Last week, I came across a news report where U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying, “It is biblical, the tragedy that continues to stalk Haiti and the Haitian people” (from “Clinton scraps South Pacific trip after Haiti quake,” Reuters, January 14, 2010). I posted it on Twitter and commented that I USED TO think that she was smart.
I was reminded of superstitious Filipinos who explained away the Ondoy calamity as God’s will, a reasoning repeated every time natural disaster strikes. But I didn’t expect that kind of reasoning from a highly educated person.
And as though that weren’t enough, a few minutes after reading about Hillary Clinton’s fantastic statement, I came across something even more disturbing. The 700 Club host, evangelist Pat Robertson, said that the Haiti earthquake was the result of a pact with the devil made by the Haitians to free themselves from French rule (“Pat Robertson says Haiti paying for ‘pact to the devil’”, CNN, January 13, 2010).
I took a deep breath, told myself that it’s Pat Robertson, the man who insinuated on television that natural disasters and terrorist attacks were linked with legalized abortions. I ought to just roll my eyes and forget him and what he said.
Still, I was upset. Nations and individuals are doing what they can to help the Haitians — including people who don’t know anyone in Haiti. Even the Dominican Republic has opened its borders and hospitals to the earthquake victims — setting aside political tension with Haiti that date back to the 19th century. Then we read statements like those from Hillary Clinton and Pat Robertson. The last thing that Haiti and the Haitians need right now is crap and grandstanding.
I don’t have millions to donate, I am wary that donations have a strange way of ending up in the pockets of non-victims and I am especially not a fan of celebrity causes that seek to raise money for aid and nothing more. Short-term relief aid is good but long-term planning is better. I raise two issues. The first concerns moves toward a new international agreement to define the status and rights of people displaced by natural disasters.
When people flee their war-torn country and cross borders en masse, they are refugees (based primarily on the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees). Such was the status of the boat people who fled Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war especially after the fall of Saigon. If a person crosses a border because of economic hardships, he is a forced migrant. If he crosses the border without proper documentation, he is an illegal alien. Refugees, forced migrants and illegal aliens all fall under the broader category of displaced persons.
But when a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, hits a country, and bureaucracy crumbles and the displaced citizens are forced to cross borders to look for food, water or medical attention, they are not recognized as refugees nor forced migrants. They fall loosely under “displaced people” yet no specific international law applies to them. They are deemed to remain to be solely the responsibility of their respective nations.
In 2005, less than a year after the tsunami that hit Indonesia, the UN University came out with a report that “natural disasters and environmental degradation may displace 50 million people by 2010, creating a new category of refugees.” Professor Janos Bogardi, the head of the UN University’s Institute of Environment and Human Security in Bonn, Germany, called for “a framework to be developed for handling this category of refugee which would give them the same rights as those fleeing war or oppression” (from “UN: Experts Say Natural Disasters May Create Up To 50 Million Refugees,” Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, October 13, 2005).
Many organizations picked up Professor Bogardi’s call and demand a new international agreement where environmental refugees be given the same status and rights as political refugees. Curiously, environmental refugees, defined as those displaced by climate-induced calamities such as the 500,000 people left homeless after half of Bhola Island in Bangladesh was submerged by rising sea levels as a result of melting ice caps in the Himalayas, do not include people displaced by natural disasters such as earthquakes.
It’s been five years since the UN University report and look at Haiti now. Doesn’t it make sense that environmental refugees should be defined to include people displaced by natural disasters even when not climate-induced? Why the distinction in the first place? Earthquakes, floods and volcanic eruptions have been with us far, far longer than any climate-induced calamities. Yet, while activists and climate change gurus fight for the rights of people displaced by the latter, no one seems to be concerned with those displaced by natural calamities.
Food, water and medicine are very much needed now. But long term? The Haitians will need to rebuild their homes and their lives. What aid will be available to them? In the near future, aid packages will be dangled to the Haitian government and it will be forced to sign agreements that will tie them to the agenda of nations and international financial institutions that may not have the best interests of Haiti in mind.
Now comes the second issue I want to raise. Policies involving financial aid to allow them, and all others like them, to rebuild their lives should be given attention. No taking advantage of nations reeling from natural disasters. Easier said than done, I know. In a world where the playing field is awfully lopsided, the poor nations are often at the mercy of the rich ones and the financial institutions that the latter control.
In the end, perhaps, what we really need to assess is what be mean by being humanitarian. Is it just the willingness to spare some cash so we can deal with the twisted guilt that we’re alive and well while so many are dead, homeless and facing a very grim future? Aren’t we capable of more than that?
She probably meant it in a non-”Biblical” sense, Con:
bib·li·cal also Bib·li·cal (bbl-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible.
2. Being in keeping with the nature of the Bible, especially:
a. Suggestive of the personages or times depicted in the Bible.
b. Suggestive of the prose or narrative style of the King James Bible.
3. Very great in extent; enormous: a natural disaster of near biblical proportions.
I sense that too how Mrs.Clinton meant it.
And yes she is smart. One comment doesn’t make her unsmart.
Mr.Robertson though has a track record of saying unfortunate statements. But his CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) does send donations and relief goods to Haiti.
I think she might have meant “biblical” in the sense of those Cecil B. deMille epics – remember those? The ones with the casts of thousands and sweeping dramatic music and so forth.
Pat Robertson, on the other hand is an *entirely* different kettle of rotten fish, IMHO.
“The tragedy that continues to stalk Haiti” defines the “biblical” type. It is clearly in reference to punishment which is central in the bible.
I believe you are right, Sass.
I do hope it is #4 (in comment number 1 above).
BUT.
The powerful Catholic personages in Haiti have been saying (rather noisily) that the earthquake means god wants people to change (i.e., give up voodoo beliefs).
The US is hoping to do business in Haiti. Wooing. Now, take Hillary’s statement as a support of the view of the Catholic population in Haiti. Which, of course, has now become moot because Haiti being in need of aid, the US can just say we’ll loan you but here are the conditions, and so on, and so forth… the usual.
In a way, she might being smart in making the biblical reference. Thing about politicians is that they never say anything without an agenda (except for the ho-hum ones like Bush and Erap).
Tita Connie, Haiti is 80 percent Catholic, and among the first to be killed in the quake was their Catholic Archbishop.
In Hillary’s case, based on how her statement us phrased, I think she probably mean to say that the level of tragedy that happened in Haiti is of “biblical proportions.”
“Haiti is 80 percent Catholic”
Exactly. That’s why the “biblical” reference sounds more like an effort to woo considering the reason for her intended visit in the first place.
I think Hillary is really a very intelligent woman but she can also make mistakes or say remarks that may surprise us.
Yes, she can also make mistakes. The term they used to describe them is “she mispoke”. Examples are:
- Hillary Clinton’s Shameful Remark (Lie) Regarding the Late Benazir Bhutto … “I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years”. Her autobiography “Living History” pp 322-4 is saying otherwise.
- She said she landed “under sniper fire” during a 1996 trip to war-torn Yugoslavia. She admitted later on that she has misspoken (read: blatant lie)and claimed the responsibility. (Better yet watch it in the youtube how she have related the incident without batting an eyelash).
In my book – tigas-mukha talaga si Hillary particularly when she was relating to the audience those “misspoken” items. It’s just me but I would prefer her than this gaff machine Obama. Mas tigas-mukha.
As for Pat Robertson, I think Rachel Maddow described him best:
“The unintended consequence of the 1st Amendment.”
He’s well within his right to being a hateful, senile old prune, but we’re also well within our rights for calling him out for being a hateful, senile old prune.
Several Christian blogs and organizations have already collectively called him vile, and have told him in so many ways to STFU. XD
Have you read his bio? I’m amazed that he still has followers. He predicted a 2007 mass killing and when it didn’t happen, he said, oh well, I guess we prayed hard enough so God didn’t allow it to happen. My goodness! And that wasn’t his attempt at playing seer.
The same prediction with global warming? This one has been going on for around ten years or so and it seems from day to day occurrences, the earth is cooling. (
Nah – it’s climate change as they call it now or climate crisis later on.
Well, if it gets hotter, it’s the climate, and if gets colder, it’s just the weather.
In more ways than one, climate change is a political issue rather than a real environmental concern. Sheesh, ice caps have been melting and the earth’s topography has always been changing. Species turning extinct and giving birth to new ones is just part of nature.
I’m completely agreeing with you that this global warming is a political issue rather than a real environmental concern. Don’t forget that there is also this “government and private grant” for scientists etc. who supports the distorted theory of global warming that is being perpetuated for financial and/or ideological reasons. Just browse this one – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory
I’ve met and talked with a lot of rabid supporter of global warming theory. Sad to say that almost all of them haven’t read anything that is skeptical on the claims of global warming theorists.
For me, this AGW thing is similar with embryonic stem cells research – being perpetuated for financial and/or ideological reasons.
So it was “part of nature” when the Dodo was rendered extinct by settlers?
In the first place, there is still disagreement as to how to dodo became extinct. In the second place, your use of the dodo as an analogy is a logical fallacy.
Perhaps the reason why people displaced by climate change-induced disasters is that natural disasters are treated as “acts of God” thus, no one else could be held accountable except for, *rolls eyes for a moment and then sighs* God.
Then again, Professor Bogardi is right. It is the law that should be updated, not the people who must conform, which in this case, contort to the current legal landscape.
And for goodness’ sake, this is the time to help, save and rebuild, not the time to give the people more opium.
Oops, had trouble with the keyboard, what I meant was:
Perhaps the reason why environmental refugees have not yet been defined to include people displaced by natural disasters even when not climate-induced is that natural disasters are treated as “acts of God” thus, no one else could be held accountable except for, *rolls eyes for a moment and then sighs* God.
Logical inference, yes. Makes you wonder why victims of “acts of God” should be considered undeserving of the label “refugees.” Perhaps, a refusal to interfere with God’s work? That makes it sound even more awful.
God’s work or not, it’s for humanitarian purposes that we ought to adjust our laws to help those in need. Which ironically is one of the most touted teachings of God.
And we know that “accts of God” in the bible are meant as form of punishment.
And if Hillary Clinton quoted, “biblical” followed by “the tragedy that continues to stalk”, there is the unmistakable message from the bible of continued punishment.
Yep, instead of magnitude, “the tragedy that continues to stalk” connotes a continuing pattern.
As a US Citizen living and working in the Philippines I am once again reminded on how different people in different countries interpret the same English words in very different ways. When I read Hillary’s statement I have to agree with the first comment above, the meaning as I take it is “very great in extent”. Given her political background it is hard for me to imagine any other meaning.
As one of her co-nationals this is how I read the statement. I completely agree with your take on Pat Robertson.
Let us stretch this for a while, Shaun.
I am once again reminded on how Mr Bill Clinton define according to his religious belief that oral sex is not marital infidelity during his impeachment in Monica Lewinsky case. And Monica was not the only woman, the other one was Paula Jones.
We donot know the stand of Mrs. Hillary Clinton because she was silent on the issue which is understandably private and taken seriously in the US. But she is a devout Methodist like her husband and kept her marriage.
In Mrs. Hillary Clinton’s faith, couples have to work for restoration of marriage. In her faith, acts of God are to enable restoration of those afflicted to God.
I must say that the reference to “acts of God” is being used very loosly. Psalm 24 tells us “that the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness thereof”… Look how we have treated the Earth.. We dump toxins in the Oceans, in various Landfills that we have created, we pollute the air and the earth with all kinds of poisons and now we are wondering why the earth is literally falling apart. Thats not God’s doing, but Man’s doing… we need to start having some accountability for our actions and stop blameing things on acts of God!!!!!