For nearly three weeks since the monsoon rains triggered historical flooding along Pakistan's Indus River the world has barely reacted to the tragedy befalling the hapless people of Pakistan. The numbers are staggering...over 20% of the country has been inundated by the worst flooding in Pakistan's history; over 20 million marooned victims -- a staggering 14% of Pakistan's population of 170 million -- have lost everything. The mounting humanitarian crisis is beginning to take on biblical proportions. And some fear the worst is yet to come!
Only a small fraction of the six million victims has received any tangible aid -- 500,000 at last unscientific count...the situation made all the more compelling by a total washout of bridges and roads in the affected areas leaving a tenuous helicopter lifeline as the only means to reach the people desperately in need of food and potable water. Survivors are barely clinging to life...with neither shelter from the incessant torrents of rain or food reaching so many. While the death toll so far is relatively low (1,500 so far) that number is expected to skyrocket in the days and weeks ahead from the inevitable disease that follows such a calamity.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, with the strong backing of the Obama Administration, plans to convene an emergency UN meeting to kick start international donations on August 19, with the U.S. already having directed $76 million in urgent emergency flood relief, evidenced by U.S. military helicopters running relief supplies ferried in from U.S. bases throughout the region.
Unfortunately, of the $460 million deemed immediately needed by the UN for disaster relief barely 50% has actually been delivered, the lion's share from the U.S. and other western nations. Indeed, Deputy British Prime Minister Nick Clegg deemed the international response to be "absolutely pitiful" with fully 25% of the assistance coming from the UK so far.
The paltry and pathetic response so far to Pakistan's plight from Arab oil producing states is particularly disturbing. Why, I ask, are wealthy Arab states so slow coming to the rescue of fellow Muslims from their accumulated oil revenue surplus? The Arab OPEC states are awash in cash. With this being the holy month of Ramadan -- when charitable deeds are of particular significance -- one wonders why the cries of fellow Muslim desperation are hardly being heard! Surely, the Arab media is covering this compelling humanitarian tragedy.
This is not my narrative. Rather, it is the blistering criticism being leveled by the Pakistani media. Today's Daily Times of Pakistan editorialized that "...it is shocking the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has yet to voice strong support for Pakistan in its darkest hour and it is astonishing that Muslim countries Pakistanis defend with such passion (such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, etc.) have contributed so poorly."
A visit to the OIC's website reveals nary a reference to either the floods or to any organized effort initiated by the OIC to support flood victims. What gives? It would take a couple of phone calls among the leading oil producing states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Libya, the United Arab Emirates to meet, if not exceed the disaster relief targets for their fellow Muslim state.
Ironically, so much of the funding to support al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan emanates from these very nations' private citizens. Memo to these donors: the people of Pakistan are far more deserving than either al Qaeda or the Taliban.
One reason why Arab states are slow to pledge and even slower to deliver on their promises to support international causes, such as disaster, is that they refuse to empower and financially support the very organizations they helped create to address and redress the causes afflicting Muslims less fortunate.
The OIC is a case in point.
The very organization created to serve as the collective voice of Muslim nations neither has the resources or the financial support to serve as a significant conduit for assistance...one reason why the OIC has hardly lifted a finger to help Pakistanis.
When the UN convenes its donors' conference for Pakistani relief this weekend perhaps Arab states will find their collective humanitarian voices in time to make a difference before it is too late for the millions of Pakistanis searching for help.
Nothing less than a $1 billion ironclad commitment to Pakistan from the Arab OPEC states (mind you, not a pledge, but cash on the barrelhead) will suffice given the expanding disaster and rebuilding costs. The increasingly frustrated people of Pakistan surely have reason to wonder why the U.S. and the U.K, rather than their fellow Muslim state of Saudi Arabia - Pakistan's biggest benefactor in the Arab world - have been their disaster relief champions.
Ramadan compels an appropriately generous response from these nations. Kudos to the U.S. and the U.K for showing the way -- now its time for fellow Muslim Arab states to learn by example.
**********************************************
AFP : 21 August 2010 - Donors have come forward with nearly $US500 million in aid for flood-hit Pakistan, with the United States, Saudi Arabia and Britain leading the way, figures showed on Friday.
The Financial Tracking Service (FTS), a UN database that aims to track all donations, showed late on Friday that $US490.7 million has come in for Pakistan's floods, with another $US325 million promised.
Just over half came via the UN's emergency appeal fund while the rest came via bilateral aid, chiefly from Saudi Arabia, charities or private organisations and companies.
**********************************************
* OIC calls on members states to contribute aid to Pakistan
* SR400m raised for Pakistan; OIC chief calls for setting up of emergency fund
* OIC calls for urgent help to Pakistan
Christians may aspire to donating 10% of income as a tithe but relatively few people actually do. I believe the total donation rate for Roman Catholics for all purposes is 3% of income, but I haven't read a number for years so that might not be current.
It is possible the Arab nations are or will give aid through their local Mosques.
Some Americans leave charity to the U. S. government, figuring their taxes are high enough it ought to include charity work. In reality though it is inefficient, which is why actual aid distribution often is contracted out to non-governmental organizations (NGO's).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/pakistan-floods-saudi-arabia-pledges
Further, it also clearly states that this pledge is in response to "criticism that Muslim countries were not giving enough for victims of the disaster." So they only did it after it was pointed out that they weren't doing there share and helping their fellow muslims.
> that they weren't doing there share and helping
> their fellow muslims.
How much money have you donated marcus?
Pakistani's think that the Arab race is a pure race, since Muhammed, was an Arab. Pakistanis are south asian and Arabs look at Pakistanis, Indians, and Bangladeshis as lower class Muslims. South Asians go to Arab countries to become maids and other workers who get paid very little or nothing at all. All those fancy new cities in the middle east might be Arab, but they were built for almost nothing by south asians and pacific islanders. The bottom line, is that the Arab world looks at Paktistan as a country filled with potential slaves and not a fellow Muslim country.
This would not be posted if it had been directed at another religion.
Why would they care about some other bedeviled people?
Israel would be smart to make a peace with the Palestinians just to put an end to their Arab brother's manipulation.
>refugee camps too
Israel is responsible for Sabra and Shátila refugee camp massacres - three thousand dead.
> that look like prisons, and refused them citizenship
> and basic human decency.
Don't look now but Israel is occupying Palestine, not the Arab states.
We agree that Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is terrible. That's why peace with them would be the only fair and just end that would have the double effect of eliminating the rest of the Arab world's chief bargaining chip.
The main point in my post was that those same Arab 'brothers' in the surrounding countries that have substantial Palestinian populations from the original diaspora treat them as badly or worse than even Israel does. This cannot be denied. But people like yourself seem determined to see only one side of this multi faceted problem. There are heroes and villains in Israel as there are in Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc....
Another case of where your "religious" schooling has failed you. As has been pointed out to you before: Religions are capitalized. I would normally say criticism on minor points of spelling and grammar are petty.
But as you have said you are a 'educated' person, I can only assume your continued "mistake" is an intended slight.
That said the actions of the Pakistani President (husband to now martyred Benazir Bhutto) didn't help. He refused to return to his country in its hour of need while touring Europe. The message this sends is quite simple, 'If he can't be bothered to return post haste and assist when it is needed most, why should the rest of the world rush in with aid'.
Granted we should not penalize the people of Pakistan just because their president is a soulless selfish bone-head, but in our "modern" world optics is king.
Let's get in a circle, all hold hands, and sing "Kumbaya"
Some countries are happier to see their charity support other countries and their enemies more readily than others.
In Christian-dominated countries, there is more willingness to provide funding after disasters because historically, disasters have provided them an opportunity to reach vulnerable populations and to proselytize. Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing that such aid is bad.
Other religions/cultures may direct their charity to more local causes.
Generally shaming folks in to charity makes no sense. However, in this case the need is great, the time is right and it is in their neck of the woods.
"Households that describe themselves as conservative tend to give more money to charities than moderate and liberal households, according to a new survey.
In a survey of 3,300 households that donated money to charity in the past 12 months, the company Campbell Rinker, in Valencia, Calif., asked respondents about their political ideology.
Of those surveyed, those who live in conservative households donated an average of $3,255 to charities outside of places of worship during the past year. By comparison, moderate households donated $2,926 and liberal households donated $1,879."
http://philanthropy.com/blogPost/Conservative-Voters-Are-More/19091/