Back to the tragedy unfolding in Haiti. A number of MEPs have expressed outrage that the EU high representative for foreign affairs (foreign policy chief), Catherine Ashton, did not head off immediately to Haiti and the EU's work in the country got little visibility compared with the “US aid machine”. Jean Quatremer relayed these accusations, proud that on his website he had been the first person to criticise “Ashton's curious absence”. Fellow bloggers disagreed. Some of their comments: “Sending politicians to Haiti serves no purpose! Ashton would have required a plane and technical resources in Haiti, and would have needed a lot of security measures. That would not have helped the Haitians at all and would have been a hindrance to the aid teams.” “Rather than taking Hillary Clinton to Haiti, it would make more sense to send 70 kg of food. Hillary in Haiti creates pretty pictures for television but also means that people have to spend their time protecting her rather than helping the rescue teams, and it means that plane loads of food and medicine has to be diverted to the Dominican Republic.” “Ashton was right. The role of politicians is to work in the institutions, the job of rescuers is to work on the scene. The only impact that her travelling there would have had would have been that her airplane would have taken priority over the transport of emergency aid.” Quotes from a Médecins Sans Frontières press release: “Mrs Clinton's arrival prevented humanitarian aid from being flown for three hours.” “If poor old Ashton does not have the media ambitions of people like Kouchner who want to be filmed with a bag of rice over their shoulder, then it is to her credit.” “The Americans cannot be beaten when it comes to creating a scene. That shouldn't mean the EU should get embarrassed and sheepish, particularly when it's the EU that is donating the most money.” I leave readers to decide who is right. (F.R./transl.fl)