Why Must Some People Beg For Aid?

Vikas Shah August 18th 2010

Manchester Business School – Transforming Management - http://shah.tm.mbs.ac.uk

UN Dispatch reported the words of Ban Ki Moon (UN Secretary General), who
visited the Pakistan floods, saying, "This has been a heart-wrenching day, and I will
never forget the destruction and suffering that I have witnessed. I have visited the
scenes of many natural disasters around the world, but nothing like this. The scale is
so large: so many people, in so many places, in so much need... I am also here to send
a message to the world: these unprecedented floods demand unprecedented
assistance"

The same publication reported the crisis in numbers. As at August 16th 2010, over 20
million people have been affected by the disaster (affected meaning they now require
humanitarian assistance). Over 2,000 people have been killed, 722,000 homes
destroyed (with over 300,000 people evacuated just from Sindh province alone). Over
6 million people are now without clean water, and over 3.5 million people are at
immediate risk of fatal disease. Over 16% of all cultivatable areas of the country are
underwater (some 3.2 million hectares) with the additional hit of over 200,000
livestock being lost (including 100% loss in some areas). There is little doubt, that
this is one of the worst natural and humanitarian disasters of recent times.

One of the biggest questions raised from this crisis has been why the international
community has not shown the will to act with the speed and support needed, and
which they have shown for other recent disasters (with over $14bn of private
donations made to agencies following the boxing day tsunami of 2004, and over
$1.1bn raised in a short space of time by charities for the people of Haiti following
the 2010 earthquake). International news agencies even report the people of Pakistan,
feeling left with no alternative, have now started to protest for aid- effectively begging
the international community to assist them, at a time of dire and immediate need.

'Disaster Prejudice'

Every country has a perceived dilemma between Welfare and Foreign Aid insofar as
they have X amount to spend, and have people in need domestically, and the duty to
help those in need wherever they may be (international human rights). The problem
is, this is never quite as simple as that. Aid is wrongly used (as we have seen in many
situations around the world ranging from a lack of action in Darfur, to extreme action
in Latin America) as a political weapon by governments, and as a weapon to show
patriotism by governments and citizens of any given country. To put this in context
of the disaster which has engulfed Pakistan, there are three key reasons from which
we can see this disaster-prejudice as having been manifest:

1. Not Enough People Died Immediately:

For the overwhelming majority of individuals, the global media outlets are their eyes
and ears to learn what happens around the world. Alongside the ability to report,
these agencies also have the ability to influence how we form our opinions,
prejudices, and actions. Over the last twenty five years, as journalism has become
more competitive, and 'sensationalism' has become a key hook in all outlets- disasters
have become competitive. In a macabre way, a disaster only "counts" if the death toll
is huge and immediate (such as with the tsunami and earthquake), and can be equated
in terms of entire towns and cities by the viewer. This is a morally abhorrent attitude
to take. If, as individuals, we agree that life is precious (which I hope we do), we
must assume that the loss of even a single human life is a disaster- magnifying this to
tens, hundreds or thousands of lives should not be the trigger for us to suddenly feel
called to action. In Pakistan, while the immediate death-toll was 'small' relative to
other natural disasters- the disease, lack of food, and environmental factors affecting
these people will, unless aid is provided, result in hundreds of thousands of deaths-
maybe more- over the following few months.

2. Image Deficit:
Pakistan suffers an unfortunate image deficit. A decade of conflict in Iraq and
Afghanistan, with constant reporting and mixed messages has resulted in the general
public subconsciously assuming that the entire country is run by terrorist leaders or is
so corrupt that aid will never get there. Pakistan, like any emerging market economy
(including India, China, Africa) has elements of corruption, and like any country in
the world, will always have its share of extremism (the UK, USA, and Europe are not
immune). It is rare, though, that the media must report that, "Pakistan has sought to
reassure international donors that funds to help victims of its devastating flooding
will not fall into extremists' hands. Interior Minister Rehman Malik told the BBC the
Taliban would not be allowed to take advantage of the crisis to increase its support."
Any individual with even an elementary understanding of political or economic
theory will know that one of the major reasons for the emergence of extremist groups
is global economic inequality, and prejudiced distribution of opportunity and aid.

3. Hearts & Minds:

For political originators of international aid- the decisions they make are driven
(unfortunately, and inevitably) by political will. The New York Times recently
reported on how, "...the Obama administration continues to add to the aid package
for flood-stricken Pakistan — already the largest humanitarian response from any
single country — officials acknowledge that they are seeking to use the efforts to
burnish the United States’ dismal image there.… American officials say they are
trying to rekindle the same good will generated five years ago when the United States
military played a major role in responding to an earthquake in Kashmir in 2005 that
killed 75,000 people …But American officials warn that the glow from the earthquake
assistance faded quickly without more enduring development programs.". As
Aidwatch found, this not the first time the US has jilted Pakistan when it needed aid
(full research, from the Centre for Global Development can be found here). Referring
to our patriotism versus prejudice debate (above) we see that for the US (and many
other developed economies)- overwhelmingly, their engagements in international aid
are driven by (predominantly) strategic or political factors. Strategic being linked to
conflict, economic growth, or defence- and political meaning causes or people to
whom their population has a sympathy. We saw similar criticisms of the international
community on their failure to intervene quickly in Darfur, and we will no doubt see
similar criticisms of the world's failure to act for the millions of people who, as we sit
here today, are either starving, forced to join the military, or held in forced labour
camps in North Korea.

Moral Failure
The twenty million people who currently need assistance in Pakistan are not terrorists,
nor of strategic importance for our governments. They are much more important than
that, they are people like you and me- men, women, families, children- who only want
the best for their lives, and who were already struggling with immense poverty, even
before nature yielded a blow. These are individuals with hopes and aspirations like
us, who fall in love like us, who mourn their loved ones, just like us- and so a failure
to act- is a failure of humanity of such a proportion, that we should all see blood on
our hands.

Act Now.