Recovering from Disaster...
By: Political PerspectiveNATIONAL and global disaster funds need to be in place as a matter of course, because the world seems to move from one crisis to the next.
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.
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.