Hillary Clinton Responds to Criticism of U.S. Relief Effort in Haiti *updated*
I think that much of the criticism is a result of a) the media trying to add fuel to the fire; b) some members of the international community resenting how the U.S. went in and took control of the airport, etc. and c) some politicians cynically using this tragedy to score political points. But that’s just my personal take.
I think that these criticisms have to be put into the proper context- any life lost is one too many and for the friends and family members of those who lost their lives, no amount of help will ever be enough and that is totally understandable. That said, given the sheer magnitude of this disaster and the total lack of working, up-to-date infrastructure in Haiti, I think the U.S. should be commended for it’s quick response, the overwhelming generosity of the American people and the U.S. diversion of both military and civilian resources to Haiti at a time when we already have a lot on our plate.
Much has been said in the media and blogosphere about “bottlenecks” in the supply chain and an inability to get enough supplies out to the people who are sick and dying. Apparently, some of these bottlenecks do exist and Still4Hill addressed that issue here. I think some people simply are not able to comprehend what total devastation in a third world country looks like. We in the U.S. have a tendency to envision solutions based on what we know and have and perhaps take for granted and then assume that those solutions can be applied to the situation in Haiti. Some have actually compared the U.S. response to Haiti with the U.S. response to Katrina- this comparison is so factually-impaired and devoid of logic that it doesn’t even dignify a response.
Are some criticisms valid? Sure. It’s not every day that our U.S. military is stopped in its tracks and diverted to a disaster of this magnitude. Perhaps some of the military and civilian responders didn’t fully comprehend the problems they would encounter on the ground in Port au Prince but that goes for all responders regardless of nationality, not just the U.S. Given the immediacy of the situation, I think that some of these issues were practically unavoidable. One issue that I think is important given the situation- just like after 9/11 and Katrina- is whether the U.S. is adequately prepared to respond to different types of mega disasters such as this at home and abroad. I think the answer is yes and no. But I keep hearing experts bemoan the fact that even after 9/11 and Katrina, disaster preparedness in cities and states is inadequate. Honestly, how many of us would know what to do if a nuclear power plant in our state was attacked by terrorists? I guess if you watch the Discovery or National Geographic Channel you’ve got an edge over your fellow citizens;) (I have a confession- I watch all those shows about how to survive in the wilderness, on a deserted island, after a nuclear attack etc.) My point is, even though I believe the U.S. response in Haiti was a testament to how the nation can come together and respond to a crisis, we can probably learn from this, as we can (and should) from all such events.
Here is an article about Secretary Clinton’s response to criticism of the U.S.-led recovery effort in Haiti:
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she resents criticism of the U.S. effort to help stricken Haiti and pledged to redouble efforts to help survivors of the Jan. 12 earthquake.
“I deeply resent those who attack our country, the generosity of our people and the leadership of our president in trying to respond to historically disastrous conditions after the earthquake,” Clinton said.
Separately, the State Department said the U.S. death toll in the Haiti quake is nearing 100. Spokesman P.J. Crowley said the U.S. has confirmed 60 American deaths, and there are another 37 fatalities whose identities have not been established.
In her response to criticism of the U.S. effort in Haiti, Clinton cited the news media but not other governments.
“Some of the international press either misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued what was a civilian and military response, both of them necessary in order to be able to deliver aid to the Haitians who desperately needed it,” Clinton told a gathering of State Department employees.
“I have absolutely no argument with anyone lodging a legitimate criticism against our country,” she said. “I think we can learn from that, and we are foolish if we keep our head in the sand and pretend that we can’t.”
Asked whom Clinton was referring to, Crowley mentioned criticism from Italy and France, plus news reporting from Haiti by the Al-Jazeera news network and CNN that he said was unfair.
Crowley called reports by Al-Jazeera’s English-language channel inflammatory.
“It suggested there was a militarization of the effort. It compared military activities at the airport to a little `green zone,’” he said. “We thought that was inappropriate.”
The area of downtown Baghdad containing the U.S. occupation authority following the 2003 invasion became known as the Green Zone.
…
UPDATE: Over at Foreign Policy, Daniel Drezner summarizes some of the more ridiculous criticisms of the U.S. relief effort (and points out that the foreign media don’t seem to mind that they are ridiculous).
To view this animated banner you need to have Flash Player 9 or newer installed and JavaScript enabled. This 
Thanks, Stacy. Today I postedtwo radio interviews that Secretary Clinton gave in Montreal. This is what she said to April Ryan of American Urban Radio:
Jean Bertrand Aristede was the first democratically elected president of Haiti, and he was first elected in 1991 – not even 20 years ago! Haiti became independent in 1804. Aristede was born in 1953. Almost 150 years after independence. When Aristede was 4, François Duvalier rose to power backed by the military, declared himself President for Life 1964. On his deathbed, “Papa Doc” declared his 18-year-old son, Jean Claude President for life. That was not to be. Jean-Claude was ousted in 1986 by a soulèvement populaire. The Duvaliers ruled and looted Haiti for nearly 30 years of Haiti’s history. A good deal of our American tax dollars went into the Duvalier coffers and were transported to Swiss accounts. Jean-Claude is still living nicely on that money, thank you very much, to offer the people of Haiti $8 million – of their own money!
We allowed this to happen. We turned a blind eye as we covertly supported the Duvaliers because they were not the Castro or Ortega brothers. We coined the term “benign dictator” as a euphemism for “non-communist” when there was nothing benign whatsoever about the treatment the Duvaliers visited upon their enemies via the military and their private para-military forces.
When Secretary Clinton refers to previous governments not investing in the countryside the Duvalier regime is just one, perhaps the most damaging one in the post-war/cold war era. Earlier regimes certainly exhibited greed, brutality, and arrogant indifference to the poor and peasant classes, but the Duvaliers caught the Hail Mary pass at the apex of our post-war communist paranoia when Fidel Castro allied himself with the Soviet Union, an act that precipitated The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, and they ran with it. When Jean-Claude fled in 1986, he ran with our money that we had assigned to the Haitian people.
The population is redistributing itself. We can right the 20th century abuses of power. We have a chance – and thus, so do the Haitian people.
But as I wrote all that above, it occurred to me that there is another lesson here. In our post 9/11 mentality, we would do well to avoid the mistakes we made in Haiti. There is always danger in propping up dictators simply because they are NOT – not Castro, not the Ortegas, not Taliban, not Al Quaida-friendly. Haiti provides this lesson, too.
Sorry – got carried away.