With a revival of aid and interest in Haiti post-earthquake and another round of bickering from Latin America’s left wing leaders accusing the US of occupying Haiti in their aid efforts, the rest of the Americas and the world have taken to sending support and aid to Haiti, running collection campaigns and rescue teams to the island from China to Israel and everyone in between.
It is somewhat surprising that debate on sending immediate aid to Haiti is an issue for anyone considering any assistance is a welcomed site in Haiti. Most countries of varying political stripes seem to be unanimous in getting aid there quickly, effectively and keeping it there for a long enough time to bring Haiti back in order, or at least to a state of relative stability for a country that is well known for being one of, if not the poorest in the Americas. While the US has had its role in the Haitian political system in the past, it is hardly acceptable to target relief efforts as a means to an occupation, when it is clear that everyone working there and saving lives is clearly their principle concern.
Often any debate in the region is characterized by one theme, that of a left-right divide and who allies with the US or with Latin America’s left wing governments. Haiti, while being part of the Americas usually receives little to no attention as the history of the island comes from a non-Hispanic heritage, of strong non-Western faiths and as former French colony that is often ignored by others in the region or is left as an issue for the Francophonie in its yearly meetings. This does not mean that Haiti is not important, but that among all the issues in the Americas and the domination of Spanish, English and Portuguese media, that Haiti is often left on the latter pages of news coverage on the Americas. Some attention to Haiti has come from Quebec and Canada, as the other French language region of the Americas with a strong Haitian community. It also helps that the Governor General of Canada, the official leader of Canada’s government is Michelle Jean who is of Haitian origin. Despite these ties however, Haiti has only become a topic of interest not after years of poverty which was a major contributor to much of the chaos during the earthquake, and unequal relations with other nations in the Americas and Europe, but after a disaster.
Does the left-right divide in this case not include all people and all issues in the Americas? It is likely the case that a dominant theory was used to explain issues that have always existed in the region, and that the left-right debate is applied, often mistakenly, as a theory to explain the causes of various issues in modern times. What were referred to as the Communists in the pre-1989 world in the Americas was Castro and Cuba for the most part and some allies of Castro in the Americas. Castroism was defined simply by many as anything that was anti-American, even though it has the optics of being a more academic debate. While Castroism was not a useful theory to explain all issues in the region, it enabled experts and policymakers to have a tool to explain the motivations for the Communists in the Americas as well as US policy towards the region. With the left-right debate, Communist explanations of recent events and motivations, as well as historical examples of the past get muddled when challenging motivations for American aid in Haiti, or the recent win of Pinera in Chile, the first democratically elected conservative to win in the country since the end of the Pinochet era.
Last week the end of an era in Chilean politics was made when Sebastian Pinera won the runoff election in the country, becoming the first conservative canadidate to win against the Concertacion coalition of left and centre candidates in Chile since 1990. The greatest surprise is that Michelle Bachelet, who was the leader of the governing party opposed to Pinera’s had an 81% approval rating and maintained a strong economy in the middle of a global recession. This surprising result might have come from many sources, one being that Bachelet did not run, and that Eduardo Frei, a former President of Chile ran against Pinera and the other candidate. Perhaps Frei’s former record haunted him in this race, but more likely it was the vision of Chile as a stable country and lack of identity between the candidates that ensured his political fate. Chile might been seen as coming out of an election with the assurance by left of centre and right of centre politicians that economic growth would be slow and stable. Like the successes of such policies in other Latin American nations and the constant malaise of political contests in most developed nations, Chile’s latest race might show that like in many European and Western countries, that candidates in relatively wealthy economies do not differ much in substance, and only slightly differ in ideology in a globalised economy. Chile’s “success” as a well managed left of centre government is not due to classic left wing policies, but is a confirmation that Chile qualifies to fit into what Thomas L Friedman described as economies being managed to a lesser or greater degree within a Golden Straitjacket. Basically it is not a left wing policy approach or right wing roots that makes Chile pro-Chavez or pro-USA, but simply managing being part of a globalised economy and those rules with are presumed in such an economy.
In Latin America most of the countries who many would see as successful come with slow and responsible growth, with conservative economic approaches and socially oriented approaches to reduce poverty and promote relative equality. With a history of large inequality and great amounts of poverty, all Latin American countries should be a mix of left and right wing policy approaches, what we can name logical policy initiatives. It would be better to define the region into strong US allies, populists managing poverty and various success stories which give credit to open and innovative policy approaches. All countries in the region have been innovative when dealing with aid, poverty reduction and slow growth, but it is those countries which can welcome new theories and new approaches that are the ones that can innovate and succeed. The Golden Straitjacket allows for little more than that, and if it makes politics less exciting and populists less convincing it could be best for many countries, even the often forgotten Haiti.
