Communities in southwestern Haiti were devastated when Hurricane Matthew struck the Tiburon Peninsula on October 4, 2016. Accompanied by rapid winds, heavy rainfall, and subsequent flooding, the Category 4 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale killed at least 1,000 people, destroyed countless homes, and displaced thousands. Approximately 2.1 million people have been affected, 1.4 million need humanitarian aid, 750,000 need urgent help, and 806,000 are at an extreme level of food insecurity. Haiti, which is roughly the size of South Carolina, was ill-equipped to withstand another natural disaster. For the past six years this Caribbean country has been trying to recuperate from the 2010 earthquake that left more than 200,000 dead (according to Haitian government figures) and wreacked havoc upon a preexisting weak infrastructure. Now history seems to be repeating itself.

Communication networks are down, crops were destroyed, and roads have been blockaded by debris–making it all the more strenuous for citizens to receive the assistance they desperately need. Simultaneously burdened by two catastrophes, once again Haitians are bracing themselves for another cholera outbreak. Yet with limited financial resources and crumbling medical facilities, some hospitals don’t even have enough gasoline to put into ambulances or any antibiotics left to ward off the waterborne disease.

“Needs are growing as more affected areas are reached,” said UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, whose organization recently pledged $120 million for humanitarian aid in Haiti. “Tensions are already mounting as people await help. A massive response is required.”

Oftentimes referred to as the “republic of NGOs” (non-governmental organizations), Haiti rarely receives the aid it is promised. Although some would consider the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere to be susceptible to certain ailments (like inclement weather and bad governance), the reality of the situation is that Haitians haven’t gotten the necessary support to thrive as a sovereign nation after decades of economic exploitation, American military intervention, and poorly implemented aid projects.

Colonial History

Much of Haiti’s tumultuous past stems from its colonial predecessors: Spain and France. From 1492 to 1625, the island of Hispaniola (present-day Haiti and the Dominican Republic) was administered by Spain. Originally the native Taíno inhabited the island, but the Arawak group was essentially wiped out after Christopher Columbus and his fellow voyagers brought infectious diseases. During this era, however, a variety of European powers were competing for geopolitical power and resources in the Caribbean. The 1697 Treaty of Ryswick allowed France to inherit Haiti from Spain in order to mitigate conflict between the two colonial powers. The western third of the island became “Saint-Domingue” under French rule, while Spain maintained its sphere of influence in the neighboring Dominican Republic.

Throughout the 1700s, Haiti became the wealthiest colony in the “New World”–making up more than a quarter of France’s economy in the process. During the peak of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, however, such wealth was only achieved through brutal means. Thousands of enslaved Africans were brought over to the French territory to perform backbreaking labor on Haiti’s many sugarcane plantations. This exploitation continued until 1801 when a successful slave revolt defeated the French army, making Haiti the first black republic in 1804. However, in order to achieve international recognition and persuade French warships to leave Haitian harbors, Haiti was coerced in 1825 into paying their oppressors an “independence debt” worth 150 million gold francs. Valued at approximately $21 billion by today’s standards, this large sum of money was meant to compensate French colonists for their lost profits. Although the remaining $36 million of debt was forgiven by the World Bank in 2010, some attribute this initial debt to having predisposed Haiti to immense economic shortcomings. 

The United States has also contributed to Haiti’s myriad of problems. Concerned about European rivals in 1914, former President Woodrow Wilson deployed American troops in Haiti to ensure that no other country would try to exert influence in the region. Another reason why the United States interjected was the political instability of Haiti. In fact, between 1888 and 1915 no Haitian president managed to complete their seven-year term due to numerous military coups, assassinations, and deaths of natural causes. American intervention lasted from 1914 to 1934 until President Franklin Roosevelt enacted his “Good Neighbor Policy.” Following three decades of American occupation, despotic dictatorships under François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier plummeted the country into further political and economic turmoil. Democracy was only temporarily restored with the appointment of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who was temporarily ousted in a 1991 military coup.

American Intervention & Clinton Administration Controversies

In contrast to other American politicians, Bill and Hillary Clinton have made Haiti a focal point of their foreign policy, but that focus hasn’t been without controversy. In the early 1990s Bill Clinton won the love and admiration of many Haitians after helping the democratically-elected President Aristide return to office after he was ousted in a 1991 coup. However, this was only accomplished by enforcing another U.S.-led intervention that lasted approximately two years. Ever since then, Washington has played an immense role in dictating Haitian politics and economics. While serving as Secretary of State, for example, Hillary Clinton’s administration was accused of threatening to withhold foreign aid to Haiti if the 2010 presidential elections didn’t yield the candidate Washington desired. Additionally, the highly anticipated Caracol Industrial Park–a 600-acre textile factory meant to provide much-needed jobs to Haitians–was a Clinton Foundation project. The Clinton Foundation promised it would create 60,000 jobs in five years, but the enterprise only employs approximately 5,000 laborers as of mid-2015.

Other adverse effects of American involvement can be found in Haiti’s agriculture and economy. For example, during Bill Clinton’s presidency, Haiti became more dependent on international imports. Pressured by the United States, the Haitian government was persuaded to lower tariffs on imported food (including rice) from 50 percent to about three percent–making their main export less valuable in the process. Instead of growing their own rice, Haitians started to rely more heavily on exported rice, therefore becoming less capable of feeding themselves with domestically-grown products. 

The Clintons were also accused of mishandling 14.3 billion dollars of donation money that was intended to go toward relief efforts following the 2010 earthquake. Under Ban Ki-moon’s jurisdiction, Bill Clinton became the UN envoy to Haiti tasked with spearheading relief efforts. Based on a report by neoconservative group PJ Media, though, this money allegedly went to “friends of Bill” instead.

Effectiveness of Non-Profits

Among the estimated 10,000 non-profits operating out of Haiti, perhaps the most notorious is the American Red Cross. Normally held in high regards, the humanitarian organization pledged to help Haiti rebuild itself after the fatal 2010 earthquake. The charity managed to fundraise approximately $500 million through soliciting donations. The money was supposed to fund the construction of new homes, roads, schools, etc., but after six years it appears as though the Red Cross has not fulfilled its promises. In fact, it’s unclear where all the money even went.

This past summer ProPublica and NPR conducted an extensive investigation that revealed a series of fabrications and haphazard estimations among the samaritan group. The joint effort examined an array of confidential memos and emails from administrative higher-ups that show how “the charity has broken promises, squandered donations, and made dubious claims of success.”

One of the most garish falsifications involved housing. Apparently, the Red Cross claimed to have built homes for over 130,000 people in the neighborhood of Campeche in Haiti’s capital Port-au-Prince, but in reality only six were constructed. Another controversial discovery is the amount of overhead costs that the Red Cross gives to its employees, which more often than not are non-Haitians. For example, a project manager working in Haiti receives an allowance of $140,000 meant to cover housing, food, paid trips home, four vacations a years, and relocation expenses. In contrast, a Haitian senior engineer earns $42,000 a year. Because of such disparities, Haitian non-profits are known for perpetuating inequalities among a small group of wealthy foreign elites–most of whom cannot speak Haitian-Creole, nor French.

Conclusion

Despite the UN’s current attempts to rejuvenate Haiti, even it isn’t immune to scrutiny–especially when it comes to the ongoing health crisis surrounding cholera. The fact of the matter is that Haiti was cholera-free for over a century before UN peacekeepers reintroduced the infectious disease back to the island. Cholera is a fast-spreading infectious disease known for causing severe diarrhea and dehydration. As certain reports have proven, waste generated from UN facilities crept into a river, which in the end contaminated other nearby bodies of water. Since fresh water was scarce in Haiti to begin with, now it is even more difficult to find sanitary water to drink or bathe in.

“The need for a new UN response that both controls and eliminates cholera and compensates the victims who have suffered so much is now more dire than ever,” said Beatrice Lindstrom, who serves as a human rights lawyer with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti.

Haiti will continue to be plagued with problems if the impoverished country is unable to properly recover from disease outbreaks like this, as well as devastating natural disasters. Decades of economic exploitation, flawed aide efforts, and further interference and exploitation from other countries inhibit this country’s ability to thrive as a sovereign nation.

Resources

Al Jazeera: Ban Ki-moon in Haiti Inspects Matthew’s Damage

Al Jazeera: Haiti Death Toll from Hurricane Matthew Passes 1,000

Alternet: How America and the Rest of the World Ruined Haiti

BBC: Haiti Quake Death Toll Rises to 230,000

BBC: The Long History of Troubled Ties Between Haiti and the US

TIME: The World Must Not Abandon Haiti to the Devastation Left by Hurricane Matthew 

The Daily Beast: How Hillary Helped Ruin Haiti

Foreign Policy in Focus: Are Foreign NGOs Rebuilding Haiti or Just Cashing In?

The Guardian: Hollande Promises to Pay ‘Moral Debt’ to Former Colony Haiti

Miami Herald: In Post-Hurricane Haiti, a Picture of the Human Toll Begins to Emerge

NPR: In Search of the Red Cross’ $500 Million in Haiti Relief

Newsweek: Reasons Behind Haiti’s Poverty

New York Times: Cholera Deaths in Haiti Could Far Exceed Official Count

PJ Media: Former Haitian Senate President Calls Clintons ‘Common Thieves Who Should Be in Jail’

Politico: The King and Queen of Haiti

ProPublica: How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti and Built Six Homes

Reuters: World Bank Cancels Remaining Haiti Debt

London Review of Books: Who Removed Aristide?: Paul Farmer Reports From Haiti

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the year in which the Treaty of Ryswick was signed. 

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Haiti’s History of Disappointments: Intervention, Exploitation, and NGOs appeared first on Law Street.

Bringing huge relief for some Nigerian families, 21 of the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapped by Boko Haram in 2014 were released early Thursday. After negotiations between the militant Islamist group and the Nigerian government, the girls were freed in exchange for imprisoned members of the militant group.

According to the BBC, members of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Swiss government helped broker the talks. Nigerian security staff and the ICRC brought some detained high-ranking Boko Haram members with them to an exchange point, where they were switched for the girls, most of whom are now mothers. The girls will be taken to the capital city, Abuja, and examined by doctors and psychologists.

1/2 Today we transferred 21 of the #Chibokgirls and handed them to the #Nigeria government authorities, acting as a neutral intermediary.

— ICRC Africa (@ICRC_Africa) October 13, 2016

But at the same time, Information Minister Lai Mohammed said at a news conference that there was no swap, and no Boko Haram leaders had been freed in exchange for the girls. “The release of these girls does not mean an end to military operations, but it is a new phase in the war against insurgency‎,” he said. “People want to believe bad news than good news. The girls were released, there was no swap.”

21 Nigerian schoolgirls abducted by Boko Haram released

Read More:- https://t.co/kt2512VcOs#WorldNews #Terrorist #BokoHaram pic.twitter.com/14sYVIldPc

— Baba Ramdev (@SwamiRamdevBaba) October 13, 2016

Boko Haram kidnapped more than 270 schoolgirls from a Chibok boarding school in 2014, but 57 of the girls managed to flee immediately after being taken. Only one has been freed up until now, when she was found walking in the forest in May. People urging the group to free the girls and the Nigerian government to act have tweeted using the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls, in a social media campaign supported by Michelle Obama.

But even though this is a huge step forward in the negotiations between the Islamist group and the government, Boko Haram has also kidnapped thousands more women and girls in Nigeria. Many are forced to marry the soldiers and transferred to what have been called rape camps.

It has been difficult for Nigerian security forces to discover where the group hides, or where the girls are located, due to dense forest and how spread out the fighters are. On top of all that, the northeastern part of the country, where Boko Haram’s territory is located, is suffering one of the biggest hunger crises in the world. But for now, 21 more girls are reunited with their families, and at least this is one step forward in the fight against the militants.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Boko Haram Releases 21 Chibok Schoolgirls in Exchange for Militant Leaders appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like the Red Cross Made A Racist Mistake?

Earlier this month, the Red Cross released posters for pool safety depicting ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’ ways to act around a pool. While pool safety is very important, the imagery used in this particular poster is very worrisome. Only children of color are shown as being unruly and uncool but white children are shown being safe and calm. Why? Because prejudice! People on social media were so ready to call them out:

Hey, @RedCross, send a new pool poster to @SalidaRec bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist pic.twitter.com/TY8MmFB3Qk

— John Sawyer (@JSawyer330) June 21, 2016

Seriously…did no one #AmericanRedCross see the #unconsciousbias in this ‘super racist’ pool poster https://t.co/Ks7xyMiGZx

— Star Jones (@StarJonesEsq) June 27, 2016

The Red Cross has since ceased production of the posters and issued an official apology. Yikes!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the world banded together in a humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti by donating to the Red Cross. But five years and nearly $500 million later, the world is left asking where all that money went.

In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, killing over 230,000 and displacing 1.5 million people from their homes. Many nonprofit organizations participated in the relief effort, but the Red Cross raised the most money with over $488 million in donations worldwide, promising to change the lives of the people affected by the earthquake. Now, Haitians are still fighting an ongoing battle for reliable shelter, food, clean water, and more. In light of several recent revelations about the practices of large nonprofits, many now wonder if the Red Cross is part of an emerging trend of misconduct.

Funds donated to the Red Cross were given with the expectation of creating a better life in Haiti. The Red Cross set goals to build and develop brand new communities for the people of Haiti during its donation campaign. The Red Cross proposed building roughly 700 homes by January 2013, each with finished floors, toilets, showers, and rainwater collection systems. A review of the Red Cross’ efforts shows that these goals do not appear to have come to fruition.

A recent investigation into the Red Cross by Propublica and NPR found unfulfilled promises to build homes, wasted donation funds, unnecessary fundraising, and exaggerated claims of success. The investigation showed that many of the Red Cross’s shortcomings in Haiti were of the charity’s own doing. According to the investigation, a lack of expertise and leadership led to inefficiency and fund mismanagement. For example in 2012, documents revealed that nine of the 30 leadership positions in Haiti, including experts on health and shelter, remained unfilled.

In its progress report, the Red Cross said it “helped 132,000 Haitians to live in safer conditions—ranging from providing temporary homes and rental subsidies to repaired and new homes.” But according Propublica and NPR, the Red Cross has actually built just six permanent houses in Haiti, nowhere near the number of new communities that they planned. The Red Cross cited a lack of land rights for its inability to build more homes, yet other charities facing the same challenges with less funds managed to build approximately 9,000 homes. In an interview with PBS Newshour, NPR Investigative correspondent Laura Sullivan said, “we went to one project that was done by Global Communities and PCI, where we saw more than 300 homes being built. In the project now, they’re building 75 homes that have running water for people.”

Mismanaged funds include unnecessary expenditures like financial perks for non-Haitian officials. For example, a project manager–a position reserved for an expatriate–was given an allowance for housing, vacations, and other expenses for about $140,000 a year. But a senior Haitian engineer–the top local position–received only $42,000 a year. Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross to coordinate travel and housing for expatriate staffers told Propublica:

For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries…A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States.

The Red Cross also continued soliciting money from donors well after it had collected enough for its relief plans. In contrast, organizations like Doctors Without Borders stopped fundraising when they received enough money to accomplish their goals. The investigation also revealed that the organization used some of the extra money to erase a $100 million deficit that was unrelated to the Haiti relief project. The Red Cross declined continuous requests from NPR and Propublica to disclose details of how much money went to relief projects, and what the results of each project were.

A Recurrent Trend

This recent report falls in line with many other cases of mega nonprofit organizations involved in questionable practices. The most recent were the charges brought against four well renowned cancer non-profit organizations. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission, along with 58 law enforcement partners from across the country, charged four organizations and their operators with defrauding more than $187 million from donors. One of the charges alleged that the charities used telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, and other methods to disguise their organizations as legitimate charities only to use the money to help friends and family acquire lucrative jobs, as well as for luxuries like cars and cruises. The organizations were The Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services, The Children’s Cancer Fund of America, and The Breast Cancer Society.

These organizations and many others amass millions of dollars each year from donors trying to help those in need, but instead take advantage of their status. Organizations like Kids Wish Network repeatedly accepted millions of annual donations, of which large sums were given to solicitors rather than to the individuals that the organization was supposed to help. Federal tax filings from the last 10 years show that the Kids Wish Network received $137.9 million in donations, but used $115.9 million of the donations for “fundraising costs.” Put simply, that means paying people or companies to raise money for the organization. The Cancer Fund of America, one of the four charities recently charged with fraud, also received over $86 million from donors and gave $75.4 million to solicitors. The chart below shows the amount of money given to non-profits, and how much they spent on solicitors.

The reality is that many donors still donate to these charities because of name recognition without knowing where their money really ends up. Charity navigator, America’s largest charity evaluator, encourages donors to research and ask questions about a non-profit organization before donating. Questions like whether a non-profit clearly explains its goals, the specific problems it intends to improve, and whether it regularly achieves its objectives are all encouraging steps to finding the right charity. Researching, and questioning organizations like the Red Cross is the next step in holding said organizations accountable for the millions they receive from the people.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Cross: A Failure in Haiti? appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday, gay and bisexual men participated in the second annual National Gay Blood Drive. The drive’s goal was to call attention to the FDA’s lifetime blood donor deferral for all men who have had sex with another man, in place since 1977. Despite the national attention that it received, the first gay blood drive last summer did little to sway the FDA and the ban remained. Organizations such as the American Red Cross, America’s Blood Centers, and the American Association of Blood Banks have all spoken out in support of easing blood donor restrictions. They say that they all, “believe the current lifetime deferral for men who have had sex with other men should be modified and that donor deferral criteria should be made comparable with criteria for other behaviors that pose an increased risk for transmission of transfusion-transmitted infections.”

But let’s back up a bit here–why is there a restriction preventing gay men from donating blood in the first place? About three decades ago, when the AIDS crisis was in full swing, there was panic about how the HIV virus was transmitted. The restriction was put in place to prevent gay men from transmitting HIV through blood donations. But the times, and our scientific knowledge, have changed. We have had the ability to perform blood tests for nearly 30 years now, and it’s been nearly that long since we’ve had a single case of HIV via blood transfusion. The laws are also a relic of a time when it was thought that HIV was an exclusively homosexual disease–it’s since been proven that it can be passed on to anyone of any sexual orientation. That’s exactly why every sample is tested for many things, including HIV, after it is donated.

Ryan James Yezak, the drive’s organizer, wrote a passionate plea for lifting the ban this week on behalf of the Human Rights Campaign. He explained how three years ago, he wanted to go with his boss to give blood after a natural disaster. In his plea, he explained:

While I was healthy as could be, I could not donate due to the fact that I was gay. I had to explain the situation to everyone in my department. For the first time in my life, I felt like I was being treated differently solely on the basis of my sexual orientation – it felt alienating, it felt wrong, but above all – it felt unnecessary.

Yezak could not be more correct–it is unnecessary. A simple blood test and waiting period eliminates the need to categorize individual donors as a risk. The exclusion of gay and bisexual men from donating blood only propagates a stigma against which gay rights activists have spent the past 30 years fighting.

In fact, the only thing that this ban really does is cut down the number of potential blood donors, which is not something we should be doing. Blood shortages have been a major issue in the United States over the past several years.  According to the American Red Cross, more than 41,000 blood donations are needed every single day. In times of catastrophes and in the summer months when schools are no longer holding blood drives, there are major shortages of blood due to the lack of donors. ABC News reported that last year that the United States faced one of the worst shortages the Red Cross has ever seen. As Yezak explained, “to continue to exclude people despite the entirely reasonable arguments of the organizations that supply blood themselves is both discriminatory to them and harmful to everybody.” He said, “someone needs a blood donation every two seconds in the U.S., and you never know when that someone is going to be you.”

The bottom line is, we should not be turning away anyone’s blood. So long as it has been tested, there is no reason that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should be banned from donating. Hopefully the second annual National Gay Blood drive will prompt the FDA to lift this outdated and discriminatory ban.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt Buck via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The National Gay Blood Drive: A Call for Change appeared first on Law Street.