By EMILY J. KIRK, JOHN M. KIRK and NORMAN GIRVAN Via Counterpunch
The January 2010 earthquake in Haiti caused some 230,000 deaths, left 1.5
million homeless, and has directly affected 3 million Haitians—1/3 of the
population. On March 31, representatives of over 50 governments and
international organizations gathered at the United Nations Haiti Donor
Conference to pledge long-term assistance for the rebuilding of Haiti. At
the conference, Cuba made arguably the most ambitious and impressive pledge
of all countries—to rebuild the entire National Health Service. While the
efforts of other government have been praised, those of Cuba, however, have
largely been ignored in the media.
The aim of Cuba’s contribution is to completely reconstruct the Haitian
health care system—and to do so in a sustainable manner. The new system will
be based on the Cuban model, embracing primary, secondary and tertiary
health care, in addition to the training of additional Haitian doctors in
Cuba. In summary[1]:
The primary level will include 101 clinics to treat annually an estimated
2.8 million patients, perform 1.3 million emergency operations, deliver
168,000 babies, and provide 3 million vaccinations.
The secondary level will be provided through 30 community hospitals. They
will have the capacity to treat annually 2.1 million patients, and provide 1
million emergency surgeries, 54,000 operations, 276,000 electro-cardiograms,
107,000 dental exams, 144,000 diagnostic ultrasounds, and 487,000 laboratory
tests. In addition, due to the high numbers of poly-traumatized patients,
the 30 rehabilitation rooms will be included throughout the country and will
provide 2.4 million therapeutic treatments for some 520,000 patients.
The tertiary level of health care will be delivered by the Haitian
Specialties Hospital, staffed by 80 Cuban specialists. It will contain
various clinical departments, and will be used for research and teaching, as
well as the further training of Haitian professionals who will gradually
replace the Cuban professionals.
Finally, 312 additional medical scholarships are to be provided for Haitian
students to study in Cuba.
What is also significant point is that these are not just ‘pledges’ from
Cuba, but rather a development of medical assistance which has been provided
over the last eleven years, and dramatically increased since the earthquake.
A Cuban medical brigade has been in Haiti since 1999 and has “a presence in
127 of the 137 Haitian communes, saved 223,442 lives, treated 14 million
people, performed 225,000 operations and delivered 109,000 babies”[2].
Furthermore much of the promised programme is already in place, as
“post-quake, 23 of these primary care health centers, 15 community reference
hospitals and 21 rehabilitation rooms are up and running”.
The cost of the Cuban programme over a ten-year period is estimated at
$690.5 million—using 50 percent of international prices for services of this
kind[3]. This is an enormous amount for a small developing country (11.2
million population); and moreover one that has been under a crippling
economic blockade from its powerful neighbor for nearly half-a-century. It
is even more notable when compared to those of other governments,
particularly those of industrialized countries. For example, Cuba’s
contribution in relation to its GDP is 152 times that of the United States,
which pledged $1.15 billion[4]. Among other G-7 countries, France, the
former colonial power, pledged $188.93 million, Germany $53.17 million,
Japan $75 million, and Canada $375.23 million, while Italy and the United
Kingdom, though not specifically listed, were probably included in the
$203.19 million pledge that was made in the name of “EU Remaining” group of
countries.[5]
Hence in absolute terms the monetary value of Cuba’s contribution is almost
4 times that of France, 12 times that of Germany, and almost twice that of
Canada. Indeed, excluding the U.S., Cuba’s contribution is more than the
rest of the G7 countries combined, as well as 35% more than the contribution
of the World Bank ($479 million). In all, 59 pledges were made from
governments, regional blocs and financial institutions.
In other words, while other countries are pledging money, Cuba is actively
creating an entire sustainable health care system which will treat 75% of
the Haitian population,[6] and save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And yet, in spite of the extraordinary value of this commitment, it has been
largely ignored by the principal North American media. An analysis of
coverage of the Haiti Donor Conference by five major U.S. media—CNN, the New
York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and the Miami
Herald—revealed that, of 38 posts recorded in the ten days immediately
following the Conference, only one mentioned the Cuban contribution—and that
only briefly. In fact the first four listed above entirely ignored Cuba’s
contribution; the one mention being in the Miami Herald. On the other hand
22 of the 38 postings mention the U.S. contribution. The amount of media
coverage is also instructive in indicating the gradual decline in media
interest following the disaster. That said, the UN Haiti Donor Conference
was clearly worthy of widespread attention, with a major gathering of some
of the world’s leading decision-makers—yet there was noticeably little
published about it, and especially about Cuba’s extraordinary contribution.
In addition, our analysis of the first fifty results in Google News for
‘United Nations Haiti Donor Conference’ generated only two articles that
mentioned Cuba’s role; one of which simply focused on the rarity of Cuban
and United States officials working together. By contrast, 31 of the 50
articles discuss the contributions of developed countries at the Donor
Conference, and 21 specifically discuss that of the United States—9 of which
mention the $1.15 billion pledged by the US government.
Indeed a content analysis of the articles reveals that their main theme was
the importance of the role of the United States in helping Haiti. The dollar
amount pledged was repeatedly stated, and the U.S. effort was often
described as being equally (or more) important than that of the UN.
According to one article, “The biggest contributions came from the United
States and the European Union”.[7] Even if one compares the absolute amounts
pledged, this is simply not true—as the Venezuelan pledge was for $2.4
billion[8]. Another article singles out the United States, explaining “Over
140 nations, including the United States, have provided immediate assistance
and relief to millions of Haitians”,[9] and in media coverage the United
States consistently headed the list of contributing countries. Another
article lists the United States as having a more important role than the
United Nations, noting “Haiti’s friends, as they are called – including the
U.S., France, Brazil, Canada, the UN and the Red Cross”.[10] In sum, while
relief efforts in Haiti were/are an international affair, the media have
largely focused on contributions made by the United States.
Another common theme in coverage was the lack of assistance from other
countries. Hence, when the assistance of the United States was not praised,
those of other countries were denigrated. As one article states, “The United
States pledged $1.15 billion, in addition to the $900 million it has already
given… By comparison, China pledged $1.5 million yes, you read it right,
million with an “m” — in addition to the nearly $14 million it has
already given”.[11] Thus, there is a consistent pattern of
disproportionately positive representation by the media of the role of the
United States, one that both emphasizes the actual pledge and ignores
blatantly the significant Cuban pledge.
There is a dramatic contrast between the cover-up of Cuba’s extraordinary
contribution to Haiti by mainstream US media and the enormous attention by
the same media on alleged human rights abuses in that country. Literally
dozens of articles on this topic have appeared in recent weeks. Of
particular media interest was the death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo (a jailed
“dissident” with a criminal record who refused food for 80 days before
dying) and the hunger strike of Guillermo Fariñas. The death of Zapata as a
result of the hunger strike continues to be written about and discussed.
Indeed it has been used consistently as a springboard to increase criticism
of the Cuban government. Thus, between February 10 and April 6 we found a
total of 77 stories in the five media houses surveyed about the hunger
strikers—five in CNN, seven in the New York Times, 13 in the Washington
Post, four in the Boston Globe and 48 in the Miami Herald. The difference in
the coverage of these two Cuba-related stories is striking. It reveals a
clear disinterest in providing positive information on Cuba, but a
significant appetite to criticize Cuba.
As a result, instead of reporting on an enormously important and topical
story on a programme aimed at improving the lives of 75% of Haiti’s
population, the media have chosen to focus on the individual cases of two
men who have consciously and deliberately decided to embark on a suicidal
course. It does not take much to work out that the aim is to embarrass the
Cuban government by following these “human interest” stories about two
individuals who oppose the Cuban government, presenting them as martyrs. It
is also obvious that there is a clear media filter, one which seeks to
prevent any media coverage that could be construed as being positive of
Cuba—in this case seen in the government’s commitment to the reconstruction
of Haiti.
In examining the media’s representation of Cuba’s role in Haiti’s
development and the stories of two “dissidents”, it is clear that
politically biased “infotainment” has won out. Sadly (but perhaps
predictably), in their coverage of Cuba, the media in the “developed world”
have focused on the latter while ignoring Cuba’s remarkable offer that will
surely and significantly improve the lives of millions of Haitians, (while
at the same time highlighting the role and contribution of the United
States). Yet again we have an example of selective commendation and
selective indignation in the North American media’s presentation of Cuba.
*Emily J. Kirk* will be an M.A. student in Latin American Studies at
Cambridge University in September.
*John Kirk* is a professor of Latin American Studies at Dalhousie
University, Canada. Both are working on a project on Cuban medical
internationalism sponsored by Canada’s Social Science and Humanities
Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). Professor Kirk co-wrote with Michael
Erisman the 2009 book “Cuba’s Medical Internationalism: Origins, Evolution
and Goals” (Palgrave Macmillan). He spent most of February and March in El
Salvador and Guatemala, accompanying the Henry Reeve Brigade in El Salvador,
and working with the Brigada Medica Cubana in Guatemala.
*Norman Girvan* is Professorial Research Fellow at the University of the
West Indies Graduate Institute of International Relations at the University
of the West Indies in St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. He is Vice
Chairman of the Board of the South Centre and member of the United Nations
Committee on Development Policy.
Notes.
[1] Details from the Statement by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez to
the Haiti Donor Conference, available at “Pledge Statements”; United Nations
International Donors’ Conference Towards A New Future For
Haiti”.http://www.haiticonference.org/pledges-statements.html
2010.
[2] From the Pledge Statement by Foreign Minister Rodriguez.
[3] The total “includes the medical services provided, calculated at 50% of
international prices; the sustainability of these services and the personnel
providing them; and the training of a further 312 Haitian doctors in Cuba”.
Whereas the Official Text of the Cuban Statement published on the UN
website https://undp.box.net/file/412916690/encoded/39769548/be988a3663eeb8775a5e73766a4be61a refers
to this cost “over four years”, the text of Foreign Minister’s Bruno
Rodriguez’s speech as published by Granma International refers to this cost
over ten years (see Overseas Territories Review) http://overseasreview.blogspot.com/2010/04/statement-of-cuban-foreign-minister-at.html
[4] Cuba’s contribution of $690.6 million is the equivalent of 1.22 percent
of its annual GDP ($56.52 billion in 2009); the U.S. pledge of $1.15 billion
is the equivalent of 0.008096 percent of its annual GDP (14,204 of billion
in 2008). Source of the Cuban GDP estimate is the CIA Fact book figure at
official rates of exchange; that of the US is the World Bank’s World
Development Indicators.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.