Who's in charge in Haiti?

The international community has responded well after the devastating earthquake that struck Haiti nearly two weeks ago. Governments around the world have pledged more than $1 billion in aid for the country, the US sent over 16,000 troops, and the UN Security Council has authorised an additional 2,000 troops and 1,500 police to the international force already there.

The earthquake is estimated to have killed between 100,000 and 200,000 people, destroyed the country's infrastructure, including most of its hospitals, and made 1.5 million Haitians homeless. To put the size of the earthquake into perspective, the energy released by the seven magnitude quake was equivalent to a half-megaton nuclear bomb, which is about 30 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

If there is one country that could not afford such a tragedy, it is Haiti. It is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. It has a legacy of slavery and a turbulent political past. In 2008, four tropical storms left one million people homeless and destroyed 15 per cent of the economy. As one foreign diplomat observed in the international press: "They had nothing and now they have less than nothing."

Despite the quick and generous global response, however, the aid effort in Haiti has been hampered by disorganisation, a ruined infrastructure, aftershocks and a bottleneck at Port-au-Prince's one-runway airport. The biggest problem seems to be that nobody really knows who is in charge of directing the aid to the people who really need it, with obvious consequences.

The government of Haiti has almost collapsed in the aftermath of the earthquake and there are mounting security concerns in the country, with reports of looting. Thousands of prisoners, for example, are still unaccounted for after the capital's main prison was destroyed. The government is not in a position to maintain security - the army was disbanded a few years back to keep it out of politics and the police force obviously cannot cope in such a situation.

Such a situation calls for extraordinary measures as well as strong leadership by the international community. It is clear that the Haitian government is ill-equipped to take charge of the situation, even though the UN has emphasised that as a sovereign nation, Haiti must take control of its destiny.

This, of course, is absolute nonsense. Almost all ministries were flattened in the earthquake, as was the Parliament and the headquarters of the UN mission - which was trying to prevent Haiti becoming a failed state - and the government 'nerve centre' is now a police station near the airport of Port-au-Prince.

In times like these, issues such as sovereignty must be put aside. The UN needs to take de facto control of the country with the support of countries such as the US and other major powers. A powerful figurehead should be appointed by the UN to direct the entire aid effort and to administer the country. If need be, Haiti should be declared a UN trust territory until the situation gets back to 'normal'.

In the meantime, a number of countries should consider following the example set by Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, who offered free land and "repatriation" to people affected by the earthquake in Haiti. If a number of countries followed suit, this would certainly help ease the pressure on the whole reconstruction process.

The US has already done a great deal in Haiti by providing thousands of troops, pledging millions of dollars in relief funding and delivering aid in very difficult circumstances. It is central to the relief effort and deserves credit for responding quickly to the disaster on a massive scale.

The visit to the country by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama's promise of "unwavering support" for Haiti are also to be applauded. It is in America's interest to continue with this support - a failed state of nine million people is a threat to all its neighbours - and one hopes the US will work closely with the UN in showing leadership in such a difficult situation.

The victory of Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate election is a huge setback to President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Who would ever have imagined that the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy - which has been in the hands of the Democratic Party since 1953 - would be captured by the Republicans?

This defeat has dealt a blow to Obama's domestic agenda, particularly healthcare, as the Democratic Party has now lost its filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

It is especially hard for the Democrats to swallow as it comes on the first anniversary of Obama's inauguration, and Kennedy had long campaigned for healthcare reform.

It is true that US Presidents often suffer setbacks in mid-term elections and the economy is still in a fragile state. However, I think the Democrats took this election for granted and their candidate, Martha Coakley, ran a lacklustre campaign. The fact that Obama hardly campaigned in this election didn't help.

Having said that, Obama's party still has 59 seats in the Senate, a huge majority, and previous presidents such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton had to deal with a Congress dominated by the opposition party, yet still went on to be great presidents. So while the Massachusetts defeat is a big psychological setback for Obama, these are early days yet.