For centuries, cholera was unknown to Haiti. The disease — caused by an intestinal infection of the water-borne bacterium Vibrio cholerae, which can cause severe dehydration though diarrhea and vomiting — is one of the world’s most prolific killers, killing as many as 130,000 per year. The disease, for a number of reasons, never made it to the tiny island nation; that is, not until the United Nations showed up.
Since the U.N. arrived in Haiti to assist with relief efforts after the earthquake of 2010, more than 650,000 Haitians have contracted the disease with more than 8,300 dying from it. Based on a 2011 study of the genome of the Haitian cholera bacterium, researchers were able to verify that the bacterium originated from Nepalese bacteria clusters. It is now commonly believed that cholera was inadvertently transmitted into the drinking water via sewage contamination from the barracks of infected Nepalese peacekeepers. The barracks were located near a tributary of the Artibonite River, which is the fresh water source for many of the initially infected.
Within the first ten weeks of the outbreak, the disease was present in all ten of Haiti’s provinces. The disease has since spread to the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti and the United States.
The U.N. is refusing to own up to its role in this crisis. After the U.N. rejected the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti’s call for compensation of at least $100,000 to the families or next-of-kin to each person killed by cholera and at least $50,000 to each person inflicted with the disease, the IJDH filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the U.N. for its role. “The plaintiffs include Haitians and Haitian Americans who contracted cholera themselves as well as family members of those who died of the disease,” the IJDH said in a statement.
Cover-ups and denials
“We felt it would be much easier to resolve this out of court, to spend less money on lawyers and litigation and more money on stopping cholera in Haiti,” said Brian Concannon of the IJDH. “The U.N. refused to take that opportunity and left us no choice but to go to court.”
“Because no one was telling anyone the truth,” claimed Concannon, “there [were] a lot of people who were getting sick.”
The suit claims that the U.N. knowingly and falsely claimed that peacekeepers were tested and cleared for cholera, that Haitian health officials were banned from the camp, that the U.N. issued a false statement saying that its septic tanks were up to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s standards and for making false comments alleging that a suspect pipe that was carrying sewage was only carrying kitchen waste.
The U.N. is declaring itself immune from prosecution, based on Section 29 of the U.N. Convention on the Privileges and Immunities, which argues that the United Nations is required to make provisions for “appropriate modes of settlement” of private law disputes to which the world body is a party or disputes involving a U.N. official who enjoys diplomatic immunity, and Article 105 of the Charter of the United nations, which argues that the U.N. shall enjoy the privileges and immunities deemed necessary toward fulfilling its purpose.
However, it was clear from the beginning that the U.N. was desperately trying to dodge blame on this significant mistake. Initially, U.N. officials argued against investigating the source of the outbreak, instead focusing on controlling it. As cholera is not native to Haiti, it was obvious after positive identification that it was brought in from abroad, threatening to cast a dark shadow over recovery efforts.
“Right now, there is no active investigation. I can’t say one way or another [if there will be]. It is not something we are thinking about at the moment. What we are thinking about is the public health response in Haiti,” said World Health Organization spokesman Gregory Hartl at the time of the initial outbreak. Many pointed out that — contrary to the U.N.’s position — knowing the source of an outbreak is actually good science and useful toward protecting the public from further contamination, and that Hartl’s explanation sounded politically motivated.
Continuing pressure to explain how this disease manifested itself on an island traditionally unexposed to it — including calls from cholera experts and former U.N. officials — finally forced the U.N. to file its opinion on the matter May 2011, confirming the speculation that Nepalese peacekeepers did indeed bring the disease to Haiti. However, the U.N. attempted to duck responsibility.
“The Independent Panel concludes that the Haiti cholera outbreak was caused by the confluence of circumstances … and was not the fault of, or deliberate action of, a group or individual,” read the U.N. Final Report of the Independent Panel of Experts of the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti. “The source of cholera in Haiti is no longer relevant to controlling the outbreak. What are needed at this time are measures to prevent the disease from becoming endemic.”
Conflicted humanitarianism
Buoyed by a multitude of alternative theories on how the bacterium arrived in Haiti, including the thought that the bacterium was always there, dormant and awakened by sudden climate change and that the bacterium came more likely from Bangladesh than from Nepal, and that the strain was a distant relative of South American strains — the U.N. has been able to argue that, because the origins of the disease are unclear, the organization cannot be blamed.
Despite this, the U.N. made an international call for aid for the Haitian cholera victims amounting to $163.9 million in 2010, while simultaneously denying responsibility. This directly challenges the organization’s call to combating cholera, as the organization is allegedly both the cause of one of the largest cholera outbreaks in modern history and the denier of relief for those subjected to this mistake.
However, not everyone in the U.N feels that no one should be blamed for this situation. “I still stand by the call that victims of of those who suffered as a result of that cholera be provided with compensation,” said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Tuesday, without elaborating who exactly should be forced to pay. In 2012, without assuming blame, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon approved $2.2 billion over the next ten years toward eradicating cholera in Haiti.
The U.N. enjoys a protected existence and the likelihood that the organization could be held responsible in open court — which would be a treaty violation — is slim to none. Yet, the idea that the U.N. should be responsible for its actions should not be one that required a litany of outside tests and experts’ testimony and possibly a court hearing to decide. If the U.N. is to be the best representation of the possibility of peace in this world, it must lead the best example. It should not hide behind political gesturing, deny its mistakes or dismiss criticism of its policy, but embrace its critics and invite conversation on how it can improve and evolve.
As has been said before, those that don’t learn from their mistakes are bound to repeat them.