It is indeed puzzling that the international response to Pakistan's flood emergency has been sluggish and ungenerous compared with relief efforts after previous disasters. In the aftermath of the earth quake that struck Haiti for instance, donors committed $742 million and pledged a further $920 million within the first 10 days! The same can never be said however about Pakistan. Where Donations have been sluggish to the Pakistan floods appeals .In fact the figures over the same period as Haiti stood at $45 million and $91 million. Indeed there is an obvious sense of fatigue among donors especially considering the fact that the devastating effects of the flooding far exceeds that caused by the earth quake in Haiti and the Indian ocean tsunami combined!
But why has the international community and humanitarian societies sluggishly responded to the present predicament of Pakistan? After taking time to study different reasons for this ‘donor-aid syndrome’, I have identified some of the reasons below as possible explanations to why there has been a rather sluggish response in terms of offering aids to Pakistani floods victims;
The NATURE OF THE DISASTER
The Pakistani floods have not been an instant calamity that killed tens of thousands of people in a matter of minutes or hours unlike the earthquakes in Haiti or the tsunami that hit Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka and India in 2004.
A flood is a creeping catastrophe rather than a sudden shock like an earthquake or a tsunami. Thus, the devastating effects of the floods were not quickly noticeable. In Pakistan for instance, the floods started on July 29, nearly a month ago, when unusually heavy monsoon rains caused flash floods and landslides in north-western Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. So it was not until a few days later, when the waters, constantly bolstered by fresh monsoon rains continued, that the extent of the devastation and threat of further destruction became apparent.
The slow, gathering and spreading nature of this calamity meant that it was not until Aug. 8 that the UN warned of a human disaster unmatched in recent years, and another three days before it launched its appeal for $500 million. Thus, without doubts sudden events seem to generate more funds. A flood (and droughts) happen gradually and build. There is no one single day in which news is huge. Therefore, the nature of the disaster pushes the story away from the media spotlight. But massive and sudden earthquakes or tsunamis on the other hand, tend to draw immediate attention and shock from observers and potential donors.
The slow, gathering and spreading nature of this calamity meant that it was not until Aug. 8 that the UN warned of a human disaster unmatched in recent years, and another three days before it launched its appeal for $500 million. Thus, without doubts sudden events seem to generate more funds. A flood (and droughts) happen gradually and build. There is no one single day in which news is huge. Therefore, the nature of the disaster pushes the story away from the media spotlight. But massive and sudden earthquakes or tsunamis on the other hand, tend to draw immediate attention and shock from observers and potential donors.
Hence for this school of thought, the ponderous progress of the crisis is undoubtedly a major reason why there was a rather sluggish response from the Western donors.
POOR RESPONSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
The government’s response itself Within Pakistan was woeful and president Zardari himself was heavily criticised for his actions. The president embarked on a planned trip to Europe despite the need for action at home.
He demonstrated a rather high level of insensitivity by even taking a trip, by helicopter to visit his chateau in Normandy in northern France. This crass act of insensitivity did nothing other than to remind people both in Pakistan and abroad of the president's reputation for corruption. In fact -he's known as "Mister Ten Per Cent" for his alleged rake-offs from government contracts. The act also highlighted the government's lack of resources such as helicopters to bring aid to people isolated in the floods.
Only the army in Pakistan, which is the country's sole institution that functions reliably, was able to mount any credible and sustained effort to rescue the stranded and distribute aid.
GEOGRAPHY
Another factor to be considered so far is the issue of geography or proximity to the western world. American donors for instance are fatigued by the crises on their doorstep like the earthquake in Haiti, Hurricane Katrina which hit New Orleans in 2005 and the oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. Besides, Haiti for instance is relatively close to America and this no doubt might indeed explain the prompt response of America to Haiti’s plight.
Pakistan on the other hand is a long way away from America and indeed the western world. Thus, the issue of proximity is indeed a possibility if we consider the fact that Many Americans saw Haiti as a neighbour and responded promptly and generously. Pakistan is farther away, both geographically and psychologically and this might explain why it took a while for countries of the west to respond to Pakistan’s plight.
CORRUPTTION
Corruption concerns may explain why giving is lower to Pakistan. People in Pakistan are sceptical the government will be transparent. But they are giving to philanthropic organisations. People are always sceptical about their money reaching flood victims, particularly in Pakistan with reputations for corruption. In fact, due to the corruption that has hampered Pakistan's development programs, donors hold back for fear the money donated will be squandered by unscrupulous politicians.
In the midst of all this controversy, is the infamous trip to Europe embarked upon by president Zardari. This trip was seen by majority as a bad move. As a matter of fact, for a few days, that was the 'story' of the Pakistani floods, which doesn't inspire people to be generous, particularly in this economic climate. To compound this woes are Claims in the UK press that 360 million Euros in foreign aid for Pakistan’s 2005 earthquake was diverted by its government. Thus, it is believed by some that pouring money into Pakistan will mean pouring money into politicians' pockets, and that might explain why the aid has slowed down.
DONOR FATIGUE/ ECONOMIC RECESSION
It appears there is generally donor fatigue all around. The world is yet to recover from the great lost in cash and kind suffered from the [2004] Indian Ocean tsunami, the Burmese Cyclone [Nargis, 2008], the [2005] Pakistan earthquake, and [this year's] Haiti earthquake. It is indeed getting too much and having its toll on the people. Especially if we consider the fact that the world economy is in a recession and people are short of money.
It should also be noted that the international humanitarian system is not set up to deal with more than one major crisis a year. USAID, for example, committed one-third of its annual budget to the Haitian earthquake response. And among the general public there may be a feeling of, 'Well, since I donated to the victims of the Haitian earthquake, I don’t really have to donate to Pakistan. Or Haiti is a far needier country than Pakistan.'
Indeed, the disaster came at a rather wrong time because following the financial crisis and the Haiti earthquake. Many donors made huge commitments to Haiti so may find it hard to fund another major disaster, particularly in the same year. This might explain another reason why aid has been slow to Pakistan.
TERRORISM
People are less likely to donate to any country seen as a haven for terrorism. And more generally, the fact that so much Western news coverage in recent years about Pakistan has been negative, stressing its links with the conflict in Afghanistan. This might be a major reason for the slow public response. There may also be a feeling, particularly in the US, that Islamic governments and charities should be stepping up to the occasion to donate.
Pakistan is indeed a terribly sympathetic country but also on the contrary a crossroads for terrorists, rogue supplier of nuclear weapons, sometime ally of the Taliban, alternating between military dictators and corrupt, ineffectual civilian governments.
According to Matt Waldman in a paper for the London School of Economics titled, "The Sun in the Sky: The relationship between Pakistan's ISI and Afghan insurgents." He argues that the ISI provides sanctuary and very substantial financial, military and logistical support to the Taliban insurgency, giving it "strong strategic and operational influence -- reinforced by coercion”.
Waldman claims he based his conclusions on interviews with nine insurgent field commanders in three regions of Afghanistan, plus former Taliban officials, tribal leaders, politicians, experts and diplomats. The title comes from Taliban commanders' who claims that their relationship with Pakistani intelligence is ‘as clear as the sun in the sky’. Waldman therefore, concluded that Pakistan ‘continues to give extensive support to the insurgency in terms of funding, munitions and supplies’.
The Taliban members interviewed on the other hand believes that the ISI has a heavy influence on their leadership, which some of them said amounts to control, according to the report. One of the southern commanders claimed: "If anyone rejects that the ISI backs or controls the Taliban, he has a mental problem ... all our plans and strategy are made in Pakistan and step by step it is brought to us, for military operations or other activities," the report says. In fact the ISI is widely thought to have played a key role in creating the Afghan Taliban during the 1990s, but Pakistan officially denies supporting them now.
Thus Pakistan is sometimes seen by critics as an unstable and corrupt nuclear-armed state that has been the crucible of many international terrorist plots. This in effect might have greatly hindered the progress as regards giving aids especially in this time of dire need.
