Tsunami Wakeup Call
Why do so many innocent people have to die before the world wakes up to its obligations?
The Indian Ocean tsunamis have created unspeakable havoc, destroying generations, devastating entire communities, and exposing, once again, the unsustainability of the way the world currently functions. They have, yet again, reminded us that global leaders (government, corporate, and civil society) have still not learnt the wisdom of proactivity. While no one can hold any leader responsible for the earthquake and its horrific aftermath, it is not unreasonable to raise various illuminative questions.
Why do so many people have to die before the "wealthy" open their wallets and vaults to address the fundamental needs of the poor?
Despite the affluent 1980s and the technological quantum leaps of the 1990s, leaders of non governmental organizations, multinational development institutions, profiteering corporations, and governments, skip-hopped from one self-indulgent conference to the next, devising intellectual schemes for addressing global economic disparities while tinkering at the periphery of the development needs of so many people in so many towns and villages worldwide. It is mindboggling to observe that a simple warning system could have saved so many innocent lives along Indian ocean coastlines. It is saddening that simple responsible building codes could have also mitigated the extent of the devastation.
What is the value, or rather, the wisdom of vaulting such huge resources while so many children and women and men in your global neighborhood live in sub-human houses, exploited by for-profit conglomerates as well as by self-serving corrupt leaderships in their own countries?
Obviously individuals and institutions worldwide already "do" possess the resources necesary to dramatically enhance the quality of life for people around the world. Why does it need a "catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude" to spur the conscience of those few, around the world, who are so abundantly blessed with wealth, power, technological expertise, and global networking capabilities? After all, blessings are, by nature's definition, obligations of service to those who happen to be less fortunate.
It is heartening to see that governments, leaders, and individuals around the world have woken up to their divined obligations. I just hope that such an awakening of conscience will not ebb with the receding waters of the Indian Ocean. From Dafur to the Brazil to inner city America, the needs of so many are basic, they are urgent, they are solvable today and now, if only the world's conscience will remain stirred awake as has been demanded of it by the devastating Tsunamis.
Indeed, if "minds could learn to feel and hearts could learn to think", we would live in a wiser world.
The Indian Ocean tsunamis have created unspeakable havoc, destroying generations, devastating entire communities, and exposing, once again, the unsustainability of the way the world currently functions. They have, yet again, reminded us that global leaders (government, corporate, and civil society) have still not learnt the wisdom of proactivity. While no one can hold any leader responsible for the earthquake and its horrific aftermath, it is not unreasonable to raise various illuminative questions.
Why do so many people have to die before the "wealthy" open their wallets and vaults to address the fundamental needs of the poor?
Despite the affluent 1980s and the technological quantum leaps of the 1990s, leaders of non governmental organizations, multinational development institutions, profiteering corporations, and governments, skip-hopped from one self-indulgent conference to the next, devising intellectual schemes for addressing global economic disparities while tinkering at the periphery of the development needs of so many people in so many towns and villages worldwide. It is mindboggling to observe that a simple warning system could have saved so many innocent lives along Indian ocean coastlines. It is saddening that simple responsible building codes could have also mitigated the extent of the devastation.
What is the value, or rather, the wisdom of vaulting such huge resources while so many children and women and men in your global neighborhood live in sub-human houses, exploited by for-profit conglomerates as well as by self-serving corrupt leaderships in their own countries?
Obviously individuals and institutions worldwide already "do" possess the resources necesary to dramatically enhance the quality of life for people around the world. Why does it need a "catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude" to spur the conscience of those few, around the world, who are so abundantly blessed with wealth, power, technological expertise, and global networking capabilities? After all, blessings are, by nature's definition, obligations of service to those who happen to be less fortunate.
It is heartening to see that governments, leaders, and individuals around the world have woken up to their divined obligations. I just hope that such an awakening of conscience will not ebb with the receding waters of the Indian Ocean. From Dafur to the Brazil to inner city America, the needs of so many are basic, they are urgent, they are solvable today and now, if only the world's conscience will remain stirred awake as has been demanded of it by the devastating Tsunamis.
Indeed, if "minds could learn to feel and hearts could learn to think", we would live in a wiser world.
posted by wisdomworld at 5:30 PM
6 Comments:
It will always need a "catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude" to wake up the world. Hunger and poverty, war and death, violence and torture; all these things, as dreadful as they are, are present. They are too present. People got used to them. Even the people who are not only captivated by getting richer - the people who care, who sympathize, who are touched by these problems around. They have to live their life. How shall you live when you are supposed to always worry about the world’s problems? There are just too many. Most of them don’t even reach the media because they are not spectacular enough. What do you expect the individual to do in this problem pool. You can’t blame a middel class Spanish for the absence of e.g. a warning system.
You of course can blame the international organizations, all the institutions which are there to care for problems like this. There are a lot of questions that can be raised.
How come that there is a Tsunami centre, concentrating on the Pacific Ocean, which was initiated by the UNESCO and the UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs... Jan Egeland states that he had not known that there were no warning systems in the Indian Ocean (but of course now they will discuss possible solutions during a conference in Japan)?
How come that scientists all around the world noticed the quake but only posted it on the internet? Why did they inform everyone but not the countries that were going to be affected? Why did Washington know, but not Colombo? Why do people accept the answer ‘There are no networks. We couldn’t inform them.’? Even if there are no networks, I am sure that it is possible to find a working telephone number. Why did nobody think it is necessary to check, if the people, who really need to know, are informed? Why did nobody feel responsible? What happened to globalization?
How come that people in the affected states feared that there could be a Tsunami, but didn’t act because they were not perfectly sure or/and thought that they are not in the position to do so?
How come that states held back information because they didn’t want to make the tourists nervous?
...
At least it seems as if the help will not ebb with the receding waters. They already speak about years and long term projects. Probably the catastrophe was big enough. But as soon as they will have buried the last dead body (let’s hope that epidemics won’t spread out) and the countries will beginn to recover, people will start to ‘forget’ about it. Anniversaries excluded. Then, if no other catastrophe will steal the show from them, the old problems and conflicts will be on the agenda again; already minored in their importance. The wake up call might have worked for this region, but it won’t enhance the people’s situation elsewhere – not in Dafur, not in Brazil and not in inner city America...
I doubt that the world’s conscience will remain awake. To solve the world’s problems it needs a change in the people’s minds everywhere. In the minds of the ‘wealthy’ as well as in the minds of the leaders. A simple reaction to a catastrophe and tragedy as caused by the Tsunami is not going to make this change. To be cynical: Perhaps it needs another catastrophe to show that a general change is urgent. But maybe I am wrong. I would love to be.
-Indeed, if "minds could learn to feel and hearts could learn to think", we would live in a wiser world.-
May I remind you on the following statement: ‘The punishment of wise men who refuse to become involved in government is to live under the government of unwise men.’(Plato).
How can you really change and rearrange when you live under unwise men who refuse any changes?
FS, Germany
I actually completely agree with your observations. I think the item I wrote under the heading "Distorted Realities" should have appeared here. I believe that the world needs a new reality, a new dialogue that does not seek to entrench conveniently perpetuated myths of development cooperation, but rather explores alternative models for development.
In this regard, I reproduce the entry "Distorted Realities" and hope for us to continue this dialogue .
DISTORTED REALITIES
We have all heard the criticism: America is too stingy, richer countries are dedicating smaller percentages of their GDP for development assistance, debt levels of poor countries are too high and need to be written off. The cacophony of condemnation is resounding and persistent.
Indeed, only Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Sweden expended above the universally committed threshold of 0.7% of GDP in 2003. Belgian dedicated just below the agreed threshold. Much shame is focused on the other leading economies in the world.
France and the United Kingdom only managed to meet half of the pledged levels in 2003, while Germany expended about 0.28% of GDP, Japan about 0.4% and the 'big, bad economic superpower' only managed a paltry 0.14% of GDP.
But is this the full story?
I suggest that it is not!
Rather than join the convenient, or rather knee-jerk, politically correct 'Geldorf bandwagon', which calls for debt write-offs, for more grants-in-aid, and for higher levels of funding for development assistance programs, I suggest that what is needed far more urgently is more competent utilization of resources by the recipient countries. Despite the shrill voices from the international civil society communities and from some shades of political activists, increasing the volume of financial assistance before recipient countries clean up their corrupt governance is literally throwing good money after bad. Chastising the richer countries for not granting carte blanche debt moratoriums is not necesarily going to help the people who need the assistance most.
Besides, there are also many who are abjectly poor, unemployed or under-employed even within the richer countries themselves.
If we revisit donor expenditures for 2003, we note that, together, the Scandanavian countries spent aapproximately $12bn in 2003 alone. France and the United Kingdom spent $7.3bn and $6.2bn respectively, while Germany dedicated $6.7bn, while Japan spent $8.9bn and the United States $15.8bn. Together, according to the OECD (quoted in Der Spiegel) the top 22 donor nations expended in excess of $66bn in 2003 alone. Such development assistance programs have been taking place each year since before most of us were even born. I'll let you do the math.
Surely then, a discussion that focuses merely on percentages rather than on actual volumes and, more importantly, on impact assessment, does not do justice to the cause.
I wish to suggest that the emphasis should be on (a) vigorously calling on the governments of donor countries to more fully account, to their own populations, on how they expend their tax payers' money in so-called overseas development projects, and (b) unrelentlessly insisting on recipient country governments to be duly transparent and accountable for the development of their people's lives.
Maybe then, your tax moneys will be put to more effective use in the interests of the poorest communities in this world, rather than (a) lining the pockets of recipient-country elites and (b) padding the rhetoric of donor-country political platforms.
In the poets words
"... neutral is no option
if not for them
you're against
lend to them your weight
befiore its too late
if you squint them out of sight
you side
with those of might
frail lives
further deprive ..."
[extract from "See", reprinted from "The Storyteller" (ISBN 3-8330-1055-X)]
I hope that the anonymous contributor who also wrote on this subject would join this discussion as they may be able to add another dimension to it.
Re. Blessings: In many cultures, more so in those that live closer to and with nature, blessings are not received as personal possessions, to be hoarded or applied for one's own comfort or convenience. I share the view that blessings are for the benefit of the community or of society. Indeed in some cultures, the concept of ownership has evolved to one of consumption and one of possession. After all, one cannot receive blessings of power or leadership or wealth or happiness or any other without the involvement of others, without others giving of their own. Even to be truly happy, one'receives' be it from a pet, a painting, a piece of music or a companion or dialogue. For the cycle of nature to remain in balance, complete, it requires that the positive aspects of blessings be passed on, in some form, for the good of the next recipient. Imbalance occurs when such cycle is broken by possession or consumption for its own sake.
Secondly, I can see why it could be asssumed that I have changed my mind. In fact, nothing could be further from the reality...:-). In my first discussion I was noting the over-whelming generousity that individuals around the world showed to the Tsunami victems. Why does it take a sudden, dramatic event to cause people to awaken to their own capacity to assist others. Gradual, ongoing calamities that are not dramatised either by nature and/or by the media continue to go unresponded to. Furthermore, the out-pouring of generosity of the last xmas season was a response to a natural disaster and rather than to pervasive socioeconomic poverty. Additionally, governments proved, without intending to do so, that they have the capacity to be more generous than they'd previously purported to be. In the subsequent discussion, I am drawing attention to the quality of assistance, to the observation that merely pouring in volumes does not necessarily lead to effective implementation. Rather than merely increasing development aid flows, it is probably more helpful to first, or in tandem, ensuring that grassroots interventions are meaningfully, and sustainably empowering to those who are the most vulnerable.
Thirdly, I have read your blogs and find them to be very interesting (at least as far as my limited German allows me to understand them). It is unfortunate that your profile does not allow for responses or contact. Just an observation. Nevertheless, I value the discussion.
You can put both in one bag. The question is: How do you help? Not: Why do you help? The intention should be to really change the situation, to make it better, to rearrange:-)!
A re-action that only focuses on reviving the old situation doesn’t really help. You don’t make a change by rebuilding the hotels and the restaurants and the coctailbars and the streets and and and in Phuket etc. This would be the same like investing in developement aid projects somewhere wich keep three people busy, but don’t contribute to the needs of the majority – don't change the situation for them. When you say the ´first might work` you refer only to that reconstruction.
But we are talking about a very poor region. That’s why the donations are made. It would be irresponsible to reestablish the old system - that means leaving people poor forever. Now there finally is an occasion for acting, not only reacting. It would be a shame to miss this opportunity.
Renovate and also replace, don’t only repair! I already heard voices saying that they want to focus on things like education etc... Let’s hope that they will do so.
´What is happening right now is not a proofe of long-term financial possibilities - it is the proof of one-time financial promise facing the huge amount of pain and sorrow that emerged so suddenly.`
I disagree. Let’s just pay attention to the private donations. In Germany more than 350 mio. Just recently Germans donated almost the same amount to the flood victims in Germany. This is a proof of long-term financial possibilities!
If you want to exaggerate a bit: Germans could easily afford to donate such an amount every month. This country has about 80 mio (roughly spoken, of course) inhabitants. If you assume that only 35 mio give €10 a month you have your 350 mio. And don’t tell me people here couldn’t afford it – they could.
That is only Germany. There are some other wealthy countries in the world... Only some math.
Somehow I expect to get a respond that says: This is just a fantasy. You can’t force people to do this. They are not (don't feel) responsible for all the poverty in the world.
And my answer is: Of course they are not. But they have the resources to help, to change (to cause blessings:-)). This is a question of humanity, of conscience. If you see your neighbour suffer, you have to help and not to watch him dying. No matter, if it is your real or your global neighbour...
A full circle again: These are the world’s obligations.
In the following I post an article. It shows an interesting view on the question why people help. It is worth to be read. I generally share the auther’s opinion (even though I would never recommend the newspaper). Hope the discussion will continue.
Majid Sattar: Nah und fern, in: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19.01.2005, S.1.
Die Welt sei im Angesicht der Flutwelle kleiner geworden, heißt es allenthalben. Der vieltausendfache Tod habe eine humanitäre Globalisierung bewirkt, die nun auf die wirtschaftliche folge. Voraussetzung dieser Lesart war, daß die Katastrophe einen politischen und medialen Widerschein erhielt, der die Verheerungen in Südostasien weltweit so sichtbar machte wie kein Unglück zuvor. Die Steigerung der mutmaßlichen Opferzahl von Tag zu Tag, ja mitunter von Stunde zu Stunde, inszenierte gleichsam ein Drama für seine Zuschauer. Die ferne Flut rückte in eine emotionale Nähe, die eine in der Geschichte beispiellose Spendenbereitschaft erzeugte. Warum stürzten sich die Medien und Politik in dieser Weise auf die Schreckensnachricht vom zweiten Weihnachtstag? Warum war die öffentliche Resonanz so stark?
Die schiere Zahl der Toten, 150 000, gar 200 000, kann es nicht sein. Überschwemmungen in Bangladesh, zivile Opfer in den Golfkriegen, Völkermorde in Afrika erreichen ähnliche Ausmaße, ohne daß sich die Welt in eine globale Trauergemeinde verwandelt. Gewiß rückten die Geschichten derer, die alsbald an den Flughäfen in Frankfurt und Stockholm landeten und von Familien und Fernsehkameras empfangen wurden, das Geschehen noch einmal näher. Doch stärker wirkten die Bilder der Verheerung, darunter besonders jene Aufnahmen, die erahnen ließen, in welcher Situation es die Menschen getroffen hatte, beim Baden, Flanieren, im Restaurant, im Hotelzimmer.
Auf dem heimischen Bildschirm, in den Zeitungen und Magazinen erschienen der Souvenierhändler und der mobile Imbißverkäufer, der Hotelier und die Kellnerin, die Hab und Gut oder gar das Leben verloren haben, seltsam vertraut. Die Strände Phukets, die Hütten Sri Lankas, die Landschaften Indiens und die paradiesischen Inseln der Seychellen und Malediven sind vorher vielfach bereist, zumindest aber in Fernsehserien oder Ferienkatalogen bestaunt worden. So wie die Anschläge des „11. September“ nicht zuletzt deshalb Entsetzen hervorriefen, weil Manhatten zuvor in Wort und Bild zum Kiez der globalen Community stilisiert worden ist, erscheint uns auch die Urlaubswelt Südostasiens als Nachbarschaft.
Hätte das Seebeben die Welt derart erschüttern können, wenn am Ende „nur“ 100 000 Opfer in Aceh zu verzeichnen gewesen wären? Das riesige Inselreich Indonesiens ist weithin Terra incognita, im thailändischen Bangkok dagegen kann man günstig Anzüge anfertigen lassen – und sei es nur bei einer Zwischenlandung auf dem Weg nach Australien oder Neuseeland. Die Straßen New Yorks muten vertraut an, die Grosnyjs fremd. Wo immer die Scheinwerfer der Tourismus- oder Filmindustrie hinleuchten, wo immer vertraute Markenprodukt ihr Signalfeuer senden, strahlt die Ferne in unsere Lebenswelt zurück. Für die meisten ist diese Welt nicht wirklich Teil ihres Lebens, aber die Bilder dieser Welt sind es. Sie scheint verständlich, weil ihre Chiffren bekannt sind. Die Peripherie dieser Welt kann, so wie Aceh, im Gefolge hie und da das Glück oder Unglück haben, kurzzeitig ins Halblicht gerückt zu werden, der Rest bildet die dunkle Seite der Globalisierung.
Wer erinnert sich noch daran, daß das Morden in Dafur weitergeht? Die geschätzte Opferzahl in Sudan soll schon vor Monaten 50 000 überschritten haben. Afrika liegt fern: Die Konflikte dort wirken kompliziert bis zur Undurchschaubarkeit, die Zeichen des schwarzen Kontinents sind nicht zu entziffern, und betroffen ist unsere Lebenswelt nur die Flüchtlinge auf Lampedusa. Deshalb konnten in Afrika Mitte der neunziger Jahre ein Völkermord und seither zahlreiche Gemetzel ungestört stattfinden. Man schaut nicht hin. Jetzt, da die Aufmerksamkeit Asien gilt, noch weniger. Weil im Zuge der außergewöhnlichen Hilfsbereitschaft der Staatengemeinschaft und der Weltgesellschaft die Kräfte am Indischen Ozean gebündelt werden, müssen die vergessenen Landstriche noch größere Vernachlässigung fürchten. Das alles ist bekannt – und erschüttert niemanden. Das offenbart die Relativität menschlichen Entsetzens.
Wir sehen, was uns interessiert, wir empfinden Mitleid für das, was uns nah ist. Das Fremde löst keine gefälligen Affekte aus – ebendas konstituiert es. Der Tschetschenien-Krieg, in dem russische Streitkräfte, die ohnehin nur böse Assoziationen wecken, ein unbekanntes Kaukasusvolk bekämpfen, findet aufflackernde Beachtung, wenn islamische Terroristen in Nordossetien eine Schule besetzen und Kinder töten. Terrorismus, zumal einer, der sich gegen Kinder wendet, trifft alle, weil jedermann Kinder liebt. Nur so erhielt Beslan einen Bleistifteintrag im Adreßbuch des globalen Dorfs.
In Wahrheit ist die Welt nicht kleiner geworden. Die größer werdende, vertraut scheinende Welt ist eine, in der die Menschen die gleichen Nike-Schuhe und Swatch-Uhren tragen, die gleichen Autos fahren und in der Vorstellung vom guten Leben hier wie da sich auf den Zugang zu Gütern und Dienstleistungen konzentrieren, unbenommen des spirituell-kulturellen Hintergrunds. Eine humanitäre Globalisierung mag auf die wirtschaftliche gefolgt sein. Doch wie die wirtschaftliche ist auch die humanitäre nur teilweise global. Und beide Globaliesierungen werden vermittelt durch eine dritte: die kulturelle. Diese ist eine westlich dominierte, kosmopolitisch gefüllte Crossover-Kultur: Spaßgesellschaft und Thaiküche, Aussteigerleben und geldwerte Zuflucht im indischen Hier und Jetzt. Was nah oder fern ist, bestimmt nicht die räumliche Distanz, sonder die lebensweltlichen Schnittmengen zwischen „uns“ und „denen“. Für weite Teile der Welt ist die Erde weiterhin ein großer Planet.
Oh well, forgot to sign. This was me again. FS
There are some sad realities about society and the culture of helping. Going back to biblical times, JC himself thought it worthy of addressing directly. Hence the parable of "the good Samaritan". There is also the parable of two people who made donations, one a wealthy person who gave but a fraction of their wealth, and the other a poor person who gave much of theirs. The question raised was which of the two was the more worthy of blessings.
In most cases, in modern societies, people "help" merely to assuage their own consciences rather than to meaningfully impact the problem at hand. Too often people, and institutions, do just enough to justify their interest, just enough to justify the subsequent budget cycle or fund raising expectations. Whether it is on an individual person to person basis, or if it is on a community-wide basis, the tendency is not to set a timeline within which tangible and worthwhile goals of impact are set and met, or better still superceded.
Ironically there appears to be an absence of, yes, George-Bush-like resoluteness when it comes to the causes of poverty eradication, infectious disease combating, child traffic and abuse etc.
What is lacking is a new paradigm of thinking when it comes to addressing these issues, whether it is within developed communities or in poorer environments. Too many people are too interested in their own bragging rights aka "I donated €25 to the tsunami relief" s/he says as s/he ponders which gas-guzzler to drive to the next lavish night on the town....
I believe it was Einstein who once said "you can never solve a problem on the level of thinking on which it was created". New global and personal realities are overdue.
Post a Comment
<< Home