A Modest Proposal (expand US into Caribbean)

[Pangloss]

This spate of hurricanes got me thinking about safety in Caribbean nations. Hurricane safety is, of course, a vital issue in regions where hurricanes are prone to cause great damage. While a lot of progress has been made in the science of prediction and understanding the mechanism of hurricanes in recent years, as well as how to defend buildings and people against their power, a lot of work needs to be done in third-world nations, some of which are gravely vulnerable.

 

Just to look at a worst-case scenario for a moment, a brief glimpse at Haiti would seem to be in order. The other day Ike (which is currently blustering my house with its outer bands as I write this) passed far to the north of Haiti, hitting only with its outer bands of tropical storm-force winds. And yet 48 people were killed. This followed Gustav the week before, which hit more directly, killing over 500 people. And of course back in 2004 there was a storm that killed a whopping 3,000 people. Ugly business!

 

But just because a country is "third world" doesn't mean it has to suffer so much. Many Caribbean nations have far better preparedness. Cuba is somewhat famous for its planning, and it's notable that right after Ike near-missed Haiti it slammed full-force into Cuba, running down virtually its entire length as a hurricane, and yet only four people are reported killed.

 

So what is the secret? Well clearly organization plays a major role, and governmental organization is something that Haiti desperately lacks these days. Cuba has strong government organization, and while their human rights abuses leave a lot to be desired, they do put a lot of work into evacuation planning. And who's going to argue with a Cuban army soldier who's telling you to get out of your house RIGHT NOW?

 

Unfortunately Cuba's preparedness seems to more or less stop there. They simply don't have the resources to require more stringent building codes. And that problem is very common across the Caribbean -- nobody has the money for tough building codes. And the sad thing is that some of the most vulnerable spots, like Great Inaqua, are already operating under the full involvement of American corporations, yet without the benefit of protection of American law. (Virtually everyone who lives on Great Inagua is employed by Morton Salt, and virtually everyone who lives in Great Inagua is homeless today because of Ike.)

 

So... what can be done about this?

 

What if we annexed (assuming they gave their permission via democratic process) some of these countries, starting with the most severely depressed and disorganized ones like Haiti, into the US as protectorates? I think we all know what the international outcry would be like if the US took over Haiti. But can anyone really argue that Haiti would be worse off rather than better off? Would YOU rather live in Haiti than in Puerto Rico? Or even Cuba?

 

Part of the problem there would be the burden to taxpayers. But would it really be all THAT expensive? Surely giving Haiti a basic services infrastructure would be cheaper than giving one to IRAQ, which we've been doing on an emergency-spending (i.e. exorbitantly expensive) basis for the past four years.

 

What would be the benefit to American taxpayers? It would have to be something they don't get now. I suppose you could make a case for cheap island vacations "within the US". Maybe the greater level of immigration could do something about cheap labor for low-paying jobs that "Americans don't want"? I don't know, I'm open to ideas here. Actually annexation might in some cases make sites less desirable for businesses because of increased regulation, but the labor would still be cheap for a while, and new markets for sales would be created. And your labor would be better protected over the long run, which is also good for business.

 

I think the best argument for this sort of thing is that it's a global economy now, and a global society. Why not bring these people into an enlightened, educated, freedom-loving, democratic, opportunity-filled society? Isn't it just... more sauce for the American goose? What's not to like?

 

What do you all think? Am I power-mad, expansionist crazy, or is there some reasonable justification for this?

[bombus]

What do you all think? Am I power-mad, expansionist crazy, or is there some reasonable justification for this?

 

Yes, and No

[iNow]

I wonder if it's worth the investment since global warming is going to cover those islands completely with water in a few years...

[Klaynos]

Isn't this what international aid is supposed to be for?

[Mr Skeptic]

Isn't this what international aid is supposed to be for?

 

Exactly my thoughts.

 

As to annexing Haiti, view that one with immigration goggles and you'll see that it will never happen. We'd rather annex the more prosperous nations, and they'd probably rather not be annexed.

[Pangloss]

Well we've been giving these countries international aid for decades. How's that working out so far?

[iNow]

We're giving them aid right now, too. The fact remains that they are living in an area that is only going to get hit by more storms every year.

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSN08483383._CH_.2400

[Pangloss]

Well seriously, GW concerns are pretty long-term -- most of those islands are actually quite mountainous. I'm not sure if this link will come through, but take a look at this Google Maps terrain breakdown of Hispaniola:

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=18.907471,-71.191406&spn=5.218506,8.107910&t=k&hl=en

 

(That's an amazing piece of land, isn't it? What a fascinating place that must be.)

 

Anyway, yes we give them aid, but that aid goes to helping people currently hurting. It doesn't do anything about the long-term stability or governance or infrastructure -- the stuff that keeps getting them into trouble. No building codes, no evacuation plans, no emergecy/rescue capabilities, etc etc etc. I could go on and on.

 

I admit my "modest proposal" was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it bugs me that these people are so close to American shores and yet so far from the kind of world that we take for granted. For a TINY FRACTION of what we're spending in Iraq -- I'll take what we spend there in a WEEK -- we could make HUGE improvements in their infrastructure.

 

Wouldn't that be an investment? A stable, prosperous, democratic Haiti would be a consumer for our goods, our entertainment, our games, our tourists. Not to mention winning over a few hearts and minds, which we're sorely lacking on the international stage at the moment.

 

Why don't we spend money like that? Why is that such a tough sell in America? I'm probably preaching the choir here, I know, but I don't get it.

[iNow]

I can't help but agree with your larger point. There are so many things we can and should be doing to move ourselves more toward an enlightened, compassionate, and/or utopian society.

 

This planet is well connected enough now to consider all nations as part of our ingroup.

[Pangloss]

Couldn't we make them just a wee-bity state though?

 

Please?

[iNow]

That's what we have Florida for.

[ecoli]

We can even keep New Orleans safe from hurricanes, let alone Haiti.

 

I don't mean to sound "anti-humanitarian" here... but why should we care about haiti?

[Pangloss]

Well actually that's a really good question, but the funny thing is, we know exactly why New Orleans isn't safe from hurricanes, at least in terms of science, engineering, and emergency preparedness. The problem is that recognizing those factors is difficult because it keeps getting buried beneath a mound of political garbage from both parties -- national Republicans trying to keep well-deserved emergency response blame off their backs, and local Democrats and Republicans trying to keep well-deserved preparedness blame off theirs.

 

Katrina's eye passed right over my house as a Cat 1 and did no damage. A month later the eye of a storm of similar size and intensity to what Katrina was when it hit New Orleans (a light Cat-3) passed right over my house, dislodging a grand total of three roof tiles. The other gulf coast states lack building codes that have been on the books for decades. Florida was embarrassed by Andrew in 1992 and fixed all that; Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama did nothing. (I believe Texas is a little better in this regard, but I'm hazy on that point.) Over the weekend we replaced our garage door with one that will withstand 140 mph winds. It replaced a 20-year-old door that was able to withstand 125 mph winds. No such doors exist in the entire state of Louisiana. No, not the new kind. The old kind.

 

Of course the real problem with New Orleans was the post-storm flooding, not the building codes, but that doesn't let Mississippi off the hook. It's no mistake that although Florida was pummeled by eight storms in 2005, damage wasn't really all that severe. The state showed a budget surplus that year. Preparedness is king. It costs money to be prepared, sure, but it saves in the long run.

 

I suppose if we start talking about establishing and supporting similar building codes in Caribbean states people would ask why they should pay for others to live in dangerous areas, and that would be a reasonable question. But I think if we were to focus on the investment angle, to realize the long-term return of secure, stable markets and labor sources, the results would make sense.

[Klaynos]

Well we've been giving these countries international aid for decades. How's that working out so far?

 

An interesting point.

 

So if the aid doesn't work, and this aid would I'd hope contain things such as advice as opposed to just money, why would anything else, what else could you do?

[Pangloss]

So if the aid doesn't work, and this aid would I'd hope contain things such as advice as opposed to just money, why would anything else, what else could you do?

 

Well doing nothing but throw money a them hasn't gotten us anywhere, so I guess what I'm suggesting is more involvement. Right now they have a democratic process in place that just got hit at a bad time, but if it fails then maybe we should take more dramatic steps. I still don't think democratic annexation is all that bad an idea. It's worked out great for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. They're not completely problem-free (who ever is?), but they're happy and prosperous in general -- more so than many of their neighbors.

[Klaynos]

Well doing nothing but throw money a them hasn't gotten us anywhere, so I guess what I'm suggesting is more involvement. Right now they have a democratic process in place that just got hit at a bad time, but if it fails then maybe we should take more dramatic steps. I still don't think democratic annexation is all that bad an idea. It's worked out great for Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. They're not completely problem-free (who ever is?), but they're happy and prosperous in general -- more so than many of their neighbors.

 

My point was, is the aid only money? If so the aid system is wrong...

[Pangloss]

Agreed. I know there are humanitarian organizations at work there, and I believe there are also advisory groups trying to help with the governance side of things. I don't really know the extent of it, though.

[Severian]

Hell, why stop there? Why not Annex Mexico too, and maybe the rest of central America?

[CaptainPanic]

Ok, here is another scheme, which has proven itself in the past, and will be a lot less controversial:

 

It was called the "Marshall plan" and was executed right after WWII in Europe. Europe was in ruins, but the US wanted to have it back up and running, and with a reason: it's a huge market, and it would be an ally against the evil commies. What did the USA do? They gave Europe money, lots of it, and also resources. The agreement was: "Pay it back, yes please, but no interest". This enabled Europe to get back in business in less than no time. The US did not exactly annex us (although we can debate that) or keep a military presence (although we can also debate that).

 

Do the same to the carribean: really help them without trying to make a profit... and they'll gladly become allies and you'll increase your market.

p.s. Europe is sort of doing the same in East Europe now (new EU members). Non-profit economic help in lots of countries.

[Severian]

The Marshall plan didn't really help all of Europe. The UK got some money to rebuild from the US but in fact we only finished paying off our war debt to the US reasonably recently, and the debt was larger than the money we got. This is one of the reasons why the UK was much much worse economically than Germany (ironically) in the post war period.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Severian

[Pangloss]

Hell, why stop there? Why not Annex Mexico too, and maybe the rest of central America?

 

If they wanted to join us, why not?