Perhaps we should always be prepared for the worst and plan our budgets accordingly.

The tsunami catastrophe has captured the world's imagination and massive funds have been raised towards dealing with the aftermath, but the same cannot be said of other, more neglected crises, where nothing like this kind of money is generated.

Why do some catastrophes engender huge amounts of public sympathy, while others go largely unheeded by the world? I'VE found myself thinking about this point in recent days as one watches the world raise billions of dollars in pledges and promises for the tsunami relief effort, whereas it is not as willing or able when it comes to less-publicised crises.

Watching international television news channels, the whole fundraising drive began to take on the appearance of a lottery, comparing which governments had given with private citizens, for example, and big numbers were continually flashed at viewers across the screen.

The tsunami was indeed one of the world's largest calamities in terms of human death and overall destruction (and this newspaper was quick to remind our own Government of its responsibilities, to no avail as it turns out) but it hasn't been the biggest by any means.

Yet apart from Namibia, most of the world went into action to assist in one way or another, even countries least able to do so.

Nepal was one, Mozambique another.

And it is touching to note this fact.

We have to develop a global conscience and it is right and fitting that the world does its part to assist, but I can't help wonder if this is not going to affect what is spent on other ongoing disasters and catastrophes, particularly, although not exclusively, in Africa.

There are some, and I don't count myself among their number, although I share these concerns, who believe that aid agencies hardly know how to spend the many millions, billions in fact, that have been pledged to post-tsunami relief.

The tidal waves left huge destruction and it will take years before infrastructure, let alone people's lives, returns to some kind of normalcy.

But I am nevertheless intrigued to know how and who decides on the priorities of spending this vast amount of money; and whether this outpouring of humanity on this cataclysm will affect ongoing and future disasters of similar nature.

Whether we like it or not, the power of television probably determines global priorities such as these.

There was not a news channel you turned to in recent weeks that wasn't consistently reporting on the tsunami aftermath.

In comparison, other 'disasters' don't get the same amount of coverage.

Of course, some may differentiate between natural disasters, such as the recent tsunami and the Tokyo earthquake decades back, for example, and 'man-made' catastrophes such as the Congo genocide, the HIV-AIDS pandemic and other examples of wars and ethnic struggles claiming massive tolls in human life.

Could it be that the world is less sympathetic, for example, to Africa, because most of our crises are caused by the human factor? No one could have prevented the tsunami, critics may argue; but HIV-AIDS and ethnic conflict, on the other hand, are largely seen as 'preventable'.

I have no doubt that there are many people in the world who feel precisely this way.

Again, they're influenced by what they see and hear in the media, and there is also a kind of fatigue that has set in, probably mostly regarding our own continent and the massive problems it deals with, as mentioned above.

Aside from these viewpoints, it is of concern that less-publicised crises get less attention and therefore less money, simply because they don't have the drama of a tsunami with massive waves wiping out entire towns and indeed, altering our geography.

But the world cannot afford to forget that there are other causes, other conflicts worthy of international attention, regardless of whether they are man-made or natural.

People have to help people, who are not necessarily in situations of famine and fear because of their own making.

More effort does need to be deployed by world leaders, and in particular governments, to ensure that human, man-made crises are kept to a minimum, because we should try to avoid them at all costs, if possible.

There is enough human misery without piling on even more.

But we have to open our hearts where they do occur and ensure that we are not simply responding on a selective basis, whatever the criteria we may use to do so.

So let us hope that Africa's needs, as well as those of other countries that have huge humanitarian causes worth assisting, are not sidelined, overlooked or ignored because all efforts have been exclusively centralised into tsunami relief.

A famine-struck family in Africa is no less deserving than a tsunami-uprooted one in Indonesia.

Columns Of The Last 48 Hours

•  AU Letting Africa Down
•  Political Perspective
•  Zimbabwe The African Mark Of Cain
•  Lifting veil of secrecy crucial to deepening democracy
•  Please solicit your customers discreetly: The problem of sex work in Namibia
•  From the Sidelines : NFA blunders again