Today I've something to say about Haiti. You might not like it, but i'm pretty sure it's all entirely true.What's happened is undeniably tragic; a country with very little economic stability has been hit by a pretty fucking nasty natural disaster - and without any kind of decent building regulations set in place, the structures they'd built frankly didn't stand a chance. At it's heart it's a deeply tragic human story which we can all relate to, something I'm confident we can all agree on.
But here's where opinion may split: is donating a vast amounts of money really the right thing to do? The response has been incredible, with millions of dollars being raised worldwide to be sent to Haiti to buy food and medical supplies. Food aid in particular is an utterly vital element of the early stages of disaster management, but if this isn't dealt with carefully in the long term, the cultural damage can be severe; corruption leading to food aid being sold on whilst preventing farmers from making a decent living, effectively leaving a country's ability to self-sustain somewhat crippled.
Far from being straight-up disaster management however, Haiti is looking well and truly fucked. Donating money could really help to change this, but not without some seriously intelligent management to ensure this money is spent effectively - aiding the process of recovery - and not just spent on a long-term campaign of food aid supplements. Hate to be a cynic, but I'm just not confident that this can or will happen.
Charities spend years creating carefully formulated plans to make change happen - a lot of this is ensuring the money gets spent on the right things, and doesn't end up in the wrong hands. They send people out to build the wells, and they go out there and teach communities skills. Rather than reacting to immediately observable tragedy, they do their best to help prevent the small tragedies that occur every hour all over the developing world.
Much more popular however, is the school of Bob Geldof - which involve well thought out campaign strategies such as "give us your fucking money" and "let me be on the telly".
Well we let you on the telly Bob, and we gave you our fucking money. Your band were shit, and most of the cash we donated ended up being spent by warlords on automatic weapons.
Just as the hypothetical bloke who wins the lottery ends up in a right pickle; pumping a vast quantity of money into something very quickly is simply never a good idea. At best, there's major wastage. 2004's Tsunami saw landfills packed with prosthetic limbs surplus to requirement, one of the many examples of simply having too much money to spend, and having to spend it very quickly.
And if you can't be sure you're spending it on the right things, how can you be sure you're giving it to the right people either? At worst, your charitable endeavours could end up being used as blood money; just ask Bob.
The people of Haiti were hugely unlucky, and if you've sent money across to help then that's great - I applaud your intentions.
If you've not pledged money yet however, then please - don't. The tragedy that's occured is one that's immensely sad, but there's only so much good money can do, and I believe we've already gone past that cap - I can assure you that any of the future funds provided will not be spent in the way you'd like them to be.
The charity singles will only benefit those who produce them, and your donations will make you feel good about yourself, but sadly have no further positive impact. We shouldn't deny our human reaction to this terrible tragedy, but we should do all we can to ensure our reaction is more than just a kneejerk.
If you've been touched by the Haiti story, I'd implore you to instead consider pledging money to longterm, sustainable charities that have proven track records of achieving important change in communities worldwide. It's the only way you can really be sure that your money is going to a good cause; send it to Haiti however, and it's nothing less than a gamble.
