« How to boast without looking bad | Main | Incentives and the Supply of Oil »
Geopolitical speculations about Haiti
Haiti is about the size of Maryland and a big chunk of the population lives in or near Port-Au-Prince, maybe a third of the total, depending on what you count as a suburb. So the collapse of Port-Au-Prince is a big, big deal for the country as a whole. It's a dominant city for Haiti. Plus Jacmel seems to be leveled. From the reports I have seen, my tentative conclusion is that the country as a whole is currently below the subsistence level and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Hundreds of thousands of people have died, the U.N. Mission has collapsed, the government is not working (was it ever?), and hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of people are living in the streets without reliable food or water supplies. The hospitals and schools have collapsed. The airport is shut down. The port is very badly damaged. The Haitian Penitentiary has collapsed and the inmates -- tough guys most of them -- are running free for the foreseeable future. There is no viable police force or army.
In other words, it's not just a matter of offering extra food aid for two or three years.
Very rapidly, President Obama needs to come to terms with the idea that the country of Haiti, as we knew it, probably does not exist any more.
In what sense does Haiti still have a government? How bad will it have to get before the U.N. or U.S. moves in and simply governs the place? How long will this governance last? What will happen to Haiti as a route for the drug trade, the dominant development in the country's economy over the last fifteen years? What does the new structure of interest groups look like, say five years from now?
Is there any scenario in which the survivors, twenty years from now, are better off, compared to the quake never having taken place?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on January 14, 2010 at 05:16 AM in Current Affairs, Economics, Political Science | Permalink
Comments
If they get to emigrate to rich countries when they would not otherwise have done so, then they might have a higher lifetime income. There is probably a sense in which an Irish emigrant to America during the Great Famine ended up better-off. However, the human and cultural laceration that a country would suffer after losing so many people suggests that the survivors are already starting out from a lower quality of life before considering positive or negative economic effects.
Posted by: Millian at Jan 14, 2010 6:52:45 AM
The US needs to move in, take over, and rebuild Haiti from scratch. It would be like Iraq or Afghanistan with twice the building and no insurgency.
Posted by: Neal at Jan 14, 2010 7:15:12 AM
no insurgency? what makes you so sure?
Posted by: jfgbdrj at Jan 14, 2010 7:40:28 AM
@jfgbdrj - Iraqis despised the US to begin with, and the projected crowds cheering the liberators never existed. Haiti doesn't hate the US, at least.
@Neal if it rolls that way, it'll probably be easier and cheaper to annex and administer Haiti as a US territory or a US state. If. I doubt that this has political viability.
Posted by: david at Jan 14, 2010 8:14:58 AM
It will be interesting to see what happens when the inevitable waves of Haitian boat people begin their migration.
Posted by: Walter McGrain at Jan 14, 2010 8:19:50 AM
> Is there any scenario in which the survivors, twenty years from now, are better off, compared to the quake never having taken place?
Black Plague or Japan/Germany-after-WII scenario. Enough deaths occur, enough of the corrupt governments & elites die, that the survivors get a respite from its demographic youth bulge, average income can go up and 'subsistence level' reset to a higher standard of living.
Posted by: gwern at Jan 14, 2010 8:20:30 AM
gwern, the Black Death is only relevant if you believe that Haitian aggregate output had diminishing returns to scale. It's believable for a medieval agrarian economy, but maybe not for a modern Third World country.
Posted by: Millian at Jan 14, 2010 8:45:47 AM
The US does not have the money or popular interest to rebuild and take over Haiti. There are no political points to be won for any politician to spearhead such an effort. Humanitarian aid, sure, even long-term. But it won't be a 51st state, or even Puerto Rico.
And if the UN takes over, they'll be worse shape than they ever were.
These people are in serious trouble.
Posted by: Jim at Jan 14, 2010 8:50:37 AM
David wrote: >>...it'll probably be easier and cheaper to annex and administer Haiti as a US territory or a US state. ... I doubt that this has political viability.>>
Correct, for sure, about the political viability. I wonder, David, whether annexation by The Dominican Republic is more practical, and more likely.
In such a circumstance, the dollar cost of an infusion of aid to the consolidated "Nation of Hispaniola" would be a small hiccup in our US budget, would probably be greeted with enthusiasm by both our political parties, would be widely hailed by our people as "nation building the right way," and would surely be in our best interest geopolitically.
Posted by: Ken Rhodes at Jan 14, 2010 8:51:21 AM
Is there any scenario in which the survivors, twenty years from now, are better off, compared to the quake never having taken place?
As an intellectual exercise: if you believe Greg Clark's "A Farewell To Alms" a fall in population actually raises living standards for a while for a society operating at the malthusian subsistence limit. Income per person almost doubled in England for a hundred years after the plague killed a big chunk of the population.
Ok, now for more "realistic" speculation: the survivors could be better off if the disaster shocks the US into making Haiti a territory, then a state.
Posted by: Ano at Jan 14, 2010 8:58:56 AM
>>Is there any scenario in which the survivors, twenty years from now, are better off, compared to the quake never having taken place?>>
In an interview with George Stephanopolous this morning, the Haitian Ambassador answered a similar quesion. Stephanopolous asked whether there could be an upside to this catastrophe. The Ambassador replied Yes, but only if it results in the decentralization of Port-au-Prince over a much wider geographic area, with modern infrastructure.
He said that the city was built two centuries ago to support a population of 20-40,000 inhabitants, and the infrastructure was never upgraded, so the current population of about two million, concentrated in such a small area, was a disaster waiting to happen. If we rebuild in the same area, he said, we will simply be resetting the clock to start waiting for the next disaster.
Posted by: Ken Rhodes at Jan 14, 2010 8:59:54 AM
with all due respects, one of the first places I'd send aid (military and otherwise) is the DomRep. A country of millions in easy walking distance just completely collapsed. RD is set to be awash with refugees of all kinds. As well, although the RD is comparably richer, it certainly can't handle a 2x increase in size, esp with utterly ruined people.
It is very possible that RD falls as dominoes tend to when the one next to them is knocked over
@ Neal
UN peacekeepers were attacked after the 2004 insurection. And those were brazilians. Brazilian troops certainly aren't easy to pin as rich, white colonialists. Imagine Nebraska farm boys are much easier to peg as "foreign"
Posted by: farmer at Jan 14, 2010 9:15:22 AM
Remember, Hatti was occupied by the US Marine Corp from roughly 1918 to 1934. This is off the top of my head and
the dates may not be exactly right.
Posted by: spencer at Jan 14, 2010 9:53:55 AM
Canada, not the U.S., should take the lead here. It has French speaking troops aplenty and a perfect opportunity (and worthy) to test its foreign-policy-as-charity beliefs. The U.S. is already busy and multinational forces (without one clear leader) don't work. This is a major humanitarian crisis and Canada is ideally suited to help. (I would say the same of France but you might be able to argue that colonial memories make France more problematic.) It's put up or shut up time.
Posted by: Scoop at Jan 14, 2010 9:56:41 AM
Somebody needs to explain why Haiti was not like Hong Kong. Tropical climate, on the sea, small, few natural resources, colonial history.
Sachs says landlocked countries are poor, but Haiti has an extensive coastline. Sachs says countries far from big markets are poor, but Haiti (like Cuba) is next door to the world's biggest market.
If the issue was British vs. French colonialization, then all Haiti needs is Anglo-Saxon institutions. Or is it racial? Or is the legacy of slavery? In the latter, does that mean that former slaves are incapable of effective self-government?
We can't end poverty until we have an explanation for why some countries are poor and others not.
Posted by: B.B. at Jan 14, 2010 10:02:39 AM
I keep wondering what Paul Romer is ruminating about right now.
http://www.chartercities.org/blog
Posted by: John B. Chilton at Jan 14, 2010 10:07:25 AM
Haiti is a sovereign country founded in a revolution against imperialist slaveowners. Many of its problems have come from the refusal of nations ruled by slaveowners and their descendants to accept that Haitians are autonomous human beings with the capacity to govern themselves. Unfortunately that same refusal to accept is running rampant in this comment thread.
That at times Haitians have governed very badly does not denude them of that right, any more than the occasional election of an idiot-in-chief surrenders Americans' right to self-government. There should be no repetition of the U.S. 1915-1934 invasion and occupation. The commenter who suggested that the Dominican Republic should govern Haiti should read about the history between the two nations, which includes the genocide of Haitian migrant workers during the 1930s.
What Haiti needs is massive short-term aid, massive infrastructure rebuilding, the commitment by the UN to protect the continued functioning of a democratic government, and the commitment of wealthy nations to accept significant numbers of Haitian immigrants so that pressure on both the ecosystem and the human structures of society can be relieved. Only then will Haiti be able to begin to recover from 500 years of repeated devastation.
Posted by: Ed B. at Jan 14, 2010 10:29:02 AM
I don't think it's too hard for survivors on average to be better off in 20 yrs. conditional on surviving, given the increase in resources that'll be put into the region. But I don't expect anyone to be better off overall, considering the lives lost and the current level of suffering among the survivors, no matter how you might make such a welfare assessment.
Posted by: DRDR at Jan 14, 2010 10:30:15 AM
"But it won't be a 51st state, or even Puerto Rico."
Why can't Haiti be another Puerto Rico? It has a similar sized population (maybe 2x the population of Puerto Rico). The US is already pretty entangled with the country and has been since the 1918-34 occupation. I realize the subsidies and possibility of Haitians immigrating to the mainland will be controversial, but we will probably get that anyway, with disaster relief and a refugee crisis.
If the devestation is really as extensive as the initial reports indicate, the best medium solution for the country would by US Commonwealth status but with no US Citizenship for Haitians (which would take care of the immigration objection). I'm not too worried about eventual statehood, Puerto Rico still isn't a state after 112 years and Haiti is now in worse condition than Puerto Rico has ever been.
Or maybe Canada will agree to absorb Haiti, which is probably even a better solution because of the language compatibility.
The only alternative would be a de jure or de facto UN or OAS protectorate. I think the world has too many shadow states -states with flags, seats at the UN, and bureaucrats, but no real tax base and no ability to police much of their claimed territory.
Posted by: Ed at Jan 14, 2010 10:31:30 AM
fwiw, i didn't suggest DR control haiti, rather much the opposite. The DR should have it's territorial integrity preserved precisely to ensure Haiti continues to exist.
As for qui bono in 20 years, i think alot of people might. Many(formal) records of debt have been destroyed. Prisoners have been freed (extrajudicially, sure, but freed). It seems very unlikely that they will go back. Trappings of wealth and power in Petionville have slid into the sea or destroyed.
I think the very least of Haitian society woke up debt-free, out of jail and simultaneously the forces of quasi-legal repression have been dealt a mortal blow. In twenty years, they might speak of this as a biblical "jubilee year"
Is this a net-good for society? probably not. But I bet for the bottom 10%, there is a net good.
Posted by: farmer at Jan 14, 2010 10:50:04 AM
I had the exact same thought about Paul Romer as John B. Chilton when I read that Haiti had more or less collapsed. As mentioned on the blog earlier, Jared Diamond's work on Haiti v. the Dominican suggests that their ecology may make this a little difficult to just change the rules and fix it. However, I would personally feel better if development aid was distributed with the condition of trying some of Paul Romer's rules. He has made a persuasive argument.
Posted by: Joe at Jan 14, 2010 11:04:21 AM
I don't see how re-colonisation helps Haitians to achieve a better quality of life, as if the rule of law is a guaranteed transfer through the unerringly benevolent force of foreign rule. I see this rationale as saying, "Well, they had a natural disaster that killed lots of people, so obviously the best solution is for white people to take over."
Should we have given New Orleans to the Mexicans?
Posted by: Millian at Jan 14, 2010 11:53:10 AM
For all the libertarians here, you sure call for a government solution quickly. And then you go shopping around for the government you think would be least likely to screw it up. (The Canada suggestion seems interesting; why don't we just fund them.) As for a 20 yr prognosis, they will surely be better off. How could they go down from here? To help Romer out, I suggest Dr Paul Farmer. Link - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Farmer
Posted by: Colorado at Jan 14, 2010 11:58:47 AM
I'm sure all they need to do is reduce the top marginal income tax rate and eliminate capital gains taxes, and in twenty years they'll be the envy of the Western Hemisphere.
Posted by: Michael Robinson at Jan 14, 2010 12:22:50 PM
As an intellectual exercise: if you believe Greg Clark's "A Farewell To Alms" a fall in population actually raises living standards for a while for a society operating at the malthusian subsistence limit. Income per person almost doubled in England for a hundred years after the plague killed a big chunk of the population.
Even if the highest death toll estimates of 100,000 are correct, it would only be about 1% of Haiti's population. Surely not enough to have a Clark effect even if his theory is correct.
Posted by: Peter at Jan 14, 2010 12:31:42 PM
It just occurred to me that Haiti may be an excellent example of a failed state if, as one commentator suggested, the earthquake may make the poorest Haitians better off by striking a blow against the state apparatus.
Also, we don't know to what extent the earthquake has damaged the ability of the Haitian government to simply function. For all the people objecting to the loss of Haitian sovereignty in some of these schemes, we may be at the point where if that is your objective you can preserve the trappings of sovereignty only with so much international aid that you would pretty much have bureacrats from the UN or neighboring countries pulling the strings anyway.
Then you have the ecological issues.
So its not that sovereignty isn't desirable for the country, it may not be possible in a manner which isn't a sham. The Puerto Rico proposal actually lets the country keep a measure of sovereignty, Puerto Rico is governed through its own institutions while fielding sports teams in international competition.
Beyond the humanitarian issue, this is an important issue in terms of setting a precedent for dealing with other failed states. I am no neo-imperialist (for one thing the population gradient is the opposite of what it was in the 19th century), but we may have gone too far in the opposite direction. There are simply some parts of the world where lack of resources, indefensible frontiers, a thoroughly corrupted political elite make meaningful sovereignty impossible. We should also be looking at the history of the League of Nations mandates and UN trust territories for guidance.
One more point, neighboring countries, including the US have a real national security interest in keeping Haiti from becoming a base for piracy, smuggling, or a source of refugees. Since this is a regional problem, I would prefer to see this handled through regional instutions, most likely the OAS.
Posted by: Ed at Jan 14, 2010 12:55:41 PM
So its not that sovereignty isn't desirable for the country, it may not be possible in a manner which isn't a sham.
Yes, but in what way has Haiti been sovereign for the past century? Back in the 1990s, Clinton threatened to invade the country unless Raoul Cedras was removed from power. Cedras duly ceded power and we installed Aristide in his stead, backed by US military peacekeepers. Then in the 2000s, France, Canada, and the Bush Administration cooperated in forcing his removal from power, in conjunction with a 2004 rebellion that left, as I understand it, UN forces in effective control of the country. That's not particularly "sovereign."
Posted by: Taeyoung at Jan 14, 2010 1:18:04 PM
The only thing the US gov and the UN needs to do is get the F out of Haiti. Just one more example of the total devastation caused by unrestrained, imperialistic gov (yes, Haiti was abominable before the earthquake). But their hegelian dialectic is working, if the calls for more gov seen here turn into the popular cry. Yes! Obama is here to save the world! NEVER let the people decide for themselves how they'd like to live/help/rebuild. I definitely trust Obama to make a decision in favor of everyone's best interest, not those of corporations or politics. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEBDTKnbrPo
Posted by: Sarah at Jan 14, 2010 1:48:57 PM
Unless there is land reform there will be no change -- land reform is the basis for the solution in Haitti. Strong governance needs to be implemented -- probably from a outside source. Haitti is a failed state and one that will take tremendous investment and political will to solve. I see neither coming from the US -- we simple lack the political will to be a long term imperialist power. The UN isn't there yet and China or Europe won't/can't extend themselves to deal with this. There will be a patch up, something will be fixed up and then back to business as usual
Posted by: ToriAdams at Jan 14, 2010 2:42:50 PM
Many of its problems have come from the refusal of nations ruled by slaveowners and their descendants to accept that Haitians are autonomous human beings with the capacity to govern themselves.
Fine. Let them govern themselves now. On their own nickel.
What Haiti needs is massive short-term aid, massive infrastructure rebuilding, the commitment by the UN to protect the continued functioning of a democratic government, and the commitment of wealthy nations to accept significant numbers of Haitian immigrants so that pressure on both the ecosystem and the human structures of society can be relieved.
Quit talking out of both sides of your mouth. If the Haitians are autonomous human beings with a capacity for self-governance, then they can stay the hell where they are and govern themselves.
Posted by: No Way at Jan 14, 2010 2:53:50 PM
In his speech, the president specifically called out the easy answer of a few years of extra aid as not nearly enough. It doesn't seem like he wants to leave it at that, at least from what he has said himself.
Posted by: KT at Jan 14, 2010 2:59:15 PM
scoop ... put up or shut up to Canada??? who the hell do you think's been carrying NATO in Afgan?? the Canucks, that's who
Posted by: canuk at Jan 14, 2010 3:11:27 PM
OK, step one is to say that Haiti has been poor for the reasons that most countries remain poor. I mean, the qualifications for growth aren't a mystery, they're just hard to do.
1. To be wealthy, you need security. Haiti has traditionally been a violent place where people can't be secure in their property in just the basic sense.
2. To be wealthy, you need the ability and incentive to go out and work. Haiti has a highly state influenced economy and a history of requiring significant patronage and confiscating wealth from political opponents.
3. To be wealthy, you need to have knowledge, some basic level of education. In addition to a political and economic infrastructure that discouraged wealth creation, the basic educational system in Haiti is by far the worst in the hemisphere. Lots of folks can't read, and not just older folks.
In short, our basic endogenous growth theory has these as foundations. To grow, these are the requirements and you've almost never had them in Haiti.
So how do you take 10M poor, uneducated people, mostly accustomed to doing things the wrong way, and get them on the right track?
1. Offer and encourage their free immigration to places with better infrastructure. Encourage a disaspora. A few poorly educated people added to any society won't hurt it. As a practical matter, the real losers here would be immigrants from other poor countries, if developed nations that could reasonably be expected to absorb more Haitians without major turmoil absorbed more Haitians and fewer, say, Ethiopians. But yeah, as a goal, suppose the US, Europe, China, and the rest of the world absorbed 5M of Haiti's 10M people. That'd make the problem of Haiti itself more tractable.
2. I'm pretty certain the Dominicans don't want to be responsible for Haiti any more than we do. What benefit accrues to the people/government that takes over? There's a lot of downside and if there's an upside to be seen into developing Haiti into a wealthy place, it's generations in the future. So what we'll probably get is more of the "international soup kitchen" approach to the problem where we distribute aid to avoid really embarrassing mass starvation, but otherwise leave it to the corrupt, poorly educated, and the occasionally truly benevolent folks to try and build the country. But again, since most of the folks that will actually be administering things are trained into non-wealth creating ways of administration, it basically remains a trainwreck unless some singular piece of luck comes along. In the meantime, anyone who gets wealthy enough to have the means, and has a clue, flees.
Posted by: MikeDC at Jan 14, 2010 3:27:19 PM
American imperialism ... why am I not surprised?
Everytime a country is weak, the americans come and try to impose their culture... but guess what? Haiti already has a VERY RICH culture, the US are NOT the government! They can help but they cannot decide for the Haitian government!
Posted by: nadia at Jan 14, 2010 3:31:18 PM
Everytime a country is weak, the americans come and try to impose their culture... but guess what? Haiti already has a VERY RICH culture, the US are NOT the government! They can help but they cannot decide for the Haitian government!
I'm an American and I don't want to impose anything on Haiti other than a blockade to make sure that we don't get an invasion of boat people.
Posted by: No Way at Jan 14, 2010 3:48:07 PM
I think small countries have to understand that one day it took place in their place,and almost nobody will help them
Posted by: Nemtyrev at Jan 14, 2010 3:49:51 PM
No Way, you are one piece of work. Your nativism is showing and its despicable
Posted by: Valentine Joseph at Jan 14, 2010 4:19:39 PM
You guys seem to believe that there are no wealthy people (or areas) in Haiti! There and there are businesses trying to shake things up in Haiti.
Posted by: Valentine Joseph at Jan 14, 2010 4:21:44 PM
Obama should write a check for ten billion, give it to the U.N. General Assembly and let them deal with the situation --- with a P.S. of 'The U.S.A. is not longer in the "save the world" business.
Posted by: Rick at Jan 14, 2010 4:26:59 PM
Geez, I really wish people would write about things they actually understand. Take a trip to the stacks with a handful of results for "neocolonialism" and the 1898-2000 economic history of the Caribbean basin and you might have something to say that's worth reading.
Otherwise, don't quit your day job.
And to the guy (cause it's bound to be a guy) who writes "Somebody needs to explain why Haiti was not like Hong Kong. Tropical climate, on the sea, small, few natural resources, colonial history." Please turn off the History Channel. Better yet: leave it on and stay on the couch.
Posted by: Tommy Miles at Jan 14, 2010 4:35:46 PM
Haitian immigrants are a significant source of crime in Canada and the US so I don't think that accepting large numbers of Haitians as refugees into either country is going to fly. At least it won't with this Canadian.
Aid and professional administration of the country and it's democratic institutions are paramount probably for the long term.
Posted by: sgi at Jan 14, 2010 4:45:37 PM
There are two diverging streams of comments here, with escalating hostility. Group 1 sounds like the Trilateral Commission musing along the lines of, "Hmm, someone is going to have to take over Haiti and straighten things out. The only question is who." Group 2 responds to group 1, indignantly shouting, "Imperialism! Leave Beautiful Haiti Alone!" I have a set of questions to each camp:
1. Group 1: What makes you think that the US, the UN, or anyone else can go in and solve Haiti's problems? Where has a similar effort been successful anywhere? I'm really wracking my brain.
2. Group 2: Ok, you've shown your anticolonial bona fides. But what would you have the rest of the world do in response to THIS tragedy (forget about the evils of history for just one second)? It looks like you are saying, "nothing" -- or at least, that's all you've offered here (one guy did say "aid.") But what about order and functioning government? Is the answer of this group, "leave them be?"
Aside from a bit of snark, these are sincere questions.
Posted by: Jay Daniel at Jan 14, 2010 5:11:36 PM
What miracles of improvement did the American occupation between WW1 and WW2 accomplish?
Posted by: zbicyclist at Jan 14, 2010 5:35:33 PM
Over the past three years the US has sent about 500 million in aid to Haiti. Where did the money go? Not roads, as I heard a Haitian man explain that Haiti has exactly three main thoroughfares. Not hospitals, not schools, not law and order. I see though that the president has a beautiful palace. Had, I should say.
I support aid for disasters which in emergencies is hard to track but otherwise aid should be given with big strings attached. The providers of aid should administer it to ensure that it benefits the people who need it. If the providers of aid are perceived by the anti-imperialists to be imperialists that's just too bad. They can't have it both ways. Or do they think they could do a better job? How's that UN working out for ya?
Posted by: sgi at Jan 14, 2010 6:35:15 PM
A. Invite France to deport ALL of their muslims and replace them with catholic Haitians. Can't be too much worse that what they have going now. France, and Haiti.
B. Annex Haiti as French Puerto Rico ( or Quebec Puerto Rico) , and no emigration with out literacy. If they want to leave, then they must be literate. Build 10,000 Peace Corp schools and staff them for 15 years or 25 years. Terrace the hills for farming and to reduce erosion, by day, with adult labor and send them to the schools half "days", at night. Build roads, and tourist traps on all the good beaches. When literacy hits 90-95% of those over 14, referendum every 2 years till you get the same result 3 times in a row.
Posted by: MadMichaelJohn at Jan 14, 2010 7:02:14 PM
Exogenous crises typically strengthen government power, not weaken it. This may be a rich country calculus for cases where e.g. the president is not stepping over dead bodies to escape from the ruins of his palace; but I'd think there is a chance that it still applies. A great deal of aid will be flowing into Haiti to rebuild no? I think the international community will be willing to shell out long term. Haiti is a small country with close ties to Europe and the U.S. People are usually unwilling to give to a basket case, but when an 'act of God' then occurs pocketbooks open. Donors may insist that it is not spent to rebuild favelas and may be better at curtailing graft. This will provide long-term employment.
I would be very suspicious of the high causality numbers. It seems these are always inflated by the media nowadays. The geologists are saying that shantytowns are less lethal than the shoddy concrete apartments that are the worst killers. The quake probably struck at one of the best times, when people are most likely to be out of the house.
That is the best case scenario.
Posted by: formivore at Jan 14, 2010 7:21:11 PM
Is there any scenario in which the survivors, twenty years from now, are better off, compared to the quake never having taken place?
Sure, why not? Arguably, part of the reason Britain stumbled so badly in the post-war decades was that not enough of its existing outdated factories and infrastructure were bombed in WWII.
Posted by: anonymous at Jan 14, 2010 7:54:05 PM
The reasons for Haiti's longstanding poverty are more than just poor governance. In contrast to the Dominican Republic, it has more mountainous terrain with poor soils, and is massively deforested. The DR traditionally had a far lower population which did not drain its greater resources, and also benefited from immigration of skilled professionals and traders from Europe.
Posted by: Eurasian Sensation at Jan 14, 2010 8:32:36 PM
"If it rolls that way, it'll probably be easier and cheaper to annex and administer Haiti as a US territory or a US state. If. I doubt that this has political viability."
Indeed, there ain't a chance in hell of a "State of Haiti." Do the think the GOP, understandably, would countenance the creation of a Haitian "state" that will almost inevitably elect an all-Democrat congressional delegation? Imagine two more Donk senators and as many as 14 more Donk representatives (many of them flat-out Marxists). Any attempt to add Haiti as the 51st state would be met by armed resistance--not by Haitians but, rather, by pissed-off Americans.
I daresay Haitian statehood would go over like a fart in church, n'est-ce pas?
Posted by: MarkJ at Jan 14, 2010 9:10:09 PM
> Haiti doesn't hate the US, at least.
Some of them probably do. In 2004, the US overthrew the popular Aristide and replaced him with a compliant thug.
Posted by: Bob Morris at Jan 14, 2010 9:53:23 PM
