The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
People Care More About the Oxfam Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The earthquake that devastated Haiti on 12 January 2010, killing 220,000 people, produced a terrible and disgusting failure by those who came from abroad to help the survivors. Among these were UN soldiers from Nepal, which was then in the middle of a cholera epidemic, who brought the disease with them and allowed it to enter the rivers that provide Haitians with their drinking water.

Cholera, previously unknown on the island, killed 7,568 Haitians over the next two years, though the UN denied responsibility for the outbreak. This was despite a report by its own experts in 2012 that showed that the spread of cholera downstream from the Nepalese soldiers’ camps was predictable and avoidable. It was only in 2016 that the UN finally accepted responsibility for starting the epidemic, though it claimed legal immunity and refused to pay compensation.

Compare the lack of interest shown by the international media, politicians and assorted celebrities to this man-made calamity, leading to the death of thousands of Haitians, to the hysterical outrage expressed about Oxfam officials consorting with prostitutes in Haiti in 2011. Though nobody died in the Oxfam sex scandal, it is described as “terrible” and “heart-breaking”, words normally reserved for tragedies such as the enslavement and rape of thousands of Yazidi women by Isis in Iraq.

It would certainly be better if the Oxfam aid workers did not use prostitutes, but how high does this really rate on the Richter scale of moral turpitude? Oxfam was discreet about the punishment of those involved, as are all organisations about in-house scandals, but suddenly the word “cover-up” is used, as though we were dealing with Richard Nixon disclaiming responsibility for the Watergate burglary. This coverage of a minor scandal systematically exaggerates wrongdoings and abandons any sense of proportion in order to discredit Oxfam as a whole.

Few commentators, though bellowing their shock and sense of moral outrage, bother to ask what Oxfam was doing in Haiti at the end of 2010 and the beginning of 2011. This was when The Times and other organs critical of the Oxfam leadership should have been devoting more attention to monitoring the morals and behaviour of their local Oxfam representatives in the capital Port-au-Prince.

In fact, Oxfam was trying with some desperation to stem the cholera epidemic, the first outbreak of which was detected in central Haiti in October, from spreading further. By the following month, it had reached Port-au-Prince and Oxfam was trying to provide uncontaminated water to 315,000 people already rendered homeless by the earthquake. An Oxfam statement on 10 November describes how “Oxfam continues to strengthen water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) infrastructure and activities in the camps/communities where we are working. A cholera strategy is being developed to guide our activities for at least the next three months. At this time, we are reinforcing our water, sanitation and hygiene programmes in camps where we already work in Port-au-Prince, and in Artibonite. We are currently reaching over 400,000 people with water, sanitation and hygiene programmes, and another 100,000 individuals mostly through our emergency food security and vulnerable livelihoods (EFSVL) programmes.”

None of this is as titillating as the sort of thing we have been reading or watching over the last week about the sexual misconduct of Oxfam employees in Haiti, but these do seem to have kept a lot of people alive who would otherwise have died. Curiously, though foreign journalists and politicians claim concern about the alleged exploitation of Haitian sex-workers, few of them seem to have noticed that there was cholera epidemic raging in Haiti at the same time as the sex scandal.

Why has The Times story produced such a media feeding frenzy? The story has the attraction to press and television of being about those who take a superior moral tone, such as aid agencies or the churches, and who are then caught committing sins that other organisations might get away with. The public enjoys revelations showing moral giants to have much the same feet of clay as everybody else.

Aid agencies are easy to attack because there is usually a disparity between the way these officials live compared to the misery of those they are meant to assist. Sometimes, the disparity is grotesque as in the case of aid consultants in Kabul in 2010 who were earning between $250,000 (£178,000) and $500,000 in a country where 43 per cent of the population were living on a dollar a day. Yet such excessive salaries are rare and a more substantive charge is that aid agencies spend too much on administration.

Yet these reasons do not quite explain the lynch mob hysteria with which Oxfam is currently being attacked for what, in the middle of a cholera epidemic, were fairly minor failings. The explanation for this probably has more to do with the public and media mood in the wake of the allegations that the Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein harassed and assaulted women for decades, using his power to make or break their careers. The story was first printed in October last year and provoked a wave of accusations against men in senior positions who used their power to exploit women. The Haiti Oxfam story can be fitted into the same general picture of those in charge exercising their authority for sex, though the circumstances are very different.

In the post-Harvey Weinstein era it is difficult to defend Oxfam because all excuses sound self-serving and all episodes of sexual exploration tend to be regarded as equally grave. This obscures the degree of guilt and the gravity of the crime, though in the Oxfam villa in Port-au-Prince it is not even clear that there really was a crime.


The great 19th-century British historian Macaulay famously said that “we know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality”. The same could be said today of the Oxfam sex scandal in Haiti, but the word “frightening” should be substituted for “ridiculous” because the multiple sources of information – internet, television and press – have pumped up the speed with which there is a collective rush to judgement. This is made without regard to the evidence and is almost impossible to reverse once it has gained momentum.

It is doubtful that Oxfam will survive the scandal in its present form as it is being buried under so many imputations of guilt that people might well imagine that the organisation was being run by a combination of Harvey Weinstein and Jimmy Saville. Given Oxfam’s need for public and governmental financial support, it has probably – and to my mind unfairly – suffered a fatal wound. If it does go down then it will be a triumph for hypocrisy, in which pundits and politicians are destroying Oxfam for mistreating Haitians, about whose fate they suddenly express great concern, although few of them have even heard of the Haitian cholera epidemic Oxfam tried to stop.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Haiti, Oxfam 
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. A great article by Patrick Cockburn, one of his best.

    The fake moral outrage provoked by the Times story is symptomatic of the Orwellian world of accusation and denunciation we live in 2018. Are we seriously to believe that any of the journalists, politicians and churchmen who are busy throwing proverbial stones, never been guilty consorting with prostitutes even in their work places paid for by the advertisers, taxpayers, and parishioners? Of course not!

    The fact that this story has been resurrected 7 years after the event (when after all people were disciplined) is symptomatic of the way we live now as Trollope might have put it.

    I have my issues with big charities in the way they have become creatures of their donors (remember Save the Children’s award to Tony Blair in 2013) and large ‘businesses’ but this ‘incident’ is not part of my gripe.

    Read More
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. The sexual misconduct moral panic explains the timing of the attack, but the explanation of why The Times chose to attack Oxfam is because of the charity’s wealth and inequality reports, which are published to coincide with Davos and are an embarrassment to the capitalist class, showing as they do that a handful of billionaires own as much as half the world’s population and over eighty percent of the wealth created each year goes to the very richest, making inequality ever worse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. TG says:

    Indeed. But there is a still larger scandal here hiding in plain sight.

    The problem with Haiti is the sustained high fertility rate. Forget the propaganda about ‘the more the merrier,’ forget the rubbish about first people get rich, then they have fewer children – the Iron Law of Development is that FIRST people have fewer children, THEN if everything else goes right they can slowly accumulate more per-capita wealth.

    No nation without an open frontier, has ever had a sustained high fertility rate like Haiti’s, and ‘developed’ into anything other than an even large mass of poverty and misery. As in Pakistan, or Bangladesh, or India, or Yemen, or Nigeria, or Japan before WWII, etc.etc. The people of Oxfam are treating the surface symptoms, while they are forbidden to talk about the root causes. Because the rich like cheap labor, and one person’s crushing misery is another’s competitive labor costs.

    And no this is not about race. Post civil war, American blacks had on average fertility rates as low as that of whites. A century ago, Sweden had sustained high fertility rates and was dirt poor. This is cultural, and due to government pro-natalist policies and propaganda and other influences.

    So while one can admire people working for organizations like Oxfam, their efforts will always prove futile. They are reduced to putting bandaids on people who have had their legs cut off with a chainsaw. Maybe it makes a little difference in the short run (and one should not sneer at little differences if that is all that can be managed), and it makes the people working for Oxfam and their donors feel good, but it won’t really do any serious good.

    If people really want to make a difference, we should speak out at all of those who would crush any discussion of the primary role of demographics in the development of prosperity. But that would incur the wrath of the elites, it would be ‘racist’ and ‘nobody says that’ and ‘your career is over,’ so cowards that we are, we remain silent.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Oxfam was doing a good job. It lost it’s way when it began to become politically active and begin to demand things from the government of Haiti and DR. Perform your do-gooding, but stay out of politics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. I could not care less about Oxfam workers patronizing prostitutes, unless said prostitutes were underage. It’s a risky thing to do because of the preponderance of STD’s in that country, but don’t liberated women have the right to decide to sell their bodies? Oh, that’s right, it’s only freedom if the feminazis approve of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. What on earth is exploitative about having sex with a prostitute? One person decides to vend a service, another person purchases said service. No-one is holding a gun to anyone’s head.

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. “Wanted, experienced Charity Workers to spend a 2-year contract in darkest (fill in blank). Single accommodation provided, must be prepared to sign a contract vowing chastity or masturbation only. Paying local whores for sex and domestic services absolutely forbidden due to fundraising and publicity issues. Please send resume and salary requirements to Oxfam International, The Atrium, Chaka Road, Kilimani, Nairobi, Kenya.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. And not a word about all the relief money that gushed into the Clinton foundation but has only trickled out thus far. BTW, George “War Criminal” Bush unwittingly aided in that heist. Everything he touches goes to shite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Maybe because for all the dollars and man-hours spent on Haiti by organizations like Oxfam these supposedly smart, altruistic people can’t get around to building a potable water system and sewage treatment plants. The aid is apparently part of the problem, not the solution. In other words, the aid is pure virtue-signalling and attracts a surprising number of empty people with a kink for black sexual partners.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Jake says:

    So the UN, run by ultra bleeding heart Leftist bureaucrats, oversaw 1 group of non-whites bringing a terribly deadly disease to another group of non-whites, and since then has lied about its culpability.

    And then the Leftist aid workers from the West, apparently especially the Brits, freed from any shackles of antiquated morality by the death of Christendom and the rise of secularist democracy, had sexual sport with the victims – paying for their sport, like good liberal egalitarians.

    That’s Liberalism for ya; Leftism for ya; Globalism for ya; bleeding heartism for ya; bureaucracism for ya; faith in racial and ethnic egalitarianism for ya; the moral perversity of rich post-Christian Westerners for ya.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr