politicizing a tragedy...

--------------------

There ought to be eligibility rules for finger-pointing in a global crisis.

The impulse to find fault seems universal. From Ottawa to Stockholm, Washington to London, the airwaves and newspapers are full of diatribes against western leaders who reacted too slowly or responded too stingily to the Boxing Day tsunamis that devastated southern Asia. Some of the criticism is fair and thoughtful. Much of it is facile and knee-jerk. There would be more of the first kind — and less of the second — if those passing judgment followed a few simple guidelines:

1. Anyone who accuses a politician of failing to react quickly or generously enough to a disaster must be satisfied with his or her own initial response. That would disqualify me. Although I made my first donation on Dec. 26, the amount was not commensurate with the magnitude of the catastrophe. I subsequently sent two more cheques.
2. Anyone who criticizes a national leader for not taking charge must be prepared to say exactly what he or she thinks the government should do. Almost none of the commentary published or broadcast in the wake of the South Asian tragedy meets this test. There were plenty of calls for action, leadership, visibility and boldness. But when it came to the practical, well-informed suggestions, the silence was deafening.
3. Anyone who castigates a prime minister or president for vacationing during a crisis must have cut short his or her own holiday without hesitation. It is curious that most of the complaints about Martin's absence from Ottawa, Blair's absence from London and Bush's absence from Washington came four or five days after the tsunamis struck. In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, most pundits and opposition MPs were nowhere to be found.
4. Anyone who pans a decision-maker's performance with the wisdom of hindsight, must acknowledge the fact. It is true that Canada's initial offering of $ 1 million in humanitarian assistance was embarrassingly inadequate. But it was made on Dec. 26, when no one understood the enormity of the destruction. At that point, the estimated death toll was 13,300. (It is now 150,000.) Other major donor nations had yet to announce any aid. Ottawa's second instalment — an additional $3 million — also looks paltry in retrospect. But on Dec. 27, when it was announced, aid groups were still gearing up to deliver relief. The presumed death toll stood at 23,700. The United States had anted up just $15 million. By Dec. 29, when the catcalls started pouring in, Ottawa's commitment had risen to a respectable $40 million. It now stands at $80 million, with more to come.
5. Anyone who catalogues what a government did wrong in a disaster, must also mention what it did right. In Ottawa's case, there were several things. The Canadian government (along with Germany's) took the lead in promoting debt relief for the countries affected by the tsunamis. It undertook to match every dollar donated by individuals to charities leading the relief effort. And it made clear, from the beginning, that Canada would stay involved for the long haul.
6. Finally, anyone who sets herself up as an arbiter of disaster management must continue to track a government's actions long after the spotlight has moved on.

If past earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and epidemics are any guide, few of today's self-styled authorities will pass that test. The most voluble critics tend to have the shortest attention spans. They might want to think about this though: Cheap shots reveal more about the accuser than the intended victim."

-- Carol Goar, The Toronto Star (01/07/2005)

--------------------


the disaster that took place is most certainly a tragedy... every day, however, countless lives are lost to equally tragic events, with much less media coverage or outpouring of sympathy and support... how do we, as moral beings, account for the differences in our reaction? what makes one catastrophe a worthy cause to marshal our resources against and another not even worthy of a byline in the newspaper? how do we draw the line on where to give and how much is enough? commentators worldwide express similar surprise at the level of support and donations that have poured in for tsunami relief... but how long can we sustain this goodwill? and why can't it be transferred every day to the hundreds of different causes and tragedies that take place locally and worldwide?

--------------------

"It would be unrealistic to expect 2005, born amidst devastation and death, to be an annus mirabilis. But it can still be a year of hope, healing and lasting progress. Seldom have we entered a New Year feeling so profoundly connected to the 6 billion other people who share this planet. Never have we responded so swiftly and open-heartedly to a global disaster. This outpouring of grief and generosity will taper off in the weeks ahead. Few of us are capable of unstinting altruism for long periods of time. But the Boxing Day tragedy in Asia has widened our sense of the possible, sharpened our awareness of how far below that level we usually operate and given us proof that we can do better.

Global tragedies force us to rethink the limits we place on ourselves. They give an incentive — and the means — to raise our sights. What will matter is how generous and sustained our response is, how much we learn about giving and how close we come to making the behaviour of the past 10 days the new normal."

-- Carol Goar, The Toronto Star (01/05/2005)

--------------------