War on Terror, International Relief, and the Pakistan Flood of 2010

Sobering, isn't it?

Floods on the Indus river and its tributaries have engulfed one-fifth of the landmass of Pakistan, an area the size of Italy.  While the numbers tend to be imprecise, what seems clear is that over 17 million people have been affected.  As of 3 October 2010, Pakistani authorities report that 1,600 people are dead, and another 2,366 injured.  But, five million people lack shelter, and another 800,000 are stranded in isolated areas.  There are 3.5 million children at risk of waterborne diseases, and 70,000 more are at high risk of death according the the United Nations World Health Organization.  The Pakistani government estimates that 1.2 million houses, 10,000 schools, 35 bridges, and more than 9 percent of Pakistani highway systems have been damaged or destroyed.  Over 20 percent of Pakistan's farmland, primarily in Sindh area has been inundated, and more than 60 percent of Pakistan's export cotton crop has been destroyed.

According to United Nations reports, the floods in Pakistan are a humanitarian disaster that eclipse the 2004 tsunami in South Central Asia, and the Haiti earthquake of January 2010 put together in terms of the people rendered homeless.  Although the number of deaths is smaller, the number of people homeless (14 million in the Pakistan floods) compared with 200,000 in the Asian tsunami and three million in the Haiti earthquake reflects the magnitude of this catastrophye.  Daniel Holmberg, the head of the Pakistan mission for NGO Action Against Hunger (ACF) doubts that the international reaction will be anywhere near what is needed on the ground.

Reaching the people in the affected areas of the northwest part of the country is almost impossible, particularly in the Swat Valley.  The flooding is enormous, the infrastructure largely destroyed, last year's conflict between the Pakistani Army and the Pakistani Taliban insurgents compounds the problems of facing international NGOs.  Most people have lost everything, and the situation is much worse than the earthquake in 2005 in Kashmir in which 80,000 were killed and three million made homeless.  Although aid organizations have been trying to use any means (taxi, mule, foot) to get aid to these areas, until now, in early October 2010, only military helicopters are able to get through to reach the needy in the most remote areas.

In the context of this massive catastrophe, Pakistan has sought foreign aid for both relief and rehabilitation, as well as reconstruction.  While some aid has flowed into Pakistan, as I wrote in my last post, it has not come into the country as fast, consistent, and dependable as needed, or even as provided previously in other similar natural disasters.  Reports in the media talk about how, with the collapse of the infrastructure system, it is the Islamist relief organizations that have moved into these areas and have been building a base.  While I mentioned in my previous post the role of Islamist relief organizations in providing aid to the affected areas, assumptions about the role of these organizations may not be completely based on the facts or reality.

For example, in a recent report I read about the earthquake in Kashmir in 2005, the writer wrote:

Maybe a look at an earlier natural disaster in Pakistan will help clarify some of the issues.  In October 2005, Pakistan was hit by a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, from which an estimated 74,000 people died, 70,000 were seriously injured, and over 2.8 million were left homeless.  A lot of foreign aid flew into Pakistan and that time, and over time things became better.  Five years later, one often finds media reports which assert that jihadi organizations and their charities were able to build a base by involving themselves in relief work after the earthquake.

However, a recent statistical analysis by Professor Tahir Andrabi of Pamona College and Jishnu Das of the World Bank shows not only how foreign aid helped with the hearts and minds in the earthquake-hit areas of Pakistan, but also that even four years after the incident there was no lessening of good will for foreigners in those areas.  Further, the study demonstrates that less that 1% of the population in the devastated areas reported any help from Islamist charities and organizations.

 But, is this the situation today?

It seems appropriate that we set the stage for what is, I am sure, part of the story as to why disaster aid is so slow coming this time.  As I wrote in my last post, ICFO member organizations have reported that the funding for relief in Pakistan has been extremely slow and little in comparison with the recent relief efforts required as a result of the Haiti earthquake of January 2010.  While many of our ICFO members have tried to describe the causes, it seems that there are multiple causes, some of which are related to the specific country, NGO, or economic situation globally or in particular countries.

Charity Navigator, in the U.S. wrote in its blog post of 12 August 2010, "Why Aren't We Giving More to Relief Efforts in Pakistan?" that some of the reasons are:

• Recession - Overall, giving in America was down 3.6% from 2008 to 2009.
• Recent Disasters - Donors already responded generously this year to the Haiti earthquake (more than 1 billion given in the first four months) and to a lesser extent to the earthquake in Chile and the Gulf oil spill.  So this might suggest donor fatigue.
• Haiti - The media has reported that much of the promised aid money had not reached Haiti and that relief efforts have been very slow.  This leaves a bad taste in the mouths of those who have contributed and causes them to think twice about supporting relief efforts in another part of the world.
• Summer - Sadly, the timing of this tragedy may be having an impact on donors.  With summer vacations, they may not be playing as close attention to the news as they do at other times of the year.
• Media Coverage - In contrast to the coverage of the earthquake in Haiti, the media coverage of the Pakistan floods has been minimal.  As they say, our of sight, out of mind.
• Victims - The scale of the Pakistan disaster has eclipsed the disastrous tsunami in South Asia in 2004 (which generated donations of more than $1.5 billion).  Yet, tens of thousands died in the tsunami, not to mention hundreds of thousands who lost their lives in Haiti this past January.
• Corruption/Terrorism Link - Potential donors may be weary of the government and others in Pakistan.  They worry if their contribution will really be used to provide aid, as they intended, or diverted to causes they do not wish to fund.  In fact, there are already reports that various Pakistan charities which are fronts for terrorist groups are getting involved.
• Government - Even with concerns over corruption and ineptitude, some may view the government in Pakistan as being more able to care for its citizens than, for example, the government in Haiti.  For example, the government's capacity to help had a dampening effect on giving to Chile after the February earthquake.

While many of these factors suggested by Charity Navigator in its blog may explain the paucity in the fundraising efforts, what seems to be somewhat unique here is the convergence of a major disaster with humanitarian consequences that may affect the very viability of a country for the foreseeable future with a war against terror where the lines of ally and foe are not clearly drawn.  It is this convergence that will be the focus of this post.

 David Ignatius, writing for The Washington Post on 29 September 2010 from Pir Sabak, Pakistan, reported the Pakistani government was not prepared for this kind of disaster and was taken back by its magnitude.  "The flood has deepened a national mood that often seems close to despair."  He said:

The U.S. military has been working hard to provide food assistance, but most of that is invisible to Pakistanis.  They read about American drone attacks but not about helicopters bringing food supplies.  That lack of recognition upsets U.S. officials, but they haven't been able to change it.

On a day's tour of the northern flood zone, I saw posters for Turkish, British and other European relief groups, but not one sign of American help.  That's a missed opportunity.  These people still need help, desperately, and they will remember those who visibly provided it.

But just a week later, writing in The Washington Post on 5 October 2010, Mr. Ignatius reported from Islamabad that,

   Hundreds of Americans have been working their butts off to help Pakistan cope with their flood disaster, and they haven't been getting much credit for it -- including from me.

* * *

    I wrote last week from a village called Pir Sabak in northwestern Pakistan that U.S. flood relief wasn't evident there, or elsewhere along the way.  "The U.S. military has been working hard to provide food assistance, but most of that is invisible to Pakistanis," I noted.  That seemed to me to be a missed opportunity -- and characteristic of a weird misfire in U.S. public diplomacy.  For a superpower, we can be oddly shy about advertising our good works. 

    I have since talked more about this problem with U.S. official managing the relief effort, who felt their colleagues' work had been slighted.  They're right; America has been making a big effort to help the flood victims, more than any other nation.  But I'm more convinced than ever that the way we're doing it -- providing food aid through the United Nations, for example, and focusing on transporting it rather than taking credit for distribution -- reduces its public impact.

Mr. Ignatius then told about an American official who told him that he had switched from focusing on security issues to supervising flood relief; that America's first priority is helping people rather than bragging in the Pakistani media about it.  His reaction to this statement by the American official was:

    Maybe that makes our assistance true humanitarian aid, offered to help people rather than to gain political benefit.  But unselfishness has its limits.  American do-gooders can make anonymous private contributions if they want.  Our public assistance should get some return.  In a country as anti-American as Pakistan, it doesn't make sense to be quite so low-key.

    American soldiers and civilians here have been making a difference in helping the desperate flood victims, and their work shouldn't go unsung, by Pakistanis or by visiting columnists.

Mr. Ignatius writes again in The Washington Post in its 8 October 2010 edition about Pakistan, and this time, he addresses the White House report on Afghanistan and Pakistan to Congress.  Here, the central theme of his writing about this White House report was the sense of pessimism in the administration about the direction of the war, and the discussion in the report about the deteriorating political situation in Pakistan and the refusal of the Pakistani military to mount a new offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in North Waziristan as the United States wanted.  As the report noted: "This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets."  Nevertheless, the report conceded that after the devastating floods in August, the Pakistani military was swamped with relief work.  What is unmistakable in this report is the linking of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the overall strategic goals in fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

What is missing from any of this analysis by Mr. Ignatius is any sense that there is a humanitarian disaster of catastrophic proportions that requires some kind of moral obligation that we as humans have to relieve the suffering of the victims of this flooding.  The gist of these three columns, all written within the space of about 10 days, is that there should be some kind of political benefit in the war that could come from the U.S. government providing more open acknowledgment of its humanitarian efforts, rather than simply providing humanitarian and relief assistance to the victims of the flooding.  The emphasis is on what the U.S. government should be doing in publicizing its humanitarian efforts, to offset the bad publicity from its drone attacks; not what it is actually doing.

What I find troubling about these pieces is what appears to be his dismissive attitude toward humanitarian and relief assistance provided by NGOs.  His statement, "But unselfishness has its limits.  American do-gooders can make anonymous private contributions if they want." does not inspire NGOs to engage in any relief or reconstruction effort in Pakistan.  This comment surely is not designed to inspire generosity on the parts of donors all over the world seeking to participate in some way to addressing the disaster in Pakistan.  Nor does it seem to inspire confidence in Pakistan in the world-wide NGO sector.  Cynicism simply becomes the goal of this kind of national self-aggrandizement.

The Washington Post on Sunday, 3 October 2010 had a dispatch from Warsak, Pakistan, reported the following:

In the same week when U.S. helicopters mistakenly killed three members of Pakistan's Frontier Corps near the Afghan border, American Special Forces were training members of the same force on how to use radios, sniper rifles and other counterinsurgency tools at a remote base here.

Pakistanis and Americans don't talk much about this joint training camp, northwest of Peshawar about 20 miles from Afghanistan.  But the program is a symbol of the weird duality of the relationship - - a mix of public distance and private cooperation that's awkward for both sides.

In the same edition of this paper, the front page article was titled, Military drones aid CIA's mission.  The gist of this article was that the strategy in Pakistan carries significant risks, where the CIA is using an arsenal of armed drones and other equipment provided by the U.S. Military to secretly escalate its operations in Pakistan by striking targets beyond the reach of the American forces in Afghanistan.  This article continued:

   The strategy shift carries significant risks, particularly if it is perceived as an end-run around the Pakistan government's long-standing objections to American military operations within its domain.

   Indeed, the surge in drone strikes over the past four weeks has to a large extent targeted elements of a network led by Jalaluddin Haqquani, a militant regarded as a close ally of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.

There has been much in the newspapers in American in recent weeks about these drone strikes and a new book, Obama's Wars, by author Bob Woodward has just added to the discussion.  And of all times, when there is this humanitarian crisis presented almost daily in our various news sources.  One such example, is the following report:

As tensions rise, Monday, 4 October 2010, the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for a pre-dawn attack on tanker trucks carrying fuel to Afghanistan.  The tankers were left vulnerable on the side of the road after Pakistanis shut down a key border crossing.  Twenty trucks went up in flames and four people were killed and seven injured as militants attacked the trucks with automatic gunfire.

Hours later, gunman attacked and burned two supply trucks carrying NATO supplies in Southwest Pakistan killing the driver.

As I write this post, Osama bin Laden presumably just issued a second tape in that many days, saying that governments of Muslim nations have not done enough to help Pakistanis affected by floods that killed hundred, and maybe thousands, and displaced millions.  In his earlier tape just 24 hours earlier, he urged his followers to overthrow the leaders of nations like his native country, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt.  In his earlier message, he called "for the establishment of a relief organization to prevent flooding in Muslim countries, create development projects in impoverished regions, and improve agriculture to guarantee food security."  There is no question that much of Pakistan's agricultural capacity has been lost in these floods.  Food crops have been destroyed and the seed for future years also lost.


Here, he spoke to the humanitarian needs, like the floods in Pakistan, and climate change.  Although the vitriolic attacks against the West were absent, his focused criticism was on Arab leaders accusing them of failing to respond to this disaster in a Muslim country. He said: "The [U.N.'s] secretary-general came to witness the catastrophe for himself, and yet no Arab leaders came to witness the disaster despite the short distances and claims of brotherhood."



What is becoming clear to many, American strategic goals in Afghanistan are tied to what happens in Pakistan.  Reported in Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars, is a statement attributed to President Obama during a White House meeting with his national security team. In an excerpt from this book printed in the Washington Post newspaper, we read,

Fears about Pakistan had been driving President Obama's national security team for more than a year.  Obama had said toward the start of the fall 2009 Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy review that the more pressing U.S. interests were really in Pakistan, a nuclear power with a fragile civilian government, a dominant military and an intelligence service that sponsored terrorist groups.

Not only did al-Queda and the Afghan Taliban operate from safe havens within Pakistan, but -- as U.S. intelligence officials had repeatedly warned Obama -- terrorist groups were recruiting Westerners whose passports would allow them to move freely in Europe and North America.

Safe havens would no longer be tolerated, Obama had decided.  "We need to make clear to people that the cancer in in Pakistan," he declared during an Oval Office Meeting on Nov. 25,2009, near the end of the strategy review.  The reason to create a secure, self-governing Afghanistan, he said, was "so the cancer does not spread there."

 According to the Washington Post series of articles that excerpt the book, looking at the National Security Strategy laid out by the President in May 2010, we do not find that Pakistan is a top concern.

Amidst steadfast commitment to liberalist principles calling to defeat terrorism with multilateralism, in adherence to international law and a sensitive awareness to growing interdependence in an increasingly globalized system, the document reads our security objective as such:

"to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qa'ida and its affiliates through a comprehensive strategy that denies them safe haven, strengthens front-line partners, secures our homeland, pursues justice through durable legal approaches, and counters a bankrupt agenda of extremist and murder with an agenda of hope and opportunity.  The frontline of this fight is Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Naming Pakistan alongside Afghanistan underscores the President's shifting focus.  The policy refers to Pakistan as the "epicenter of violent extremism" and warns "danger from this region will only grow if it's security slides backward."

As I wrote above with regard to David Ignatius' columns in The Washington Post, the White House issued a report to Congress on Afghanistan and Pakistan during the first week of October 2010 presenting the security situation as very bleak.  As is the case in many of these kinds of reports, it was leaked to The Wall Street Journal.  What drew attention to this report was the discussion of the deteriorating situation in Pakistan and the Pakistani military refusal to mount a new offensive against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in North Waziristan.  The White House did concede that after the devastating floods in August, the Pakistani military was swamped with relief work and that the political choice was a reflection of the under-resourced military.  According to Mr. Ignatius, writing for The Washington Post, "the sharp critique will add more fuel to the combustible U.S.-Pakistani relationship."

The Wall Street Journal reported in its article of 6 October 2010 concerning the White House report to Congress, that "questions about aid to Pakistan have been growing in Congress in recent months, and congressional aids said the downbeat assessment could fuel lawmakers's qualms and calls for putting more conditions on U.S. funding."

In mid-August, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon visited flood-devastated Pakistan, which he described as "heart-wrenching."  He announced another $10 million from the UN's central emergency response fund, making a total of $27 million from that fund.  Additionally, the UN launched an appeal for $459 million for emergency aid for Pakistan, noting that billions would be need for the long term.  However, as reported several days later, "the response to the crisis has been less than enthusiastic," with only about half of the $459.7 million requested by the UN having materialized.

What has been the emphasis, if any emphasis can be found in the media, is the call to national governments within the international community to come to the aid of Pakistan.  So, we have public officials stepping out to the microphones to announce what their countries are doing and will be providing in aid.

According to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, during the first five weeks of the crisis, individual and corporate giving to relief organizations helping Pakistan was estimated at just over $25 million.  This in contrast to the $900 million given in aid funds during the first five weeks after the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010, and approximately $2 billion given to the victims of Hurricane Katrina at the five week mark.  There was a widely held perception that the money would go to armed terrorist groups and that no donation was secure.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in late August 2010 that the donations to help flood victims of the Pakistan floods had picked up a little as the news-media attention of the disaster increased.  Whereas, in two and a half weeks after the Haiti earthquake, 40 aid groups had raised a total of $560 million, only 22 aid groups had raised $10.6 million for the victims of Pakistan.

Charity Navigator reported that as of mid-August 2010, a dozen of the largest charities in the United States had only raised $5 million.  Charity Navigator listed 37 American charities that were providing relief and that were highly respected with a history of working on massive disasters and/or working in Pakistan.  These included Action Against Hunger, Action Aid International, American Jewish World Service, AmeriCares, The Asia Foundation, CARE, Doctors Without Borders, Episcopal Relief and Development, Food for the Hungary, Islamic Relief USA, MAP International, Medical Teams International, Samaritan's Purse, Save the Children, United Methodist Committee on Relief, United States Fund for UNICEF, World Vision, American Red Cross, Care, Oxfam America, Plan USA.  Most of these were accredited by BBB Wise Giving Alliance and ECFA, both ICFO member monitoring organizations, and received four star ratings from Charity Navigator.

Many international relief organizations are not actively soliciting funds for relief efforts in Pakistan because they don't have programs in the country.  This of course makes sense because one of the tips which we give to potential donors is that they give to an established charity that has worked in the country of the disaster, in this case in Pakistan.  In other words, find a charity that has a proven record of providing disaster relief, and preferably, one that has worked in Pakistan.  Many of the charities listed in the preceding paragraph have been working in Pakistan for many years, and particularly since the Kashmir earthquake of 2005.

One of the reasons people aren't giving to humanitarian relief is that Pakistan, and particularly the flooded areas, has a global reputation for being dangerous.  Pakistan lacks the kind of network for Western charities that was present in the case of Haiti's network.  This is related, part to the fact that Pakistan is a Muslim country.  As a result, it lacks a pre-existing network of Christian humanitarian organizations and missionaries.

In the case of Haiti, the Christian missionaries, predominantly Americans, were doing a combination of humanitarian work and religious outreach.  This was important because these organizations and missionaries were able to use the American churches as a vast grassroots network to communicate the situation in Haiti to Americans.  This also allowed them to tap into existing funders and the donating public that had already established a relationship with the work in Haiti.  Pakistan has no similar large and long-term presences.  This has made it more difficult to tap into the fundraising resources in America.

I read one observation that since the World Economic Forum ranked Pakistan as 113 out of the 133 countries to which tourist travel in its latest Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report,  Pakistan simply cannot draw the attention for fundraising to address the humanitarian crisis presented by the flooding.  It is sad that we might think that popularity with holiday-makers is a fair way to allocated disaster relief, and yet this seems to be one of the factors that has resulted in the absence of generosity in the case of Pakistan as compared with that generosity displayed in the disasters in Haiti, Chile, or South Asia.

The advice on giving is always good when faced with disasters, such as that occurring in Pakistan due to the flooding.  Give only to established organizations that are already on the ground.  These know the people, know the conditions, and have the experience to work locally, networking with existing relief resources.  Second, it has been suggested that giving should be primarily in the form of cash, rather than goods and gifts in kind.  Pakistan is a long way away, and the time for shipping goods and the expense involved in that shipment, the value of the gift is reduced.  Moreover, with cash, organizations on the ground and within the region can purchase the needed supplies closer to the place of greatest need.  Third, there is a tendency to earmark contributions.  While there is value in this, it is better to give to organizations with which the donor is familiar and can trust to do what is best in the situation.

 
Paradoxically, as the U.S. Secretary of State was announcing additional $60 billion US funding beyond the $150 million already announced earlier, the Pakistani government denied permission to use the US controlled Shahbaz Air Force Base in southern Sindh province for flood relief operations.  "Foreign health teams could not start relief operations in remote areas because there are no airstrips close to the several areas, including Jacobabad," according to Dr. Jahanzeb Aurakzai, the coordinator of the Health Emergency Preparedness Centre.

The U.S. Embassy denied that the Shahbaz Air Force Base was controlled by the U.S.  However, the realities on the ground belied this denial.  According to a leading Pakastini newspaper, the Pakistan Air Force was denying all access to the airbase because of the presence of U.S. personnel who had come with F-16 aircraft.

National and international NGOs reported that they could not reach Jacobabed to provide food and drinking water to as many as 500,000 to 700,000 flood victims due to the strict security conditions adopted for Shahbaz Air Force Base.

Only a small fraction of the six million Pakistanis that were desperate for food and clean water received any help.  The UN complained that foreign donors had not been quick or generous enough in light of the scale of the disaster.  There was mistrust both outside Pakistan and inside that aid would get to the people that needed it.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with a newspaper defended Washington's corrupt-client government of Pakistan by describing corruption as a "diversionary side issue."  She said:

"Corruption, unfortunately, has been with us, is with us, and always will be with us.  It must be attacked and it must be rooted out but I don't think, it does a service to the people who are suffering to have some diversionary side conversation about corruption."

The United Nations Department of Safety and Security continues to advise all humanitarian staff to be aware of the security risks in the affected areas, including those directly related to the flooding, such as violent demonstrations and aid-related crimes.

With the increased attention in both the print and electronic media to military offensive in Pakistan, the drone attacks, the activity of Taliban and Al-Qaeda groups operating in Pakistan, Pakistan's recent closing of the border crossings with Afghanistan, and the militant's attacks against the fuel trucks, news concerning the floods and the work of NGOs in Pakistan has generally disappeared from print and television.

Moreover, as in the case of many natural disasters, there is frequently the question as to whether the devastation is cause naturally, or whether there is a human component that either increased the potential disaster, or exacerbated the damage or destruction. I discussed this issue in my post of 21 February 2010, Haiti Earthquake 2010 and Challenges to Recovery.  In the case of the Pakistan floods, this issue has been raised again.

First, there have been reports that the flooding was largely initially confined to the poorer areas of the country, and specifically affected only those who were poor and powerless. The initial flooding was minimal and caused minimal damage and destruction to those where were part of the elite and wealthy class.

Secondly, the distribution of relief has alleged to have been uneven.  According to these reports, government agencies and Muslim organizations in Pakistan have been denying aid to thousands of Christians left homeless by the floods.  As one report stated:

But the Pakistan Christian Congress says that the afflicted Punjab region is a "hotbed" of Islamic extremist organizations that view Christians as infidels, and local officials who fear the extremist have been barring Christians from tent camps set up for flood victims.

* * *

Open Doors USA President Carl Moeller, whose organization has been working in Pakistan, said: "The only place with aid for many is their local mosque, which places Christians in an extremely vulnerable situation.  Some are flatly denied assistance while others are told to vacate the region or convert to Islam.  Imagine giving up your faith in order to feed your starving children."

The Anglican Bishop in Peshawar, Pakistan said that although some countries would come forward with aid packages, hardly any of it would reach the minority Christians.  Christians comprise approximately 2 percent of Pakistan's 175 million people and have been subject to attack from extremist groups who accuse them of blasphemy.

Thirdly, The Times of India, recently reported that Pakistan's Prime Minister said that 80 percent of the international assistance would be spent by international organizations.  However, he also noted that about half of that amount would be returned to the coffers of the international NGOs.  According to the Prime Minister, "the foreign aid workers would hire offices in expensive areas, draw salaries in dollars and require bullet proof-vehicles for use.  Hence, a big chunk of the aid aimed to be spent on affected people will be wasted this way."

Fourthly, because of the presence of the Taliban of Pakistan, Al-Qaeda, and other militant organizations, many of the areas in which these relief worker are providing aid to the victims of the flooding are dangerous.  For example, in March 2010, before the major flooding, militants attacked the offices of World Vision, a Christian humanitarian charity that has been providing aid in Pakistan since the earthquake of 2005 helping women and children.  Pakistan government officials reported that a group of 12 to 13 militants stormed the offices of World Vision in Oghi, a remote village of Mansehra, putting all the employees in one room and then started shooting.  Six aid workers, two of them women, were killed and eight others wounded.  All of these were Pakistanis.  The militants then threw grenades which destroyed the building.  Some people in Oghi reported that they had observed the police watching as the attackers fled into the nearby mountains.

Even as Christian aid groups, like World Vision and Operation Mobilization continue to deliver aid to the flood victims in Pakistan, the Taliban and other militant groups have warned that foreign aid workers will be targets for attacks.  A U.S. official said that violent threats to foreign aid workers came from Tehrik-e-Taliban, the countries most extremist group.


As I have read over my posts about the earthquake in Haiti, and now about the flood in Pakistan, I cannot help but wonder if this is what we mean when we speak of donor fatigue.  I wonder if we aren't all getting a little tired about hearing and reading about these natural disasters, and about receiving all the solicitations for money.  But as I have tried to describe, it is so much more.  Because, in the case of the Pakistan floods, the news media, both print and television, have largely ignored the story of the floods, focusing instead on the drone attacks, the closing of the borders with Afghanistan, and the attack against the tanker truck stranded by the closing of the border crossings.

I also wonder if when we combine these appeals with all of the charges of corruption, of wars, of fears about terror, we become bored by the repetition of the news were hear and ready to move on to other things.

Could it be that most of us can watch scenes and events like this on television, but could not watch them in real life?  Put them on the screen and we can watch them.  Some people may start to analyze them, and marvel at the power of the river and the horribleness of war, but that is it.  However, if one were to see them in real life, one would be expected to intervene, to rescue the victims or to come to the aid of the victims.  To do something.

I think one of the things that has happened with our ability to see things on the screen may be illustrated by what happened in Haiti, or the starving in Darfur, or the death and destruction and hopelessness of Pakistan, is that we see them and absorb them, realizing something horrible has taken and is taking place on our television screens, knowing that there is no question about what we are seeing, and then we simply just pass on.  And we say that, yes, people starve in places like Darfur, and lose their lives and homes and livelihoods in places like Haiti or Pakistan, but what can one do about that?  We don't necessarily become harder or colder to what we are seeing.  Rather, we simply accept it.  We become detached, and therein lies profound social problem.

Watching and participating is the basis for a real moral dilemma.  If we are just an audience, it is easier for people to do terrible things, or for us simply not to take any more than a fleeting interest in what we see.  I am not sure that even responding to an appeal for funds on television by calling a number or texting a donation to a large and somewhat anonymous NGO can be considered moral participation in the relief of the disaster.  But then, why respond when all of the emphasis is on what the UN should do through its agencies, what the international community, particularly, national governments, should do, and what the Pakistani government should do for its own people.

Doesn't this just say what we think but are afraid to say out loud?  Does this seem to explain why so little aid has been provided to the people of Pakistan as I wrote in my last post, and as repeated in the media?
 

The Pakistan Flood of 2010 and Relief Aid

There are so many natural disasters calling out for attention and help that it is sometimes difficult to decide which one should be addressed in the media on a sustained basis.  Too often, the disaster occurs someplace far away where, for many reasons, there is little public attention.  For example, the recent volcano eruption in Indonesia, or maybe the volcano eruption in Guatemala in May 2010, followed by severe flooding caused by a hurricane.  Then, as I write this, there are devastating mudslides along the Pan-American highway in Guatemala close to the villages of Tecpan and Nahuala killing at least 44 people, leaving 40,000 people homeless and another 10,000 evacuated.


The earthquake in Haiti in January 2010 and the needed relief and development has stayed in the news for much of 2010, although it has been moved from the front pages of the newspapers and off the television news reports.  Yet, as I wrote earlier, the need will persist, and there will be reports about whether the United Nations funds, the government grants of aid, and the work of the NGOs in the area have been effective, and whether there has been any level of transparency and accountability in connection with those efforts.


The flooding in Pakistan which started in June 2010 has produced a slightly different story and perspective, particularly with regard to outside aid.  The map displayed in this post depicts the level of flooding and the affected area due to that flooding.  Because of the level of devastation and the effects of the continued flooding, the statistics regarding the deaths, injured and diseased, homeless, and destruction of property will remain fluid.  As a result, the statistics, tentative as they are, will be outdated by the time this post is read.  What remains important, however, are the questions and lessons one might take from this disaster.


It is hard to imagine the level of devastation covering a third of the country.  In other words, an area the size of Britain covered by the flooding.  According to the most recent reports I have seen, the death toll has risen to 1,738.  According to Pakistan Disaster Authority Officials, at least 17 million people have been affected, with 600,000 to 800,00 displaced from their homes in Dadu in Pakistan's Sindh province by new flooding in just the last four days.  The areas of Mehr Tehsil, Kher pur Nathanshah and Jodi are under water.  As stated by the UN special envoy for Assistance to Pakistan, Jean-Maurice Ripert, "We still have millions of people out of their houses." and "we have hundreds of thousands of people that we have to feed, take care of on a daily basis."

 

And as CNN reported on Saturday, 4 September 2010, "But the nightmare isn't over for the survivors.  Water-borne illnesses from contaminated flood waters have erupted nationwide."  At least 1 million Pakistanis have crippling diarrhea or respiratory infections.  About 65,000 cases of malaria have been reported.  The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees' representative to Pakistan said that "There is a humanitarian tragedy with immediate threats of water-borne diseases and food shortages."  He further stated that: "I have worked in humanitarian situations globally, and worked in refugee camps in Africa during emergencies, but to be honest I had never seen a situation as devastating as I saw in Balochistan."  The United Nations warned that a crisis was building in the eastern province of Balochistan, where nearly 2 million people are affected.


The U.N. Financial Tracking Service has published the funding status of the latest appeals for humanitarian relief for Pakistan.  The statistics show the donor, the channel for funding, the description of donation, funding pledges and the uncommitted pledges. The table of commitments, contributions, and pledges is current as of 4 September 2010.  According to this table, a total of US $797,194,251 had been contributed to Pakistan flood relief, and a total of US $317,671,622 pledged but not committed.  These numbers represent contributions made by governments bilaterally to Pakistan as well as contributions made through NGOs.

While these figures might seem impressive for the uninitiated, when compared with the giving for the relief in Haiti following the earthquake in January 2010, the giving is not that impressive.  As stated by Jean-Maurice Ripert recently, the amount given by the international community to relief in Pakistan is "far from enough."


For example, at this point in addressing the emergency relief in Haiti resulting from the earthquake of 12 January 2010, $2.5 billion had been given, and $1.3 billion pledged.  Countries had provided large components of disaster relief teams, medical staff, and technicians for reconstruction.  Countries provided field hospitals, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, and transportation services.  The World Bank had canceled $36 million Haiti debt and had made $479 million in grants to support recovery and development.


In the Blog of News and Insight, The Rundown, the writer, George Griffin, wrote on 6 September 2010:

American individuals and corporations have given generously to the people of Pakistan suffering from the worst flooding catastrophe in the nation's history.  But that generosity still falls short of the sums Americans have donated to aid victims of other major crises.

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University reported that in the first five weeks of the Pakistan flood crisis, individual and corporate giving to relief organizations operating in Pakistan was estimated at just over $25 million, whereas at this point, the giving to relief after the earthquake in Haiti was $900 million, and in the case of giving to relief for the victims of Hurricane Katrina in the U.S. Gulf coast was approximately $2 billion.

 

This has been the subject of considerable analysis and discussion within the sector and those that watch the sector.

But, first, a little context.

The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University reported in late 2008 that nonprofit professionals reported the lowest overall level of confidence in the United States for fundraising, with the Philanthropic Giving Index (PGI) reporting a 21 percent decrease in the preceding six months.  Patrick Rooney, the interim executive director put it this way:

This is a hard year for fundraisers at many organizations across the nonprofit spectrum.  These results reflect that the U.S. economy is in a recession.  Our research for Giving USA Foundation shows that the total giving generally declines by about 2.7 percent annually during longer recessions.  While we do not yet know what will happen to total giving in 2008, the PGI is a strong indicator of the difficult challenges fundraisers are clearly concerned with as 2008 comes to a close.

Although this addresses the challenges in the United States, my guess is that since the recession and economic situation has been worldwide, the situation exists around the world.  Since the recession has continued through 2009 and into 2010, it would seem that these challenges have only gotten worse.  But, can that be the only explanation since the fundraising for emergency relief to the people of Haiti was significant by any standard, and certainly in comparison to the funding for the relief in Pakistan?  This report suggested that different types and sizes of organizations are affected in different ways by the economy with human services organizations, such as public benefit, environmental, animal rights, and international organizations reporting a tough fundraising climate, while those organizations working in health doing a little better.


According to the United Nations Financial Tracking Service table listing of all commitments/ contributions and pledges as of 4 September 2010, $797,194,251 have been contributed in actual payment of funds or transfer of gifts-in-kind from the donor to the recipient entity, which may be either the Pakistani government or an NGO.  The table also listed the pledges totaling $317,571,622 uncommitted pledges.


What is interesting from an international perspective is that, according to the Financial Tracking Service of the United Nations, giving to relief and emergency assistance in Pakistan from its Middle East and Central Asia neighbors was minimal.  And, the giving that there was, essentially reflected giving from government to government, government through its Red Cross or Red Crescent, to the Pakistani Red Cross, or government through UN agencies.  Moreover, most of the contributions were in the form of gifts-in-kind.


The worst areas have been totally dependent on outside help.  BBC News reported that in remote areas, roads have been cut off, and donkeys make eight-hour trips to reach people.  With the fresh water warnings and more rain predicted, thousands were struggling with shortage of food, clean water, shelter, medicine.  The International Red Cross was working with local partners to provide packages of aid, such as tents, blankets, stoves, cooking utensils, and the like to families in remote areas.


In one area, 80 percent of the homes were destroyed or badly damaged.  All the mud-brick houses were washed away.  People rely on open wells, which have become contaminated, so access to clean water was a problem.  Many people worked as day laborers, so they have lost both their homes and livelihoods, and must start over.  An area south of Punjab had essentially been turned into a large lake.  This was a desperately poor area where there had been significant agriculture.  Now with the crops destroyed or damaged, food for the villages in the area would be a major problem for the long term.  There were lots of snakes, so there was a major risk of snake bites, as well as water borne diseases, such as dysentery and cholera.


As monsoon rains continued unabated, the situation continued to rapidly deteriorate.  Millions of victims were left to fight for survival with little clean water, food, or shelter.  The demands for urgently needed aid put added pressure on the government and NGOs simply to save lives.  Food, water purification tablets, shelter, medicine, hygiene kits, and medical teams were transported by raft, boat, and donkey.

As pointed out in a 16 August 2010 article in SPIEGEL ONLINE,

When water and food are lacking or disease starts to spread, it is always the children who first feel the affects.  On Sunday, local news outlets reported that five children had died of starvation in the northwestern region of Pakistan.  Aid organizations fear that many more children could perish as a result of the flood catastrophe because of lack of clean drinking water, medicine, and vitamins.

Commenting on the paucity of giving to Pakistan flood relief estimates, SPIEGEL ONLINE article quotes Helga Kuhn, the UNICEF spokeswoman as saying, "the more people learn about the scope of the catastrophe in Pakistan and how many children have been affected, the more they will be willing to help."


In some circles and countries, there is a general sense that it is unethical to use children and pictures of children in dire straits as objects in fundraising appeals.  There may be several reasons for this, including the idea that in relief and development work, children are being used to psychologically manipulate people into to giving for purposes that are broader in a community than simply to address the needs of a particular child pictured in the solicitation for funds.


Yet, where children are the early and principal victims of natural disasters, such as the one in Pakistan, how is the world to understand the devastation that is occurring in that country, and its effect on the young in press reports or appeals for donations?  Is there any difference in this thinking if the appeal is made for emergency and urgent relief in the case of a natural disaster as opposed to simply raising funds for some development projects in a community?  In other words, is there a difference in the ethical considerations for fundraising if the relief and development organization is engaged in child sponsorship in its fundraising program, or is actually raising funds for emergency and urgent relief in a situation like the Haiti earthquake or the Pakistan flood?  Is the use of children in photographs in these cases part of the educational goals of the NGO unethical even if part of the reason for their use is to motivate giving?


Assuming there is an element of manipulation in attempts to motivate donors to give to NGOs providing emergency relief to the victims of the Pakistan floods, is there not always some efforts on the part of NGOs to incentivize giving to such causes, or indeed, to any cause?  Were not the telethons provided by television and movie celebrities to raise money for the Haiti earthquake relief also designed to promote giving on the part of the public?  Is there a fundamental difference from this perspective if the photos are of general devastation and hardship, but do not focus on children who are simply being used as props for the appeal?  While the practice of fundraising in the case of the Haiti earthquake with photographs and video clips of the damage, devastation, death, and hardship does not justify similar attempts to motivate generosity in the case of Pakistan, the question nevertheless continues to press us as to the fundamental basis for moral reasoning regarding the use of photographs, including those that focus on children in distress to play on the sympathies and emotions of the public so that people will give.


International relief efforts through NGOs have included the provision of undefined humanitarian assistance, emergency water and food assistance to families affected by the flooding, tarps, tents and other shelter supplies, buckets, generators,  hygiene and medical supplies and medical equipment, and water sanitation equipment.  Services included mobile medical clinics and medical services, logistical support, aviation support services, safety and security forces, protection activities, and construction services, for example.




Burkhard Wilke, the Director and CEO of Deutsches Zentralinstitut fur soziale Fragen DZI), and former Secretary General of ICFO sent a notice to all ICFO members with a DZI press release concerning donation campaigns in Germany for the victims of the flood catastrophe in Pakistan.  He compared the donation volume to that in the case of the relief for the Haiti earthquake of January 2010, and noted that the volume was significantly less than in the case of the donations for the Haiti relief.


Public television broadcasting stations ARD and ZDF, which had been known for hosting fundraising telethons for natural disasters in the past, have announced that they have no plans to host similar telethon fundraising drives at this time.  German charity organizations, Welthungerhilfe and UNICEF reported that people are hesitant to make donations.  German Agro Action (Welthungerhilfe) stated that "the people (in Pakistan) have the feeling that they have been abandoned."



The following links provide an example of the information provided by ICFO member, DZI.

http://www.dzi.de/pressemitteilungen/DZI-PM_Pakistan_18August2010.pdf

See also:

http://www.dzi.de/downloads/DZI-Spenden-Info-Pakistan-Flut-5.pdf


This press release announced a preliminary figure on donations to the victims in Pakistan as surveyed by DZI.  The press release generally indicated the primary agencies in Germany that had been granted seals of approval for complying with DZI standards, that had provided relief assistance.  However, the importance in this announcement was primarily due to the fact that it signaled a declining flow of contributions and reduced media coverage.

ICFO members responded to Burkhard's message noting that the same general trends obtained in the ICFO respective countries.  While some of the explanations for this diminished response reflected the comments and analysis contained above, there was general agreement that the volume of donations and the attention in the public media was significantly less than had been the case in the fundraising campaigns in the the case of the Haiti earthquake.


Canada's John Pellowe of CCCC reported that questions about the reluctance of people to donate to relief efforts in Pakistan had been a major topic on talk radio programs where the consensus seemed to be that most people regarded Pakistan as no friend of Western nations because it is giving the Taliban what it needs to function, and therefore, indirectly contributing to the deaths of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.  Additionally, there was not a lot of sympathy at this time, and the question as to why wealthy Middle Eastern nations closely aligned with Pakistan were not providing support.


Adri Kemps of CBF in the Netherlands, also reported a drop in donations as compared with Haiti fundraising at this point of time in the Haiti crisis, and noted that the critical questions raised in the media related to the Taliban issue and the perceived ineffectiveness of the support.  Notwithstanding these questions and the apparent reluctance on the part of the donor public, the media outlets present the Pakistan flood as a major human disaster.  The largest Dutch aid organizations argue that human victims need the support now, and that the Dutch should give generously as these largest organizations have opened the well-known disaster assistance back account to jointly collect money for the flood relief.


Edith Archambault of Comite de la Charte in France reported like the others that the giving at this point in France was lower than at the comparable period in the case of the fundraising efforts for Haiti earthquake relief.  As she pointed out, Pakistan is politically ambiguous in comparison to Haiti, which is French speaking with many immigrants in France.  Moreover, August is a slow month in France, including in relief nonprofit organizations.


Switzerland had a national collection day for Pakistan in mid-August, organized by "Gluekskette" in which collections were pooled and distributed to Swiss charities operating in Pakistan.  As reported by the others, Martina Ziegerer reported that giving was down compared to the giving for the Haiti relief efforts.  Media attention was slow in the beginning, but as the media focused on the catastrophe and the human suffering, donation levels started to increase.  Although there was discussion about corruption, charities pointed out that their relief work was directly focused on those needing the aid, and not through the Pakistani authorities.

Again, with pictures such as these herein, and many more published around the world, the question is why.  In an article in SPIEGEL ONLINE, the authors pointed out that in Germany, the volume of private donations for flood victims in Pakistan "has been far lower than for other natural disasters in the recent past."

As a hotbed of Islamist extremist activity, the country has an image problem.  But politicians say the suffering people of Pakistan should not be blamed for the activities of the Taliban."

In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, Chancellor Angela Merkel's Ruprecht Polenz, a senior politician with the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), said that there had been two types of reactions to fundraising for the Pakistan flood disaster:  Some feared that their money would be used to help extremists.  Others, said that if Pakistan would spend less money on its efforts to arm itself with nuclear weapons, it would have enough money to manage this catastrophe.


However, Ruprecht Polenz also made the point that Pakistan had an "undeserved image problem," and that most of the millions of people affected by the flood have suffered under these extremists.  What that image was, and why it was "undeserved" was not clear.  Nevertheless, Pakistan has been accused of tolerating terrorists within its borders.  Moreover, there has been allegations by senior officials reported in Britain's Daily Telegraph, that there had been about Euro 367 million embezzled five years ago during the earthquake in northwester Pakistan.

But the issue at hand in Pakistan right now is not one of corrupt leadership, "this is about human lives," said Elke Hoff, a member of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party [in Germany] the junior coalition partner in Merkel's government.  The politician implored Germans to "make donations to Pakistan."  She said destitution and hardship should not be an occasion for politicking.  "The Pakistani people can't help it that extremists are attempting to destabilize the government's situation," she said.  "A high willingness to donate could also help to improve the image of the West amont the Pakistani people," Hoff told SPIEGEL ONLINE.  She described the decision by ARD and ZDF not to hold telethons as highly regrettable.

This concern on the part of the public, however, is not entirely without merit.  In report on 6 September 2010, as the floods in Pakistan began to recede, there were reported suspicions and rumors in Pakistan that powerful officials and landowners used their influence to divert waters away from their properties, and thereby inundated the villages and fields of millions of poor Pakistanis.  These suspicions and rumors may be exaggerated and are difficult to verify.  Nevertheless, they have fueled outrage by the victims of the floods toward the government.  This on top of the existing anger at the government for its failure to provide enough food, clean water, and shelter.


This outrage has been especially pronounced in northern Sindh where hundreds of thousands of people watch the floods swamp their fields and villages, destroying homes, while the lands of the powerful on the opposite side of the Indus remained dry.


Nevertheless, one of the risks of this distrust of the government and anger toward the government is that Islamist militants could seize on this growing anger to increase support for their war against the state.  This simply exacerbates the deep distrust many Pakistanis already harbored against their government and the wealthy landowners.


While militants in Pakistan have limited success in providing aid to refugees, the recent flood disaster and the anger and mistrust of the government have given militant groups and affiliates are offering social service and aid in the affected areas some credibility.  But, this has also generated concern that this aid could translate into long-term support for their organizations.  This has fueled fear among policymakers in Washington and other Western capitals that these terrorist-related militant organizations might seize Pakistan's tribal areas setting back the course of counter-terrorism efforts.


Reuters news service reported in late August 2010 that the United States has seen evidence that militants and affiliated charities in Pakistan have been deepening their involvement in flood relief in an effort to win popular support.  The U.S. State Department has issued warnings that insurgents may be targeting foreign aid workers responding to the crisis and Pakistan's inability to respond because it has been overwhelmed by the disaster.  This, even as the United States and it international allies rush to deliver additional aid.  One senior government official said that the militants were even dispensing money for victims of the flood.  Some of these charity groups have been linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and its humanitarian arm, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which were blacklisted by the United Nations and were blamed for the 2008 attack on Mumbai, the Indian commercial capital that resulted in the deaths of 166 people.


Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), under the name of Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation Pakistan, has set up approximately 29 relief camps in a number of flooded areas.  According to one report by the Times of India, Jud had set up camps in its own name until police started demanding extortion money.  JuD claims to have provided food to 50,000 flood survivors in all four provinces every day and was in the process of reaching out to 100,000 survivors.  Additionally, it claimed to be distributing packet of food, hygiene items, and other items to 8,000 families.


During a recent interview on the PBS Newshour television program, a reporter from GlobalPost stated that humanitarian efforts are in full swing in areas hit by the worst flooding.  However, most of these humanitarian efforts are not from international aid groups or the Pakistani government, but are from a hard-line Islamic charity, Falah-e-Insaniyat Foundation Pakistan, or JuD.  Medical teams were getting ready.  "Through their robust relief efforts, Falah has been able to buy loyalty."   According to this reporter,

Meanwhile, some three million flood victims have yet to receive aid, and international donor funds have nearly come to a standstill, according to the United Nations.  To address this crisis, Pakistan's prime minister announced that he will hold an international conference shortly.  It's something that might help the government itself fill the gap, instead of terrorist-linked charity groups.

There is one other problem that has surfaced recently that also might have some impact on the giving to charitable organizations in the donor nations for relief in Pakistan.  There was a recent, 5 September 2010, report in a magazine in the United States that reported:

Government agencies and Muslim relief organizations in Pakistan have been denying aid to thousands of Christians left homeless by the recent monsoon floods, say Christian sources in the overwhelming Muslim nation.

Aid agencies have been delivering food, clothing, building supplies and hygiene kits in an effort to prevent outbreaks of water-borne disease as the flood waters begin to recede.

But the Pakistan Christian Congress says the afflicted Punjab region is a "hotbed" of Islamic extremist organizations that view Christians as infidels, and local officials who fear the extremists have been barring Christians from tent camps set up for flood victims.

The Anglican Bishop in Peshawar, the president of Open Doors USA, and the president of Pakistan Christian Congress have addressed this problem and as the Lahore-based Daily Times said in a recent editorial:

Reports about systematic discrimination in aid distribution are utterly disgraceful.  If we want to progress as a nation, we need to close the doors on our prejudices.  For far too long we have let religious bigots call the shots.

The problem is that the only place where aid for many is available is the local mosque.  Under these circumstances, Christians, which comprise approximately two percent of Pakistan's 175 million people and are accused of blasphemy, are in extremely vulnerable situations.  While some are denied assistance, others are required to vacate the region or convert to Islam.


There is, it seems to me, one other factor that makes the comparison of funds raised for Pakistan relief or aid and that raised for relief and assistance for Haiti at the beginning of this year difficult.  Whereas, Haiti experienced a sudden disaster and devastation brought about by the earthquake, the flooding in Pakistan was a much more gradually occurring disaster.  Whereas one, because of the sudden event, attracted the media attention and presented the need in much more stark terms, the other simply occurred over time and the severity of the catastrophe grew on us as the media began to direct their attention on the flooding.


For reasons that might vary according to one's worldview, we can all agree that there is some level of moral obligation to provide assistance in the case of natural disasters, such as is being experienced in Pakistan.  What the basis, if any, of that moral obligation is, may not be clear now, but the question before us is how we are to give with the confidence that our giving will reach those in need.  While ICFO may not have all the answers, its members can provide some basis for understanding how charity monitoring may be serving as a "bridge of trust" between the donor and the charitable organization providing assistance in Pakistan, and indeed, to the victims and beneficiaries of that generosity.  Such is the subject of another post.