Thirty years ago, I had the opportunity to travel on both sides of the border that divides the island of Hispaniola between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. I have been fascinated by the place ever since. There is much to be learned in studying the island, very little of which is coming out in the frenzy of sensational and heart-rending coverage that has attended the arrival of the legions of mainstream media in the wake of the earthquake, a group otherwise conspicuous mainly by their absence.

On the other hand, given the frequency and intensity of the natural calamities which have beset Haiti in recent years, many of those involved in the disaster relief industry must be developing quite a familiarity with the country. Some aspects of it, anyway.

The better hotels and restaurants perhaps.

After witnessing the machinery of celebrity in full mobilization to deliver the Hope for Haiti Now telethon – admirable despite the glitz and sometimes forced images – it’s easy to be hard.

The story is more than just complex – it’s tragic. And that makes lapsing into cynicism and despair all too tempting. Yet from knowledge can come the understanding that leads to change.

Stepping back a bit, what might be said of the island’s history?

Christopher Columbus founded the first European settlements in the New World on Hispaniola in 1492 and 1493. It was not, however, considered the new world by the estimated 400,000 native Taino who were already living there.

The Taino initially welcomed the visitors, but a combination of harsh treatment by the Europeans and exposure to imported diseases such as smallpox to which they had no immunity resulted in their near extinction.

When the western third of Hispaniola was ceded by Spain to France in 1697, the French colony quickly came to eclipse its Spanish neighbour in power and wealth. For a time, it was the richest and most prosperous colony in the Caribbean.

That changed after Haiti won its independence from France in 1804. In response, a trade embargo was imposed on the country by its former colonial master, as well as the U.S., where slavery was still legal, and Great Britain, which did not wish to see its Caribbean colonies follow the Haitian example.

In the intervening years, the fortunes of Haiti and the Dominican Republic have been reversed. The former is now the poorest country in the hemisphere, while the latter has become the largest economy in the region.

Haiti was occupied by the U.S. between 1915 and 1934, mainly due to its indebtedness to American banks and concerns over the influence of expatriate Germans. The country has experienced many foreign interventions since and has become, in effect, a ward of the international community.

Today, it might be best described not only as a failed state, but also as a collapsed one.

But history is only one part of the complex emergency now unfolding. There are many other things to consider.

For example, it is crucial to distinguish between humanitarian relief, which is immediate; short-term aid, which tends to be technical and project oriented; and development, which, at its best, is long-term, human-centred, equitable, and sustainable. Development is a process, not an end, and is characterized by a situation in which people have access to social, political, and economic opportunities to reach their full potential.

Haiti has plenty of experience with disaster relief, and has received substantial amounts of aid, but has achieved very little over the 200 years since independence in terms of development.

And it must be asked, in this crisis of colossal proportions, why is it that foreign military forces, especially those of the U.S., are leading the international response? If the answer is that it is an issue of capacity and resources, then a larger question is begged.

Why is it that the capacity and resources required to respond to complex emergencies are lodged in defence departments and not in specialized civilian agencies?

Is this the most efficient, effective model for delivering emergency humanitarian assistance? I have my doubts. As institutions, militaries exist to kill or capture enemies. As instruments of international policy they are designed to compel your adversary to submit to your will through the threat or use of force. Sure, they can do other things, but those things – reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, cross-cultural and strategic communications – are not what they were intended for.

Where are the purpose-built institutions? Why do they not have the resources to lead?

Another issue is intelligence. Intimate knowledge of how things get done in Haiti would greatly expedite relief efforts. How much of this kind of essential, granular intelligence was being generated by the embassies of the countries now most involved in the relief effort? Have our diplomatic representatives been living in a bubble, talking mainly to others of their ilk about what might be going on out there? Or were they getting out of the compound and finding out for themselves, seeping down like penetrating oil into the interstices of power and influence by navigating pathways inaccessible to others?

Senior officials in donor states should be demanding answers to these questions.

Finally, there is the matter of the Haitian diaspora. Members of this group will know more about what is going on Haiti than a handful of diplomats working out of an embassy in Port-au-Prince ever will. Almost 100,000 persons of Haitian origin live in Canada, mainly in Montreal. With the Haitian diaspora’s dense network of ties back to the old country, it is long past due that foreign service officers were posted to Montreal with the explicit task of openly and transparently getting to know everything about and all of the key people in that community.

There are huge challenges to be broached in Haiti at the best of times. The situation at present is dire and requires immediate and compassionate redress.

But there is much more to be learned by contemplating the roots of Haiti’s distress than can be gleaned from newspaper headlines or the fleeting images crossing television and computer screens.

There is a great potential for improving performance, an imperative I hope was front and centre at the donors meeting that convened in Montreal this Monday.