Both Oars In The importance of the right preposition

May 6, 2011

I applaud Secretary Clinton for knowing where to stand when offering U.S. help to partner nations. She most recently demonstrated her impressive diplomatic skills when she chose to stand side by side with Michel Martelly, Haiti’s president-elect, on the stage in Washington and state, “We are behind him.” Unfortunately, her husband (possibly an occupational hazard of his former job), several other globetrotting celebs, and many of the large international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) too often end up standing in front of the leaders of developing nations whom they claim to be helping. 

It is not merely a question of personality or office. Secretary Clinton has demonstrated that she also knows when it is time to stand in front or apart. When her position as Secretary of State has required her to reprimand a nation for its unfair trade practices or human rights violations, she has stepped out in front quite courageously and convincingly. She can be a very strong advocate.

But, Haiti is not in need of another advocate running out in front of it. Haiti needs a partner — the kind of partner that can help Haiti develop as a nation. Hats off to Secretary Clinton for recognizing this and choosing to stand behind Haiti.        

What makes Secretary Clinton’s choice of words so important is that they stand in sharp contrast to the behavior of the large NGOs that have been operating in relief mode since the earthquake with little to no concern for developing local competency or strengthening Haiti’s basic social institutions. Unfortunately, this type of help can leave a struggling nation even less capable of meeting the needs of its people.

For example, Haiti has received a tremendous amount of health care support after the earthquake.  Thousands of doctors, nurses and physical therapists have generously donated their time. Mission groups and international organizations dedicated to emergency relief have raised billions of dollars to support heroic efforts in response to the thousands and thousands of people wounded in the earthquake. Magnificent field hospitals have been erected. And yet, there has been no perceptible improvement in the local health system — in Haiti’s ability to serve itself. In fact, local medical systems, private and public, have atrophied.

This is not the first time big resources have seemingly done little for Haiti. Since the 1950’s, there has been a tremendous amount of money raised by missionaries, especially from the US, in the name of Haiti’s poor. An indication of the magnitude of this missionary effort can be seen in the significant decline in the ratio of Catholics to Protestants (Evangelicals) in Haiti during this period. However, during this same period, Haiti, once a leading nation in the Caribbean, has fallen behind the Dominican Republic and other nearby nations in regard to economic development, infrastructure and general quality of life.  

Obviously, the problem is not intent. But, as we know, good intentions do not always let us end up where we want to be. Sadly, this has certainly been the case for Haiti.

For too long aid organizations, religious and secular, have positioned themselves in front of Haiti as advocates for particular groups in need rather than as backers of Haiti itself. The questionable behavior of many of Haiti’s past national leaders has made this a defensible position. However, this “mercenary missionary practice” has also inadvertently contributed to the continued poverty of Haiti’s people by keeping the nation from developing as a state.

As Secretary Clinton seems to recognize, things have changed in Haiti. For one thing, Mr. Martelly has wisely asked for an opportunity, not help. He has made it clear that Haiti is seeking assistance with long-term development, not relief. Mr. Martelly seems keenly aware that systemic change will require assistance to develop long-term economic and agricultural projects. Having grown up seeing little change despite the world’s generosity, Martelly knows that real change will require support that ends in actual roads, jobs, hospitals and schools. 

This type of support cannot be provided by NGOs or well-meaning individuals — it is the type of support only a wealthier, more developed nation can provide. Simply put: Haiti has had plenty of advocates in front of it; what it needs now is a nation behind it. That’s where it appears the world-wise Secretary Clinton has put us. Hopefully, that is where we will be for as long as it takes.