On air: Why haven't we given more to Pakistan?
| 12:18 UK time, Thursday, 19 August 2010
LIVE ON ´óÏó´«Ã½ WORLD NEWS TV AT 1430GMT AND ON ´óÏó´«Ã½ WORLD SERVICE RADIO AT 1700GMT.
Nine days ago, Ben wrote this post asking if Pakistan's flood victims were getting the help they deserved. And the question hasn't gone away. yesterday 'Terrible irony for #Pakistan: donors mr generous when many dead. The dead don't need aid, displaced people do.' It highlights the fact that for whatever reason the world hasn't responded as with previous natural disasters.
In acknowledgement of that, the UN is to hold an emergency meeting because it has not even raised half the money it says it needs to deliver adequate help to those affected.
So what's going on here? Several explanations are being put forward online...
1) The global economic downtown. People and countries are under much more financial pressure and so are inclined to give less or not at all.
2) The competence of the Pakistani government. There are doubts that money given will be spent wisely.
3) Terrorism. Pakistan is seen by some as not having done enough to tackle Islamist extremism. People feel less inclined to help a country which stands accused in some quarters of supporting the Taliban.
4) The media portrayal of Pakistan. Has the international media created an image of a dangerous and disruptive country?
5) More could have been done to prevent the floods creating such havoc. The accusation is that this is monsoon season, and while the amount of rain has been extraordinary, this wasn't totally out of the blue. If Pakistan had better prepared, the world wouldn't need to offer so much help.
Now, I'm not saying any of these arguments are correct, but they are being suggested. Do you have sympathy with any of them?
How have you responded to the floods? And how do you explain that response?
