The title alone will send some of the faithful scurrying to less blasphemous blogs. But theirs is not my faith, which is one that allows me to acknowledge my instant reaction when I awoke Wednesday to hear the awful news on the morning programs, and one which worships a God that can handle my reaction which comes from the emotions that he gave me. A tough and resilient God, if you will. We have yet to see a massive hurricane hit Beverly Hills, or an earthquake in Westchester County New York, with similar destructive impact as the one in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. California will suffer the “Big One” we are told, no doubt that the poor will take the brunt of the hurt, though the sustainability of the region is seldom questioned. But what we get instead are tsunamis in South Asia and earthquakes in Haiti that cause levels of disruption far in excess of what developed countries typically experience. Even New Orleans, as bad as it was with its proof that that poverty among wealth exaggerates disaster when disaster hits, was spared the fate of Haiti. But Haiti, despite its sibling relationship with Louisiana, the result of the sale and resale of slaves between the two French colonies, is a much different story from NOLA. It does not catch a break. A hurricane here, sadistic despot there, a new disease and bone crushing poverty to boot. The political instability that has seen United States troops in place on more than one occasion perhaps is part of an historical legacy that began with Napoleon Bonaparte’s cowardly deception that resulted in the imprisonment of the victorious General Toussaint L’ouverture after a ragtag army of black and mixed race (an important distinction there) fighters defeated the French Army. Haiti’s history, like Liberia and Ethiopia, stands out within the African Diaspora as examples of defiance, seldom realized by others in the pre-colonial world. Hence, there is pride in the example of Toussaint and Henri Christophe, the early leaders of their portion of the island they share with the Dominican Republic. Haiti’s creation was one of the factors that affected early United States policy toward the Caribbean. Its creation influenced the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine, a rather tepid warning by the tough spunky young nation ruled by European expatriates that suggested that Old World adventurism in the New World might be more trouble than it’s worth. The Doctrine’s 19th century cautionary diplomacy may have checked French ambitions and provided the United States with a virtual monopoly of influence and economic benefit among post-colonial states in the hemisphere, even if in doing so it also protected insurrectionist slaves, and caused panic among the southern planter slave holding aristocracy in the U.S. But even this was a small price to pay for the unfettered access to the resources and exploitation that has characterized U.S. hemispheric policy to this day.But to this day in Haiti, everything that can break the back of country happened, and one is left wondering whether it had to come to this?
God, how could you?
Even while asking that question Wednesday morning, I knew that there was no discernable answer that my, or a number of minds, including those of intellectuals on either side of the faith issue could develop. The concept of faith, to my thinking, renders trivial any attempt to define the mind of God. Faith is the evidence of things unseen. You either believe or you don’t. Non-believers offer pat answers that defy the logic that they demand from believers, and believers, depending upon the school of thought or faith tradition, vary in the explanations. So the question posed really needs to be put aside—an unsatisfying proposal for those set on developing proof that Creation was a series of scientifically explainable coincidences, and for those set on developing proof that God’s blueprint for human kind can be understood in an environment free from scientific method of discovery and dependent totally upon various interpretations of ancient literature. In my mind, God is deeper than all of that.
Well, if we dismiss the God question, what else is there?
Perhaps a response to my emotions lies closer to home. Consider the following: developed countries suffer disasters better, when they get them. That is a broad statement, yet the literature that proves this has been written, and continues to be written. Here in Texas, we just exited one of the most severe droughts in history. Last summer appears to have been the high point of a drought that began, according to experts, in 2007. The two year drought affected agriculture and resulted in emergency appropriations to counties in the state declared disaster areas. Remember that? Probably not. During an earlier drought in California in the 1950s, that state exported water to arid areas in Southern California. Droughts in the United States result in contemporary headlines, and serious suffering among those dependent on water for their livelihoods. But here, most urban dwellers experience drought by paying higher prices for produce and meat. Budgets are adjusted, lawns subjected to rationing, and for the most part, life goes on, perhaps a little less comfortably as was the case last summer. In Ethiopia in the 80s a severe drought made headlines for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to starvation and malnourishment caused by the loss of agricultural sustainability. That scenario has been repeated several times in Sub-Saharan Africa since then.
It is unclear how long the earthquake in Haiti lasted. The 1989 California earthquake was of the same magnitude (7 on the Richter scale) as last week’s quake, and it lasted 15 seconds. Indications are that the Haitian earthquake lasted anywhere from 60 seconds to longer, with aftershocks. So a comparison is not really possible, especially when factors such as depth and the location of the epicenter are factored in. But the present dilemma is in getting rescuers in, making rescues, and getting food, medicine and supplies to the country. These logistical problems are not typically what one expects following a natural disaster in a developed country (the bumbling that went on following Katrina notwithstanding). The earthquake rescue in California was able to save hundreds of people and fewer than 100 lives were lost. Katrina, with all of the bumbling from government agencies, was far less of a disaster for New Orleans than a similar disaster in a densely populated area in a developing country. The level of a nation’s development makes a difference. It makes a difference in how many people live in overpopulated areas. It makes a difference in how a country can respond with expensive resources, and trained personnel to tragedy. It makes a difference in how individuals can support themselves until help can arrive.
Taking Responsibility
Haiti is devastated and will likely be for some time to come. Following the stabilization of the post earthquake affects, there will be conferences involving donor nations, NGOs, UN agencies, and the like to develop ways to repair the long term damage to that nation. And if we are lucky, the world can restore Haiti to where it was before the earthquake. Media, in the meantime will have moved on. So will private donations and interest.This is not a very satisfying scenario. Eventually Haitian restoration will become another in a list of sustainability emergencies that development experts debate at international relations schools, NGO conferences, and within foreign ministries. Glimmers of hope occasionally shine through all of this—attempts to eliminate malarial infections in Africa come to mind, but so many of these attempts are undermined by the lack of basic systemic change in how the world runs its economy, particularly in developing countries.
It’s hard for poor countries to earn their way out of poverty by selling basic commodities in agricultural markets dominated by agriculture interest in North America and Europe. At one time Haiti was on the road to sustainability in rice production. That meant that they would be able to feed themselves. However, international trade rules require open markets, which mean that cheaper rice from abroad must be allowed into a country, or or that country runs the risk of being charged with protectionism--a charge that carries severe economic penalties under trade rules. The result, foreign rice, much of it from the U.S. flows into Haiti, undercutting the prices of local growers, and sending workers in that sector elsewhere for employment. The fix, of course, is to allow developing countries like Haiti, more latitude to protect their local markets. By doing this, these countries can eventually feed themselves, and make money selling the excess to foreign markets. This is not happening under the current international trade environment, not to mention the political environments in the U.S. and the European Union. The result is that less money comes into Haiti from what could be a successful cash crop, and more money goes out of Haiti (much of it donor money) to purchase a food staple. And this problem will not get fixed at the conferences. The poverty that defined the fortunes of that nation, and others in places like the continent of Africa, Asia, and Central and South America will continue virtually unabated. The connection between development, sustainability, and recovery after natural disaster is a solid one. Our political, social, and economic systems do not function effectively to produce advanced development. Indeed, even in the best of scenarios development is a time consuming process that requires capital, good policy, good governance, and a lot of good luck. The good luck requirement aside, good policy, good governance and capital can be mandated by laws if such laws exist.
Is there a fundamental right to development under International Law?
If one accepts the thesis that developed states survive disasters better than developing states, finding a legal regime to meet this need is crucial. So to the question posed by the heading of this section, the simple answer is yes. Or at least, there ought to be. This discussion is crowded with a variety of notions of fundamental law—rights, interests, legal culture, natural law and the like. But if we start with the notion that international law was and is about managing relations between nations and has evolved to be about securing safety and basic life protections for human beings, we can see our way to an answer. Perhaps not one that will win universal acceptance, but at least one that has a solid foundation in legal theory. Students taking Constitutional Law are usually surprised by the revelation that there is no fundamental right to food in the United States Constitution—at least not as presently interpreted. Nor is there a fundamental right to housing, employment, decent education, and the like. The interpretation of our rights in the United States is based on western notions of liberty which tend to be of the civil and political rights variety. The right to equal treatment, freedom of speech and religion, values having to do with fairness when confronting government threats to liberty or life are among the basic foundations of western freedom. Everything else--decent housing, food, medical treatment--one must get on one’s own, or utilize the political process to obtain (the health care debate is an example). On the international plane, rights having to do with these values are enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CPR). However, on that same plane is the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR). That covenant speaks to the obligation of states to provide basic human needs in the area of economic rights, in addition to certain social rights like labor organizing, access to employment and education. The United States has signed and ratified the CPR, but it has only signed the ESCR. This means that The United States is not obligated under the ESCR to guarantee the rights in that document domestically. All of the European states have signed both documents and are obligated to conform to the requirements for their residents.
Other international initiatives designed to “fundamentalize” economic rights include the Declaration for a New International Economic Order (NIEO), and the United Nations Charter on the Economic Rights and Duties of States. The latter, an implementation of the former, was an attempt to amend the international law that deals with states responsibility to other states. Under the system spelled out in the initiatives, states would have an obligation to ensure access to resources and capital to states otherwise unable to secure resources and capital. The structure was a redefinition of interstate relations under a category of international law known as state responsibility. The structure was proposed by developing countries to the United Nations General Assembly in the 1970s and passed. Because General Assembly resolutions do not have the force of law under the UN Charter, this structure never became formalized as law as that process is understood in traditional international law (western state based). Many have argued that the resolution, perhaps not cognizable as positive law, certainly represents a general belief among states, or opinio juris sive necessitatis. Nonetheless, this position never received acceptance outside of the developing state caucuses and is considered a dead letter at present. Developing states were seeking to accelerate the process of development by requiring developed states to provide more economic opportunities for development under the theory that developed states received much of their wealth historically through the exploitation of developing nations. Historically, it is hard to argue that the theory has no basis in fact, though few things are absolute. But the kind of wealth transfer envisioned by the NIEO never materialized. There is massive aid flowing from the treasuries of developed nations, but nothing like that envisioned under the NIEO. In place of that vision are concessionary practices that allow certain preferences in international economic agreements, many of which are frequently undercut by basic international trade rules discussed earlier. Despite the failure of the NIEO, most states have committed themselves treating economic justice as fundamental for their residents, the United States being among the few dissenters. Considering some of the states that have signed the ESCR, and their spotty if not awful records of providing for their own, it could be argued that the United States, by placing economic rights in the political process where the provision of economic advantages has been more successful here than in some countries who treat economic rights as fundamental, is the more credible participant in the debate on economic rights. Whatever conclusion that can be drawn from this, one thing seems clear. If most of the world’s states accept as fundamental the provision of economic rights among their own residents, how can a process that would entail some wealth sharing across borders to ensure that all states can meet the requirements of the ESCR not be fundamental? Unfortunately, this reasoning has not permeated multilateral negotiations in the areas of trade, capital, and resource access.
The result of all of this is that poorer states remain poor despite some success in climbing out of the developing state category by countries such as India, Brazil, and Argentina, to name a few. But in international development circles, Haiti is among a category of states known as Least Developed States. Some theorists have taken to categorizing them as members of the Fourth World, a step down, if you will, from the Third World, a term out of vogue today. There are likely few if any Indias, or Brazils among these states. How are these states to be helped without massive flows of aid, capital, infrastructure assistance, nation building, etc? Precise methods are probably more elusive as solving the economic problems in this country, and time is limited. Every day is a disaster in Haiti, the Congo, or Niger. Natural disaster amplifies conditions already there, and for the most, part, these conditions are the fault of bad policy and indifference.
God, how could you?
Maybe the better question is how could we?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment