the nation of Pakistan have not had both internal and external peace in along while, but i think its time for them to bury the hatchet and come together. with floods like this one can not but help his or her enemy. even their arch enemies are coming to their help; India, china, USA. well nature has a way of giving something big enough to swallow you sentiments and pride and force you to rethink of your options in life.
A Pakistani woman and her son, displaced by floods, rest on higher ground on the outskirts of Thatta.
A Pakistani woman and her son, displaced by floods, rest on higher ground on the outskirts of Thatta.
Photograph by: Rizwan Tabassum, Getty Images, Vancouver Sun
When natural calamities strike, disaster relief always comes too little and too late.
But how and with what speed the international community responds to a natural catastrophe is influenced by a host of factors.
In the case of the devastating monsoon floods that have ravaged about one-fifth of Pakistan, killed at least 1,600 people and displaced over 20 million more, aid agencies and umbrella organizations like the United Nations are reporting reluctance, especially among the traditionally dependable donors in the West, to dig deep and give. The UN launched a "flash appeal" on Aug. 9 to raise nearly $500 million to cover the first 90 days of disaster relief aid.
Ten days later only half this money had been pledged, in sharp contrast to the response to the earthquake in Haiti earlier this year when nearly $600 million was raised in the same initial 10-day period.
As is to be expected, explanations for donor reluctance have tended to focus on the nature of Pakistan itself.
More generous analysts have contented themselves with saying that perhaps Western donors mistrust the corruption and apparent double-dealing of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Gillani.
A vituperative minority say the hesitant response is just another example of the West's ingrained "Islamophobia": dislike of Muslims.
As is usually the case, the reality is not so simple.
There appear to be many reasons why donors, including national governments, have been slow to respond to the Pakistan crisis starting with the nature of the catastrophe itself.
Unlike the earthquakes in Haiti this year or Kashmir in 2005, or the tsunami that hit Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka and India in 2004, the Pakistani floods have not been an instant calamity that killed tens of thousands of people in a matter of minutes or hours.
In Pakistan the floods started on July 29, nearly a month ago, when unusually heavy monsoon rains caused flash floods and landslides in northwestern Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
These are largely no-go areas for government officials and military at the best of times. So it was not until a few days later, when the waters, constantly bolstered by fresh monsoon rains, swept down the valley of the Indus River into the Punjab heartland and then on to Sindh in the south, that the extent of the devastation and threat of further destruction became apparent.
Within Pakistan the government's response was woeful and much criticism was levelled at Zardari, who embarked on a planned trip to Europe despite the need for action at home.
He compounded his sins by taking a side trip to visit, by helicopter, his chateau in Normandy in northern France. This crass act of insensitivity not only reminded people both in Pakistan and abroad of the president's reputation for corruption -he's known as "Mister Ten Per Cent" for his alleged rake-offs from government contracts -but 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.
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.
The ponderous progress of the crisis is undoubtedly a major reason why the Western donor response, especially among traditional private big givers in the U.S., has been slow.
Another factor so far as the U.S. is concerned is geography. American donors 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.
Pakistan is a long way away and few Western aid agencies have outposts there to act as hubs on which a network for delivering relief aid can be built.
And there is a good deal of skepticism over whether Pakistan is a worthy recipient of Western aid.
Much blame for this crisis is aimed at Pakistan's semi-feudal ruling classes of landowners who, since the country's creation in 1947, have avoided investing in the infrastructure which could have minimized the impact of the monsoon rains and floods.
That lack of investment sits uncomfortably beside the huge amounts of money Pakistan spends on its military and especially on developing and building nuclear weapons.
Then there's Pakistan's ambiguous-at-best attitude toward the Taliban insurgents fighting NATO forces in neighbouring Afghanistan and the evidence that Pakistani army and intelligence agencies continue to support terrorist groups.
It will take many more pictures of distraught people struggling through flood waters and, sadly, reports of rising numbers dying from disease and lack of food, for donors to overcome their reluctance.
