A Brief Survey of Some Post-Warsaw Pact States

May 23rd, 2011 • No Comments

The Warsaw Pact was the document that bound the Soviet satellite states permanently to the USSR. It was created in response to NATO, and the political borders of the Warsaw states signified exactly where the Iron Curtain fell across Europe. Although the Soviet Union let go of its influence over many nations in the two years before its dissolution, there are still areas of the Russian Federation that are trying to become autonomous. The infighting that has occurred as provinces attempt to become their own countries has slowed the Russian economy, and in trying to rectify this problem the Russian government has become more centralized and undemocratic. In contrast to Russia, many of the other states that were bound by the Warsaw Pact have become more democratic and ‘westernized’. East Germany not only became part of the West but rejoined its other half to constitute a Greater Germany well in tune with the West. Romania, which has never been a completely democratic country, has also become more European, having their first open elections ever in 1989. While the Warsaw states have moved forward with great zeal, the fate of Russia has been to stumble at every turn.

Russia has not had a smooth ride since the Soviet Union dissolved December 26, 1991 and was replaced by the Russian Federation along with 14 other republics. Twice since the Russian Federation formed has there been an attempt at a coup d’etat, both of which have failed miserably. This goes to show how disorganized the opposition has been in Russia. The first Russian president, Boris Yeltsin, tried to completely reform the country constitutionally and economically. In order to receive international funding the government had to liberalize the economy, which plunged Russia into hyperinflation as the government tried to squeeze all of the built up pressure in the economy out. This would intensely polarize the population, creating a class of very rich oligarchs who controlled 13% of the country’s GDP while wiping out many people’s life savings and pushing them into poverty. There is still not a very big middle class in Russia.

Control of these economic reforms created a standoff between Yeltsin and the Russian parliament in 1993, at which point he tried to dissolve the parliament (a power he did not have). The aftermath of all the political and physical fighting was Yeltsin remaining president, the ban of political leftist and nationalist parties, a new constitution was pushed through the parliament making the presidency stronger by giving it the power to issue decrees and dismiss the prime minister.Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin has centralized the government even more. With the creation of the FSB to replace the KGB, Russia has become a veritable police state. Russia now has a hierarchical, pyramid government, with the electoral politics favoring the incumbent heads of government. As time goes on Russia is reverting back to a highly centralized quasi-dictatorship.

East Germany was simultaneously the closest and farthest Warsaw state to the West. Following the collapse of the Berlin Wall, movement between East Germany and the West was finally free of restrictions. This allowed Germans it see completely how much they did not have living behind the Iron Curtain. The first election after the Wall fell determined what the East German population wanted in terms of the West. In March 1990 the CDU won 45% of the vote, and progressed forward with plans to join with Western Germany. This came in the form of Helmut Kohl’s five point plan (which later became the ten point plan). East Germany adopted the West German deutschmark, as the East German currency was worthless. Wages, rents, and interest were exchanged at a 1:1 ratio, which dramatically increased the amount of consumer spending in East Germany, as before there had been essentially none with any real currency to exchange for goods. East Germany transferred financial policy to the West, and in turn investments and subsidies flew into the East.

East Germany was absorbed into the parliamentary system of government that the West had already created. On the day that the East and West were reunified, the German Democratic Republic simply ceased to exist. This granted the citizens that had previously been part of East Germany citizenship to a country that was part of NATO, the United Nations, and the European Communities. The constitution was rewritten to reflect the unification, and Basic Law was now the judicial system that was used in the East. In essence East Germany just ceased to exist.

Romania has not faired quite as well as East Germany but has still come a long way from where it was released from the Warsaw Pact. Romania was completely run down and economically exhausted by the time the Soviet Union collapsed. This was in part due to the Communist leader Ceauşescu, who in the 1980s was obsessed with paying back all the loans from the West that Romania had, creating a heavy industrial sector, and building a massive ‘Palace of the People’. Despite the fact that there was an abundance of food in Romania the population was put on rations to increase exports. The food that was left in Romania was more often than not unacceptable for export. Rations also existed in fuels and electricity, as everything that could be was directed into heavy industry. This left Romania with a bloated heavy industry, lack of light industrial goods and massive amounts of pollution. Ceauşescu was executed on Christmas Day, 1989, by the National Salvation Front which had taken power during the revolution.

While the FSN at first allowed political parties, they sought to discredit their leaders through state controlled media. The new government that was elected was mostly former Communist officials. They used miners to oppress anti-communist demonstrations instead of the army in what are called mineriads. From its inception as a democratic state, Romania has always had the goal of joining the European Union. The European Union and the West as a whole helped Romania to reform so that it could join. One of the ways this was done was through the signing of the Interim Agreement on Trade and Trade-related Aspects between the EU and Romania in 1993, which created joint institutions to allow for direct communication between the two. After that all Romanian laws and institutions were formed with the goal of European integration in mind to the point that no laws could be passed by parliament until they were sure that the law complied with EU standards. The EU also provided much of the funding for this project to work properly. Romania was admitted into NATO as well as the European Union in 2004, only 9 years after its formal application was made.

Russia has fared far worse democratically than any of its previous satellites. Order has come in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, but it has been at the expense of any sort of democratic reforms. While Russia is theoretically democratic, it is truthfully controlled by the oligarchs and a very powerful executive. East Germany ceased to exist, but the area it used to occupy is now part of one of the most democratic government systems in Europe. Romania, while never having much in the way of democratic traditions has emerged from the 20th century as a thoroughly democratic, European country. In their eagerness to get out from under the shadow of the USSR the Warsaw states fled for the sanctuary of democracy, no matter what the costs.

The Ramifications of Total War

May 23rd, 2011 • 2 Comments

Political and social change is generally a slow tedious process. However, some times major changes in conduct, such as the movement from ‘civilized’, gentlemen’s warfare to total warfare in World War I and World War II, have ripple effects through the political and social structures of a country or continent. WWI was the first time that the society became involved in the production of war as well the society as a whole experienced the tragedy of the battlefield. The introduction of total war accelerated social movements in Europe, such as the women’s rights movement and the class struggle, and gave them more power to assert themselves on the political system. The political system itself changed in the chaos of the world wars, and previously oppressed groups were able to take a measure of control in organizing new governments based on democracy and not on the monarchial traditions of the past. There was also a large ideological shift that arose from the wars, towards extreme ideologies like Fascism and Communism. After the wars were over this would become the trigger for the Cold War. Another thing that changed because of the complete war that raged in Europe was in international relations. World War I sparked the movement towards world organizations, such as the League of Nations, and the ideas of collective security self determination. The changes in the nature of warfare from civilized to total war precipitated the massive social and political changes in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century.

The First World War was the first time that war really changed from a gentlemen’s game of war with rules to an all out total war. Prior to 1914, wars were fought on battlefields far from towns and civilians, where both sides lined up and charged when they were both ready. The changes in technology, such as the introduction of airplanes and the improvement of accuracy in firearms, changed the way that war was structured. As well, WWI was the first time that machine guns were really used. This gave troops much more mobility, as well as made sure that weapons did not have to cool down in the middle of battle as was previously with the older ‘revolver cannons’. The move to airplanes and dropping bombs in WWI also had an unprecedented effect on Europe, because they were used not only in battle but against civilian populations in Britain and Germany. There was not as much bombing against civilians in WWI as in WWII, but there were still some casualties. This began the blurring of the distinction between combatants and the general population and also showed that war now needed to be won against the enemy country as much as the enemy’s forces. The offensive against civilian populations marked the turn to total warfare.

WWI shattered the political borders of Europe and it was not until after WWII that it would cement into a semblance of what it looks like today. The two great empires that occupied the continent, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, lay in ruins. While its destruction cannot be directly attributed to the First World War, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire brought many new states into being. Most of the remaining empire became the country of Turkey, while territory was ceded to Britain, France, Greece and Armenia. As well, the Treaty of the Straits ensured that there was international access to the Bosporus and the Sea of Marmara. The end of the Austro-Hungarian Empire also produced new states, although some of them would be either partially or completely swallowed by the Soviet Union at the end of WWII. In all, the Empire was succeeded by Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Poland, and the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs (which later became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia). Lands were also given to existing countries, such as Romania, Italy and the Ukraine. When the Russians were defeated in WWI by the Germans they carved off many different states, such as Finland, the Baltic provinces, Poland, and the Ukraine, only to absorb them once again into the Soviet Union. After World War II the political borders had to be redrawn after the defeat of Germany. Germany as a country was split into four zones of occupation with one given to each power, the USA, France, Britain, and the Soviet Union. Eventually the French, British and American zones merged together to form West Germany, and the Soviet zone became known as East Germany. The two halves of Germany would not be reunited until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Overall, WWI and WII resulted in a massive transformation of the political landscape of the European continent.

The world wars also brought Europe’s attention back to itself from its colonies around the world. Between WWI and WWII many colonies were turned into mandates by the League of Nations. After WWII more colonies were granted the right to self determination, and the British, French, Dutch and Belgians essentially liquidated their empires. Britain gave independence to its colonies over the twenty years following the end of the war. Transjordan was created in 1945; India, Pakistan, and Ceylon (Sri Lanka) gained independence in 1947; Burma and Palestine gained independence in 1948; Sudan gained independence in 1956; Ghana and Malaysia gained independence in 1957; Singapore became independent in 1958; Nigeria became independent in 1960; Sierra Leone gained independence in 1961; Jamaica and Uganda gained independence in 1962; Kenya and Zanzibar gained independence in 1963; Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia gained independence in 1964; and Southern Rhodesia declared independence in 1965. The French empire was completely gone by 1962. The end of the League of Nations mandates in Syria and Lebanon was in 1945; Laos and Cambodia joined the French Union in 1948; war ended in Vietnam in 1954; Morocco and Tunisia gained independence in 1956; Guinea gained independence in 1958; Madagascar and 14 other African countries gained independence; and Algeria became independent in 1962 after 8 years of fighting. As for the Belgian and Dutch empires, Indonesia gained independence in 1949; Belgian Congo became independent in 1960; Rwanda and Burundi gained independence in 1962; and Western New Guinea was ceded to Indonesia in 1963. Because they could not afford to run their own countries, they not support their colonies either and thus decided to leave them to fend for themselves. The decolonization movement also grew out of the ideas of the Paris Peace Conference, which called for the right of self determination for all countries.

From the First to Second World Wars there was a major shift in ideology as well as political systems. Many countries in Europe moved away from a largely monarchial, empire system to a democratic, parliamentary system. This shift in structure was a result of the shift in ideology across Europe. After the wars many were no longer satisfied with simply following the orders of their superiors, who often came from the ruling political or economic elite. This ideological shift towards Communism on one hand and more moderate Liberalism and Conservatism is what spawned the next major war – the Cold War. The polarization in the Cold War made European countries into second-rate powers as countries sided with either the Soviet Union or the United States. The ideological shift came from the soldiers in the trenches, who witnessed atrocities and could not mentally cope with the disenchantment that followed. This was something that would unite Communists across national divides. In many countries that were chaotic during the interwar period there was also a large shift to the right with the Fascist parties in Spain, Italy and Germany. The right also provided a counterweight to the threat of Communism from the left. The Communist movement began during the First World War, especially in Russia, and picked up pace after the Second. Communist parties showed up in Greece, France, and Italy as well as the Soviet satellite states. The ideological schism that occurred during the wars would continue until the early 1990s, ending with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratization of the satellite states and centralization of politics in Europe.

At the end of the First World War many governments realized that unless they wanted to continue to repeat the devastation that had occurred they would need more than just their own defenses to prevent war, they would need some thing that would ensure collective security. Europe tried to do this through NATO and the League of Nations between the wars and the United Nations and the United Nations after the failure of the League. Specific countries in Europe also sought to maintain peace through economic unions, making it unprofitable or in some cases impossible for countries to attack one another. The League of Nations was a failed experiment in international cooperation between WWI and WII. The League worked to reduce colonial empires through the mandate system, which assigned a degree of autonomy to certain colonies based on a ranking system of A, B, and C. The League was also supposed to oversee the disarmament of member countries to the point of having just enough weaponry to defend their own lands. Finally, the League of Nations was supposed to be a body that could adjudicate on international crises, so that they did not escalate to war, as had happened in 1914. While the League was successful in solving some disputes, such as the Aaland Islands in 1920 and the Greco-Bulgarian conflict in 1925, but in some others the League proved useless, such as Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia 1933 and the Manchurian Crisis in 1932. It is obvious that the League was not prepared to handle crises between its own founding member states, as it could do nothing to prevent war within Europe. After WWII France and Germany, along with the Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy and the Netherlands formed the European Steel and Coal Community, which integrated their industries. This integration was vital, because coal and steel production were essential at the time to production of the war time apparatus, such as weaponry and munitions. This way these countries could no longer possibly go to war with each other, especially France and Germany. This union would expand to be called the European Economic Community, would grow through numerous treaties to include such institutions as Euratom, and would include Denmark, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden. On November 1, 1993 the name of the organization was officially changed to the European Union, which now has 27 member states. The integration of Europe is perhaps one of the most striking thing that came out of the era of total war.

The secret alliance system that had existed before WWI was to blame for bringing in as many nations into the conflict as there were. There was a treaty between Austria-Hungary, Italy and Germany, which Germany saw as crucial to its war plans in Europe. The other alliance system was composed of agreements between France and Russia as well as Britain and Russia, thereby linking all three in what is called the Triple Entente. These networks of alliances pushed all of the countries into war that was originally between only two of them, turning the conflict into a world war.

The wars also created the perfect social situation for the furthering of women’s rights. Because so many men were deployed during the wars, women often took on jobs outside the home in places like munitions factories and mining, and although this did not further their cause it showed them what the world could be like if they fought for it. In the interwar period women pressed forward and won the right to vote in many places such as Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, the Scandinavian countries and Spain. During WWII women were actively part of the resistance to Nazi Germany, especially some Jewish women who were not as easily identifiable as Jews as men, who where circumcised. Women took advantage of the fact that women attracted less attention and suspicion than men, especially at a time when they were not highly regarded as being intelligent beings. After the war was over, however, women were forced once again out of the jobs they had during the war and back into the home, with more rights but without the social support to exercise them. They gained the right to vote in France, Italy and Belgium, and Greece in 1952. It would not be until the 1960s that women’s rights would really move from a political to a social revolution.

The conditions that resulted from the complete stopping of the European economy after the wars required many governments to step in to ensure their citizens had a minimum standard of living. In places such as Great Britain and Germany, where there had been extensive bombing, it was up to the government to help rebuild the economy and society as there were few people who could do it themselves. In Britain this meant that many essential industries, such as coal mining, the Bank of England, electricity, gas, communications, railroads, waterways, aviation, and parts of road transportation were nationalized. From this the British government was able to control wages, as well as outputs. Britain also put into place the National Health Service, which provided health care to citizens who could not previously afford it. While Sweden was not the middle ground of fighting in either WWI or WWII or even in either war, it emerged as the most socialist state in post-war Europe. Agriculture was subsidized, and a new pension plan benefiting wage earners was implemented which radically changed the way that blue and white collar workers were paid their pensions, as wages were equalized for all people. This was made universal, in that all members of the LO which was the national trade union confederation in Sweden. The development of welfare states has continued to spread since the end of WWII, and while they have been in decline in recent years, once encompassed large portions of public and private industry.

The advent of ‘total war’ for Europe also meant a total overhaul of the existing social and political systems. After the devastation that was wreaked all over Europe during the First and Second World Wars, Europe became obsessed with trying to avoid armed conflict. The armed conflicts that had been so prominent and constant came to a dead stop. While many still harbored resentment, society in Europe became one of mutual assistance and collective security. Through institutions like the United Nations and the European Union, Europe has become more of a cohesive culture. The total wars of the first half of the twentieth century also radically changed the societies of Europe, and set the stage for more changes to occur throughout the rest of the century. While economic classes still existed, the old nobility was greatly diminished, and people became free to pursue whatever kind of life they wanted. This does not mean that they did, but that they could. While the advent of total war meant that every conflict became a catastrophic one, it also changed the way the world works, and the way that we look at war.

The Economics of Aid: Haiti

May 19th, 2011 • 2 Comments

Many developing nations in the Global South have issues being able to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on foreign aid. No country has had a harder time with this than the Caribbean nation of Haiti. Once the most prosperous French colony, Haiti has had a history of totalitarianism, militarism, repression and poverty. Despite being the only successful slave rebellion in history and millions of dollars in aid money from the United States, the Organization of American States and the International Monetary Fund Haiti struggles to provide basic necessities to its citizens. In January 2010 a massive earthquake hit Haiti near Port-au-Prince, the capital. Any sort of progress that Haiti had made previously was reduced to rubble. Why did the earthquake cause so much damage and kill so many people? How is Haiti recovering, and is it possible that in some ways there are benefits that can come out of completely rebuilding the country? How is the international community helping, if they are in fact helping in their intervention? There are lots of questions surrounding the fate of Haiti that only time will tell. The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions, and it seems that while the international community has wanted to do the right thing they could be only making the situation in Haiti worse.
International economic dependence is a fact of the 20th century. More than ever countries are trading with each other, as well as relying on each other for things such as basic supplies and food. Many countries, including Haiti are not food secure in that if all trade were to cease they could not produce enough food to feed the population. Dependency theory, championed by Andre Gunder Frank, seeks to explain the world in terms of colonial traditions. Frank believes that while developed countries today may have at one point been undeveloped, they were never underdeveloped. This means that underdeveloped is not synonymous with traditional or pre-modern society, but that it is a direct representation of colonialist control and the attempt to push economies of the Global South to the same level as the developed world without giving them time to grow and adjust properly. He also argues that countries that are most weakly integrated into the international capitalist system are likely to be the most highly developed of the Global South, illustrated in the case of Japan which has built its own economy without the help of the West and yet has one of the strongest economies because it was never a satellite of the West. Actions such as replacing grassroots enterprises with international subsidiaries, forming an unskilled labour pool to ‘just give people work’, migration of workers to urban centers, and developing completely free trade in accordance with the World Trade Organization’s rules all have harmful, sometimes devastating, effects on the development of the Global South. While it would be impossible for a country to isolate itself from the world economy in today’s integrated market system, movement towards self sufficiency and domestic consumption rather than export are important in being independent from financial aid. All economic theory is contested; however, it is obvious that the prevailing Ricardian model of free trade benefiting everyone by having them specialize in their comparative advantage is not working well for the countries of the Global South.
Haiti has spent the last century locked in the interdependence tango with the international community, more specifically the United States. Aid started flowing from the United States to Haiti in 1915 when the Marines and Navy Bluejackets landed in Haiti to establish a military controlled government with a constitution written by the Americans. This occupation continued until 1934 with the Americans undertaking “A variety of sanitation, public health, education, and communication projects” to improve the country that had little in the way of infrastructure. After WWII Haiti seemed to be looking as though it would continue to develop, with all of its external loans paid off and the Haitian government had complete control over the Bank of Haiti. However, in 1955 Haiti was hit by a hurricane that sent the country into an economic crisis, leading to the election in 1957 of Dr. Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier as president. Over the course of the 14 years that Papa Doc was president over $40 million in aid from the United States would be “curtailed, then restored, curtailed again, partially restored, and finally cancelled”, as the brutal nature of the regime was apparent. The aid that was sent went to building infrastructure such as an airport near Port-au-Prince as well as the Artibonite dam. When the Duvalier regime ended after Jean-Claude Duvalier fled Haiti in 1987, democratically elected Aristide was overthrown in a coup d’etat in 1991. The United States, who had decided to provide aid funds to Aristide’s government, promptly enacted a trade embargo when the military took control of the country. While it is hard to measure the impact of this trade embargo, which lasted between 1991 and 1994, because of the lack of record keeping institutions in Haiti, it was nonetheless a devastating blow for the portion of the country living under the poverty line. There was rampant inflation and the Haitian gourde depreciated significantly against the US dollar, skyrocketing the prices of basic goods. The exchange rate has recovered somewhat since then, and it has taken until just recently for it to reach pre-coup levels. Since 2004 when Aristide had to be airlifted to the United States as rioting spread throughout the country during the bicentennial celebration, due to the government’s ineffectiveness, the United States led Multilateral Interim Force (now known as the UN Stability Mission in Haiti) has been present on the island. This amounted to what could be called another US invasion and occupation of Haiti. More than any other country the United States’ interference in Haiti in the last century has greatly influenced the course of the country’s economy and politics.
While economic aid has helped Haiti in some ways, it has come at a dramatic cost as well. Economically Haiti has been in a culture of ups and downs, starts and stops. Because of changes in political leadership and instability it is difficult for companies to take the risk of investing in the country, as they cannot guarantee that their investments would be secure. Haiti currently heavily on the United States as an export destination, with the Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement (HOPE) Acts, which provide tariff free access to the American apparel sector, which accounts for 60% of exports and 10% of Haitian GDP. While this may in some way be helping the population, reliance on a single country for trade under special circumstances is not beneficial in the long term. Most people (at least 60%) in Haiti are still tied to the agricultural sector, trying to eke out an existence on subsistence farming. There is no point in them trying to sell their produce, as the country is completely open to free trade and food is imported. 48% of the food in Haiti is imported, 47% is locally grown and the remaining 5% is covered by food assistance. Before the earthquake Haiti was starting to grow somewhat, posting positive GDP increases from 2005 to 2008. This growth was halted by the severe storm season, which damaged much of the country. Once again Haiti had to receive economic assistance to even feed its population. This pattern of small economic growth followed by a natural disaster is typical of the situation in Haiti.
What would have happened had Haiti not had the stop and start aid that it has received over the last century? It is possible that the entire may have died out due to malnourishment and or fled the near constant threat of natural disasters. It is also possible that they would have developed stronger domestic markets for foodstuff instead of being inundated by cheaper produce from places like the United States. If the World Bank and the IMF had not made Haiti remove all barriers to trade, they may have had a history of balanced trade rather than a huge trade deficit. If they had not tried to rush Haiti into this ‘modern’ era of liberal economics and politics, there may have been a solid base for the Haitian economy to build on. Because of all the disasters that have happened in Haiti, it is feasible that without the massive amount of aid they have received they may have actually created a response system to deal with the aftermath of such because they would not be depending on someone else to come and save them. This is purely speculation, but in light of many more coordinated reactions to severe earthquakes such as China in 2008 it leaves one wondering how much could have been averted if the country was better prepared, if indeed there was a way that they could have been.
On January 12, 2010 Haiti was hit with a 7.0 magnitude earthquake on the coastline near Port-au-Prince, the capital city. After the 2007-2008 storm season when Haiti was hit by four major tropical storms, this was a devastating blow to the country. While estimates have been as high as 300,000 deaths due to the earthquake, Radio Netherlands Worldwide estimates that the number of casualties is closer to 100,000. This is probably due to the fact that many people were awake and outside when the quake struck at 4:53 in the afternoon, so even if people were inside they were probably able to get out before buildings started collapsing. The fact that more than half of Haiti’s population lives on less than $0.50 US a day was reflected in the number of buildings that collapsed, while the severity of the earthquake was underlined by the collapse of even the most well built structures such as the National palace, the Supreme Court, the National Assembly and the Port-au-Prince city hall. A description of housing in Cite Soleil, one of the poorest parts of Port-au-Prince, says that most structures are made of cement blocks, with floors of cement or earth, doors made of tin or wood and barbed wire to try and keep vandals out. The infrastructural damage sustained made delivering and distributing aid to the population affected extremely hard and many people did not receive clean water and food for days after the quake. One of the reasons there seems to be more deaths from this earthquake than from others in the past year is that Port-au-Prince had an estimated population of 897,859 (2009 census), packed into 36.04 square kilometres. Hundreds of thousands of people who escaped dying in the earthquake are now displaced persons, waiting to see when and where they can start rebuilding their lives. This is especially pressing now as the region’s rainy season begins in May and there is no land available to relocate people to for temporary shelter. On March 27, 2010 it was reported that huge clean up projects were to start in areas that had rubble, with the US Defense Department clearing debris if residents moved it into the street. This project is not spread out across the entire city, but there are hopes that it soon will be. In the wake of this earthquake much still needs to be done before the country can even be rebuilt.
This is not the first time that Haiti has been devastated by a natural disaster. Most of the 20th century has been plagued by disaster after disaster, just as Haiti seems to get on its feet economically and politically. In 1935 an unnamed storm killed more than 2000 people. A massive 8.1 magnitude earthquake in the Dominican Republic in 1946 and the subsequent tsunami that followed killed 1,790 people. The country barely had time to recover before it was struck with Hurricane Hazel, which killed more than 100 people as well as wiped out 40% of coffee trees and 50% of the cacao crop, completely devastating the economy. This crisis was followed by the installation of ‘Papa Doc’ Duvalier in 1957. In 1963 Hurricane Flora killed over 8000 people, which has gone down in history as one of the most deadly hurricanes on record. 1994 saw Hurricane Gordon kill over 1000 people, while 1998 had Hurricane George kill 400 people and wipe out 80% of the agricultural crops in the country. After Aristide was expelled from Haiti in early 2004 there was another storm, this time Tropical Storm Jeanne killed up to 2,500 in the aftermath and displaced thousands more. In the storm season of 2008 four separate hurricanes – Fay, Gustav, Hanna and Ike – hit Haiti within the span of 30 days, killing more than 800 people combined and destroying 60% of the country’s harvests. Much of the damage and resulting deaths from these events have been because of aggravating factors, such as deforestation resulting in landslides and flooding. It is surprising that in a country that has been hit by natural disasters so many times in the past century has little to no effective way of responding to natural disasters.
The aftermath of January 12th has been an outpouring of aid from all over the world. As of March 29, 2010 $2,413,670,856 US has been committed to helping rebuild Haiti while $1,244,478,163 US has been pledged but not committed. These numbers include all goods that have been donated along with cash contributions by governments, non-profit organizations, the United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and private companies. The American Red Cross has donated $10,001,999 in cash to the IFRC Emergency Appeal, as well as $39,591,491 in food aid. Of this aid more than $32m US was raised via text message, where people could text “Haiti” to a phone number and $10 US was added to their phone bill. The countries that contributed the most on a per capita basis are Canada, who contributed $3.90 US for each Canadian, followed by Sweden who contributed $2.50 US for each person, Norway who contributed $2.20 US per person, Denmark with $2.10 US per person, Luxembourg with $1.50 US per person, Finland with $1.40 US per person, Guyana with $1.30 US per person, and Spain with $1.00 US per person. The United States committed $778,193,754 US which means they contributed $0.50 per capita. As well, President Barack Obama asked the United States Congress on March 24th, 2010 for a further $2.8bn US in a letter to the Speaker of the House.
In the past two months much as been done to start the path towards making Haiti a functioning country again. However, this means working from below even ground zero – much has to be done to remove the remains of buildings and people before work can even begin to rebuild. While the direction of long term recovery has yet to be determined, it will be overseen by a commission made up of representatives from more than a dozen donor countries, the OAS, the Haitian government, NGOs, other international institutions and CARICOM (the 15 country bloc of Caribbean nations). Hopefully whatever form this commission takes will actually be effective for managing the rebuilding of the entire country. Ideas have been pouring in from all over the world as to where the recovery program should start, and without careful planning the project may take on more than it can handle. It also needs to make sure that the programs that it puts in place actually work, and are not used by local politicians to consolidate power over the population. Things that need work in the near future include water and sanitation systems, as well as creating adequate shelter, especially going into the rainy season, as more than 1.5m people are currently homeless and living in makeshift shelters and tents. The American Red Cross, which has committed more than $400m US, released its broad outline for spending on March 29, 2010. This includes spending between 35-40% on shelter, 20-25% on water and sanitation projects, and 15-20% on cash grants to help families rebuild their lives. As well, they are working on preparing Haiti for the coming rainy season by replacing dug latrines with elevated ones, digging drainage gullies to prevent flooding, and making sure that as many people as possible have shelter. Without this planning there could very well be another humanitarian crisis in Haiti as the storms hit. There is so much more that needs to be done before Haiti is anywhere near a functioning country again.
While there has been millions in donations to the recovery of Haiti and the disaster has started to fade from the minds of the Global North, there is still much to do and those who will be haunted by the nightmare of the earthquake. It is unmistakable that Haiti needs aid right now to rebuild their entire country. The tricky part now is figuring out when is the right time to stop providing aid, because unless the right moment is found Haiti will be left with not enough to continue forward properly or they will end up with too much and not be able to sustain the same levels when the aid finally is removed. The Global and Mail estimates that the cost to rebuild Haiti will be in excess of $14 billion (US). However, we do not just need to rebuild Haiti to what it was before, we need to do so properly so that when natural disasters strike (and they will inevitably strike Haiti again) the infrastructure is better able to hold together and we do not end up with tragedies of this magnitude. Allowing Haiti to institute some tariffs and barriers on trade will help them to develop domestic markets and economic sectors. This is especially essential in the agriculture industry for the fact that more than 60% of the population is involved in food production as well as because Haiti is not food secure (and was not even before the earthquake hit) and imports cheaper foodstuffs. This will increase the balance of trade in Haiti to something favourable to the country so that it will have the money to be able to improve the infrastructure. Building more factories that people can work in for subsistence wages will not help the population. In terms of post-secondary education, while the universities need to be rebuilt so does Haiti need to build more vocational schools to turn out skilled labourers who will be able to create new industries. Moving essential industries away from Port-au-Prince will help with the overcrowding in the city as well as help with the demand on resources in that area. Encouraging private firms to take on developmental projects rather than the government or foreign entities doing them will help create a culture of investment in the country. These things will be essential if the international community really wants to make Haiti into a country with a real chance of not only returning to its former self but surpassing it.
Whatever the intentions of those providing economic aid, the international community will succeed in crowding out any investment that could organically occurred in Haiti. The earthquake earlier this year completely levelled Haiti, but maybe that is what it takes to get the world’s attention. Before the earthquake Haiti’s economy looked liked it was going to start to from properly, with positive GDP increases from 2005-2009. Hopefully with proper rebuilding and better economic practices (which are not necessarily those recommended by the IMF or the World Bank) Haiti can seek to minimize loses in this year and next. Haiti has such a rich history of throwing off the chains of domination of other countries, but has been brought down by unfair reparations and non-recognition, and has never been able to recover. Just when Haiti seems to bring itself out of debt disaster strikes and it is sent spinning back into the cycle of debt and poverty. While there is a current need for aid to the country, the challenge is now figuring out when enough is enough and letting Haiti stand up and take charge of their future.