After Disaster

There is an all too familiar pattern going on. Disaster strikes in the form of an, earthquake, flood or typhoon; the world responds with money and people to help. As we will see some places get more help than others. Why is that? The news cycle moves on to the next story of the moment. What happens afterward, we seldom, if ever, hear about. Where does the money go? What happens to the unnamed millions left in the disaster's wake? It is usually not good. Consider an earthquake in Haiti, flooding in Pakistan and a typhoon in The Philippines. What can be learned from these three different situations? And as always; a good question to as is who benefits? 

Haiti suffers from long standing corruption, poor infrastructure and less than stable governments changing on the whims of Washington. This is the poorest country in all the western hemisphere to begin with. How could they possibly deal with such a catastrophic earthquake?  Keep in mind many government buildings were destroyed, and government officials killed. Where to even begin? All of the sudden, there was this idea of remaking Haiti better than before. Much of the money went to projects well underway having little to do with the biggest need caused by the earthquake, safe permanent housing. There was on-going construction of a teaching hospital, and a massive business park with factories and new power stations. The idea was so-called job creation. Still, four plus years on, it's not done nor is there a big enough harbor to get good out to the USA, and other countries. For a more detailed account, read here. AID has become its own racket. It is not about helping people as it is about making money. Most of the US tax payer money was spent through these guys, not the Haitian people. Why ask locals what's needed? Outside NGO's always know better, right? You can guess the results. This spells it out pretty clearly. There is no big mystery why there are so many people living in shanty-town like camps to this day. It's around 200,000! No wonder we don't hear any more about Haiti. People would be appalled, and outraged. Rightly so.  

The situation in Pakistan is different. There is still a wide gap between the richest who run the country and her poor. It is also worth keeping in mind this is also a nuclear armed state. The floods of 2010 affected up to 18 million people with almost 2000 deaths. This is in a country of 185 million at the time. That is almost 10% of the population. Pakistan suffers from shaky governments, and serious internal problems. Not only that, but her most dangerous rival, India to the south offered no assistance. Further destabilizing her nuclear armed neighbor to the south does little to help matters. Radical groups within Pakistan, like the Pakistani Taliban, discourage international aid by attacking aid workers. They view such efforts as an attack on Pakistani sovereignty. The western media focused more on political implications of the unfolding disaster than the massive humanitarian suffering. Flood disasters, unlike massive earthquakes unfold over time. Sadly, this makes them less dramatic news stories. Despite many challenges, the Pakistani Government, along with the military did a pretty good job of responding to the disaster. Sadly, the portrayal of Pakistan as a corrupt and dangerous country in the media caused both western governments and peoples pause before helping. Also, the US Military lost a great opportunity to further isolate extremists. Not helping all that much with relief and only focusing on two wars at the time gave the extremists room to grow. We could do a better job. The difficulty lies in our continued view as some lives are moor valuable than others. Sadly, geography plays a part. We are simply more willing to help those who are closer. 

With today's technology, where a country is should not play a part. This type of relief should be a top mission for the US armed forces, perhaps the best organization in the world for leading massive relief efforts. Relief and security go hand in hand. This is a much more effective way to fight terrorism than becoming terrorists ourselves via night raids and drone strikes. I'm drifting of the main points of this entry. Let me get back on track. For a really serious look at these two disasters, check out the following In depth comparison. Let's consider one more recent disaster, Typhoon Haiyan.

Typhoons are no strangers to The Philippines. They get around 6 to 9 storms in a season. They have experience in dealing with these storms. But Typhoon Haiyan was perhaps the strongest storm to make land-fall on record. Winds were recorded as high as 195 MPH (315 KMPH). There is no way to adequately prepare for such a storm anywhere. There is going to be major damage and many fatalities. But in a country with limited resources, it's going to be magnified. They are going to need outside help. There already is enough corruption to go around but this does not stop the world's financial institutions from piling on to the already exacerbated problems faced by The Philippines. They offer low interest loans that will help pay for reconstruction but little beyond. These guys are out to make money, not do charity. As crazy as it sounds, not repaying the loans will affect The Philippines' credit rating. This ensures further loss of natural resources and grater suffering of the people at or near the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. There is little if any net economic growth. This article explains it in more detail than I can. The Philippines are  are still on the hook for loans taken out during the Marcos Regime for things like a nuke plant never used or simply stolen outright. Something is very wrong in a world where money is to be made off those suffering from a huge natural disaster. These tragedies will continue to play out in much the same way. Why? 

Now, there is little push to fundamentally change the way we think about each other. Some lives are more valuable than others in current thinking. We internalize competition and so-called free markets as being normal and natural. If a lie is repeated often enough, it become truth in the minds of men. Those with control get to spread the message they want for their own benefit. So if the powers that be say there is no such thing as global warming / climate change despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, people believe it. Fear plays a part. What will happen if we lose our jobs? What would a different world look like? This one may not be good, but at least I know my place in it. I know where i stand. And... I have things to lose. Fear is a great tool of control. Those who benefit from the status quo absolve themselves from so-called natural disasters. No, the Haiti earthquake was not caused by climate change. That's missing the point all together. Another narrative for the benefit of the few, a belief in the naturalness of poverty helped lead to the extreme number of casualties. Substandard building practices with poor materials? Who cares? They are only poor people (read Unpeople)! Those who think this way are the same few who benefit from climate change denial, the most wealthy. How can they see it any differently when such beliefs are all they know? Those of us who care need to offer counter-narratives to free markets, competition and poverty being natural.