According to a few days old statement of Prime Minister of Pakistan the Flood Aid Donation Pledges have topped $ 1 billion or 1/14th of her one year's Foreign Exchange Earnings. Definitely very sluggish. The Biggest Beggar of the world, Pakistan should have received $ 1 Trillion, right?
--- In alochona@yahoogroups.com, Isha Khan <bdmailer@...> wrote:
>
> Who cares about Pakistan?By Jude Sheerin BBC News
>
> Donations have been sluggish to the Pakistan floods appeals, as they were
> back in 2005 when the part of Kashmir the country administers was torn apart
> by an earthquake. The BBC News website asked some experts to comment on
> possible reasons why.
> Donor fatigue
>
> Dr Marie Lall, Pakistan expert at the Royal Institute of International
> Affairs (Chatham House) and senior lecturer at the Institute of Education,
> says: "I think there is donor fatigue all around. The [2004] Indian Ocean
> tsunami, the Burmese Cyclone [Nargis, 2008], the [2005] Pakistan earthquake,
> and [this year's] Haiti earthquake. It is getting too much; we are in a
> recession and people are short of money."
> [image: Camps at a displaced person's camp in Pakistan] Is there a limit to
> our emotional response to images of suffering?
>
> Rebecca Wynn, Pakistan specialist for UK-based aid agency Oxfam, says: "Many
> donors have made substantial contributions in humanitarian assistance to
> Pakistan over the years, particularly in response to the conflict-related
> displacements over the last two years. Of course, the fact that the people
> of Pakistan have been hit time and again by disaster is even more reason to
> give."
>
> Dr Elizabeth Ferris, senior fellow at the US-based Brookings Institution, a
> foreign policy think tank, says: "It should also be noted that the
> international humanitarian system isn't 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, I donated to the victims of the Haitian
> earthquake and Haiti is a far needier country than Pakistan.'"
> Corruption
>
> Yale University economics professor Dean Karlan, an expert on charitable
> giving, says: "Corruption concerns may explain why giving is lower to
> developing countries than many would like it to be, but it does not explain
> why there is less money pouring into Pakistan now than does to disaster
> relief causes in other developing countries with similar governance issues."
>
> Dr Marie Lall says: "People in Pakistan are sceptical the government will be
> transparent. But they are giving to philanthropic organisations. In the UK,
> I think people are sceptical of [non-governmental organisations'] overheads
> and costs. They don't know which ones are transparent and reliable, even
> though local organisations such as TCF [The Citizens' Foundation] are doing
> an incredible job."
>
> Dr Elizabeth Ferris says: "People are always sceptical about their money
> reaching flood victims, particularly in countries with reputations for
> corruption. But Haiti didn't have a very good reputation in this regard.
> [Pakistan] President [Asif Ali] Zardari trip to Europe [during the floods]
> was not a good move. 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."
> Terrorism
>
> Dr Marie Lall says: "British Prime Minister David Cameron's comments in
> India [when he said Islamabad promoted the export of terror] did not help."
>
> Dr Elizabeth Ferris says: "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. I think this is the
> major reason for the slow public response - the image of Pakistan in our
> media. There may also be a feeling, particularly in the US, that Islamic
> governments and charities should be stepping up to the plate to donate."
> Timing
>
> Rebecca Wynn says: "This disaster has come at a bad time, 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."
>
> Dr Marie Lall says: "Timing may be a factor, but I think it's more to do
> with not realising the scale of the disaster, and the attitude by the
> British government; the UK should be leading the aid effort, given the
> Pakistani diaspora here and the fact that we need Pakistan for the war in
> Afghanistan."
> 'Wrong' disaster
>
> Professor Dean Karlan says: "Sudden events seem to generate more funds. A
> flood (and droughts) happen gradually and build. There isn't any one single
> day in which news is huge. For the same reason, this pushes the story away
> from the media spotlight. But massive and sudden earthquakes or tsunamis
> draw our immediate attention and shock us."
>
> Dr Elizabeth Ferris says: "It's important to note that in general people are
> likely to give more to emergencies occurring in countries geographically
> closer to them - although this didn't hold true for the tsunami. But when
> you trace contributions over time, you find that Americans and Canadians are
> more likely to respond to disasters in the Western hemisphere while
> Europeans tend to be more responsive to African countries (and their former
> colonies, in particular)."
>
> Dr Marie Lall says: "This was not one cataclysmic event, but one which grew
> over three weeks. The fact that 25% of the country was or is under water is
> not understood. The low numbers of dead, relatively speaking, mask the
> disaster on the ground. The crisis has destroyed crops, dead livestock and
> damaged homes and infrastructure. Food prices are through the roof and there
> won't be a normal harvest. It will get worse. Farmers will starve."
>
> *BBC website readers have been sending in their views. Here are some of
> their comments.*
>
> A lot of people I know feel that some of the very wealthy Muslim countries
> (Saudi Arabia etc) should step in and help those who are their religious
> brethren rather than always expecting the currently cash strapped countries
> who always give to keep on giving. Donor fatigue of some type but more that
> we are fatigued with always being the ones expected to help. Also
> celebrities such as Bono and Bob Geldof are always banging on about how we
> should give our money when if they each gave 50% of their money, a lot of
> help could be given. *Fleur, Devon, UK*
>
> I believe donations from the West will perk up when we read that it has been
> confirmed that Muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia have donated sizeable
> sums. I read this morning that India, traditionally Pakistan's 'enemy' , has
> offered help, but no news of similar offers of help from Muslim countries. *C
> Burns, Longfield, UK*
>
> I don't think it's necessary to donate any money to Pakistan because there's
> enough money - and support - available within the Islamic community
> (particularly from the oil-rich Gulf states and Saudi Arabia). The Saudis
> spend millions of petro-dollars every year to help get mosques built all
> over the world. I'm sure the Saudis alone could fund the whole recovery of
> their Islamic compatriots in Pakistan, particularly as they employ so many
> guest workers from Pakistan. However, I'm pleased to see that the Pakistan
> government have accepted aid from India. I am supporting the Haitian appeal
> - these desperate people don't have the support of wealthy Islamic
> countries. *Rupert Templeman, Bournemouth, Dorset, UK*
>
> Pakistan has a long history of corruption and military rule. People of
> Pakistan have been suffring in general from a lack of basic necessities.
> After 65 years of independence it is still under developed due to bad
> management. The most likely reason for the slow response for help, I
> believe, is due to its links to terrorism. *Bhupendra Shah, North Bergen New
> Jersey, USA*
>
> **
>
> There are many good explanations as to why aid has been slow to trickle into
> Pakistan given the sheer extent of the disaster. However, next to Israel,
> Pakistan has probably the worst international image around right now.
> Pakistan is unfortunately associated with Afghanistan, Bin Laden and Mullah
> Omar. Another important dynamic not quite appreciated is that there is a
> significant Pakistan-rooted diaspora worldwide in many Western countries and
> richer Arab Gulf countries. After 9/11 there has been significant tension
> and unease between the Pakistan-based communities and the host countries,
> due to the perceived 'homegrown' terror threat. Therefore, in the West, I
> think the dynamic of negative views towards Pakistanis amongst their
> communities rather than just a negative view of the nation is at play. *Raja
> Mohammed, Surrey, UK*
>
> Donations have been sluggish I think because Pakistan spends billions on its
> military and yet cries out for help because of a natural disaster. Their
> government needs to sort its priorities out. *Yvette, Kent, UK*
>
> This is a civilised country with nuclear power and missiles. A monsoon
> season comes every year. It's no volcano, no earthquake, and not a one-off
> natural disaster. *Chris Jeffery, Odessa, Ukraine*
>
> If they can afford to be a nuclear country and boast about it, then they
> should be able to look after their own people. *Ohanes, UK*
>
> Apart from various reasons given, there is the perception that historically
> the Pakistani government and politicians have deliberately misdirected aid
> for humanitarian causes to other channels like in military projects.
> Obviously people and foreign governments somehow lack trust in Pakistan. *Satya
> S Issar, Wraysbury, Staines, UK*
>
> I think the fact that Pakistan has spent great sums on nuclear weapons aimed
> at India instead of preparing for catastrophic monsoons is one part of the
> explanation why donations are so low. The rest of the world has run out of
> sympathy for Pakistan.* Fredrik Andersson, Gothenburg, Sweden*
>
> **
>
> These "experts" are so far from the mark it's hard to believe. Countries
> like India and Pakistan are not poor - any country that can fund a nuclear
> program and have the massive armed forces they have, should be able to look
> after themselves. Plus there's the ex-pat factor - there's a large community
> in the UK who think of themselves as Pakistanis first and they will be
> giving through other ways and means. *Tony, Leeds, UK*
>
> It is very interesting to see how much fellow Muslim countries are giving in
> aid, if anything at all. The mega rich Arab oil states have given very
> little, apart from Saudi Arabia who has donated $40 million or so - which is
> not a lot considering how wealthy they are. *A J Wawn, Bedford, UK*
>
> Any country that sends its top politician on a jolly around Europe and
> insists on wasting money on nuclear weapons in my opinion has money enough
> to look after its own. *James, Cheshire, UK*
>
> Lack of media coverage and lack of heart-wrenching stories. It's all very
> much 'another day in Pakistan'. It needs/needed to be the first and main
> news story on every news channel, with numbers for people to understand the
> scale - e.g.,number of cattle or other animals dead, as a proportion of the
> number needed by the country. Satellite images detailing the flooding
> perhaps. The news story currently lacks 'drama'. I give regularly to
> charities and causes such as this but even I didn't fully appreciate the
> scale until this week. *Loz, UK*
>
> When the Pakistani government chooses to spend their revenue funding nuclear
> weapons and maintaining the sixth largest armed forces in the world they
> have no right to plead poverty when the monsoon is heavier than normal.
> Haiti were already one of the poorest countries in the world when an
> unforeseeable earthquake hit them - they deserve charitable giving. It is
> hard to feel the same way about Pakistan. *Dave Fulton, Seaham, UK*
>
> The 'elephant in the room' is that Pakistan is not a 'popular' country,
> because of its negative associations with terrorism. People may also feel
> negatively towards poor, developing countries which spend billions on arms,
> including nuclear weapons. *C Matthews, Birmingham, UK*
> While acknowledging the floods exist, the problem is that there are simply
> too many people living in a flood plain. They chose to live there. The good
> times were good. This is a bad time. We should make provision in the good
> times (for the bad will always come - nature's like that). If there were
> fewer people, there would be more food to go round, more space on higher
> ground, and the aid agencies would have an easier task. It's a basic
> problem. Haiti was similar. *C A Turner, Salisbury, UK*
> **
> *http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11035270*
>
------------------------------------
[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.comYahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/alochona/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
alochona-digest@yahoogroups.com
alochona-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
alochona-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/