Monday, January 25, 2010

Haiti analysis round-up for Monday 25th January

There is such a lot now coming out of blogs and commentators that I thought rounding them up would be more useful.


Below are more technical pieces from the humanitarian blogosphere (and yes I did just use that phrase). Enjoy:
  • Quite a bit of comment on the Lancet article condemning the aid effort as self-serving and uncoordinated. Michael Keizer agrees that some points have a grain of truth, albeit unsupported by evidence, (the comments repay the reading on this one); Alanna Shaikh (humanitarian uber-blogger with a big following) weighs in; Brendan Gormley is covered in a Guardian profile following the very strong DEC response to the article; and a frazzled response straight from Haiti here.
  • Dan Smith of International Alert looks at what's next for Haiti, recovery and the humanitarian caseload and the IntLawGrrls look at future administration possibilities
  • Paul Currion argues that reinventing Haiti really means reinventing the systems in which the country exists, as well as internal infrastructure
  • Peter Daou asks why we can't mobilise the same outpouring of aid and compassion for comparable numbers of people affected by sexual violence in the Congo
  • Newsweek gives a view on the historical background to the earthquake in Haiti
  • An old hand expresses disappointment with the media coverage of the response
  • And an absolutely fascinating bit of advice for the military supporting the operation from a retired Marine Corps officer - sample quote:
  • 'Your job is to try to get Haiti back to something approaching the way it was seconds before the quake struck. If the President wants you to do nation-building, he’ll let you know.'

2 comments:

  1. I think the summary missed the point of my post, so I must have not been clear enough. Let me clarify.

    I agree (I would not use the word 'concede' in this context) with The Lancet that more scrutiny of the aid sector would be a good thing; however, apart from their obvious choice of rhetoric over content, I also show that the article has serious evidential and conceptual issues.

    And yes, I agree about the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for posting Michael - sorry for my truncated summary. I've amended it above.

    ReplyDelete