Observing the Katrina and Haiti crises through the lens of a television, the views of the two disasters are nearly identical. Newscasters provide constant stream of images depicting a handful of resident charities handing out food and water, groups of empty-handed foreign aid workers milling about trying to find some avenue by which to help, and a horde of military troops with drawn weapons defending donated supplies against alleged violent looters and deranged rioters. A few stations broadcast stories of homeless families banding together to find shelter or victims gathering food to share. Both in the cases of Katrina and Haiti, however, the media presents the average citizen with gruesome stories featuring heaps of dead bodies, reported by shaken correspondents, and typically concluded with calls for small, satisfying donations through texting or buying from certain brands dedicated to donating their profits.
Both Katrina and Haiti’s stories are tales of poverty and racism, regions weakened by exploitation and neglect and then devastated by natural disaster. The government responses to the two situations continues their similarities: reports of hunger-crazed looters resulted in large-scale military presence to subdue the people by might rather than large-scale aid workers to pacify the people with providing food and water. In addition, both catastrophes have been widely regarded as opportunities for change and growth in the afflicted areas, as opportunities for development. Disaster effectually spells invitation for big businesses and investors, an economy razed and ready to be rebuilt.
Though the faces of Katrina and Haiti as shown on the television appear identical, some glaring yet overlooked differences reveal much about the role of the United States in the disasters of the 21st century. Two blatant differences between the disasters are found in numbers: while the United States donated to date has donated 100 million dollars to Haiti’s crisis, the government spent close to 110 billion dollars on the Katrina disaster. Also, though both Katrina and Haiti were products of poverty, Haiti’s projected death toll is nearly 50 times Katrina’s. In short, though Haiti’s need is greater, the aid provided has been lesser. Though this statement seems initially to be wildly unfair, reflection proves the opposite: it is only logical that the United States would expend more money and energy attending to a problem within its own borders. However, as the US’s role is drawn into question, other concerns arise. If the United States contributions to Haiti are a fraction of what they were during Katrina, why is the US military presence equal greater in Haiti than it was in Katrina? Why is the United States so strictly regulating and restricting relief efforts from other nations and organizations while themselves providing very little other than military might? The US may have had the clear right to organize the Katrina efforts (infamous for their chaotic disorder), but taking control of, and effectively preventing, much of Haiti’s relief does not seem to be a right assigned to the United States. The United States should limit their military generosity to the same level as their aid, if not reducing it much beyond, as well reexamining their role in foreign countries: assistance or authority?
