Two Earthquakes and Two Telling Responses From America
Published in Nandu Daily
(China) on 1 March 2010
by Shen Xuhui (link to original)
(China) on 1 March 2010
by Shen Xuhui (link to original)
Translated from
by Mark Frank.
Edited by Catherine Harrington.
Chile has experienced a massive earthquake, with a scene that reminded people of the apocalyptic film “2012.” Online, people were also making far-fetched predictions about the end of time, since the number “8.8,” the earthquake’s approximate magnitude (the precise magnitude is still being calculated), is prone to induce fear. Judging from its destructive force, this earthquake is far more serious than last month’s quake in Haiti, but there has been an interesting drop in America’s response to the two earthquakes.
Excluding rescue funds and neighborhood fundraising efforts, perhaps the most indicative sign of this is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attitude. After the earthquake in Haiti, she personally went to inspect the disaster area and decided to cancel her pending trips to Europe, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, acting as if a part of her own nation had entered a state of emergency. Following the Chile earthquake, she not only chose to continue with her arranged diplomatic trip to Latin America, but indicated no decision as to whether or not she would head to disaster-struck Chile, an attitude completely contrary to that of rescuing Haiti.
Of course, the two earthquakes are incomparable in numerous ways. The Haiti quake claimed a huge number of casualties and the local infrastructure was relatively poor. Haiti and the United States are in the same general vicinity, and the U.S. has a tradition of meddling in Haitian affairs. All of this has led Washington to rationalize the situation. After all, Chile is a relatively developed country. What’s more, the tsunami caused by the earthquake is a global issue. It is within reason for America to not give Chile special attention.
But even more important is the fact that when coming up with rescue funds for the two nations, there were simultaneously domestic and foreign affairs issues to consider. At the moment of the quake in Haiti, the Obama administration’s popularity was at a low point, both in domestic and foreign affairs issues, and desperately needed a platform with which to demonstrate national grandeur. Additionally, after Democrats lost a Senate seat in Massachusetts, the government’s focus on Haiti became an effective tool for diverting the people’s attention. In America, rescuing Haiti has become a national movement, arousing sympathy toward the third world. But carrying out similar activities toward Chile would be virtually impossible.
This way of dealing with problems recalls America’s famine relief effort in Ethiopia in the 1980s. Today, when we mention Ethiopia, there is prejudice all around, with no regard to the fact that Ethiopia is an ancient civilization. The reason for this is closely related to America’s relief propaganda. At the time, Ethiopia’s famine was naturally serious. But similar famines existed across Africa, and few were treated with such importance by America or caused American celebrities to perform group recordings like “We Are the World.” In fact, the famine became a scandal, since the Ethiopian government was meticulously concealing the truth about its situation. As the relief effort became a national movement, Washington was able to discretely secure public support at home and abroad. Note that America originally had a certain amount of sympathy for Ethiopia’s new regime, and, in the end, America supported many years of perverse acts by Ethiopia’s kings and emperors, alarming many human rights advocates. In the same line of reasoning, America’s policies toward Haiti have been panned by liberals at home, but America’s theory of responsibility toward the “backyard” of the Caribbean has subtly become entrenched in the wake of relief efforts.
When it comes to nations making use of the soft power of construction and the hard power of promotion, it can’t be denied that America has a 10-year head start on China. The region surrounding China frequently suffers calamities, and in recent years Beijing has also actively participated in international relief work, but it rarely becomes an activity of the masses. As a result, Chinese citizens often chide the government for loosely spending money to save others, and additionally, when China does spend money it tends to receive no response from the international community.
(The author is an associate professor at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. The above editorial represents one person’s opinion.)
Excluding rescue funds and neighborhood fundraising efforts, perhaps the most indicative sign of this is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s attitude. After the earthquake in Haiti, she personally went to inspect the disaster area and decided to cancel her pending trips to Europe, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, acting as if a part of her own nation had entered a state of emergency. Following the Chile earthquake, she not only chose to continue with her arranged diplomatic trip to Latin America, but indicated no decision as to whether or not she would head to disaster-struck Chile, an attitude completely contrary to that of rescuing Haiti.
Of course, the two earthquakes are incomparable in numerous ways. The Haiti quake claimed a huge number of casualties and the local infrastructure was relatively poor. Haiti and the United States are in the same general vicinity, and the U.S. has a tradition of meddling in Haitian affairs. All of this has led Washington to rationalize the situation. After all, Chile is a relatively developed country. What’s more, the tsunami caused by the earthquake is a global issue. It is within reason for America to not give Chile special attention.
But even more important is the fact that when coming up with rescue funds for the two nations, there were simultaneously domestic and foreign affairs issues to consider. At the moment of the quake in Haiti, the Obama administration’s popularity was at a low point, both in domestic and foreign affairs issues, and desperately needed a platform with which to demonstrate national grandeur. Additionally, after Democrats lost a Senate seat in Massachusetts, the government’s focus on Haiti became an effective tool for diverting the people’s attention. In America, rescuing Haiti has become a national movement, arousing sympathy toward the third world. But carrying out similar activities toward Chile would be virtually impossible.
This way of dealing with problems recalls America’s famine relief effort in Ethiopia in the 1980s. Today, when we mention Ethiopia, there is prejudice all around, with no regard to the fact that Ethiopia is an ancient civilization. The reason for this is closely related to America’s relief propaganda. At the time, Ethiopia’s famine was naturally serious. But similar famines existed across Africa, and few were treated with such importance by America or caused American celebrities to perform group recordings like “We Are the World.” In fact, the famine became a scandal, since the Ethiopian government was meticulously concealing the truth about its situation. As the relief effort became a national movement, Washington was able to discretely secure public support at home and abroad. Note that America originally had a certain amount of sympathy for Ethiopia’s new regime, and, in the end, America supported many years of perverse acts by Ethiopia’s kings and emperors, alarming many human rights advocates. In the same line of reasoning, America’s policies toward Haiti have been panned by liberals at home, but America’s theory of responsibility toward the “backyard” of the Caribbean has subtly become entrenched in the wake of relief efforts.
When it comes to nations making use of the soft power of construction and the hard power of promotion, it can’t be denied that America has a 10-year head start on China. The region surrounding China frequently suffers calamities, and in recent years Beijing has also actively participated in international relief work, but it rarely becomes an activity of the masses. As a result, Chinese citizens often chide the government for loosely spending money to save others, and additionally, when China does spend money it tends to receive no response from the international community.
(The author is an associate professor at the Hong Kong Institute of Education. The above editorial represents one person’s opinion.)