The apathy towards Pakistan and its floods

Quite a few days ago, as the crisis started unfolding, I noted Pakistan's' president Zardari being apathetic about the catastrophic floods in his country.  So, if the country's president could have behaved thus, why should we be surprised that the floods have barely made a dent on the world's consciousness/conscience!

First, the latest numbers.  Even in that earlier post, I argued that the numbers of people affected will quickly grow to a very large number.  Current estimates are that at least 20 million people have been messed up by these floods of unimagined magnitudes.

Yet, a question remains: why has this not hit emotional resonance across the planet, especially in the affluent world?

My cynical mind says it is in the timing.  Mid-August pretty much the entire European world,a even the broke Greeks, tunes out and head to beaches and villas and rivieras.  Watching BBC or CNN while on vacation, even if one did, will not jolt one into caring.  And Australia is in the middle of an intensely close election.  I would guess that in India it is difficult to evoke sympathy for Pakistan even under ordinary circumstances, and recently tensions have been quite high.  This means we are left with China and the USA.  China couldn't care for anything on this planet unless it stands to benefit, which means that we should be surprised if anything like a huge aid comes from China.

Despite labeling this as cynicism, I find it difficult to walk away from these reasons.  Others have been thinking about this as well, it seems.

Over at Foreign Policy, Mosharaff Zaidi writes:

Between our fear of terrorism, nervousness about a Muslim country with a nuclear weapon, and global discomfort with an intelligence service that seems to do whatever it wants (rather than what we want it to do), Pakistan makes the world, and Americans in particular, extremely uncomfortable. In a 2008 Gallup poll of Americans, only Afghanistan, Iraq, the Palestinian Authority, North Korea, and Iran were less popular than Pakistan.
The net result of Pakistan's own sins, and a global media that is gaga over India, is that Pakistan is always the bad guy. You'd be hard pressed to find a news story anywhere that celebrates the country's incredible scenery, diversity, food, unique brand of Islam, evolving and exciting musical tradition, or even its arresting array of sporting talent, though all those things are present in abundance.

From the venerable Brookings Institution comes this:

The relatively limited media coverage of the Pakistani floods is puzzling. Our analysis of major global English-language print and broadcast media shows that Pakistan’s floods have been covered far less than other major disasters. Ten days after the flooding began there were approximately 320 broadcast news stories and 730 print news stories covering the Pakistan flood disaster with the number of stories in print media rising to almost 1,800 by day 20. In virtually every other major disaster, including the Indian Ocean tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and the recent Pakistan and Haiti earthquakes, coverage was well over 3,000 stories in both print and broadcast media respectively by day 10 and by day 20.
The slow-onset nature of the disaster may be one reason for the limited attention. Earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes are one-time calamitous events, making it easy to capture the public’s attention, especially if real life mimics Hollywood movie scenarios. At the beginning of the Pakistan floods, rivers rapidly overflowed destroying everything in their wake. However, water levels are currently rising more slowly. Water is steadily enveloping more and more of Pakistan’s countryside every day. ...
The negligible media attention in the English-language press is certainly a factor in the limited support for flood victims from private individuals, foundations and corporations, especially in the U.S.

AidWatch presents another angle:

one third of the variation in how much TV attention a disaster gets is explained by how popular the affected country is with US tourists. Sadly for the flood survivors, Pakistan is nowhere on the list of top destinations for US travelers in Asia and the outlook’s not great: the World Economic Forum ranked Pakistan 113 out of 133 countries in its latest Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report.

In addition to all these observations, the Economist notes:

Some donors still have bad memories of an earlier disaster, in 2005, when an earthquake struck the Pakistan-run bit of Kashmir, killing nearly 80,000 people. Foreign governments and charities promised some $6 billion in aid, to be spent by Pakistani officials and by local and foreign NGOs. Some, inevitably, was wasted or stolen. More troublingly, some local charities, such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa, which had links to extremists, ended up claiming credit for the relief work. And that is before taking into account the credible worries that Pakistan’s spies support elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan and have done too little to rein in Islamist terror directed at India.

The magazine argues, and I concur here, that:

In Pakistan the greatest need will be in the coming weeks and months, as flood waters recede, homes and roads need to be rebuilt and fields have to be replanted. That gives donors time to find effective ways to co-ordinate their help—ways that, where possible, should bypass Mr Zardari’s loose-fingered friends. Already there are signs of progress. Some $3 billion has been offered by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, the UN has set up a fund and donations from governments are starting to flow. America, a provider of much military and other aid to Pakistan, is lending helicopters and providing other help, hoping to show ordinary Pakistanis that it is not the hostile bully many of them believe it to be.
India, Pakistan’s traditional foe, could also turn disaster into opportunity. Some have described the current floods as the worst battering Pakistan has taken since the man-made disaster of partition from India in 1947. India itself has suffered recent floods and has offered some help (Pakistan is unsure whether to accept). Delivering it could show that India genuinely wants its troubled neighbour to recover and to prosper. A little money now could go a long way.

Zaidi puts it much better:

The fact that people in other countries don't like Pakistan very much doesn't change the humanity of those affected by the floods or their suffering. It is right and proper to take a critical view of Pakistani politicians, of their myopia and greed. It is understandable to be worried about the far-reaching capabilities of the Pakistani intelligence community and reports that they continue to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is even excusable that some indulge in the fantasy that a few hundred al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists are capable of taking over a country guarded by more than 750,000 men and women of the Pakistani military, and the 180 million folks that pay their salaries.
But are the farmers of Pashtun Ghari, of Muzzafararh and Dera Ghazi Khan, of Shikarpur and Sukkur, really obligated to allay these fears before they can get help in replacing their lost livelihoods? Twenty million people are now struggling to find a dry place to sleep, a morsel of food to eat, a sip of clean water to drink -- and the questions we are asking have to do with politics and international security. The problem is not in Pakistan. It is where those questions are coming from.
Pakistan has suffered from desperately poor moral leadership, but punishing the helpless and homeless millions of the 2010 floods is the worst possible way to express our rejection of the Pakistani elite and their duplicity and corruption. The poor, hungry, and homeless are not an ISI conspiracy to bilk you of your cash. They are a test of your humanity. Do not follow in the footsteps of the Pakistani elite by failing them. That would be immoral and inhumane. This is a time to ask only one question. And that question is: "How can I help?"

Finally, if one needed yet another before/after photo of this catastrophe, here is one from NASA:
Before (August 2009)

And, after: