[M_Marked]

not meant to be athread where people express their hate for blacks, but I was roundly ridiculed for being concerned where the money actually went. turns out, there's reason for that
Haiti has received billions of dollars in taxpayer and private aid from the United States and others, yet is so poor that few homes had safe drinking water, sewage disposal or electricity even before the earthquake. With sympathetic donors around the world sending money, making sure that aid is spent properly will be a challenge.

Corruption, theft and other crime and Haiti's sheer shortage of fundamentals , reliable roads, telephone and power lines and a sound financial system , add to the difficulty as foreign governments and charities try not only to help Haiti recover from the disaster but pull itself out of abject poverty.

It is one of the poorest places on Earth. Most basic public services are lacking, people typically live on less than $2 a day, nearly half the population is illiterate and the government has a history of instability. The public has little opportunity to be sure that aid to the government is used honestly and well. Nor is following the money easy for donors, including the United States, 700 miles away and one of the country's biggest helpers.The immediate focus is search and rescue and addressing immediate public health needs. But after that, "I think there's going to be a number of questions that arise," Carnahan said.

Just last month, a private group, the Heritage Foundation for Haiti, urged Haiti's government to complete an audit of a $197 million emergency disaster program to respond to corruption allegations over how the money was handled. ..President Barack Obama promised at least $100 million in earthquake aid. That comes on top of substantial spending by the United States in Haiti in recent years for economic development, such as the country's textile industry, humanitarian assistance, environmental programs, and law enforcement, including trying to stop the use of Haiti as a pass-through point for narcotics en route to the United States.

Apart from earthquake relief, senators working on the next annual foreign assistance budget have proposed at least $282 million for Haiti; the House proposal would provide at least $165 million.

Much of the U.S. government's aid to Haiti comes through the U.S. Agency for International Development, which has provided at least $800 million from budget years 2004 through 2008, agency figures show...The Haitian government relies on foreign aid to keep itself and its economy operating.

In a December 2008 Gallup survey, 60 percent of Haitians interviewed said there had been times that year when they didn't have enough money to buy food, and 51 percent said there were times they couldn't afford shelter...For government and private relief organizations, simply communicating and moving money and supplies around in the country were difficult absent a natural disaster like this one.

As of 2008, Haiti had 108,000 main telephone lines in use, putting it 142nd among countries in land-line phone use, but ranked better on cellular access. There were 3.2 million cellular phones in use in 2008, making it 105th worldwide by that measure, the U.S. government said..."Funding that has been available does not necessarily go toward basic infrastructure like water and sanitation."

The Haitian government doesn't use its own resources for sanitation, and instead depends on charities, Thorsten said. In addition, international groups often do not coordinate, and there are also problems with security, corruption and political stability, he said. Haiti: Where will all the money go? | AP | 01/15/2010

perhaps worse, washington politicians trying to fix our own economy have been unable to fix even a tiny country, how do we expect them to understand our own economy? If we're still giving the government direct aid, it's asinine. of course, it's easy for politicians to give away money and not care where it goes, it's our money, not theirs. that said, given the problems in the past, it seems the most ineffective thing to do is to give money to their government. if you want to help, send money to organizations that send their own people, or go yourself.

[CHEAPCIALISFORYOU]

Right now their is a desperate need for food, medicine, and potable water as well as skilled workers such as Doctors, nurses, SAR teams, and security experts.

Beyond that, the article brings up very valid concerns. There is no disconnect between sending aid and demanding it be accounted for: Transparency and accountability will be as valuable to the people of Haiti during the rebuilding process as actual, physical aid.

[M_Marked]

Right now their is a desperate need for food, medicine, and potable water as well as skilled workers such as Doctors, nurses, SAR teams, and security experts.

these things can and should be given directly without the haitian government.

[disappointment2]

these things can and should be given directly without the haitian government.

I gave to direct medical relief. Search and rescue teams, etc. are pretty corruption proof. Its true Haiti has a long history of poor governance but immediate assistance is a little different.

Also there will be a need shortly for basic law and order shortly as shock turns to desperation and starvation. Their government's command structure was largely destroyed. The presidential palace, the interior ministry, the UN mission that was largely running the country, all destroyed. I don't think emergency relief and establishment of basic rule of law in the coming days are things to second guess now.

New governance structures for rebuilding on the long haul is a different story.

[M_Marked]

I gave to direct medical relief. Search and rescue teams, etc. are pretty corruption proof. Its true Haiti has a long history of poor governance but immediate assistance is a little different.

not really, if the government couldn't do it's job in good times, it's not going to function in bad. direct assistance is the way to go. really, the military is certainly what's needed, maybe a railroad. those two organizations are excellent at setting up basic infrastructure quickly, and given that port facilities are damaged, that's what needs to happen if they are going to get supplies onto the island. I don't knwo the geography but I'd imagine that reparing the port and roads, perhaps building a railroad might indeed be needed forthwith. rather than pay haiti, bring in the US military and hire a US railroad to build a line from the port to key areas.

Also there will be a need shortly for basic law and order shortly as shock turns to desperation and starvation. Their government's command structure was largely destroyed. The presidential palace, the interior ministry, the UN mission that was largely running the country, all destroyed. I don't think emergency relief and establishment of basic rule of law in the coming days are things to second guess now.

New governance structures for rebuilding on the long haul is a different story.

can't say as I agree. the government of haiti gives no cause to think they could provide it. again, direct assistance would be better. of course, law and order may be more linked to the ability to get enough supplies to the people.

[disappointment2]

can't say as I agree. the government of haiti gives no cause to think they could provide it. again, direct assistance would be better. of course, law and order may be more linked to the ability to get enough supplies to the people.

By law and order, I mean reestablishing a communications grid, clearing the dead bodies stacked up in the streets, having enough military presence UN or otherwise to stop food riots. Basics.

[M_Marked]

By law and order, I mean reestablishing a communications grid, clearing the dead bodies stacked up in the streets, having enough military presence UN or otherwise to stop food riots. Basics.

right, direct aid, which means bypassing the haitian government.

[disappointment2]

not really, if the government couldn't do it's job in good times, it's not going to function in bad. direct assistance is the way to go. really, the military is certainly what's needed, maybe a railroad. those two organizations are excellent at setting up basic infrastructure quickly, and given that port facilities are damaged, that's what needs to happen if they are going to get supplies onto the island. I don't knwo the geography but I'd imagine that reparing the port and roads, perhaps building a railroad might indeed be needed forthwith. rather than pay haiti, bring in the US military and hire a US railroad to build a line from the port to key areas.

I just said I gave to direct medical assistance - Doctors Without Borders - not the Haitian government. I agree that there needs to be accountablity for any infrastructure investment. Ironically the most recent government, though far from perfect, was considered to be turning a corner in terms greater accountability from either the Baby Doc or Aristide years according to an aide worker I heard interviewed on the radio yesterday. I understand your concerns and maybe having to start from scratch on a lot of infrastructure maybe the only ironic positive from this whole mess but direct immediate food and medical aide through NGO's is a seperate issue.

[disappointment2]

right, direct aid, which means bypassing the haitian government.

I'm not sure how relevant a term the "hatian government" is right now. No phones, no electricity. Most government buildings destroyed. UN buildings (who were doing a lot of day to day stuff anyway) destroyed. You saw those pictures in the other thread, right?

[M_Marked]

I'm not sure how relevant a term the "hatian government" is right now. No phones, no electricity. Most government buildings destroyed. UN buildings (who were doing a lot of day to day stuff anyway) destroyed. You saw those pictures in the other thread, right?I just said I gave to direct medical assistance - Doctors Without Borders - not the Haitian government. I agree that there needs to be accountablity for any infrastructure investment. Ironically the most recent government, though far from perfect, was considered to be turning a corner in terms greater accountability from either the Baby Doc or Aristide years according to an aide worker I heard interviewed on the radio yesterday. I understand your concerns and maybe having to start from scratch on a lot of infrastructure maybe the only ironic positive from this whole mess but direct immediate food and medical aide through NGO's is a seperate issue.

turning a corner? maybe, I just read not a year ago that people were eating dirt because there was no food. thigns were getting worse. I'm not sure what we're taling about here. I never said haiti didn't need help, just that I don't want to see any checks cut to their government. Whena country can't rescue people from a school, and their peopel eat dirt without crisis, you know an earthquake like this is going to completely destroy the place. the school fell because it had been improperly built. I'd imagine people would have been better off living in shanties made of lighter materials than poorly built concrete buildings in event of an earthquake. anyways, Obama has committed to $100 million, I jsut don't want it to go to the haitian government. the infrastructure built should be clearly built by the US or whoever is paying. that's all. NGO issues, whether they exist or not, are entirely separate.

[disappointment2]

The interview I heard was talking about how she felt the UN and the government (who the UN basically installed as a palatable replacement for Aristide) had just established enough security to bring some of the rampant kidnapping they had under control, just started to attract a little bit of foreign investment. It was one woman's opinion.

I agree accountability is key. I think the truth of what will happen is that the US will be putting together whatever nominal face of Haitian sovereignty emerges short term from the wreckage and will have unprecedented ability to lay down ground rules for governance. I agree we should take that opportunity.

I'm just not sure from the reports I've heard that you can even say there is currently much of Haitian government to speak of. The president the UN maneuvered in to replace Aristide is alive but the presidential palace which was the seat of the executive branch, the interior ministry building, the defense ministry, the UN building which was largely calling the shots are all toast. The sort of good news from a governance perspective is its sort of a clean slate. The bad news is millions of desperate starving people and a vaccuum of authority.

[jhkjurter]

I'm not sure where all this concern is about money going to the Haitian government ... to date, I haven't seen any solicitations to individuals by the Haitian government, have you?

Right now, the US Military seems to be in charge of everything down there -- opening and running the airport, trying to get the port open, clearing the roads, etc. -- that a better-established and wealthier government would do itself. And I don't see anyone from the Haitian government complaining about it, or yelling and screaming that their military should be (or could be, if given the money) doing those things.

Really, stop listening to Rush ... no one is funding the Haitian government with private emergency relief funds or, evidently, with public funds.

[AliceFromHouston]

I'm not sure where all this concern is about money going to the Haitian government ... to date, I haven't seen any solicitations to individuals by the Haitian government, have you?

Right now, the US Military seems to be in charge of everything down there -- opening and running the airport, trying to get the port open, clearing the roads, etc. -- that a better-established and wealthier government would do itself. And I don't see anyone from the Haitian government complaining about it, or yelling and screaming that their military should be (or could be, if given the money) doing those things.

Really, stop listening to Rush ... no one is funding the Haitian government with private emergency relief funds or, evidently, with public funds.

Nailed it.

[M_Marked]

all I heard was $100 million, I expressed that I didn't want to see a red cent go to the haitian government. I have no idea where the [government] money is going.sending troops and the engineers is the right move to build some basic infrastructure (port, roads, hospitals). probably most disturbing is the absurd statement that I'm listening to Rush. I haven't heard rush limbaugh speak in over a decade. It's my own concern based on what I've read about what has been going on in haiti the last few years. you should stop assuming what I'm saying and actually read it. I cited an article from the Inquirer that backs up those observations and you accuse me of listening to rush. could you be any more partisan? try making statements rather than making bul**** assumptions and absurd statements.
had you left it at
Right now, the US Military seems to be in charge of everything down there -- opening and running the airport, trying to get the port open, clearing the roads, etc. -- that a better-established and wealthier government would do itself. And I don't see anyone from the Haitian government complaining about it, or yelling and screaming that their military should be (or could be, if given the money) doing those things. but you had to make a moronic dig. if you know anything about me, and it's clear you do not, you wouldn't tell me to stop listening to rush.

[M_Marked]

Nailed it.

maybe if you're a moron. I fail to see how completely misconstruing my statements and making absurd assumptions is nailing anything, but I guess that's why you two are partisan Democrats (with a capital D).

[usacomm]

maybe if you're a moron. I fail to see how completely misconstruing my statements and making absrd assumptions is nailing anything, but I guess that's why you two are partisan Democrats (with a capital D).

Some people have to politicize everything.

To me, it's common sense to be concerned about how your donations are used ... or misused.

Fortunately, there are quite a few reputable organizations involved in Haiti's relief efforts, so I'm not terribly worried about the misuse of much of the private donations made. I would, however, like to get an idea, sometime in the distant future, as to how effectively that money was used.

[disappointment2]

Here's that port courtesy of The Boston Globe's Big Picture. Note the half sunk crane in the rforeground.


I'm frankly a little more worried about the near total lack of governance in Haiti at this point, rather than its kleptocratic elites skiming off the top. Like your concern is a good one going into the future but that right now the destruction is such that its been made a tad irrelevant.




Haiti 48 hours later - The Big Picture - Boston.com

[AliceFromHouston]

maybe if you're a moron. I fail to see how completely misconstruing my statements and making absurd assumptions is nailing anything, but I guess that's why you two are partisan Democrats (with a capital D).

El, I genuinely apologize about the "Rush" part. In my saying "nailed it" the Rush thing wasn't the part of Shosh's comment I was applauding. Where I think she was dead on is this: at this particular moment, concerns about Haitian government corruption are all but irrelevant since their involvement in the immediate earthquake recovery efforts will be ancillary at best.

And the $100 million allocated by Obama? I strongly doubt most will end up pocketed by corrupt Haitians pols but, regardless, it is but dust compared to the hundreds of billions we've spent on Wall Street bailouts, the corrupt and kleptocratic regime in Afghanistan, corrupt war profiteers in Iraq and Afghanistan and so forth. I do not understand the undue focus on the relatively small funds for this earthquake relief, especially when tens of thousands of innocent souls are in peril at this very moment, and I do believe many of the folks focused on this are pedaling an agenda.

And, if you knew me at all, you would know that I am anything but a partisan Democrat.

[M_Marked]

I'm frankly a little more worried about the near total lack of governance in Haiti at this point, rather than its kleptocratic elites skiming off the top. Like your concern is a good one going into the future but that right now the destruction is such that its been made a tad irrelevant.

not skimming off the top, wholesale theft and incompetence. if there's no governance, that's an improvement. the pictures don't change anything, the best way to address the situation is through direct support, not in sending wads of cash to the haitian government, if there isn't a government, more is the better at this point. that's true now, it's true a month from now. I'm as aware as I'll ever be of what's going on there. Having read a bit about haiti in the last year, I knew that it couldn't have struck a worse place. that it was likely the whole place would just collapse. the first night a guy called in (presumably on a satellite phone) saying that the entire city of port au prince was shrouded in dust. no one wanted to say it, but in all lieklihood the city had fallen. literally. two years ago a school collapsed on children because the government neither cared to inspect nor fund adequate use of steel rebar. people were starving at "harvest time, " mixing in dirt with their food. the place must be like hell on earth. If it were me, I'd want the first boat out of there. I don't think you and I really disagree about anything here, honestly. I can be concerned about this because I'm not there. the President should also be concerned, and if he isn't supporting the government at this stage, I applaud him for it.

[M_Marked]

El, I genuinely apologize about the "Rush" part. In my saying "nailed it" the Rush thing wasn't the part of Shosh's comment I was applauding. Where I think she was dead on is this: at this particular moment, concerns about Haitian government corruption are all but irrelevant since their involvement in the immediate earthquake recovery efforts will be ancillary at best.

And the $100 million allocated by Obama? I strongly doubt most will end up pocketed by corrupt Haitians pols but, regardless, it is but dust compared to the hundreds of billions we've spent on Wall Street bailouts, the corrupt and kleptocratic regime in Afghanistan, corrupt war profiteers in Iraq and Afghanistan and so forth. I do not understand the undue focus on the relatively small funds for this earthquake relief, especially when tens of thousands of innocent souls are in peril at this very moment, and I do believe many of the folks focused on this are pedaling an agenda.

And, if you knew me at all, you would know that I am anything but a partisan Democrat.

do I like wall st bailouts? no. do I like the make work stimulus projects that don't address our long term needs? no. we just piss money away. what undue focus, it was a specific point that seems to have bothered some people...someone could simply have pointed out that they didn't think it was happening. I have no agenda to pedal, I'm not a politician, just a frustrated american. that's the problem, if you have an opinion on something, all of a sudden someone wants to make you a caricature or a stereotypical partisan. it's wrong on both sides. only now did I find we spent $700 million on aid and these people still had no food, yet there's no money to build a roosevelt blvd or second ave subway in America. in 2007? they made $30 million available to improve intercity rail. it would have been nice if someone had provided recomendations on where to donate.