No Shock Doctrine for Haiti

The shock doctrine is the idea that disasters are a chance to push through unpopular right wing economic reforms.

The people of Haiti need help. We must work with them to re-build their country as they want it.

Yet some see this tragedy as an excuse to strip their economy of what assets it has left. Some see the shock of the earthquake as an opportunity to impose unpopular policies on a grieving people.

America's radical right have long seen disasters as a chance to push devastating policies on the distracted poor. They know it is the only way people will accept their economies being plundered.

This "Shock Doctrine" which brought us General Pinochet and Russian oligarchs is now moving swiftly on Haiti. These are the people who forced through the privatization of social housing after Katrina - pushing the poor out of their homes without their consent. They used the Asian Tsunami as an excuse to take coasts out of the possession of poor fisherman, and hand them to western hotel conglomerates.

We must help the people of Haiti build a country they want, not one which is forced on them by the people who brought us the credit crunch, South Americas generation of dictators, and George W Bush.


Things you can do:

1) Donate:

Consider supporting the work of the Ezili Network by becoming a paid subscriber to support the continuation of this work.
Donate at

2) Invite all your friends to this group, and post it to your profile.

3) Write to your government demanding they ensure a) no one forces unwanted economic policies on the people of Haiti; b) all aid is grants not loans. I have posted suggested text & contacts in the discussions area of the group, but your own words will be better.

4) Continue to research and share info with the group.


Press coverage:

See an interview with Naomi Klein in Newsweek about shock doctrine & Haiti:

Discussed in The Nation:

Discussed in Huffington Post:

Discussed in New York Amsterdam News:

Discussed on Bright Green Scotland:

Discussed on Left Foot Forward:

Discussed in Schnews:

Discussed in the New Statesman: