Natural disasters strike all too often, especially in places ill-equipped to handle the resultant humanitarian crises.

When well-publicized, these may lead to relief efforts funded by the deep pockets of the developed world. Generous giving by individuals and governments can turn the tide, rebuilding lives and essential infrastructure.

But some argue that this tunnel-vision focus on natural-disaster relief blinds us to other work being done in developing nations, decades-long efforts that don’t get the press time or the charitable millions but are equally worthy of support.

A New York Times article published this week describes such a scenario in Myanmar (or Burma), which has received unprecedented amounts of aid in response to last May’s devastating Cyclone Nargis.

Prior to the storm, assistance to Myanmar was slim due to the pariah status of the country’s military government. The havoc wreaked in the Irrawaddy Delta by Cyclone Nargis, however, was too much to ignore.

Estimates put the number of dead and missing at 130,000, with millions more at risk from starvation, disease, and lack of clean water. Thanks to high-profile pushes for aid, and the resolve of the international community to pressure the ruling junta to accept it once offered, many survivors are now getting the care they need.

But for the rest of the country, little has changed since Nargis.

In northern and western Myanmar, locals still face poverty, disease, and a fundamental dearth of resources, not to mention the repressive policies of their government.

Agencies that operate nationwide, such as the UN’s World Food Program and Doctors Without Borders, have their hands tied by the funds they receive, with most of it earmarked for cyclone relief.

While food and supplies may be flowing into the Irrawaddy Delta, programs elsewhere are being cut in the wake of the global financial crisis.

The junta, instead of addressing the issue, is exacerbating it, as “impoverished villagers here along the border with Bangladesh have been forced by the government to donate money for the victims of Cyclone Nargis—a philanthropic gesture, couched as patriotic duty, that they can hardly afford.”

Many elements of Myanmar’s situation are unique. But it does raise the question:

Do the benefits of disaster-centric international aid outweigh the pitfalls?

What’s your view?

Community Connection:

Myanmar/Burma is a hot topic on the Matador Network.

Check out a special Burma-focused edition of Tales from the Road, Sean Aiken’s touching essay, Waiting for Life to Begin in a Burmese Refugee Camp, or the very pertinent 6 Ways To Avoid Aiding Repressive Governments.

Top photo by Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Creative Commons)

Bottom/feature photo by Taekwonweirdo (Creative Commons)

World Events
 

About The Author

Hal Amen

Freelance writer Hal Amen edits Matador Trips. His personal travel blog is at WayWorded.

  • Michael_Melton

    I've always felt that international aid is a joke. Instead of helping the country develop a strong backbone, and becoming self reliant, we wait for them to fail. Then we parade in with American made products, instead of supporting the local economy. Mean while, there are plenty of starving people in the world we couldn't care less about. We only like to help when the world is watching, not when people are really in need.

  • Hal

    I believe I read somewhere that the WFP's usual protocol is to buy food locally, to support the economy of the country they're working in, but they were prohibited from doing so in this case due to fears of a food shortage. In your view, what would a more beneficial aid system look like?

  • Michael_Melton

    I'd prefer a world where we worked on a better food distribution system, so that all countries could flourish. A world that was not dependent on first world countries for their survival. A world that wasn't being torn apart by American subsidies. I believe that we have much larger food distribution issues than just during disasters. However, the only time we want to talk about distribution is during a disaster. I guess the process needs to start somewhere, and I thank you for the great article.

  • Hal

    Yes, it's very unfortunate that it takes a disaster to elevate these issues to mainstream focus. Change has to start somewhere–why not with us? Thanks for your comments, Michael.

  • Mallika Henry

    I imagine there are few issues more important than food and hunger. And few governments that take their poorest people seriously, including in the United States. I imagine that any aid organization dealing with a government as cruel as that of Myanmar has their hands tied. I think the more that can be done to publicize the peculiar politics of food handouts, the better. I recently attended a lecture on hunger, only to learn that most of the farming in the world is done by very small subsistence farmers. If everything can be done to aid such farmers to grow and sell their crops at reasonable prices, and not flood the market with food the US wants to unload, it seems that would begin to address the problem. But the more information is made available on how food aid distorts markets and causes hunger, the better. Thank you for writing about it!

World Events →

On January 13, the Costa Concordia was sunk by a killer wave...

World Events →

Astounding amateur footage of the flash flood that rocked Australia.

World Events →

After five days, authorities have finally arrived at Parque Indoamericano in Buenos Aires...

Diving →

Scuba diving in the Mergui Archipelago featuring whale sharks and eagle ray, octopus,...

Human Rights →

The people of Myanmar protest, resulting bloody crackdown by the military government.

Narrative →

Canadian journalist Sophie Dube-Chavanel sends in a first person dispatch from the...

 

"If the water stops flowing then you’re going to be drinking out of the local ditch. ....

 

Tragedy in the media is all too easy to forget, unless you've actually been there.

 

There are ways to help the helpless.