[Devastation] Haiti Suffers at Two Levels

The 7.0 magnitude earthquake that shook Haiti on January 10th, 2010 has resulted in tremendous damage to the country, and in particular the capital city of Port-au-Prince. The deathtoll is said to be over 50,000. Countless more have lost their homes and are struggling to acquire the basic necessities of life, like water, food, shelter, and medical treatment. By all means, a humanitarian relief effort must be supported in full right now. If you have money, don't wait to donate.

However, there is another dimension to Haiti's suffering. I couldn't help think about this in the last two days, as images of suffering in Haiti dominate the international news reports. Luckily, Peter Hallward of the Guardian has done a fantastic job of characterizing this second dimension, so I'm posting his article and linking to it here. It's a very good analysis of the situation. It means in addition to short term solutions like humanitarian aid, we need longer term solutions like reparations which might have the affect of reducing the scale of damage and suffering the next time there is a disaster in Haiti.


"Our Role in Haiti's Plight"
By Peter Hallward (originally published at the Guardian Website)

Any large city in the world would have suffered extensive damage from an earthquake on the scale of the one that ravaged Haiti's capital city on Tuesday afternoon, but it's no accident that so much of Port-au-Prince now looks like a war zone. Much of the devastation wreaked by this latest and most calamitous disaster to befall Haiti is best understood as another thoroughly manmade outcome of a long and ugly historical sequence.

The country has faced more than its fair share of catastrophes. Hundreds died in Port-au-Prince in an earthquake back in June 1770, and the huge earthquake of 7 May 1842 may have killed 10,000 in the northern city of Cap ­Haitien alone. Hurricanes batter the island on a regular basis, mostly recently in 2004 and again in 2008; the storms of September 2008 flooded the town of Gonaïves and swept away much of its flimsy infrastructure, killing more than a thousand people and destroying many thousands of homes. The full scale of the destruction resulting from this earthquake may not become clear for several weeks. Even minimal repairs will take years to complete, and the long-term impact is incalculable.

What is already all too clear, ­however, is the fact that this impact will be the result of an even longer-term history of deliberate impoverishment and disempowerment. Haiti is routinely described as the "poorest country in the western hemisphere". This poverty is the direct legacy of perhaps the most brutal system of colonial exploitation in world history, compounded by decades of systematic postcolonial oppression.

The noble "international community" which is currently scrambling to send its "humanitarian aid" to Haiti is largely responsible for the extent of the suffering it now aims to reduce. Ever since the US invaded and occupied the country in 1915, every serious political attempt to allow Haiti's people to move (in former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide's phrase) "from absolute misery to a dignified poverty" has been violently and deliberately blocked by the US government and some of its allies.

Aristide's own government (elected by some 75% of the electorate) was the latest victim of such interference, when it was overthrown by an internationally sponsored coup in 2004 that killed several thousand people and left much of the population smouldering in resentment. The UN has subsequently maintained a large and enormously expensive stabilisation and pacification force in the country.

Haiti is now a country where, according to the best available study, around 75% of the population "lives on less than $2 per day, and 56% – four and a half million people – live on less than $1 per day". Decades of neoliberal "adjustment" and neo-imperial intervention have robbed its government of any significant capacity to invest in its people or to regulate its economy. Punitive international trade and financial arrangements ensure that such destitution and impotence will remain a structural fact of Haitian life for the foreseeable future.

It is this poverty and powerlessness that account for the full scale of the horror in Port-au-Prince today. Since the late 1970s, relentless neoliberal assault on Haiti's agrarian economy has forced tens of thousands of small farmers into overcrowded urban slums. Although there are no reliable statistics, hundreds of thousands of Port-au-Prince residents now live in desperately sub-standard informal housing, often perched precariously on the side of deforested ravines. The selection of the people living in such places and conditions is itself no more "natural" or accidental than the extent of the injuries they have suffered.

As Brian Concannon, the director of the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, points out: "Those people got there because they or their parents were intentionally pushed out of the countryside by aid and trade policies specifically designed to create a large captive and therefore exploitable labour force in the cities; by definition they are people who would not be able to afford to build earthquake resistant houses." Meanwhile the city's basic infrastructure – running water, electricity, roads, etc – remains woefully inadequate, often non-existent. The government's ability to mobilise any sort of disaster relief is next to nil.

The international community has been effectively ruling Haiti since the 2004 coup. The same countries scrambling to send emergency help to Haiti now, however, have during the last five years consistently voted against any extension of the UN mission's mandate beyond its immediate military purpose. Proposals to divert some of this "investment" towards poverty reduction or agrarian development have been blocked, in keeping with the long-term patterns that continue to shape the ­distribution of international "aid".

The same storms that killed so many in 2008 hit Cuba just as hard but killed only four people. Cuba has escaped the worst effects of neoliberal "reform", and its government retains a capacity to defend its people from disaster. If we are serious about helping Haiti through this latest crisis then we should take this comparative point on board. Along with sending emergency relief, we should ask what we can do to facilitate the self-empowerment of Haiti's people and public institutions. If we are serious about helping we need to stop ­trying to control Haiti's government, to pacify its citizens, and to exploit its economy. And then we need to start paying for at least some of the damage we've already done.

*****
Peter Hallward is a Canadian-born professor of philosophy at Middlesex University in London, UK. His Damming the Flood: Haiti, Aristide and the Politics of Containment was published in 2008 by Verso. That year, he made a four-city speaking tour across Canada to coincide with the book's publishing, organized by the Canada Haiti Action Network. This article first appeared on The Guardian website.

[Animation] The Story of Cap and Trade

Another excellent movie from Annie Leonard and the people at The Story of Stuff:

[Clip] Tar Sands Blow

A great clip! Check it out:

[Link] Reconsidering Gramsci

An essay by Aaron Henry contemplating a closer analysis of Gramscian "good sense". The attached paper also explores the interconnections between some of the tougher theoretical concepts found in Gramsci and Lukacs, including power, hegemony, and reification.

CLICK HERE TO OPEN "Power as Recognition"

[Purging] Forget Sustainability: How a tough concept is getting ditched!

From environmental organizations to government bodies to the corporate sector, the idea of “sustainable development” is slowly being dropped from the lexicon of possibility. It is being replaced by other concepts that are perhaps more realistic, meaningful, or just plain easier to attain! For governments and the corporate sector, the new word of choice seems to be “responsibility”. Hence the Minister of Saskatchewan’s Energy and Resources Department on the possibility of expanding oil sands development into that province: “Our responsibility here in Saskatchewan is to ensure that we have a development that is responsible – responsible to the environment, socially responsible, and obviously would have to be economic before any development would go forward”. On the other side of the spectrum, the environmentalists have also been on the search for a new term. Alternatives, a leading ecology journal, recently asked the following in a call for submissions: “Could resilience replace sustainability as the organizing principle of the environmental/ecological movement?” Take a look at the PR statements of corporations, NGOs, and government ministries, and it becomes evident that the term “sustainability” is in the process of slowly being phased out.
Needless to say, some questions come to mind: Why the recent society-wide effort to ditch sustainability? What is the history of the concept of sustainability? Does it really matter what word we use? In the following paragraphs I suggest that we’ve gotten sick and tired of the idea of sustainability, mostly because it reminds us of our colossal failure to live in harmony with the ecological systems of this planet. Collectively, we know that sustainable development is almost impossible without undergoing radical transformations to our entire political and economic structures. So rather than remaining on the path of dreaming big, we’ve effectively given-up on sustainability and begun searching for replacements that cause us less anxiety and guilt.
But words do matter! With “sustainability” out of the picture, we can feel good about various accomplishments that have diminished the intensity of our environmental footprints but which have negatively impacted our environment overall. Here’s an example: Environment Canada loves to boast that this country’s “economic GHG intensity—the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of economic activity” – has been decreasing since 2003. And the term “environmental responsibility” exudes exactly that: We’re using energy more efficiently. We can all feel good that we have been treating our environment responsibly, right? But when we consider the GHG trends from the vantage point of sustainability, it becomes clear that we are still firmly on the path towards killing our planet (and the same Environment Canada emissions report notes that nation-wide we still produce 22% more GHGs than in 1990, which happens to be 29% more than our Kyoto target). Colossal failure indeed!
The idea of sustainability is one that emerged in the 1970s and 80s. In 1972, the UN Conference on the Environment in Stockholm was perhaps the first major international meeting at which observers agreed that environmental degradation was having a negative impact on human populations. By 1987 the famed Brundtland Commission report Our Common Future spelled out an idealistic (perhaps unrealistic?) vision of sustainable development, as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
It seemed easy enough at the time, but the emergence of multiple global environmental catastrophes since then suggests that the way we have been going about development has been anything but sustainable. Hence our current GHG emissions which are contributing to a climate that will be much less hospitable for future generations; or our contamination of the atmosphere and watersheds with pollutants that will clearly have an adverse long term effect; or our overuse and depletion of precious resources, some of which may no longer be around to be used by our grandchildren!
Thus over the years “sustainability” became a fluffy and unrealistic term. Every societal group started to use it, and slowly the term lost its meaning. We knew we were being “environmentally responsible” when we chose not to have our hotel towels washed every day, and when we bought green detergents and hybrid cars. But at the same time we also knew that, in the long run, the entire social structure that had us staying at comfy hotels and buying chemicals made on the other side of world and using cars instead of public transport was a structure that was entirely unsustainable. It is a structure that is entirely unsustainable!
In a way, sustainability ditched us through elusion – we just couldn’t achieve it! Sustainability presents an idea that is just too impossible for us to attain in a society that produces, consumes and wastes far too much. A former professor of mine once clued me in to the desperation that is conjured up by the tough concept of sustainability. He wrote his dissertation on sustainability decades ago, back when it was a new and emerging concept. Yet nowadays he questions whether it is even possible, and he’s lost all confidence in our ability to maintain lives that do not negatively impact our society down the line.
Yet as much as I’ve always been suspicious of the term, and as much as I share the collective doubt in our ability to live sustainably, I think it would be a travesty to lose this concept. To ditch sustainability is to lose hope – something we cannot afford to lose. Losing hope is a one way street to nihilism, and nihilism is a dead end street altogether. Sustainability may be a pipe dream, but at least it depicts the ideal – a goal that we should be working towards. Instead of ditching this tough concept, we should keep it handy – even if it’s just to remind us that we aren’t doing enough! Only then will we have a chance (albeit a very slim chance) of actually reforming our way of living to one that does not ruin it for the generations of tomorrow.