NGOs getting a raw deal
NGOs (horribly non-descript appellation) provide much-needed relief in times of natural and humanitarian disasters in lieu of non-existent government help. Even Richard Delevan of the Sunday Tribune cannot dispute this fact. In yesterday's article however, Delevan urges NGOs to "rein in your self-righteousness". It could be argued that those who seek to help the vulnerable have the bragging rights at the lofty heights of the aid relief moral ground.
His gripe is with Oxfam's statement which reads:"Humanitarian assistance still does not cover all needs, often arrives too late, and is too often determined by media profile of political criteria than humanitarian need." Delevan interprets this statement to mean that "your irrational sympathy is killing people, through the reckless arrogance of your elected officials who seek to do what you demand." 2+2=5 perhaps or just plain 'ole tongue in cheek?
"Now they complain that sympathy, like the weather or tectonic plates, is not fairly distributed." And who could argue this? The recent earthquake in Pakistan is a fine example of where sympathy was is short supply. 35,000 deaths in the Kashmir region didn't seem to have the impact on sympathisers in the First World that the Asian tsunami had. The Ethiopian famine of 1986 only received considerable attention when Bob Geldof saw a news report by Michael Buerk. Who remembers Bam or even the recent Hurricane Stan?
Whether NGOs efficiently appropriate aid when and where it's needed can indeed be questioned. But In Fact, Ah disagrees with Delevan's assertion that NGOs helping those affected in times of disaster do so in order to garner kudos. This bitch-slapping serves no purpose. Sure, there are instances of where they fail to meet the needs of those in desperate need of aid. And being coerced into funding their activities by chuggers on the street will never curry favour with the public.
What really matters is that NGOs try to make a difference. It must be hugely frustrating for those volunteers on the ground who see first-hand the pain and loss suffered by the locals. The NGOs are there to help but find that their hands are tied by lack of resources. The media outlets play God and decide which disasters are newsworthy and which are not. Meanwhile the person trapped under rubble or the baby with the swollen stomach are wondering if the Western media will ever make up their mind.
It's not the NGOs who need to reign in their self-righteousness; it's the gatekeepers of the news who should quit playing God.
Published by Colm.
His gripe is with Oxfam's statement which reads:"Humanitarian assistance still does not cover all needs, often arrives too late, and is too often determined by media profile of political criteria than humanitarian need." Delevan interprets this statement to mean that "your irrational sympathy is killing people, through the reckless arrogance of your elected officials who seek to do what you demand." 2+2=5 perhaps or just plain 'ole tongue in cheek?
"Now they complain that sympathy, like the weather or tectonic plates, is not fairly distributed." And who could argue this? The recent earthquake in Pakistan is a fine example of where sympathy was is short supply. 35,000 deaths in the Kashmir region didn't seem to have the impact on sympathisers in the First World that the Asian tsunami had. The Ethiopian famine of 1986 only received considerable attention when Bob Geldof saw a news report by Michael Buerk. Who remembers Bam or even the recent Hurricane Stan?
Whether NGOs efficiently appropriate aid when and where it's needed can indeed be questioned. But In Fact, Ah disagrees with Delevan's assertion that NGOs helping those affected in times of disaster do so in order to garner kudos. This bitch-slapping serves no purpose. Sure, there are instances of where they fail to meet the needs of those in desperate need of aid. And being coerced into funding their activities by chuggers on the street will never curry favour with the public.
What really matters is that NGOs try to make a difference. It must be hugely frustrating for those volunteers on the ground who see first-hand the pain and loss suffered by the locals. The NGOs are there to help but find that their hands are tied by lack of resources. The media outlets play God and decide which disasters are newsworthy and which are not. Meanwhile the person trapped under rubble or the baby with the swollen stomach are wondering if the Western media will ever make up their mind.
It's not the NGOs who need to reign in their self-righteousness; it's the gatekeepers of the news who should quit playing God.
Published by Colm.
|