Every disaster plan is built to some degree around the idea of triage-deciding who can and cannot be saved. The worst cases are often separated and allowed to perish so that others who are considered more survivable can be treated.
There is a tragic triage underway in Haiti thanks to screw-ups on the part of the US and western response, and in part because of the objectively tough conditions in Haiti that blocked access and made the delivery of food, water and services difficult. But the planners should have known that!
Look at the TV coverage. "Saving Haiti" is the title CNN has given to its coverage. It shows us all the planes landing, and donations coming in and celebrity response on one hand, and then the problems/failures to actually deliver aid on the other.
Much of the coverage focuses on the upbeat--people being saved, although despite the frame which is about a compassionate America's response, the Haitian reality is only barely getting through. It's not pretty.
Everyone wants to believe in the best intentions of all involved but five days after the quake, with so few being helped, we have to ask, how did this get so badly done?
It's like Obama's plan to stop foreclosures through modifying loans. Great idea, but only a handful of homeowners have benefited. There is often a yawning gap between the idea and its execution.
So what happened? The short answer: it is too little and, in many cases, much of it, too late. A natural disaster has been compounded by another well-intentioned man-made one.
Why? One global report I saw-sorry forget the publication, explained:
"United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon emphasized the importance of the first 72 hours following the 12 January disaster. But already much of that crucial time has been spent attempting to assess the situation.
The structures usually responsible for dealing with civilian emergencies have been unable to respond effectively due to widespread destruction of national and international power structures. (This means the UN and the Haitian government as well as the US effort, DS)
Lacking outside support, civilians have worked communally to try to save their own families."
Supplies were sent but much of it has yet to get out of the airport. Troops have not been assigned to help deliver water or guard medical facilities. There is a fear of the wrath of a people that are pissed off at hearing about aid and money donated and, then, seeing nothing trickling down into their neighborhoods. Hence all the suggestions of violence as if it is all irrational.
And there is a deeper fear, a political fear. What with President Aristide, the man the US considers too radical for its tastes, anxious to return. There is a fear of a possible revolt against the lack of help could turn political and angry.
Hillary Clinton keeps telling the Haitians that we are their friend--but many doubt it.
They know that Aristide's Lavalas party is the most popular in Haiti and wants a more profound transformation that the US wants to allow. It had been banned from taking part in scheduled elections next month that are likely to be cancelled. Haiti's president Preval is weak and dependent on the US largesse.
They also know that in the aftermath of other earthquakes like the one that rocked Managua, Nicaragua in the 1970's a revolution followed. They don't want that to happen in Haiti, and know how volatile the country is in part because of neglect by the West over the years.
Why the Obama Administration Response to Haiti is a Disaster
-
Why Is The Haiti Disaster Response So Screwed Up
Is There Another Katrina Relief Effort In The Making?
By Danny Schechter
Z Space, January 18, 2010
Straight to the Source
