A Helping Hand: Caught Between The Open Hand And The Fist
I am often interested in the response that many nations have with regards to the safety of other human beings when it does not involve military action. Case in point – currently some 28 million people in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal have been affected by severe flooding causing a humanitarian crisis that could quickly escalate because of stagnant water and the spread of disease. According to the World Health Organization, “the scale of the disaster has dwarfed relief efforts”.
It seems to me that we live in a day and age in which the invasions of nations are more seriously contemplated and sold as ‘humanitarian’ in nature than the desire to ensure that millions are protected from disease and can regain some semblance of their lives after losing everything - and not because of the actions of a tyrant or a radical group, but from something as simple as rain.
New Orleans remains a brutal example of the sort of nonchalance that is afforded those that have endured deadly occurrences compared to the seriousness that is daily applied to the disastrous entanglements in foreign wars. While many in the region affected by Hurricane Katrina are being refused coverage by insurance companies, some still forced to live in trailers fraught with problems, the war machine turns unabated. In fact, the United States is in the midst of solidifying foreign arms agreements that total some $50 billion dollars, and yet the legacy of Katrina remains prevalent for all to see.
What actually constitutes a compassionate society? Robert Kennedy once referred to the United States as a selfless nation. Of course, mere minutes after making that remark, he was gunned down in a hotel kitchen. But the question remains – if our sense of humanity extends only so far as our own national security concerns, then what right do we have to claim ourselves anything but selfish? While we view ourselves as just, and are easily convinced because of that outlook that the use of force to help ensure the supposed safety of others is, in fact, humane, then what of acting selflessly when the need for force is not required? What if, rather than bombs, all that is required is clean drinking water and that the deliverance of it does not come with some sort of underlying, beneficial future arrangement?
In truth, our sense of selflessness and compassion exists in a vacuum. It is belayed by entirely selfish concerns, rendering it pointless in many ways. True, there are examples that it indeed exists, but to what realistic extent is it employed when it is required, and in how timely a fashion?
In the case of Canada, why has the federal government not looked into deploying DART with regards to the situation in South Asia? According to the National Defense website, DART’s operational criteria is as follows…
responds rapidly, in conjunction with national and regional governments and non-governmental agencies, to stabilize the primary effects of an emergency or disaster;
provides purified drinking water and medical aid to help prevent the rapid onset of secondary effects of a disaster; and
gains time for the deployment of national and international humanitarian aid to facilitate long-term recovery in a disaster-stricken community.
All three are perfectly applicable to the disaster in South Asia and what it might very well cause in the days and weeks ahead. True, taxpayer money would ultimately be used to pay for its deployment, but therein lies the reality of the world in which we live. Are we citizens of it as a whole, or merely insular inhabitants of portions of it when such disasters strike? If we can justify our involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan, and the use of taxes to pay for it, then the inability of Canadians to support the use of DART with regards to what is unfolding in South Asia points to something very dark and very real – that when it comes to what we perceive as our own security, that it is entirely justifiable to act under the pretense of selflessness, and yet it is just as justifiable to hesitate when that is not the case.
I hope, in this instance, that will not be the reality. Because the truth of the matter is – it rains most places.
In Addition
Editor’s Note: Relief agencies currently dealing with the crisis:
- Oxfam Canada
- The Canadian Red Cross
- UNICEF
Related:
- The World Health Organization
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
In the past several days due to my busy schedule have only been able to scan headlines and catch snibbets of news. The worst part about it is that I haven’t seen anything about this flooding on the front page or even second page of any of the daily newspapers or the lead webpage at CNN.com.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Dude, you totally hit the nail on the head with the DART comment: What makes it right in using our tax dollars on something that is totally unavoidable (in my opinion) as opposed to a natural disaster, something that is out of our hands to control? I would be much more willing and much more satisfied knowing that the money that I give this country that I am working for is going to something that is actually NEEDED, as opposed to something in which should not be occuring in the first place. I believe that it is our right as a country, and a very much so peaceful and giving country, to hold out a hand to those in need, and these people who have been displaced, injured, become homeless and sick, and lord only knows what else are in dire need of our help. Why are we hesitating? We’re so gladly giving money to a war fueled by American “politics”, and their idea of “freedom”, yet to supply clean drinking water to a part of the world otherwise overlooked, and we’re just “thinking about it”? Something is terribly wrong here, and I’m pretty ashamed of our rich nations. Wake up people.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I’m going to try and do more than just agree with you and elaborate on this; hope it’s appreciated.
I think as far as the average citizen of the world is concerned, compassion is as much about a feeling of fulfillment as it is about genuine compassion for others. In a psychological sense we need to have that selfish feeling that we’re making an impact in order to motivate us to make the world a better place. This may sound crass, but for all intensive purposes I would imagine thinking of it any other way is essentially viewing life through rose coloured shades. Needless to say, I think it’s less a matter of keeping the pessimism going and more a matter of how we manipulate–for lack of a better word–these tendencies to maximize change in the best possible way. Hopefully if we can ever elect a government that can cultivate a sense of philanthropy amongst the public, we can not only add humanitarian assistance to the list of things like peace-keeping, that we hold dear, and actually put our money where our mouth is. Personally I think the biggest question is not whether or not we’re selfish or selfless, rather it’s whether or not we can live up to the hot air we blow about being good global citizens.
Cheers, Thom
August 7th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
First (and just because I do have my own soapbox) - Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors without Borders is also responding to this crisis.
DART - I lived and worked directly beside one facet of the DART team in Kashmir Pakistan following the earthquake. They pumped up water from the river into large bladders, treated it, and distributed it to the area. We later took over this responsibility. But they were there, doing exactly what they ought to have been doing, given their mandate.
The U.S. Military was also out in full force after the earthquake. One wonders about the real intentions between military strategy and “aid” especially in militarily sensitive areas. Whilst they were performing a valuable service, they were also able to be present in an area of interest, previously closed to most of the western world. Also it was good P.R. for the U.S. in an area of high anti-american sentiment.
Overall, the delivery of humanitarian aid by foreign military in any type of crisis blurs the line between military and the independent, neutral aid agencies. To have military presenting themselves as “humanitarian” In politically sensitive areas can result in increased risk for the aid agencies, with accusations of being agents for foreign militaries and/or increased risk of targeted killing or kidnapping of aid workers.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
It’s pretty sad that I haven’t even heard anything about this crisis yet. Mind you I’m not as up to date on current events as I have been in the past, but still you’d think I would have heard something! Maybe we ought to draft something up and get some letter writing going to convince the Canadian government to step in? I’ve had good luck with letter writing in the past.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
yeah, but who ever got elected to office with a generous campaign contribution from the dry bedding and water filter manufacturing industry?
too bad you can’t care for evacuees and the indigent with trident missiles and F-22s.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
I am often interested in the response that many nations have with regards to the safety of other human beings when it does not involve military action. Case in point – currently some 28 million people in India, Bangladesh, and Nepal have been affected by severe flooding causing a humanitarian crisis that could quickly escalate because of stagnant water and the spread of disease. According to the World Health Organization, “the scale of the disaster has dwarfed relief efforts.
“Too true, too often. Canada has lost its voice on the international scene and it needs to review how it helps those who need it most.”
It seems to me that we live in a day and age in which the invasions of nations are more seriously contemplated and sold as ‘humanitarian’ in nature than the desire to ensure that millions are protected from disease and can regain some semblance of their lives after losing everything - and not because of the actions of a tyrant or a radical group, but from something as simple as rain.
“Agreed. So why is Canada still viewed in messianic peacekeeping blue when it has contributed so little for so long? Is that why Canada was 10th among all peacekeeping nations for contributions, money and mab in 2006? We need to seriously consider what we contribute and why today.”
New Orleans remains a brutal example of the sort of nonchalance that is afforded those that have endured deadly occurrences compared to the seriousness that is daily applied to the disastrous entanglements in foreign wars. While many in the region affected by Hurricane Katrina are being refused coverage by insurance companies, some still forced to live in trailers fraught with problems, the war machine turns unabated. In fact, the United States is in the midst of solidifying foreign arms agreements that total some $50 billion dollars, and yet the legacy of Katrina remains prevalent for all to see.
“You talk of separate issues. The United States has failed to rise to the occasion and address its own people who are suffering as a result of this natural disaster, yet…”
“the Saudi Arabian arms deal is a strategic move to reinforce what little American voice exists in the African horn. It’s not wise, it’s not considerate, it’s completely political and a responsive move to counter those moves in the Middle East that the United States finds threatening. If anything, it’s another myopic move in a series of in a delicate region that is waiting for a strong voice to truly speak for it.”
What actually constitutes a compassionate society? Robert Kennedy once referred to the United States as a selfless nation. Of course, mere minutes after making that remark, he was gunned down in a hotel kitchen. But the question remains – if our sense of humanity extends only so far as our own national security concerns, then what right do we have to claim ourselves anything but selfish? {{
“Perhaps nothing more, but of what consequence of that choice?”
While we view ourselves as just, and are easily convinced because of that outlook that the use of force to help ensure the supposed safety of others is, in fact, humane, then what of acting selflessly when the need for force is not required? What if, rather than bombs, all that is required is clean drinking water and that the deliverance of it does not come with some sort of underlying, beneficial future arrangement?
“Selfish concerns has become as a synonym of national concerns…right or wrong depending where you find yourself in the political spectrum.”
In truth, our sense of selflessness and compassion exists in a vacuum. It is belayed by entirely selfish concerns, rendering it pointless in many ways. True, there are examples that it indeed exists, but to what realistic extent is it employed when it is required, and in how timely a fashion?
In the case of Canada, why has the federal government not looked into deploying DART with regards to the situation in South Asia? According to the National Defense website, DART’s operational criteria is as follows…
Responds rapidly, in conjunction with national and regional governments and non-governmental agencies, to stabilize the primary effects of an emergency or disaster;
Provides purified drinking water and medical aid to help prevent the rapid onset of secondary effects of a disaster; and
Gains time for the deployment of national and international humanitarian aid to facilitate long-term recovery in a disaster-stricken community.
All three are perfectly applicable to the disaster in South Asia and what it might very well cause in the days and weeks ahead. True, taxpayer money would ultimately be used to pay for its deployment, but therein lays the reality of the world in which we live. Are we citizens of it as a whole, or merely insular inhabitants of portions of it when such disasters strike? If we can justify our involvement in combat operations in Afghanistan, and the use of taxes to pay for it, then the inability of Canadians to support the use of DART with regards to what is unfolding in South Asia points to something very dark and very real – that when it comes to what we perceive as our own security, that it is entirely justifiable to act under the pretense of selflessness, and yet it is just as justifiable to hesitate when that is not the case.
“We long for an international voice beyond 2600 troops in war-torn Afghanistan, minding Cypress, peace in Haiti, and so on because such is the myth of the Canadian Peacekeeper. We need to consider what is selfless support as Canadian citizens, and how much we are prepared to help those who suffer beyond our borders. We love the image…how prepared are we to mmit to to those in second and third world conditions? From the days of ‘56 Pearson we long to be viewed as the hopeful humanitarians, the peacekeepers, but in the last 10-20 years, we’re unwilling to consider the real price of that commitment. We need to consider what we have herein Canada, and what we can give to others, because indeed, it rains heavy in most places.”
I hope, in this instance that will not be the reality. Because the truth of the matter is – it rains most places.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
[quote comment="22361"]yeah, but who ever got elected to office with a generous campaign contribution from the dry bedding and water filter manufacturing industry?
too bad you can’t care for evacuees and the indigent with trident missiles and F-22s.[/quote]
If this were universally true, then the Afghan war would be a moot point, not a divisive and dangerous political topic. The military industrial complex–which in reality is FAR more American oriented of a concept than Canadian–will cease to be when people start giving a damn about politics and pushing for change. So essentially its our fault, not the war mongerers
August 7th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I think I’m going to play the political game on this one, I’ve been meaning to get into a fight with the government, and this is as worthy a fight as any nowadays. I will write my mp and I might just have a hint of attitude, who knows ;). Has anyone here had any experiences with writing their MP’s that they can share? It would be helpful to know the history of used tactics in fighting these political battles.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Honestly, you’ll not likely get more than an automated response, or a ‘thank you for your opinion’ piece of junk mail.
Your best bet, if you want to make your voice heard is to visit the mp’s office. Next, visit their opponents in the riding and do the same if you can. Also, contact any local political groups that might assist in championing the cause.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I see. Well, I’m going to try the letter despite your forewarnings, merely because it’s the easiest thing to do. I fear the elected reps in this country know more about the economy than I do, and I do fear they will use that against me. Just the good intention doesn’t appear to cut it. I am thankful I am going to university next month - I expect the community for political activism to be larger than my 1000 pop town.
What will contacting my mp’s opponents do for me? They’re just ordinary citizens like you and I.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:23 am
[quote comment="22364"][quote comment="22361"]yeah, but who ever got elected to office with a generous campaign contribution from the dry bedding and water filter manufacturing industry?
too bad you can’t care for evacuees and the indigent with trident missiles and F-22s.[/quote]
If this were universally true, then the Afghan war would be a moot point, not a divisive and dangerous political topic. The military industrial complex–which in reality is FAR more American oriented of a concept than Canadian–will cease to be when people start giving a damn about politics and pushing for change. So essentially its our fault, not the war mongerers[/quote]
——————
sorry, i commented out of context - i’m american, so that should put what i originally said in perspective. if you’re canadian, then you definitely have more of a chance to see change on this issue. the money that drives the war machine has far less influence there than it does here, so in that sense, opting out of the political process is irresponsible.
here in the states, however, change is the stuff of daydreams. that doesn’t mean that the discussion shouldn’t be held, but it’s a much more bleak landscape is all i’m saying. after 60 years of arming the world and ourselves for armageddon, there’s simply too much money in the hands of the wrong people to make beating swords into plowshares and minding our own business something that’s likely to happen without something drastic to serve as a catalyst.
really, if 9/11 couldn’t cause some foreign policy introspection, i don’t want to be around for what will.
August 8th, 2007 at 3:15 am
a few commented that they haven’t heard about this emergency in the main stream media. i would suggest a couple of canadian outlets: nowpublic.com and thetyee.ca . i posted about this a few days ago in NowPublic: http://www.nowpublic.com/millions_people_struggling_floods_india_bangladesh_and_nepal
mobilization of DART would be a great lifesaver [if they manage to get there pretty soon]. because in flood situations, the most critical issues are to provide safe drinking water and prevent water-born diseases. infact one canadian is RRT called the GlobalMedic Team is already on the ground. http://www.dmgf.org/
August 8th, 2007 at 6:35 am
The U.S. spends almost 6 times more than Canada on international aid and in dollar amounts it gives more than any other country in the world. So I’m curious why on an issue that we can finally say the U.S. is doin something right we still have to criticize it…..Just sayin.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:55 am
[quote comment="22411"]The U.S. spends almost 6 times more than Canada on international aid and in dollar amounts it gives more than any other country in the world. So I’m curious why on an issue that we can finally say the U.S. is doin something right we still have to criticize it…..Just sayin.[/quote]
Sources please.
August 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
ncguitarplayer,
The economy of the US is also something like 11-12 times bigger than Canada’s. And is the largest economy in the world in dollar amounts, and one of the very richest in per capita terms. So, that the US is the world’s biggest giver of foreign aid is no surprise. This doesn’t give the total picture of course, but regarding official development aid in 2004 …
Canada- $2.537 billion, or 0.26% of GDP
United States- $18.999 billion, or 0.16% of GDP
European Union- $42.9191, or 0.36% of GDP
The EU figures are more valuable measuring against the US, because the combined economy of the European Union is comparable in size to that of the United States. Now, what about this 0.7% that Bono and Bob Geldof are always on about? The EU is about half that- and Canada and the US are far below it.
Who meets that goal in the whole world?
The Danes (0.84%), The Dutch (0.74%), The Luxembourgese (?, 0.85%), the Norwegians (0.87%), and the Swedish (0.77%).
And of course, there’s not only serious problems with the paltry amount of aid, but also its allocation. Essentially, we’re neither giving enough or giving smart enough. I tend to think that it might be wise for these rich countries to get together and, maybe, ‘adopt’ a few poorer countries in such a fashion to allow more targeted aid, and furthermore, greater knowledge about conditions and needs in that individual nation. This is excepting, of course, the sudden needs created by natural disasters or military conflicts of one type or another. It’s just a thought, I don’t know how practical it would be.
Taken from the OECD website. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/40/3/35389786.pdf
August 8th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Thanks for the info(and the sources) Kris.
While I dont think we need to bow to the demands of tax dodging rockstars. We as Canadians still need to pull our socks up on this issue.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Yeah, I agree. The celebrity spokesmen have a bad habit of not putting their money where their mouths are.
Selflessness would be fantastic. That being said, even consistent application of enlightened self-interest would make the world a much better place. Africa could really use a Marshall Plan.
August 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Majority of DART’s staff is filled as a secondary tasking to units on a rotating basis. There is an HQ and key medical staff in place but the rapid response structure/tasking is transitioned from unit to unit same as with Immediate response Units (IRU’s) for domestic response.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
[quote comment="22378"]Your best bet, if you want to make your voice heard is to visit the mp’s office. Next, visit their opponents in the riding and do the same if you can. [/quote]
Unfortunately, in my area the mp is a conservative and a jackass. There’s no competition to speak of either, a dead fish could run for the Tories and win. In the past we at the Manitoba Campaign to Ban Land Mines have had more luck writing the Prime Minister directly, but of course, we haven’t tried it with Harper yet… I suspect he wouldn’t be very helpful.
Writing a single letter with one person is useless. Getting a big group of people to each write a single letter however can work.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
I should look more into the Canadian position on the use of landmines. I didn’t think that the Canadian Forces used them? Or is it more about getting us to assert ourselves internationally?
August 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
[quote comment="22411"]The U.S. spends almost 6 times more than Canada on international aid and in dollar amounts it gives more than any other country in the world. So I’m curious why on an issue that we can finally say the U.S. is doin something right we still have to criticize it…..Just sayin.[/quote]
You’re right about Canada spending way less on a gross scale. The US spends at least 10x more than us, but that can be chalked up to the fact that their GDP is way more than 10x that of ours. Canada’s aid spending per GDP is at about .25% right now compared to the rallied for .7% and our past efforts which have reached as high as .5% during the Cold War. Long story short, we fall far short of even our own goals, no sense in comparing ourselves to the US, all its going to do is MAYBE give us an excuse to shirk spending.
August 8th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
[quote comment="22529"]I should look more into the Canadian position on the use of landmines. I didn’t think that the Canadian Forces used them? Or is it more about getting us to assert ourselves internationally?[/quote]
The Canadian Government has signed and ratified the treaty to ban land mines, meaning we don’t use or produce them. Unfortunately there are still mines in the ground left over from even the first world war causing problems not for military personal, but for innocent civilians. There’s still countries that haven’t ratified the treaty like the US… If you want more information you can check out the Manitoba campaign’s website here: http://www.mbcbl.org. The founder of it is a good friend of mine :). There’s also the international campaign at http://www.icbl.org.