More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Beenish Ahmed

Beenish Ahmed

Posted: August 25, 2010 02:39 PM

United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon has called the recent floods in Pakistan the worst humanitarian disaster he has ever witnessed. With more than 20 percent of the country under water, contagious diseases run rampant while the delivery of vital goods and services are all but halted by gushing water and broken roads.

While the 1,500 projected dead in Pakistan is a minuscule sum compared to the 100,000 lives lost in the earthquake that ravaged Haiti at the onset of this year, or the 250,000 killed by the South East Asian Tsunami of 2004, exponentially more people are adversely affected by the flood. As cruel as the reality seems, the amount of aid needed cannot be measured in terms of death toll, but in terms of those who continue to live amidst the rubble of their former lives.

The plights of those who survive when all around them falls to a state of ruin is especially heart-wrenching, and tuning into such atrocity has not come without a response of great empathy. An outpouring of donations to relief work came from all corners of the world as it watched the aftermath of hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and now a catastrophic flood. Still, with such widespread devastation hitting the globe with frightening regularity, the amount that sympathetic souls can give, especially those who are themselves hard-pressed by a recession of epic proportions, is seemingly on the decline.

According to data recently compiled by the Guardian, just over $850,000,000 has been donated to Pakistan at the time of writing. Unfortunately, more than half of this amount comes in the way of uncommitted pledges. If this round of relief will follow the patterns seen in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, it can be assumed that the majority of unconfirmed aid will never be seen in Pakistan. Even if the total amount offered does come through, it would mean only $42.50 per survivor, a meager sum compared to the average of $1500 per 5 million survivors that resulted from the 7 billion US dollars pledged by state actors alone to aid victims of the tsunami. Much more will be needed in Pakistan, since as the UN has pointed out, in terms of numbers, flooding in Pakistan has affected 2 million more people than the 2004 tsunami, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, and the 2010 Haiti earthquake combined.

And while funding to provide displaced and devastated Pakistanis with much needed food, shelter, and medical supplies should rise in the coming days, relief agencies are already beginning to wonder why the world has been so much more hesitant to offer aid to Pakistan than it was in the aftermath of other similar calamities. Has the world grown weary of opening its wallets to natural disasters, which seemingly strike with only greater frequency every year? Or is Pakistan a special case, one mired in a complexity that works against the generosity of potential donors?

According to Elisabeth Byrs, spokeswoman for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the lack of aid pledged to Pakistan is due to the "image deficit" it maintains in the Western world. The reason for Pakistan's poor report with public opinion can easily be traced to the ties it allegedly has with the Taliban as well as terrorist factions like those held responsible for the November 2008 attacks on Mumbai, India.

Still, it is a sad irony that disaster breeds opportunity, or as some such as Naomi Klein, author of the groundbreaking work The Shock Doctrine, conjecture, destruction begs reconstruction. Writing about the dark side of relief work, Klein offers evidence of how disasters such as the Southeast Asian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina paid sound returns as land was bought out by hotel magnates and real-estate tycoons. Shocking, but not altogether unfathomable as one recalls the new face of New Orleans, rebuilt, but without the public housing that made the calamity stem from bad to worse as thousands were rendered homeless -- unable to return to even the unsound structures that left them seeking shelter in the Silver Dome to begin with.

Following the pattern of relief and redevelopment, governments and corporations alike might be especially reticent to pay up to Pakistan given its track record of institutional instability. Long-dubbed the "world's most dangerous place" by the Economist and caught in a dismal spiral of stagflation, rain clouds in Pakistan lack the silver lining needed to draw investors willing to rebuild its ravaged infrastructure.

Still, disaster does hold a very different kind of opportunity. The American government is now deploying troops to bolster relief work in hopes of casting a more favorable opinion in the stronghold necessary to wage President Obama's revamped War on Terror in which Pakistan is a stage for almost daily drone attacks. Indeed, aid work is quickly becoming the new battleground for winning the hearts and minds of the Pakistani people. As many fear that a lack in western funding for the floods will be filled by Taliban sources, the US is more keen than ever to use relief as a way to quell the influence of Islamist fundamentalists. Many individuals, however, fear that any contributions they make to relief efforts will be lost to the corruption that has so long characterized the country, helping to serve the cause of terrorism instead of those terrorized by weeks of muddy water and the destitution it has wrought across so much of Pakistan.

But while the game of politics is played, 20 million Pakistanis are desperately trying to stave off the very real threats of starvation and the contraction of contagious diseases such as cholera. Without the estimated $460 million required to meet immediate needs alone, the future bodes only murky prospects for people living in the flooded fifth of Pakistan.

 
United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon has called the recent floods in Pakistan the worst humanitarian disaster he has ever witnessed. With more than 20 percent of the country under water, conta...
United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki Moon has called the recent floods in Pakistan the worst humanitarian disaster he has ever witnessed. With more than 20 percent of the country under water, conta...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gomorrah
10:48 AM on 08/27/2010
Realistically, Americans cannot care more about Pakistan than Pakistanis do. If Pakistanis are hellbent on seeing the country go downhill, we can’t stop the slide. If the military elite is committed to a doomed strategy against India that progressively impoverishes the country and distorts its development, we can argue the case with them, but we cannot force them to change their minds — and we cannot spare them the consequences of the inevitable failure. If the country’s educated classes are more interested in looting the state, exploiting the poor and maintaining the stranglehold of rural elites than in developing the country and building its future, we cannot change their minds — and we cannot protect them from the domestic and international consequences of their suicidal choice.
09:13 PM on 08/25/2010
'Why is Pakistan not getting enough aid?' - why do people keep asking this question when it is so obvious.

If you heard that a known habitual criminal and his family was desperately in need of help, would you rush to their aid? In the community of nations, Pakistan is not just an ordinary criminal, it is the very center of terrorism, double dealing and ethnic violence in the world - a lot of the actions done by its only military.intelligence community.

That said, China and the world's muslim countries could do a lot more to help Pakistan, supposedly their close friend.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
tell me from the beginning
09:45 PM on 08/26/2010
china and moslem countries are.

fyi

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE67H0JQ.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
tell me from the beginning
09:57 PM on 08/26/2010
The majority of the people affected by this flood are not in NWFP which is where Taliban and alqaeda have some influence.
the majority of taliban are not even pakistanis but foreign fighters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
You need to get your news from a variety of sources and look at a map occasionally
The marjority of people affected by this flood never got to decide if their country would develop nuclear weapons or whether the ISI (equivalent of CIA) would support taliban. Karzei has been accused of corruption but then his deputy is on the CIA paylist. You want to explain that to me?
Pakistanis do know their country was over run with Afghanis fleeing from war lords and Taliban.
They are unhappy that there is 1 semi automatic weapon for about every 15 pakistanis. Can you tell me how a farmer who subsists on $1 can afford one of those? They are left over from CIA funnelling weapons into afghanistan via Pakistan to fight the soviets. So as I see it you would rather give these people guns than food. Way to go!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rougebaisers
06:04 PM on 08/25/2010
bombs? nukes? cultural centers? more important than fellow humans? humanity's end is near, and some living in denial think they will rise above the storm heading its way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dbrett480
04:43 PM on 08/25/2010
Ideally more money should be given to Pakistan. However, our experience shows that the money that we have given out have been used for less than honorable causes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
tell me from the beginning
09:25 PM on 08/26/2010
fair enough but give your money to aid agencies and well reputable NGOs
04:36 PM on 08/25/2010
Unfortunately, I see my situation in the article. I gave to the sunami cause, Katrina, the earthquake, Haiti, the health fairs and the Dakota Indians. I could afford the donations I made at those times, but things are much tighter now. I see 2 options: 1) since the big banks and those living large won't get the employment ball rolling here, maybe they can help to alleviate the suffering and tend to the more immediate needs of the flood victims, or 2) maybe we can change our current year's military aid to Pakistan into disaster aid for the country (a definite win-win situation).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
snik2bor
03:34 PM on 08/25/2010
Thank you for this post, quite interesting. I suspect that many in the West are hesitant to contribute to Pakistani relief for the reasons you have outlined in your article. That said there are many organizations working in Pakistan at various levels who have a proven track record. It would be helpful if someone could outline some of these actors, what they are doing, and how as individuals we can support their work in the aftermath of the floods.

I also suspect that you are correct in noting that those who have fanned the flames of extremism in Pakistan will see this situation as an opportunity to extend their brand into more area's. This threat should be reason enough for people and governments to open their wallets and show the Pakistani people that they are not alone, that they do have choices regarding the direction their country will take. If the only help available to the average person in Pakistan is coming from those supporting extremist views, then that will be the only relationship that is cultivated in the aftermath of this tragic event.