On air: Why haven't we given more to Pakistan?

I think this is a great topic. I think that Pakistan (or the Government of Pakistan), fairly or unfairly, is seen as a country that supports terrorism or, at least, isn't doing much to try and stop it. This could be why the response to this terrible disaster is slower than it should be. I think that what we need to remember is that the lives of humans and animals, the environment and the economy are all being destroyed by this terrible disaster and we (the world) need to help. I feel that it's our moral duty. I think the support of terrorism by the "average" Pakistani is very low and these people should not suffer because of terrible acts of the few that support it.

Quite simple....the death of many Pakistanis does not stoke our paranoia about the terrorist threat to ourselves. If these floods meant a strengthening of Taliban or Al Qaeda bet your life we would have been there with all the bells and whistles on. A few dead Pakistanis?....who really cares.

Poor planing, a corrupt governemnt and religious restraints have exacerbated the effects of the rain.

Sometimes doing nothing says more than doing something. The world has seen one natural disaster after another and is becoming numb to the constant appeals. In Haiti there apparently was no functioning government to assist the people and many think of these areas in Pakistan are also not really governed. The link to terrorism in Pakistan makes people reluctant to give. There is a lesson to be learned by governments about how people will respond when the natin in question is also a nation in question. Of course it is the people who suffer and not the governments but that is true everywhere. There has been a feeling for sometime that the "moderate" Muslims have not taken a stand against terrorism and therefore people around the world are unwilling to give to those who will not support a more peaceful solution to the problems. When a reglion states that it intends to convert or kill everyone who does not join it and the clergy of the masses remains silent than it is difficult to find supporters from the outside. There are consequences to behaviors.

I recently listened to the Asian Network radio and heard Pakistani's from Birmingham UK,who were collecting for flood victims.They stressed,that none of the money raised would go to the Pakistan Government.A sad reflection on their homeland government,perhaps other countries are of the same opinion.The questions at 2,3 and 4 are possibly very relevant.The economic downturn is not applicable,we can all afford something,no matter how small,it would all be help.

Is it not like the frog boiling to death in water. Sudden, dramatic, and large scale events which kill many in hours, as the Tsnaumi wave hitting Sri Lanka, the money appears. Something that takes a week to happen over with deaths building up over a week, like floods, and the money doesn't come.

I believe the main reasons for the limited assistance to Pakistan is: 1) People have become somewhat immune to all the crises in the world; and 2) the belief that Pakistanis support terrorism towards the West.

Aide should be given to Pakistan, but it should be administered by a third party. Pakistan's government corruption would take its toll on any aide given to the government.

All these questions are interlinked:
1) the economic crisis means people are less financially secure, governments are having to instigate austerity policies hitting the people even harder, so Western democratic governments are likely to become extremely unpopular, and get kicked out of office, if they are perceived as wasting money by giving aid that is not wisely spent - see point 2). I don’t think the recession will actually stop ordinary people donating to charities, but they will be much pickier about where their dwindling cash ends up.
Points 2) and 3) are inseparable since it is more than “mere” corruption and incompetence, there is perceived malicious intent in this failure to control militant Islam and a very real, visceral hatred of the West, even when all these greater or lesser Satans are showering Pakistan with “aid” money.
Maybe 2) and 3) are linked to 4) in that the perceptions of most of us who have never been to Pakistan are inevitably framed by what we glean from the media. Having said that, while there may be some media bias, even in the BBC, many facts speak for themselves: nuclear weapons, corruption, the appalling behaviour of the Pakistani President (makes Tony Hayward look like Mother T.), the many supporters of militant Islam who are not the least bit shy about expressing their hatreds in person, the murky waters in which the armed forces swim…it can’t be all a media invention.
4) is also a corollary of 2) and 3), if there had been less emphasis on military might and invented “enemies” something may have been done to build flood defences, not to mention build a viable economy and educate people out of religious fanaticism.
It all adds up to a pretty appalling image so it’s no wonder the money isn’t exactly pouring in.

I fear the contributor who speculated that people judge natural disasters by the death toll has it spot on. Even though it's the survivors who need help, the world seems to forget this.

All of the reasons given in Ros's list sound accurate to someone who has never set foot in Pakistan, but has watched the news and paid attention for the last few decades. The US (my country) is the first place a failed state like Pakistan turns for aid in a crisis like this one, since the "government" of the country is corrupt, incompetent, and incapable of responding effectively. Why should we support a government like Pakistan's? In my estimation, we should do what we can to relieve the suffering in the country not by sending money to Islamabad, but by directing funds to the NGOs prepared and equipped to deal with natural disasters, e.g., MSF, the International Red Cross,ICA and maybe The CDC in Atlanta. All funds sent to the Pakistani government will mysteriously vanish into the pockets and bank accounts of the corrupt bureaucrats and ministers of which that government is composed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Pakistani government tried to prevent NGOs from entering the country, and demanded payment up front from the US, Norway, Denmark, France, and any other concerned citizens of the world. Watch what happens.

In times of trouble we look for our friends to help us but unfortunately Pakistan does not have ANY friends.
Also the leaked documents that Wikileaks published showed the Pakistan army, government and intelligence to be riddled with corruption and they are two timing the west hurt their reputation tremendously.

This is probably hurting the fundraising efforts.

According to www.america.gov in the USA - Text 'SWAT' to 50555 and make a $10 donation or text 'SWAT' to 20222 and make a $5 donation for the flood relief efforts in Pakistan.

I wonder how much sympathy the Pakistani's had for the 9/11 victims or victims of radical Islamic violence as they danced in the streets in celebration?
In the aftermath of the Mumbai massacre, launched from Pakistan, the Pakistani's did nothing.
I think the world sees Pakistan as an islamic terrorist state who hides bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri and others in the "lawless" tribal areas or maybe in town.

I think its a mixed bag of reasons. The economy is one reason. I also think the perceived connection between Pakistan and Terrorism doesn't help. Whenever we have a disaster, the money donated never seems to reach the people who need it most. We saw that after the Tsunami in Thailand, and we are seeing it now in Hati. I heard on the news in Pakistan that aid trucks are being stopped on the roads and people are taking everything, not allowing the trucks to help people further away. My prayers go out to the affected people in Pakistan.

2010 must be one of the worst years for Pakistan as it has witnessed mounting terrorism, putting in question the ability of the Pakistani government to establish full stability in the country. It's also the year of natural calamity as more than a tenth of the population is affected by the flood, which is far greater than the number of people affected by the earthquake in Haiti.

Coming to the rescue of Pakistan by the international community is a huge challenge as the country needs rebuilding which may take years. Pakistan has to helplessly confront the effect of the flood because it was busy dealing with terror while previous donations prior to the flood were squandered due to corruption.

After the flood, Pakistan needs to rebuild itself as a nation where politicians should be free of corruption and money should be distributed fairly. Without sound internal policies, the country will remain at the mercy of the flood of poverty and terrorism that are primarily the business of the government to deal with and not the international community.

I gave to Haiti, since they have few resources on that tiny island. I haven't given to Pakistan, Russia or China. All I see are large countries wasting money on war, armaments and lawlessness in a variety of areas of their government. I think this is a lesson to be learned for the people of those countries and any others with the potential for disasters, that have not put anything towards the safety of it's citizens by being prepared.

This isn't the first monsoon in Pakistan, not will it be the last. How smart do you have to be to prepare for the worst after having a history of this type of problem. Their government let them down. The people need to learn from this mistake and change the way their government supports them.

I'm not saying revolt! I'm saying think of how much disaster preparedness could have been accomplished for the price of 1 nuclear warhead. They could have done allot of safety construction and purchased a few helicopters and long lasting food stores with some of the funds they have spent on just 1 weapon of mass destruction!

It's a no brainer! You don't have to be a Boy Scout to be prepared!

I've become pretty suspicious and cynical about where my charity money goes, especially when going to places known for corrupt governments. This is unfortunate, because I know how desperately people need the help. I sent a small amount for the Haiti efforts, then promptly heard on the news that the charity I had given too was accused of diverting funds for personal purposes. For me it has less to do with the fact that it is Pakistan than the fact that I don't believe that the help is actually getting to where it needs to get.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Terrorism? As an ally to war against terrorism, it is the people of pakistan itself suffering from the bombings. people are often afraid to go out in the markets.

And yes, Media has done alot to create a disruptive image for pakistan. few of the recent movies like Roman Polanski's THE GHOST WRITER and other political often refer to terrorists being caught in pakistan, while that dialogues have no overall effect to the movies.

Plus, The current government has not done anything to help the flood victims. it is too busy with international affairs than their local disasters.

I feel we haven't give more out of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy? YES, that's it!

Excusing on the Taliban thing we're not giving the money they need, so we can save it for ourselves.

It sounds estrange to me as well, but, that's the only rational conclusion I can take.

Claims of Islamophobia is high-grade intellectual dishonesty.Unless there is a 3rd party,who I can trust with my money,not a cent is going there.I'm not entirely sure people are willing to trust any of these 3rd party organizations.After all, wasn't it the Red Cross who gave the Taliban FIRST AID training on the grounds on "neutrality"? If they could do it,who else? The lack of enthusiasm for giving aid to Pakistan is partly Pakistan's fault.The fact is that it is not trusted and rightly so.They curse the West,burn Western flags and they seriously expect people to willingly run to their aid? It's just not going to happen.

The image of the Pakistani government is not one that can be admired but we should remember that there are millions of people without food, water, shelter, and now with the flood waters receding the problems are far from over. Regardless of what the government is doing or what will do, we should do whatever we can, it is a crisis of mammoth proportions, and people need urgent help.

In this morning's New York Times, an op-ed piece by a Pakistani about the disaster refers to Pakistan's
government as corrupt and impoverished. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/opinion/19mueenuddin.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th
Impoverished because of corruption and despite many billions of dollars (pounds, Euros, RMB, Yen). It might be hard for many to differentiate the desperate Pakistani masses from the money-sponge government and anybody thinking of sending aid could be forgiven for wondering if their well-intentioned donation might just line some official's pockets. Why, with all the leverage that tens of billions of dollars provide, must the US plead for Pakistan's cooperation? Why aren't some of those dollars available for disaster relief? I'd like to know if the Pakistan military has reassigned any troops from their border with India to help with disaster-relief.

For every Pakistani who is endangered by the freak monsoonal weather, there are at least 162 Pakistanis who are not directly affected. It's certain than many of them have insufficient means to help their fellow countrymen, but many others could, and would render assistance, if there were some way for them to become involved.

Potential volunteers within Pakistan have complained to the BBC that there is no centralized authority in their country to co-ordinate their offers of help. They expressed frustration and I'm not surprised by that.

UN Relief...it sounds like a bit of a joke, by now, to anyone who's been following the news. Neighbouring Afghanistan can't explain, or account for, shiploads of 'aid money' that was duly delivered. People suspect it was used to line the pockets of bureaucrats and politicians...they may also suspect that the same will happen with any aid money sent as flood relief.

To all the reasons listed I would add one more: lack of coverage. Unlike the earthquake in Haiti or the Indonesian tsunami, viewers aren't seeing an unending stream of dramatic videos being sent by thousands of journalists interviewing people who speak English.
And there's the problem of expectations. Over the last decade any mention of Pakistan in the news is always followed by something negative and that generates a sense that giving won't make any difference - an earthquake yesterday, a flood today and probably something else tomorrow.

It appears that a who's to blame game is being played. The natural event calls for people to work together to do the best they can. Will everyone be happy, NO. The process of rebuilding lives and homes will take a long time. The greater challenge is keeping the masses from becoming radicalized.

Why haven't we given more to Pakistan?

Why, because it is below the sea level.

bjay

I am with most other people on the blog who thinks that Pakistan doesn’t seem like a place most of us relate too and are suspicious that the aid money won't ever get to the people in need.

USA and its allies are at war with Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The current military policy is 'winning heart and minds'. There is a deep mistrust of the American and NATO forces in that country.
This is the best time to take advantage of the situation and if the western have boots on the ground and actually get involved in relief and rebuilding effort at a major scale we have a chance to actually win 'hearts and minds' of the population. I do know they are making efforts but since the magnitude of disaster is huge I bet we can do more. This might be the only opportunity we might have to somehow marginalize the Jihadis influence and get our troops back home sooner than later.

I would love my tax dollar contributions that go to the armed forces to actually save lives rather than take lives in the name of preserving freedom and liberty.

It's the ecomony, stupid! Charity begins at home. People are not giving because they have difficulties paying their bills..

There is a saturation point; people who have helped before are not sure the money is going completely for relief efforts. There needs to be more transparency. The situation is dire but there needs to be more concerted efforts by world personalities like Bill Clinton to highlight the situation.

I believe the lack of response is because of the lack of an emotional response to the media coverage of the flood. I cannot comment on television coverage, because I do not have access to network coverage.

This program covered the Haiti earthquake by devoting at least two programs to interviewing the director of an orpanage in Haiti. I remember crying while at work, listening to her accounts. This disaster seems so abstract in comparison. Ban Ki-Moon describes it as the worst disaster he's ever seen, and I hear these immense numbers of victims affected, but it all seems very abstract compared to an interview with a mother with no food for her children.

In addition, I think the visual impact of a city reduced to rubble is far greater than a view of a city immersed in floodwaters. While a flood may be more devastating in reality, there is an impression that when the waters recede, everything will be fine again. Having been through a flood, I know this not to be true, but the images just don't appear as tragic.

People open their wallets when their hearts are breaking. Not when we hear intellectuals telling us how bad it is.

the discussion needs to be more focused on the reasons why people are not GIVING - so many different points are being made, some valid and worth discussing but right now is not the time - the flood victims need help now and we should keep the politics and the perceptions aside and SIMPLY help..yes other issues need fixing - but there is a time and place for that...

my pov is this - people are not giving because - there is not enough in the face news despite all the coverage in bbc etc, there is some poor perception about the country ( security and taleban etc) , there is some trust loss ( seen as unreliable) and some fears about how the money will be used and some if I may say so - past karma ( all these things happen for a reason)..

we can't control any of these in the short term -

the only thing we can do now is to increase the PLEA and ask for help and the world in general should GIVE first and then debate the politics...

Just wondering why most aid is always coming from western countries. Why are the very rich gulf countries.. especially during this month or Ramadan not more generous and compassionate?

I believe that the reason is a combination of #1 and #2. First of all, private citizens are hurting for money, and don't feel inclined to donate to any cause for the time being. Many major governments are spread pretty thin as it is, and I believe that many people is concerned about the Pakistani government's ability to properly distribute and use donated money. Finally, I believe that this disaster just seems so large and daunting that people feel helpless.

Regardless of the political and social issues plaguing Pakistan, innocent lives are being lost. We haven't given because we don't seem to care as much. I live in the United States, the exposure on this disaster pails in comparison to the one that happened in Haiti. Since BBC and this program is reliable and popular around the world, can this programe (if possible) provide some reliable sources by which regular folks like myself donate money?

It's clear that the government is in no condition to handle aid or the situation. My question is it beyond the capability of the current international community to respond so quickly to the situation?

Pakistan has been blamed for terrorism but most dont know that Pakistan has hosted more refugees in comparison to other countries including Saudia, UK and USA (Reuters).

People effected can exceed 13 million which is more than Tsunami, Kashmir earthquake and Haiti earthquake put together (UN).

If someone has an ounce of compassion you will put your hand in pocket.

I think we have given more than we should.. I did hear a government official say that we have given a 1/4 of all the aid so far and given the present cutback climate this suprises me. Obviously the government is lying saying we have a deficit.
I don't give abroad as we have starving children here which we don't seem to care about & when i did give £10.00 to the tsunami appeal i found that it didnt reach the region. This time it would probably go to the taliban.
I do feel sorry for them but charity begins at home.

Regarding aid donations to Pakistan I think two main factors are important here. Firstly Pakistan is not very vocal in condemning terrorist activities in India, Afghanistan and Western countries. They are seen as the breeding ground for extremism and that in turn tars the ability of people in other countries in separate politics from humanitarian causes.
Also I feel there has not been a major hand out by fellow Islamic countries which is surprising since we are in the month of Ramadan and again most generous aid comes from USA and Uk. Where is the help from their Islamic bothers?
May be it is time for Pakistan to consider their global image.
Soheila

Despite the cynical tone of the conversation, this show has convinced me to donate to Unicef, where I hadn't before. I hope others will see past a cynical view of Pakistan and donate as well.

Where is the Muslim world?

its the need of hour to realize the gravity of situation.one fifth of pakistan is under water,millions of people are suffering.we pakistanis are neither corrupt nor terrorists..we are just sufferers of terrorism,natural diasasters.there is immense need of aid and this calls for humanitarism.feel for the ppl,do for the ppl.

Forget the polotics for a moment. People are suffering. I would not send dime one to any forign nations government (I am American) but I have donated thru the American Red Cross and directed that my donation go to Pakistan flood relief. Left to starve, fester and rott, the people of Pakistan will take help from whom ever offers it... Ecpect that anyone to be people with bad intent. If that arguement doesnt convince any 0ne to donate then look at it this way, There is a child starving who can't find his mother. There is no dry place for him to sleep... Skip one big mac and send $10.00 to the Red Cross (Or red Cresent)

Perhaps it is because more people around the world have finally understood that the alarming rise in extreme weather is now a fact of life.
While parts of Australia, America, Russia and Ukraine have suffered huge fires, parts of China, Europe, Asia and South America, to name but a few, have seen some of the worst floods in living memory. Endless storms, that seem to increase in intensity every year, now last longer than the normal storm seasons of the past and hurricanes are seen in places they were never seen before!
So many people world wide have lost so much to the world's new weather that they perhaps think what's the point of putting money into help and rebuilding when they know damn well it's all going to happen again!

Could the reason be that Osama bin Laden has lived there for the last almost TEN YEARS?

Or maybe that the US has GIVEN BILLIONS of dollars to Pakistan over the last decade, and we are still despised by the population, and all the money just ... well... disappeared.

Well it would be a nice gesture for Mrs Bhutto's Knightsbridge House to be sold and the proceeds contributed plus of course all her alleged overseas cash

Pakistan is in need of help. Corruption is a major factor not giving aid to pakistan. I would say there are many NGOs in Pakistan that can resolve this issue. However, in general west should understand no aid should be given to pakistani government.All the political or non political parties are rooted by the corruption. There should be project based aid to pakistan monitored by foreign companies. That might provide some direct relief to common people and poor citizens of pakistan.