The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Why has international aid to Pakistan been so slow?

Making an association between the flood and the war on terror distracts attention from the disaster.

By Samira Shackle Published 13 August 2010 13:24

Flood levels in Pakistan are expected to surge even higher along parts of the Indus River in Punjab and Sindh. But as the crisis caused by the worst flooding in the region for 80 years deepens, the international response remains inexplicably slow.

An analysis of UN figures by Oxfam this week shows the shocking disparity between aid contributions to relieve the current flooding and those for past disasters. In the first ten days of the crisis, international donors committed $45m, or about $3.20 per person affected. Compare this to $720m, or $495 per person, after the Haiti earthquake. The response picked up yesterday after the UN said it was appealing for $460m, with $90m raised in a day, but more is urgently needed.

This is disaster on a huge scale. The death toll still stands at 1,600, though with the difficulty in reaching some of the worst-affected areas and counting the dead it is probably far higher. A total of 14 million people have been affected in some way -- more than the number affected by the tsunami and the Haiti earthquake put together. An enormous 8 per cent of the population has had its livelihoods directly disrupted.

The situation keeps getting worse. In some areas, aid helicopters are unable to get through because of bad weather. The continued rain means that some people have been displaced several times over. Cholera, dysentery and diarrhoea look ever more likely.

It is difficult to understand why the response has been so slow. On Radio 4 last night, the Pakistani diplomat Abdullah Hussain Haroon blamed David Cameron's controversial comments about the country exporting terror:

Pakistan has suffered because of what Mr Cameron has said, because the British people will listen to their Prime Minister.

Certainly the threat of terrorism has permeated discussion of the flood. Several comment pieces, ostensibly urging people to give generously, do so on the grounds that donating will somehow prevent a suicide attack in Britain.

Anatol Lieven writes in the Times (behind paywall):

Aid to Pakistan is clearly a vital British security interest . . .

If Pakistan collapses or parts of its army are driven to mutiny, the threat from that terrorism would increase by orders of magnitude.

Ahmed Rashid concurs in the Telegraph:

Unless major aid is forthcoming immediately and international diplomatic effort is applied to improving Pakistan's relations with India, social and ethnic tensions will rise and there will be food riots. Large parts of the country that are now cut off will be taken over by the Pakistani Taliban and affiliated extremist groups, and governance will collapse.

There are valid points here: at the moment, in many areas, it is the Taliban or other militant groups who are providing aid on the ground while the overstretched government remains absent. It is important that the effort be stepped up.

But semantically, this does little but associate Pakistan with the nameless, faceless enemy -- the "war on terror" -- and frame it as a renegade state whose favour must be bought. The thought that these people are just waiting for the chance to strap themselves up with explosives and declare war on the west is hardly going to inspire people to dig deep and give generously.

Far more effective would be to focus on the human tragedy: the two million people displaced, the seven million in direct need of humanitarian assistance for survival, the six million children affected. The west's security interests should be a by-product of generous and humane aid, not the only motivation.

Donate via the Disasters Emergency Committee.

Tags: Pakistan

More from Samira Shackle

View the discussion thread.

25 comments

Fri, 2010-08-13 18:30 — felix (not verified)

hear is a glimmer of hope..
When it comes to improving the lives of the world's poorest people, what really works? Sir Fazle Abed has spent much of his life trying to answer that question.

In the process he has created arguably the world's biggest development organisation, known by its initials Brac.

From its home in Bangladesh, to Afghanistan, to Africa, Brac has tied development to social change and economic self-help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008yptm

Fri, 2010-08-13 18:53 — jie4v7i14

felix, doesn't seem to be working well here.

Fri, 2010-08-13 20:24 — John Powell (not verified)

Is the US prepared for flooding on this scale?

John Powell
www.sandbricktech.com

Tue, 2010-08-17 19:42 — Hannah (not verified)

@ Felix

Lets take each of your ridiculous points one by one:

"Pakistan grew the Taliban not the west"

The Taliban (or the mujahideen-as they were called then) were heavily sponsored and supported by the CIA during the 80's. They were supported for USA own geopolitical interests. To hurt the Russians, the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups of the mujahideen factions. Reagan even praised them by calling them 'freedom fighters'! what a joke.

It was also CIA who that asked the ISI to recuit muslim extremists from around the world to join this 'freedom fight'. Now lets come to Osama- who the Americans cherished for his walthy contacts!

The western world made its bed and now its lying in it.

"No its Pakistan's war"

I can't belive you can say that with a serious face, come on surely even you must have chuckled whilst typing that?

So Pakistan attacked Afghanistan? Pakistan made the Taliban cross the border in to Pakistan? Pakistan is refusing to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And whilst we're on the point...why the hell are you in Iraq? oh I remember, you're still trying to find WMD. Lets guess is that Pakistans fault also.... see I'm getting the pattern here.

"Say bye bye to democracy , say hello sharia and stoning every Friday.
Were would that lead?
War with India? Probably"

Not sure where the link between India and sharia stemmed from. If Sharia was to become the norm in Pakistan then it would have become the norm a very long time ago. Most people of Pakistan do not want sharia and would not support it. It might be a hard concept to grasp and it might not be the picture that is painted in the media but its the truth.

"Maybe Muslims of New York could contribute another $100 million.
Easy,just by not building a mosque were its not wanted and instead save thousands of lives in Pakistan"

I agree. At this time everybody should contribute, and if that means a cultural centre (no its not a mosque-read up on the facts) is not built then it shouldn't.

Lastly, regardless of nationality, race, creed and religion when one human sees the suffering of another I find it disturbing to know that it doesn't move people. When you see a child dying in its mothers lap, I fail to understand how that cannot upset someone. Now now, I know what you're going to say...terrorists kill people they dont think...blah blah..... but surely this is the difference between them and us. If we start acting like them, what will be the difference?

Tue, 2010-08-17 04:22 — felix (not verified)

@'Hannah'
"Maybe some of you might care to explain why more Pakistan soldiers have died compared to all NATO soldier deaths? Pakistan has paid the biggest price of YOUR war. Hope it was worth it."

No its Pakistan's war.
Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) 'grew' the Taliban not the west.
Your attitude is a sanctimonious insult to all those Pakistani soldiers who have died fighting the Taliban trying to preserve an imperfect democracy in Pakistan.

Unless of course you want to be ruled by a Talibanised government,may be you do.
Say bye bye to democracy , say hello sharia and stoning every Friday.

Were would that lead?
War with India? Probably.
I pity your intelligence and ignorance.

The apparent indifference of wealthy Pakistanis to the plight of their homeless poor during the current floods threatens 'a bloody revolution that would harm them more than anyone else', warns a letter in Karachi's Express Tribune.
Written by an anonymous businessman, it calls for rich businessmen who don't pay their taxes to each donate an initial 50million rupees, around £370,000, to start 'a fund for the Pakistan nation'.
Maybe Muslims of New York could contribute another $100 million.
Easy,just by not building a mosque were its not wanted and instead save thousands of lives in Pakistan.
What do you think?
Bad idea.
Or may be all those 'false democracy's' should save them as we usually do but that would be 'a whole load of hypocrisy'
Wouldn't it.

Sat, 2010-08-14 09:24 — dom youngross (not verified)

If they can afford nukes, they can afford to take care of their own. It's their priority-making responsibility.

Sat, 2010-08-14 09:58 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ dom youngross

Couldn't the same be said for Israel, and they get billions in aid?

And has their ever been the remotest hint of Pakistan threatening to use it's nuclear capability? India and Pakistan were in an arms race at the time after a very bloody war.

If, as some of the more toxic comments here claim 'they are all terrorists' one would have thought having a nuclear bomb would be a little more scary?

But it isn't. The only way it would be scary would be if those comments were true. In fact they are clearly nonsense and show a disturbing lack of empathy or understanding of the situation.

Tue, 2010-08-17 21:18 — felix (not verified)

Hannah

"the U.S. deliberately chose to give the most support to the most extreme groups of the Mujaheddin factions."
True more or less I wont quibble,
but the Taliban and the Mujaheddin are in no way coterminous.
see
"The Taliban and the Mujahedin should set aside their differences"
http://www.rawa.org/28against.htm

"Most people of Pakistan do not want sharia and would not support it."
Thank you for making my point that is why it is Pakistan's war.

"It was also CIA who that asked the ISI to recruit Muslim extremists from around the world to join this 'freedom fight'."
Pakistan could of said no it chose to say yes.It was complicit from the beginning.
Do you think that a Talibanised government in Pakistan is a recipe for peace?Tensions with India over Kashmir etc would be bound to increase.

"Lastly, regardless of nationality, race, creed and religion when one human sees the suffering of another I find it disturbing to know that it doesn't move people. When you see a child dying in its mothers lap, I fail to understand how that cannot upset someone."
Finally we agree.
A glimmer of hope in the factional darkness.

Mon, 2010-08-16 17:57 — Hannah (not verified)

I am absolutely appalled at the comments made here. Many people here are trying to imply that the entire population of Pakistan are terrorists. I pity your intelligence and ignorance.

And before people start questioning what Pakistan has to offer the world, maybe we should consider what the western world has to offer the world... false democracy, , war, civillian deaths, global financial crisis and a whole load of hypocrisy.

Maybe some of you might care to explain why more Pakistan soldiers have died compared to all nato soldier deaths? Pakistan has paid the biggest price of YOUR war. Hope it was worth it.

Fri, 2010-08-13 13:37 — londoner bob (not verified)

why should we give aid to a load of terrorists? they're either with us or their not - we shouldn't have to keep skirting around what they want. what about what we want - which is not to be at threat of bomb attacks on our own doorstep!

Fri, 2010-08-13 13:47 — jamil (not verified)

"londoner bob" - I can't help but feel that you've missed the point.

Fri, 2010-08-13 14:03 — crabstix (not verified)

Didn't I read recently that the Pakistan Taliban have called on Pakistan to reject British aid and have threatened to punish those that accept it? It seems that Pakistan has its own security interests and they dovetail with this disaster.

Fri, 2010-08-13 14:06 — Des Demona (not verified)

Totally agree with the article. This is a humanitarian disaster of epic proportionns and this should be in the forefront. Talk of terror clouds the issue.

Fri, 2010-08-13 14:33 — Beast Of No Nation (not verified)

A massive difference in donation, $45mil and $720mil. What's in a name?

Perception:
1)Haiti=Voodoo and Poverty, consumed by participants in their environment.

2)Pakistan=Terrorism and Hate, exported by participants.

Fri, 2010-08-13 14:41 — Des Demona (not verified)

I don't really think that has as much to do with as perhaps the fact that Pakistan ranks 45th in GDP while Haiti is around 140th. From day 1 Pakistan is clearly more able to cope on its own than Haiti was. I'm sure overall donations will even out in the end.

Fri, 2010-08-13 15:06 — greed

i don't think you can blame cameron on this one. is it tugging at the heart strings? was it there prime minister couldn't be arsed? is it media coverage slow to start
it can't just be if there government are not doing enough 'why should I help' because look what happened in Africa (Mmmm media went mad with that one)wheres Bob (give me your f****ing money) Geldof
sorry no answers

Fri, 2010-08-13 15:49 — PollyAnna (not verified)

This is a good article. Shocking that people would tar millions of disaster sufferers by the actions of a few terrorists.

Fri, 2010-08-13 16:00 — jie4v7i14

because they always seem stuck up their own behinds, and cheat at cricket, modifying the ball any chance they get?

Anyway, it is all down to Allah, as they always say.

Fri, 2010-08-13 16:24 — felix (not verified)

for those interested in this subject

http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/08/indus-river-p...

Fri, 2010-08-13 16:26 — felix (not verified)

In the meantime for your edification, here is a list of the main sovereign state committed funds and pledges as of yesterday.

UK $32.5 million

USA $62.2 million

Kuwait $5 million

Italy $5 million

Turkey $0.27 million

Luxembourg $1.4 million

Sweden £3 million

Germany $3 million

UAE $0.02 million

when will Islam come to the rescue of Islam ?

Fri, 2010-08-13 17:08 — Its Not Raining

Maybe people have woken up that Pakistan has to offer the the rest of the world....
Intolerant, confrontational, terrorist, radical, militant, piracy, insurgent, jihads, burqa, suicide, submit, kill-kill-kill, female genital mutilation, human rights, rape, paedophilia, slavery, murder, beheading, torture, kidnapping, ransom, hi-jacking, extortion, death, mutilation...

Mon, 2010-08-16 10:57 — andyjdb

it doesnt matter what their government spend on nukes, what the political situation is, how many terrorists live in the country, what race or religion the people suffering are or anything else. Millions are at risk of death from one of the worst natural disasters of recent times, and we have the means to help. We should. End of.

Fri, 2010-08-13 17:54 — FJS (not verified)

Pakistan should ask their fellow muslims for aid, before demanding our non Halal money.

They want to destroy our civilisation, but still want our money to help them when times are bad; such hypocrites.

Wed, 2010-08-18 13:40 — guardianista (not verified)

Great comment Hannah

Mon, 2010-08-23 09:46 — Joe Bone (not verified)

Where are the aids from:
1. Malaysia
2. Brunei
3. Kuwait
4. Indonesia
5. Egypt
6. Dubai
7. and all the rest of the 57 Muslim countries, the OPEC, OIC ?

Why are they so deafeningly silence?