Haiti: Intentions AND Results

Why has America been so robust in its response to the Haiti crisis? The official line is that we have a responsibility towards the Haitian community, both because Haiti is in our "sphere of influence" and because of the large Haitian-American population. Yet as expected there are a multitude of perspectives emerging from the usual corners.

Danny Glover was interviewed on Democracy Now, a far-left news service. Glover argued that Haiti was being militarized by America reflecting a trend that hearkens back to the turn of the 19th century. Glover offers the fact that the copious supplies provided by the international community are not being channeled by the Haitian authorities. On the other side of the spectrum are those who see domestic politics at play. Afghanistan and health care are off the front page and congress and the president are temporarily off the hook. Yet an obvious reason for American involvement has been completely ignored. With 30,000 undocumented alien Haitians about to be deported, the United States is keen on avoiding a massive influx of Haitians to these shores. Thus our efforts in restoring order and helping.

This selfish line of thinking may explain most of the international communities actions. The burgeoning economic power-house, China, donated a mere 1 million dollars. I mean China is still dealing with the repercussions of the Sichuan earthquakes and the international aid that came along with it! Saudi Arabia offered a heartfelt condolence. The EU provided over 420 million euro, and Israel as they did following disasters in Turkey, Indonesia, and China, activated their roving hightech field hospital.

Each nations actions can, in theory, be expalained in pragmatic terms. Thus Haiti is outside China's sphere of influence, plus Haiti doesn't have any natural resources. The last time Saudi Arabia, offered more then words the twin towers were smoldering, AND they were being blamed by some for the attack. The EU is dealing with colonial guilt and an, albeit, smaller immigrant concern. Israel IS attempting to offset a constant stream of negative publicity.

It is no surprise that nations respond pragmatically. The question is whether nations should be judged based on their intentions or their actions? Is America doing good or acting selfishly?

On that note when dealing with others should we judge an action by the results or the intention? In courts of law we distinguish between man-slaughter and premeditated murder, between intentions and results. On the other hand in international legal situations like the the Goldstone report on Gaza(see blog entree "understanding the Goldstone report")the international communities conclusions reflect the results.

On the face of it our society likes to apply a logic of appropriateness, i.e. a subjective choice with a logical explanation. Some times results are what count other times it is the intentions. Seeing as we are so good at rationalizing the most pernicious acts, this should come as no surprise. We do it with ourselves all the time.

Perhaps, in this case it is not intentions vs. results but rather intentions and results. The unprecedented unity displayed by the international community, may be the arbitrary convergence of a multitude of intentions yet the result is unprecedented international unity, an unexpected unifying factor, how did that happen? I don't know.

But my Haitin buddy is asking me right now whether this resulting unity will translate into a better Haiti? I don't know.