Monday, March 1, 2010

Chile Calls for Aid as Devastation Sinks In -NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/world/americas/02chile.html?pagewanted=2&hp

According to their potential sources of succor, Chile initially rebuffed offers of aid but is now asking for resources including troops, experts, telephones, and other disaster relief supplies. The Chilean government says it was merely waiting to assess the damage before accepting outside aid and that now, in the midst of a crumbling infrastructure, transfer of executive power, and general collapse of order and social infrastructure, the country needs foreign support. The UN is at the ready to help the people of Chile recover from the disaster because their own government is incapable of doing the job independently. The chaotic suffering in the aftermath may indicate that Chile was less prepared to handle such a calamity than was previously believed, although it also reveals something about the distribution of resources in a country with deep class divisions.

Chile wanted to attempt to manage the catastrophe without any meddling of outside forces, even the UN which had wanted to provide immediate relief. I think this reveals a distrust in the allegedly humanitarian motives of both NGOs and foreign governments, a fear deep enough to forestall acceptance of aid while people starved and a violently destructive disorder prevailed. This unwillingness to trust in the motives of other entities is clearly realism, though its justification is more ambiguous. Particularly in light of historical relations between the United States and Chile, it is understandable that Chile would be unwilling to accept aid from a country with an extensive track record in meddling, or from an international organization under the heavy influence of this nation. This might be an example of the prisoner's dilemma; based on past engagement, in which Chile fears that accepting foreign aid will detract from its sovereignty, but it does need the assistance, a problem viewed through the lens of realism in tension with more liberal and constructionalist intentions.

Does a country have the right to prevent foreign aid that they may understand to threaten sovereignty? Can entirely unqualified aid be given/received? Is pride (a sentiment not valued by realists) contributing significantly to the situation?

No comments:

Post a Comment