Aid to Pakistan has started to pick up after a pitiful early response to one of the biggest humanitarian disasters in recent times. It is still considerably short of the UN's $460m target, which itself appears well below the £15bn or so that is estimated to be needed for rebuilding.
The first bits of aid have been less than those given at the 2004 tsunami and the Haiti earthquake in the last year. By affecting 15-20m people, the current Pakistani catastrophe is considerably worse than both combined.
Comparison to the response to Hurricane Katrina (2005) in the US also bears examination. There, international governmental pledges of support reached $840m. This included $100m from the UAE and $500m from Kuwait.
As seems par for the course with such pledges, not all of this was given, but not just because of reluctance from donors to deliver on promises. The US themselves were found to be wanting when handling donations that came in. Suspicions therefore of how Pakistan would handle aid that arrives, is not unique to them.
It does not help of course that Pakistan is led by a man of Asif Ali Zardari's lack of stature. Criticism of George W Bush for being a day late getting back to the White House to deal with Katrina, and only visiting the hit area two days later, pales into insignificance with the Pakistani prime minister's jaunt to the Abu Dhabi, Paris and London in the flooding aftermath.
He has defended the visits saying that they generated aid. This does not stand up to scrutiny with paltry figures such as France's $2.5m and the UAE's $1.5m compared to their $100m Katrina commitment. Poor contributions from Western countries to Pakistan have been put down variously to associations with terrorism, fear of corruption and racism. It can only be surmised given the response of Muslim countries that their view of Pakistan is even worse. Kuwait's $500m offer to the US is put alongside their $5m pledge to help Pakistanis.
The UK and the US have led the way with £100m and $150m respectively, though it needs to be ensured that commitments are followed through. Analysis of their support says it springs from the relationship in with Pakistan in tackling terrorism. On that, handily we have human resources in Afghanistan, and the US have sent six choppers from the war theatre to help with relief efforts in Pakistan.
It is at times like these though that the absurdity of priorities becomes clear. We are apparently fighting a war in Afghanistan to reduce terrorism, and therefore save lives. That itself is being prosecuted by taking more lives than said terrorism has. Next to Afghanistan is Pakistan. In the former, the UK is spending in the region of $6bn a year waging a war with little discernible effect in life preservation to say the least. Next door, there are 4,000,000 people who have just lost their homes, but only $100m can be found to help them.
No country has suffered more at the hands of terrorism without being invaded than Pakistan. The country has been lurched into crisis after crisis as the 'war on terror' has gone on, spilling more and more into its borders. Yes, Zardari is inept, but again, ordinary Pakistanis suffer him the most. We may question Mr Ten Per Cent's morals, but we can't let that muddy our moral imperative to help people in dire need. The world showing Pakistan that it cares may be just the light that is needed to rebuild not just houses, schools and roads, but the entire fabric and future of the country.
Comments