Tag Archives: haiti

Word Government Alert: UN Spends Haiti Money On Expanding Its Personnel

Posted on by

Next time there’s a natural disaster and you think the government should “do its share,” “help out” or be compassionate, remember this:

“The United Nations has quietly upped this year’s peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The world organization plans to spend the money

on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.

Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls “national staff” attached to the peacekeeping effort.”

Ron Paul: No Military Occupation Of Haiti

Posted on by
(Via David Kramer LRC blog, January 21, 2010 09:32 PM)

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul,  United States House of Representatives Statement in Opposition to H Res 1021, Condolences to Haiti, January 21, 2010

I rise in reluctant opposition to this resolution. Certainly I am moved by the horrific destruction in Haiti and would without hesitation express condolences to those who have suffered and continue to suffer. As a medical doctor, I have through my career worked to alleviate the pain and suffering of others. Unfortunately, however, this resolution does not simply express our condolences, but rather it commits the US government “to begin the reconstruction of Haiti” and affirms that “the recovery and long-term needs of Haiti will require a sustained commitment by the United States….” Continue reading →

Goldman Charity Prompted By PR Concerns

Posted on by

RaceTotheBottom, a law blog on corporate regulatory issues, has this on the latest PR move  by Goldman Sachs, one we noted in our previous blog post on Haiti. which mentioned the donations made by the big banks.

“The latest effort by Goldman to ameliorate the criticism is apparently to require top officers and managers to donate a certain percentage of their compensation to charity. As the NYT noted:

* While the details of the latest charity initiative are still under discussion, the firm’s executives have been looking at expanding their current charitable requirements for months and trying to understand whether such gestures would damp public anger over pay, according to a person familiar with the matter who did not want to be identified because of the delicacy of the pay issue.

Apparently Bear Stearns had done something similar in the past, requiring the top 1000 employees to contribute 4% of their compensation to charity.

The specifics have apparently not yet been determined. Nonetheless, unlike the stock bonuses, the approach effectively reduces the amount of compensation paid to each employee.

Goldman could have considered reducing the amounts paid in compensation and contributed the saved amounts directly to charity. The financial institution in fact added an additional $200 million to its charitable foundation. But making direct contributions would have potentially violated state law.

Corporations are obligated to profit maximize. Some portion of the company’s profits can be donated to charity. Companies may do so, however, only if there is a business benefit. See RMBCA § 3.02(15)(permitting “donations, or do any other act, not inconsistent with law, that furthers the business and affairs of the corporation.”). For modest amounts of contributions, the business benefit can be vague, with enhanced reputation in the community enough of a justification.

For more significant amounts, however, there must be a sufficient nexus to the business of the company. Had Goldman chosen to donate 5% of the amount left aside for compensation, an amount that would probably exceed $1 billion, it would have needed to show some type of meaningful connection to its business. Any failure to do so would likely generate lawsuits from shareholders alleging that the board had failed to engage in the required profit maximization.”

My Comment:

Isn’t this exactly why the more laws you have on the books, the more complicated your problems get?

Think about it. Goldman can’t make direct charitable contributions, because companies are obligated to maximize profits. Why are they obligated to maximize profits?

Because that’s what shareholders are due, per company law.

You might ask whether maximizing profits is always in a company’s best interests, versus building long term value or market share or any number of other things that stake-holders in the company might value more than high returns, but those things don’t count, because that’s how a law works – like a blunt instrument.

And then when managers focus on these short-term horizons and start doing legal (or illegal) tricks to show quick gains on their books, then we need another set of laws to curb them, with incentives running in the opposite direction….

The end result is a muddle of misplaced directives and restrictions that distort the market.
And people criticize the free market!

US Military to Coordinate Haiti Earthquake Relief

Posted on by

Update: Thanks to reader Jeff for this video of an outfit helping with Haiti’s water needs. It might be a better place for donations than any government relief effort.

Original Post:

I haven’t commented on the Haiti earthquake, mainly because I haven’t been on top of the details. Besides, there’s so much coverage in the MSM about it. My beat here remains the untold story.

But one angle does trouble me. The intervention of the military. I can’t bring myself to say they shouldn’t be involved, which would be the principled thing to say, but it bothers me a lot:

“Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to demonstrate just how much more the U.S. military is able to do than simply kill the enemy. Only the U.S. can initially control flights into and out of the Port-au-Prince airport from aboard a nearby Coast Guard cutter, while waiting for an Air Force special-ops team to set up shop at the airport and step up operations to 24/7. Only U.S. warships have the capability to generate up to 400,000 gallons of fresh water a day from seawater. Only the U.S. military can send a spy drone from California to fly lazy orbits over Port-au-Prince snapping close to 1,000 pictures a day, which when compared with similar ones shot last summer, create a map of the hardest hit areas that can be instantly relayed to those working on the ground.

Only the U.S. military has enough aluminum matting to boost the runway capacity of Port-au-Prince airport. Only the U.S. military has the surveillance capability to quickly assess additional Haitian airfields and seaports for use in rescue relief operations. Only the U.S. military has the wide variety of vessels and aircraft to utilize those fields and ports, including air-cushioned vehicles capable of ferrying 60 tons of supplies from ship to shore at 40 knots. (See TIME’s exclusive photos of the aftermath of the earthquake.)

But the limits of U.S. capability can also be seen: The Pentagon diverted an unmanned Global Hawk drone bound for Afghanistan to Haiti instead, to photograph the damage there. “We were about to send that Global Hawk over to the war” until the earthquake, explained Air Force Col. Bradley Butz. “It will stay here until the President says it’s time to send it forward.”

While the drone had no comment about its sudden change of mission, some of those bound for Haiti welcomed the new assignment after more than eight years of war. “Marines are definitely warriors first,” Captain Clark Carpenter said Friday as his unit prepared to ship out to Haiti from North Carolina. “But we are equally as compassionate when we need to be, and this is a role that we like to show – a compassionate warrior that can reach out that helping hand to those who need it.”

Read more at Time for the corporate media’s view of the intervention.

And read Michel Chossudovsky, for the deep structure of the intervention, recent US interventions in Haiti, and the extent and implications of a US military presence there (he argues that it’s to monitor and intervene in Cuba and Venezuela).

I recall the tsunami relief effort in 2004 and the intrusion of military vessels and spy satellites into Indonesia and other regions in Asia. Humanitarian interventions are a prime locus for state meddling, because most people will feel reluctant to second-guess what’s happening. They don’t want come off as hard-hearted carping critics, with nothing positive to offer.

A life saved in Haiti is good PR for a life or two killed elsewhere. If such calculations are mathematical (and with the state they always have to be), then we are indeed better off with the US military, many would say.

Meanwhile, JP Morgan, I see, is donating a million to the relief effort.

And Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America are giving a million apiece too. That will be millions taken from the tax-payer and rival banks long defunct. But from wherever it comes,  lives will be saved, right?

Thus do they wash their hands clean of guilt.

Who knows.

Maybe Lloyd Blankfein IS doing god’s work.

Or, at least, he’s Dean of the Jeffrey Levitt School of Philanthropy.

[For those with short memories, Levitt stole some $15 million in the 1980s, in the biggest white-collar crime in Maryland history, and almost single-handedly brought down the savings and loan business in the state.  One reason he was able to get away with his thieving for so long was that he was careful to make judicious and well-publicized charitable donations].