1920) Haiti: nao se trata de reconstrucao, mas de construir um pais

Tenho lido na imprensa artigos de pretensos especialistas no Haiti que, invariavelmente, tocam na corda de que o país foi "esquecido" pelo mundo, quando não dominado e explorado pelo imperialismo americano, e por isso é o que é, ou seja, o país mais pobre do hemisfério, de fato um país africano na América Latina.
Não faltaram também aqueles que falaram de um Plano Marshall, ou até de um Plano Lula, como se fosse obrigação do mundo reconstruir o país, ou de se comprometer com essa tarefa nas próximas duas décadas.
Sou circunspecto quanto a isso, por "n" razões que não vou explicar agora. Permito-me, em todo caso, transcrever um artigo a respeito.

* OPINION
Haiti Needs to Be Built, Not Rebuilt
Calls for a 'Marshall Plan' are misguided.
By PETER A. COCLANIS
The Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2010

In our haste to help Haiti, we need to resist the kind of sloppy thinking that can lead to false assumptions and overly optimistic plans. The recent call by International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn for a "Marshall Plan" for Haiti, which is now being echoed by many others, is a case in point. Such a plan, even if it was embraced by developed countries, has little chance of succeeding.

The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Plan, was a U.S. policy that spent tremendous sums of money rebuilding war-torn Europe between 1948 and 1952. Popularly identified with Secretary of State George C. Marshall, the plan was largely developed by talented State Department officials, such as George F. Kennan and William L. Clayton. It had several goals, including providing relief to the poor, promoting economic development, and preventing a communist upsurge in Western and Southern Europe.

The U.S. and other nations distributed more than $13 billion—equivalent to more than $97 billion in 2008 dollars—to 17 nations. Some of the countries that received aid were historically poor: Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Turkey, for example. Most, however, were already developed countries that were simply reeling from World War II—such as Austria, Denmark, France, Western Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

In many cases, factories, city centers and infrastructure were bombed out. In others, residents had fled ahead of the fighting or mobilized in response to the war. Heavy investment was required to restart the economies of these countries.

The Marshall Plan succeeded in helping to usher in the European "economic miracle" of the 1950s. But it did so, according to most historians, because the bulk of the aid went to developed nations that merely needed an economic jump start.

Before the war, these areas possessed high levels of human capital, relatively advanced technologies, and institutions and cultures that were conducive to growth. With short-term capital infusions, they reverted to form.

The case of Japan, another developed nation devastated by World War II, is also instructive. It too experienced an "economic miracle" after the war, a few years after Europe experienced its miracle. It did so with help from the U.S. (though it did not formally participate in the Marshall Plan).

The situation in Haiti today is vastly different than that of postwar Europe and Japan. Haiti is an economically exhausted place, as it was on the eve of the Jan. 12 earthquake. Its economic problems are not akin to those facing Europe or Japan in 1948, and what is required to put Haiti on sound economic footing is much different.

Instead, what policy makers need to focus on is creating the conditions—economic, social, educational, public health, political, and perhaps most importantly, cultural—necessary to put Haiti onto the first foothold of the development ladder.

No one should delude himself that a development scheme for Haiti will in the short run enable the country to scale that ladder, let alone claim a position at or near the top as did postwar France, Germany, Britain, and Japan. Rather, the hope should be that Haiti can begin the difficult and uncertain process of economic development.

This is obviously a worthy goal—one we should support—but misleading analogies won't make the goal come true. It would be much better to explicitly acknowledge the difficult task ahead. The Marshall Plan lasted for about four years and succeeded by jump-starting formerly functioning economies.

Haiti is by far the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. Some 98% of the country is deforested. It lacks many of the fundamental institutions necessary for a vibrant economy, such as a reliable police force, protections for private property, and schools that boost literacy rates. Just 50% of Haiti's population is literate now. Haiti also lacks a culture that encourages a strong work ethic, the accumulation of capital, and the passing of assets on to future generations. Realistically, building an economic base for Haiti will take generations.

Before the quake there were more than 10,000 nongovernmental organizations in Haiti feeding the poor, providing health services and much more. This fact alone should give the world pause. Haiti doesn't need to be rebuilt. It needs to be built from the ground up.

Mr. Coclanis is a professor of history and director of the Global Research Institute at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.