PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, February 26, 2010 – A cacophony of murmurs and cries echoed through the neighbourhoods of Haiti’s capital city Monday night as a violent aftershock shook people awake. Ten minutes later, another tremor rocked the ground, this time more smoothly back and forth.
The 4.7 magnitude tremors were a momentary distraction from pressing concerns over Haiti’s oncoming season of heavy rains, said to begin in March and last three months.
Shelter is now the top priority for relief groups, ahead of food and water distribution. They are rushing to supply thick plastic tarps, rather than tents, to over 500,000 internally displaced people in Port-Au-Prince – many still living under bed sheets tied over sticks in crowded settlements.
At a shelter distribution by CARE International at a camp in a Petionville public square, the tarps were received with a mixture of confusion and disappointment.
“It’s not clear for us. We can’t set them up because they don’t send anyone to give an explanation,” said Joseph Jean-Ones, whose family lives in the camp, as he tried to fit one metal pole on top of another.
His wife was given a gray tarp, a set of gleaming metal poles, and a single piece of paper with pictoral diagrams showing how to tie the materials together. The tarps do not come with text instructions, in Haitian Creole or any language.
“They should teach people how to set them up before distributing them,” said another man, setting the supplies down on the ground. “Now we don’t know what to do with it. It’s like they’re distributing problems to us.”
An aid worker with CARE International, who asked not to be identified by name, said non-Haitian staff with her organisation are not supposed to walk into any camps alone. Seeing this reporter walk in and out several times, she asked to tag along.
“Maybe we should have tried doing this ourselves first,” she said quietly, while attempting to show a confused family how to construct the tarp shelter.
At least 330,000 people throughout Port-Au-Prince have received tarps so far, according to the UN.
The dark gray tarps are widely visible in camps throughout the city, tied at varying angles over wood and metal objects that make up the walls of makeshift shelters.
“No one is pretending that this offers anything but very partial protection from the rains,” Alex Wynter, spokesman for the International Federation of the Red Cross, told reporters in a press briefing.
“I would say that the tents and tarpaulins, in addition to giving people a modicum of privacy, give people a tool with which they can stay dry overnight,” he said. “But there’s no doubt that we face a very grave crisis here, when the rains come.”
Wynter said the peculiarities of Haiti’s climate make the rainy season “especially violent, even by tropical standards worldwide.”
There are also concerns over poor sanitation and the possibility of water-borne diseases spreading quickly in the camps. Haitians are being encouraged to dig shallow trenches for drainage.
Plastic tarps are far more prevalent than tents in the city’s camps. Large white domed tents, called Shelterboxes, from the UK-based charity of the same name, are scattered by the dozens in a few camps.
“What we’re about is shelter, warmth and dignity – it’s difficult to get that with tarps,” said John Leach, Shelterbox’s Head of Operations, in an interview. He said the plastic tarps will prove inadequate under heavy rains.
“If tarps are that great, why are all the UN people living in tents?” he asked.
NGOs working to provide shelter for the population are coordinating through a “shelter cluster” team based at a UN base.
Asked about the balance of tarps versus tents being distributed, Gregg McDonald, a lead member of the shelter cluster staff, said, “There are 142 agencies in the cluster that agree with this strategy (of tarp distribution), a couple of irresponsible agencies still doing tents.
“Tents are inappropriate now. The extra floor space is not available,” he said. Tarps “can move, have a lot more versatility, strength, and are longer-lasting.”
Luckner Thervius, one of two dozen committee members organising the camp in Petionville, said he understood why tarps were necessary. “It would be better if everyone had a small one,” pointing to a rectangular green tent shared by several families. “That one is too big. There’s not enough space if everyone had one like this.”
CARE International contacted IPS after the tarp distribution to say that their staff would set up a tarp shelter as an example in each camp from now on. (IPS)
![GYPTIAN – GYAL GIMMIE SOME [ SO UNIQUE RECORDS] FEB 2012](http://blog.gfbcproductions.biz/wp-content/themes/wp-elegance/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://blog.gfbcproductions.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GFBC-3-22-150x101.jpg&w=150&h=150&zc=1 "GYPTIAN – GYAL GIMMIE SOME [ SO UNIQUE RECORDS] FEB 2012")
![Konshens – Bad Gal [Official HD Video]](http://blog.gfbcproductions.biz/wp-content/themes/wp-elegance/scripts/timthumb.php?src=http://blog.gfbcproductions.biz/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/GFBC-31-150x150.jpg&w=150&h=150&zc=1 "Konshens – Bad Gal [Official HD Video]")
To OAS or not to OAS: That is the question
By Sir Ronald Sanders
(The writer is a Consultant and former Caribbean diplomat)
At a meeting of leaders of Latin America and the Caribbean on February 23, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) governments supported a joint “Declaration on (the) Falklands Islands Issueâ€.
The Declaration “confirmed their support of Argentina’s legitimate rights in the sovereignty dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands Issueâ€, and recalled “regional interest in having the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations to find a fair, peaceful and definitive solution to the dispute over the sovereignty†of the Falklands/Malvinas islands. They went further to call on the European Union (EU) countries to amend their charter to remove the Falkland Islands from the list of overseas territories associated with the EU.
The support of Latin American countries for Argentina in this matter is quite understandable. They have links of language, culture, history and proximity that go back centuries.
But the support of CARICOM countries for Argentina’s “legitimate rights†is puzzling. Both the UK and Argentina have claimed the Falklands/Malvinas for almost two hundred years. So what now makes Argentina’s rights more “legitimate†than Britain’s? And, why call for “negotiations†between Argentina and Britain to find “a fair peaceful and definitive solution†to the dispute if it has already been decided that Argentina’s rights are “legitimate�
Unless there is something they have not made public, this position by Caribbean governments appears on the surface to run counter to their own national interests.
The Caribbean has always strongly supported a people’s right to self-determination. It is in fulfillment of their own right to self-determination that Caribbean Community (CARICOM) countries are independent states. In this regard, since the people of the Falklands/Malvinas have consistently and overwhelmingly chosen to be British, Caribbean governments would certainly not argue that the manifest wish of the people of the Falklands/Malvinas should be ignored, particularly since Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty over the islands continuously since 1833.
The national interests of twelve of the fourteen independent CARICOM countries are much more bound-up with Britain than they are with Argentina. CARICOM’s trade with Britain far exceeds trade with Argentina; investment in CARICOM countries from Britain is much greater than any investment from Argentina; official development assistance from Britain to CARICOM countries directly and indirectly (through the European Union and the Commonwealth for instance) is much larger than any assistance from Argentina; the number of tourists from Britain to CARICOM countries is considerably greater than from Argentina; and far more CARICOM nationals live, work and study in Britain than in Argentina.
What appears to have triggered this discussion at the 33-nations Cancun meeting is the fact that a British oil exploration company, Desire Petroleum Plc, announced that it had started drilling for oil 60 miles (100 kilometers) north of the Falklands/Malvinas. Argentina objects to this development.
In giving support to Argentina, CARICOM countries run the risk of compromising their own interest. For instance, where would they stand if Venezuela objected to oil exploration off part of Guyana, despite long-standing international arbitrations and agreements confirming Guyana’s title? Also, where would these countries stand if Venezuela objected to oil explorations that might be granted by some of them near Aves Island/Bird Rock to which Venezuela lays a claim? In the case of Belize where Guatemala claims the entire country, the same argument applies.
Then we come to the matter of the creation of a grouping of these 33 countries that excludes Canada and the United States. Some of the Latin American leaders – in particular those with a strong anti-American position – proclaimed to the media that this new grouping should replace the Organization of American States (OAS).
Well, replacing the OAS is simply in no country’s interest – not even those with the most rabid anti-American governments. There has to be a forum in the Hemisphere where all its countries are represented and where discussions can take place at all levels of government and on all issues. And that organization is clearly the already well-established OAS. In this regard, Cuba should return to the Organization and the exclusion of the present elected government of Honduras should cease.
In any event, I suspect that only a very few governments touted the idea of an “alternative†organization to the OAS and even fewer would have supported it. Certainly for CARICOM countries, there is no other organization in which they can engage the US government on a regular and sustained basis at all levels. That alone makes the OAS worthwhile for them.
Further, CARICOM governments greatly value their relations with Canada which has been an ally and partner for generations in the Hemisphere and in the Commonwealth. They would want deeper not distant relations with Canada.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Latin American and Caribbean countries establishing a grouping that is not an alternative to the OAS, but is additional to it.
However, no one should believe that it will be anything more than an opportunity for dialogue at the level of leaders. It will have no secretariat and therefore little means of implementing decisions; decisions will have to be made by consensus, therefore no binding decisions will be made; and, in truth, the grouping is so amorphous and made up of countries at such different levels of development and with such differing interests and ambitions, that its meetings will be largely obligatory and its decisions only declaratory.
The Summit “Declaration of Cancun†does have as one of its objectives “the coordination of regional positions ahead of meetings and conferences of global reach… to project the region and increase its influenceâ€. This is to be welcomed provided that the view of smaller Caribbean islands are seriously considered and reflected by the larger Latin American states.
This brings us to the OAS itself. The US government should regard this move by Latin American and Caribbean countries to set up a Hemispheric grouping, which deliberately excludes it, as a firm warning that its neglect of Latin America and the Caribbean’s development needs and issues, and its oftentimes casual dismissal of their positions is not in the interest of the United States. The authorities in Washington need to engage Latin American and Caribbean countries as genuine partners and neighbours and a strengthened and revitalized OAS is the place to do so.
In this connection, CARICOM countries should indicate their support for the re-election on March 23 of the incumbent Secretary-General, Jose Miguel Insulza. His task over the last five years in a fractious organisation, which also relies on consensus for decision-making, has not been easy. But, he has tried to introduce reforms and he has been the most forceful Secretary-General the OAS has seen for a long time. Additionally, he has been very mindful of his obligations to his Caribbean member states.
He has also taken on Hugo Chavez over violations of media freedom in Venezuela and he has not been afraid to point out shortcomings by the US government. To have offended both these adversaries, he must have done something right for the rest.
Over the next five and final years as Secretary-General, Insulza can be bold in giving the OAS real direction in reforming its mandate and establishing it as a meaningful forum for settling hemispheric issues and advancing democracy, development and human rights.