perseus]

There hasn't been widespread criticism.

Perhaps not where your government wants you to look, but try looking beyond the corporate controlled media
If you want a US site try this one: democracynow.org/

For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.

But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogeneous in the early 1980s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media.

In addition, corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximise profits.

And U.S. “public” media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has attempted in the past to exert political and editorial influence on public news producers.

Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, corporate underwriting, or government funding. This allows us to maintain our independence.