The international community is not doing enough for flood victims in Pakistan:
In 2004 the excuse for not helping Earthquake victims in the Northwestern war-zone region of Pakistan was that most funds were being sent/delivered to Tsunami victims. Now according to Ban-Ki-Moon the floods in Pakistan are worst than the Tsunami. Yet funds are meager.
Could this be because at the time of the Earthquake certain fund collectors in London transferred funds (mainly from Pakistani civilians) to Terrorist organizations abroad?
Could this be because of an information-deficit on how to get funds to flood victims? CNN, BBC http://www.shinehumanity.org and various other organizations are collecting funds. Students at top universities all over the world should do more to bring awareness/funds to/for this very important cause. The lawyer’s movement was propelled by a Harvard law student refusing to get his degree because of the crisis in his country. This was the impetus that reinstated a chief justice and removed a dictator. This can be done. The crisis can be thwarted but with your help.
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
Ban-Ki-Moon appeals for help:
Ban-Ki-Moon appeals for help:
U.N secretary: Ban Ki Moon has appealed for the need of 460 million dollars from the international community to reasonably tackle the phenomenal consequences of this sudden catastrophe. He and U.N are offering a total of 27 million dollars after pledging a further 10 million dollars; clearly not enough when considering the scale of this crisis.
An unprecedented natural disaster of this magnitude has never occurred before.
[[http://shinehumanity.org/]] Todd Shea is an American working with charities in Pakistan for a number of years and credible enough; given his clean track record of no mishaps or funds going where they shouldn't. Donating through him and his website referenced here [[http://shinehumanity.org/]] is worthwhile in my opinion.
As it is a slow moving disaster it makes sense that the aid will come in in a trickle and keep coming rather than in a brief flood like they do for a big disaster like an earthquake. There is now committed funding of over $640 million with another $290 million in pledges - money that has been pledged but not yet arrived.[[Pakistan flood aid pledged, country by country, guardian.co.uk, 26/8/10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/09/pakistan-flood-aid#data%5D%5D Either way it is well over that total of 460million that Ban Ki Moon appealed for.
Terrorism is an excuse for the international community not to be doing as much for Pakistan as they could be. People in western countries who only hear about Pakistan through the prism of its role in the war on terror and possibly occasionally about its conflict with India or its corruption are not likely to look favourably on the country. The initial reaction is likely to be ‘they are trying to kill me, why should I donate to them?’ It takes time and the scale of the crisis to grow for individuals to get past this point and donate.
The worry is that the Taliban will take advantage of the flood situation
[[Pakistan floods 'may help' fighters , AlJazeera, 20/8/10, http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/08/2010819155015521202.html%5D%5D They could use their comparative organisation to get a hold of aid supplies and as groups such as Hamas in Palestine have done use aid to gain support from the population.
Yet Pakistan is a country that is already being given an immense amount of aid by the international community. Worries about aid falling in to terrorist hands should be no more of a concern with disaster relief than it is with any other aid that is given. In 2008 USAID agreed to give
$356,486,193 to Pakistan and this was stepped up to
$921,191,000 in 2009[[USAID Pakistan Budget and Project Funding FY 2008 and First Quarter FY 2009, http://www.usaid.gov/pk/downloads/bud/ReportonObsandsubobsunsubobs.pdf%5D%5D Why would this aid be any more difficult for Terrorists to get a hold of than humanitarian assistance now?
At the same time the US gave $7.89 billion: in military assistance to Pakistan from 9/11, to 2009 mostly for “coalition support funds” intended as reimbursement for Pakistani assistance in the war on terror.[[http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33498.pdf]] This is much more than the US has so far given for humanitarian assistance in response to the floods, so far $155million.[[Pakistan flood aid pledged, country by country, guardian.co.uk, 26/8/10, http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/09/pakistan-flood-aid#data%5D%5D Moreover there have been allegations that this military aid has been misspent
[[Declan Walsh, Up to 70% of US aid to Pakistan 'misspent', guardian.co.uk, 27/2/08, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/27/pakistan.usa%5D%5D If the money is still being given anyway then should we really be concerned about some small amounts of humanitarian aid falling into the hands of terrorists?
Obama says so
Barak Obama the US President believes that assistance from the international community is needed urgently
He also encouraged others in the international communtity to step up their assistance to Pakistan in response to the floods, implying that he believes that the international community is not doing enough
It is in the interest of the US President to boost the role that the USA is playing while encouraging the international communtiy to give more money to Pakistan, so paying more of the bill.
Gordon Brown says the international response "has not been commensurate with the scale of the crisis"
Gordon Brown the former British Prime Minister argues the international response has been too slow with many countries not donating as much as they have to previous crises
[[Gordon Brown warning over Pakistan flood assistance, BBC News, 19/8/10, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-11026887%5D%5D
The international work force that is helping the victims of the flood are threatened by Talibans as reported:
Aid agencies in Pakistan say they will continue to deliver emergency assistance to flood victims despite warnings of possible attacks by the Taliban.
The United Nations is reviewing its security measures after the US said it had credible evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was planning to attack foreigners who are helping in the aid response to the country's devastating floods.
But other aid agencies, including Medicins Sans Frontieres, say they will continue to provide help to flood victims despite the warnings. [[http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2994798.htm]]
Pakistan’s President is himself not doing enough
Even the president, Zardari is not doing enough for his country, then how can the international community can? If it is not the interest of the countrymen to help themselves, can the international community leave it's marks at all? In a report made by ABC news, it is said:
Government officials have been accused of not doing enough. Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was criticized after he visited a medical camp that was later revealed to be a fake. Gilani passed out relief checks to actors who were hired to play victims for the photo-op shown on national television.[[http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=11387691]]
The argument on the left is logically equivalent to saying: IF a man beats his wife; no one should intervene even if the wife goes to legal authorities and appeals for help.
Thousands are suffering across the globe; does that mean there should be no charity because we tend not to be directly responsible for the suffering?
Being witness/privy to a crime(in this case of negligence towards the Pakistani people) and not doing anything about it is also a crime; in legal as well as moral terms.
That the Pakistani president may be being negligent about how he addresses the flooding disaster himself should not make any difference to the international community. Zardari is correct that while we like to see Presidents rushing around and comforting the nation in times of crisis where there is a Prime Minister as in Pakistan this is more his job than the President’s.
Where will the money go?
Where will the money go?
There’s no information on what the money needed will be used for. How much money; is coming from civilians? 460 is obviously an estimate; what is it based on? How much of this approximate amount will go in to ‘infrastructure’ development? How much will go into food? How much will go in medicines? Where is spending being prioritized. I think saving lives and ameliorating health should be their basic/main/top concerns but the U.N secretary seems to be stressing most on infrastructure development. If there’s no one to attend these schools; building them makes little sense. Also; you don’t need a building to get educated. For thousands of years history’s greatest lectures/sermons were given on mountain-tops/open-fields by Shepherd Prophets among others and home-schooled kids are actually doing better at college and in college-entrance exams than their school-going counterparts. Last time certain people in London decided to transfer charity funds for Earthquake victims to aide bombings. We need transparency. We need to know where this money is going
This implies that there is no information on where funding will go which is not true.
FOOD SECURITY committed: 97,455,820 requirement: 156,250,000
HEALTH committed: 24,940,087 requirement: 56,200,000
LOGISTICS, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AND COORDINATION commitment: 14,261,315 requirement: 15,624,000
NUTRITION commitment: 7,751,906 requirement: 14,150,847
PROTECTION commitment: 3,492,140 requirement: 2,000,000
SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS commitment: 61,610,883 requirement: 105,000,000
WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE commitment: 29,762,436 requirement: 110,500,000 [[Requirements and Funding per Cluster, 1/9/10, http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/fts.nsf/doc105?OpenForm&rc=3&emid=FL-2010-000141-PAK%5D%5D
As the total committed in this list is considerably less than the total aid quoted above presumably this represents the lag between getting money and being able to turn it into use on the ground in Pakistan.
Can charities based in London made to help floods victims be trusted?
Can charities based in London made to help floods victims be trusted?
In light of everything written in on this debate, the last time during the Pakistan Earth quake when funds were handed over to the wrong people, these bad eggs were in London and like the man who murdered Daniel Pearl used their London accents, London breeding and London education to win the trust of chartible parties. We should not trust U.K 'charities' just because they're in the U.K. This particular charity (J.U.D) was largely based in London and duped throngs of Pakistanis in 2004/2005 (under the farce of charity) into paying for terrorist causes.- [[http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1898127,00.html]]
We cannot afford to be duped by this act any more. Any charity organization gathering money to ‘help flood victims’ should be in strict transparency and under still-stringent scrutiny. A very clear understanding of where exactly funds will be going needs to be relayed to anyone interested in making a contribution.
I would stress on relying on trusted organizations like the BBC rather than people in the neighbourhood.
Maybe debatewise could corroborate with Shinehumanity.org and take care of this problem. As we all trust debate-wise which is London based... [[https://secure.avaaz.org/en/pakistan_needs_relief/?cl=710500910&v=6970]] More to the point there are many charities that should be trusted. Instead of simply giving to people who come knocking on doors asking for money for a particular appeal it should be made through trustable sources, such as charity shops so that it is direct to the charity rather than through a middleman. At the same time you can make sure that the charity is one you know about already.
Terrorism a prime concern of anyone interested in helping human sufferers anywhere in the world today. Pakistan has long been associated with terrorism and this should be taken into account when sending wads of cash into the region. A former government policy (possibly still applicable) in Britain was to provide food stamps to the poor and not cash. So that it was insured that tax-money given to the poor/homeless in the form of stamps would be used to get food rather than alcohol or drugs or weapons for that matter.
This is exactly why the international community should do as much as possible to help Pakistan so as to prevent terrorists from getting a foothold.
Terrorism has also long been correlated with London and New York. In fact non-Pakistani terrorists [and most terrorists are not Pakistani: Uzbeks, Nigerians (+other North Africans) and Arabs] have links to these cities without normally having any connection to Pakistan. Terrorists who are originally Pakistani also turn out to be American and/or British.
The man who murdered Daniel Pearl in Karachi ; was born and bred in London, attended the L.S.E(London School Of Economics and Political Science) Travelled to Gaza among other place before settling in India where he kidnapped white people for terrorists in India a number of times. He used his London accent and British passport to win his victims’ trust. His relatives were (and still are) mostly settled in the upper province of India (Uttar Pradesh) [[Nat-geo documentary jailed Abroad]]. Karachi was his last stop; he killed Mr. Pearl here and was promptly caught.
The reason why this example is important is because his atrocities ended in Karachi, Pakistan; they did not begin here. This is the case for most (if not all) other terrorists. Never were/are the terrorist links/connections forged here. In his particular case it was the city of London (and moves to Bosnia and other places for charity work from therein)and areas in India where he indulged with the wrong kind of crowd.[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1804710.stm]]
There are claims that his father was Pakistani; but his father was/is British and living in, running his east London business in London. Also his father never had anything to do with terrorism.
What do you think?