It is always great to see the Senator. I congratulate him on his enthusiasm.
When I visited Haiti following the earthquake, I thought there was tremendous capacity in the private sector outside Haiti, if not in Haiti itself, to do the major construction work that needed to be done there. I felt from day one that the private sector had the primary role in that regard. There is a limit to what NGOs and the UN can do. This is a massive project of reconstruction. If one pays the private sector, it will do it. I felt there and then that this would be the first time we could say we had got it right. Members will be aware that as the poorest country in the western hemisphere, Haiti was ill-equipped to deal with the earthquake when it happened. It did not have a rapid response mechanism. The world does not have a rapid response force, sadly, and instead continues to depend on NGOs, missionaries, ad hoc groups and UN agencies, and so on. I hope it will have such a force some day.
Haiti was particularly vulnerable. The epicentre of the earthquake was very close to its capital, Port-au-Prince. That had not happened before, certainly in living memory. Many people were wiped out very quickly. Nothing was provided for them in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. Approximately 80% of Haitians live on between $1 and $1.50 a day. The Haitian health and education sectors are very weak. All of the support structures in Haiti are very weak. Haiti needed instant support from outside. That was not immediately forthcoming, for obvious reasons, such as the lack of an international rapid response force. Aid organisations need time to get going. The first week of the tragedy must have been horrific and traumatic for the poor people who were affected by it. When I was in Haiti, many times, I saw arms and legs protruding from buildings. I have seen many bad things in my time. I do not have words to describe what this must have been like in the early days, when the people of Haiti did not have anybody to help them. Many government officials were wiped out. Regardless of whether they were good, bad or indifferent, they were unable to help.
The UN in Haiti was almost decapitated, as many of its staff were killed. It was an unbelievable situation. Happily, the US army acted quickly in taking control of the airport. That was terribly important. More importantly, the UN World Food Programme did a phenomenal job in recognising how important it was that people had food. It is remarkable that 3.5 million people were fed for a number of weeks, if not months, by the programme and its partners, including GOAL. That the World Food Programme was the driving force in averting famine is a tremendous commentary on the work of these people. The rampant spread of disease was also prevented. Within a short period 1.5 million people were under shelter. It was not ideal, but it was much better than we have seen in many other tragic spots around the world. I have never seen an emergency response that was as effective as the response in this case.
When I went to Haiti most recently, it was buzzing with enthusiasm and vibrancy. The traffic in Port-au-Prince was so heavy that one could not get down the streets. The street sellers were out in numbers. The people were determined not to let anything prevent them from getting back on their feet. There was a great sense of urgency. I felt that these people would succeed. It was a privilege for the aid community to help them.
Phase 2 more or less involved the provision of traditional homes as distinct from tents. We now give people a home that is supposed to suffice for perhaps a year or two until a permanent structure is built. Water and sanitation arrangements are critical. All of the work in phase 2, including the rehabilitation and building of schools, was undertaken by the United Nations and the aid agencies which had worked during the initial phase.
The first obstacle which was predictable was the capacity of the Haitian Government to act. It is understandable that in the early period some of the Government officials were not present. We do not know where they were; some of them were dead. When they got their act together, there was bureaucracy and issues arose pertaining to what could be done with the land, including the designation of areas where one could build. There were customs clearance issues and the granting of permission to build anything became an issue. Heavy bureaucracy was a feature. Even the business of dealing with NGOs became a very difficult chore for the Haitian Government. There was and is no master plan for the reconstruction of Port-au-Prince. Problems arose in compensating landowners for the use of the land on which we were to build schools, clinics and houses.
Diplomacy is needed to ease the path and ensure the NGO community and the United Nations can carry out phase 2 more speedily. The determination of the NGOs and the United Nations is such that they will do this job. It will be slower than first anticipated, but it is not insurmountable. The problem is not intractable and those concerned will get over it. The officials are voicing their frustration because the early emergency response was so effective by comparison with the work currently being done. It is not a major issue if the international community can provide an injection of high quality, experienced personnel to the Haitian Government to help it solve all of its problems. The difficulties must be smoothed out for the NGOs and the United Nations because they are providing the assistance.
On the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Haiti, we felt from day one that this task would be way beyond the capability and capacity of the international aid community and the United Nations, in spite of all their heroic work. We felt it was a job for the international community at large. I compare the circumstances in Haiti with those in South Africa. My dream when Mr. Nelson Mandela was released from jail was that the international community would have the moral fibre to decide it would physically rebuild South Africa in order that apartheid would be forgotten and that a mother of eight would no longer have to live in a little hut but would have a sufficient number of rooms. This is what must happen in Haiti.
The people in Haiti have suffered so much for over 200 years. They have had one bad government after another. Some 85% live in desperate poverty. After suffering from the recent tragedy, they are wondering who will help them. While they know no one cannot give them back their sons, husbands or wives, they ask who will give them back the little house, school, business or hospital.
Somebody must grasp the nettle. GOAL believes it should be former US President Bill Clinton who is part of a group called the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Committee, on which the World Bank is represented, as are the US and Haitian Governments. We are not entirely certain what its mandate is, but the time is right for the international community to exert pressure on the Haitian Government or other relevant body to appoint Mr. Clinton as supremo such that, in conjunction with the Haitian Government, he would be allowed to say to every major power on the planet that the job must be done properly. Doing it properly means somebody must take responsibility for roads, bridges and the sewerage system. Somebody must take responsibility for rebuilding 500,000 houses such that Haiti will be returned to where it was before the earthquake. Despite the best efforts of the NGO community which has already been given 9.5 out of ten and the United Nations, they will never be able to do a job of the scale required. GOAL is trying to provide 4,000 temporary dwellings, but in time they will not be very useful to the people. Unless the international community takes on the task and decides we need a focal point, the problem will not be solved. Mr. Clinton could be the catalyst.
One should think of the benefits of what I propose. The Haitian people, the survivors, would realise for the first time in their lives that somebody deeply loved them, to the point of providing them with something they had lost tragically in the disaster. That is most important. We cannot replace the children or parents, but we can certainly replace a physical entity, be it a school, house or clinic. The second advantage of what I propose is even more important. After the next major humanitarian tragedy — we all know such tragedies occur frequently – those who care would be able to say out loud at the major fora of the world that those concerned had rebuilt Haiti properly and in a phenomenal way. They would be able to ask why the same could not be done again. It would be setting a benchmark, something the international community has never really done before, but it can be done in Haiti. There is nothing to stop the job from being done.
What can the Irish Government do to help the process? Given its close association with the United States and Mr. Bill Clinton, it should raise the possibility of Mr. Clinton assuming the role I advocate. I am not advocating that we march into Haiti and take over. If Mr. Clinton is allowed to seek and obtain guaranteed support from other nations, the reconstruction job can be done. If this does not happen, the aid community and the United Nations will continue to do the best they can. Many lives will be enhanced and enriched by their doing so, but one will not be able to say the international community did as good a job as it could have done. That is the challenge facing the world. I am not detracting in any way from the tremendous financial commitment made by the Irish Government but saying our voice is very important on the world stage. I would love to see it being used in the way I propose. There is just a chance it could be successful.
