Monday, March 08, 2004
The "buckets of money" theory
America seems to have a lot on its plate, at least militarily, in this election year. Some have been saying that America would have been more pro-active in Haiti (or even North Korea) if we weren't already deeply engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told, I think dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq takes priority over dealing with Haiti and North Korea (the latter of which we can't do much to resolve from a military standpoint, as Seoul is within mortar range of North Korea).
Some have been making some really ridiculous claims, though, about what we SHOULD have done about Haiti. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, claimed the following:
The United States is guilty of outright neglect for its failure to act earlier"..."This was not an overnight crisis, and could we not have better supported the democracy in Haiti if we had been more generous with our assistance?"
This is what I call the "buckets of money" argument. If only America had ladled generous doses of foreign aid onto Haiti, Haiti wouldn't be in its current crisis.
The problem, however, is that Haiti was in no position to absorb ANY kind of foreign aid. Some note that America held up World Bank loans to Haiti, or maintained a ban on direct aid. Note that both forms of banned aid are the sort that go to GOVERNMENTS, and Haiti's government was NOT dedicated to democratic principles. Aristide was starting to maintain power by relying on armed gangs of thugs (who the Haitians called chimères). If there was any doubt as to whether he controlled these gangs, it should have disappeared when the chimères ended their murderous rampage when the United States issued a stern warning to Mr. Aristide to control his followers. Aristide presided over a government that was corrupt and awash in drug money.
The economy was NOT set up for free enterprise, as it takes DECADES (if possible at all) for private citizens to acquire land or start a company (and either way, foreign aid wouldn't make it down to ordinary citizens when the country was run by as corrupt a leader as Aristide).
Remember, the World Bank loaned billions to Argentina, and that nation defaulted rather spectacularly a few years ago. This shows the fatal flaw in sending aid money to GOVERNMENTS. If you want to send aid, make it in the form of easier loans for private citizens in the target country. Of course, that can only work if the country is set up to enable private citizens to conduct business.
Aid would NOT have helped Haiti. If anything, it would merely enabled Aristide and his cronies to acquire more of the hardware needed to TRULY oppress their fellow citizens. State aid to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s didn't make Iraq a freer and wealthier place. Arisitide was no Saddam Hussein, but giving aid money to his GOVERNMENT would have made a bad situation worse.
America seems to have a lot on its plate, at least militarily, in this election year. Some have been saying that America would have been more pro-active in Haiti (or even North Korea) if we weren't already deeply engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Truth be told, I think dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq takes priority over dealing with Haiti and North Korea (the latter of which we can't do much to resolve from a military standpoint, as Seoul is within mortar range of North Korea).
Some have been making some really ridiculous claims, though, about what we SHOULD have done about Haiti. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, a Democrat from New York, claimed the following:
The United States is guilty of outright neglect for its failure to act earlier"..."This was not an overnight crisis, and could we not have better supported the democracy in Haiti if we had been more generous with our assistance?"
This is what I call the "buckets of money" argument. If only America had ladled generous doses of foreign aid onto Haiti, Haiti wouldn't be in its current crisis.
The problem, however, is that Haiti was in no position to absorb ANY kind of foreign aid. Some note that America held up World Bank loans to Haiti, or maintained a ban on direct aid. Note that both forms of banned aid are the sort that go to GOVERNMENTS, and Haiti's government was NOT dedicated to democratic principles. Aristide was starting to maintain power by relying on armed gangs of thugs (who the Haitians called chimères). If there was any doubt as to whether he controlled these gangs, it should have disappeared when the chimères ended their murderous rampage when the United States issued a stern warning to Mr. Aristide to control his followers. Aristide presided over a government that was corrupt and awash in drug money.
The economy was NOT set up for free enterprise, as it takes DECADES (if possible at all) for private citizens to acquire land or start a company (and either way, foreign aid wouldn't make it down to ordinary citizens when the country was run by as corrupt a leader as Aristide).
Remember, the World Bank loaned billions to Argentina, and that nation defaulted rather spectacularly a few years ago. This shows the fatal flaw in sending aid money to GOVERNMENTS. If you want to send aid, make it in the form of easier loans for private citizens in the target country. Of course, that can only work if the country is set up to enable private citizens to conduct business.
Aid would NOT have helped Haiti. If anything, it would merely enabled Aristide and his cronies to acquire more of the hardware needed to TRULY oppress their fellow citizens. State aid to Saddam Hussein in the 1980s didn't make Iraq a freer and wealthier place. Arisitide was no Saddam Hussein, but giving aid money to his GOVERNMENT would have made a bad situation worse.
