On the 30/7/10 I received an email from Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) - I happen to be signed up to their online mailing list. It basically read:
Recent heavy rainfall in Pakistan's north-western region has caused the most severe flooding the country has seen in over 80 years, destroying buildings and infrastructure. More than three million people have been affected and over 1,400 people are confirmed dead....our teams who were already in the country were able to respond rapidly to the floods. This included expanding our response to a cholera outbreak which had begun some weeks earlier. Within days of the first floods, we set up three additional temporary cholera treatment centres in Swat, Lower Dir and Dargai districts.
This was the first I had heard of the flooding disaster, it wasn't for another 24 hours that I saw this reported on the news - this gap I find somewhat disturbing. However, I do know that the flood was known about within the media, I just hadn't come across it on televised news or in my smh feed - but this isn't the point.
I was more so disturbed that after having being first informed of the disaster by MSF - having been provided an image of their flood relief efforts.
That the news the next night was proclaiming that there was no assistance for the victims occurring save for the assistance of the US army. This felt to me like a large misrepresentation.
Later, the MSF photo of the day blog featured two Pakistani children carrying water with the explanation:
In addition to the expansion of its medical activities, MSF’s priority is to provide clean water and improve hygienic conditions in order to prevent the spread of acute respiratory infections, diarrhoeal diseases, and skin infections. MSF teams are getting ready in case of a waterborne disease outbreak, such as cholera, however the situation is under control at this point.
A larger article at the website contained the same as well as the following:
Official figures now refer to more than three million people having been directly affected by the floods, and more than 1,500 confirmed deaths. More rains are expected in the coming days and could cause renewed flooding and create problems in areas that have been unaffected until now. But some areas that were initially affected are becoming more accessible thanks to the water levels receding.
Upon reading this I was automatically struck by the great difference between the reinforced need within the article to ensure the availability of clean drinking water and that of the televised news which stated lack of food was the greatest issue. I do not propose that either is wrong - but the difference between the accounts is mildly alarming. This SMH article claims that:
At least 1600 people have been killed, but there are warnings the final toll could rise well above 2000. At the weekend about 30 bodies were reportedly recovered following landslides in two flood-hit villages in the north, while 25 more people were believed missing.
About 15 million people have been directly affected by the floods, but the consequences are being felt across the country as food prices rise. There are reports the cost of basics like onions, potatoes and tomatoes has quadrupled following the inundation of huge tracts of prime farming land.
This opposes the claim on MSF of "more than three million people having been directly affected by the floods". This leaves any person guessing about the real situation in Pakistan. The difference may be due to the time elapsed between 5/8 when the MSF notification was published and the SMH article which is from 10/8. However, the organisation Oxfam reads that: "according to the UN over 4 million people have been affected."
If the media is intent on painting this issue as such a major crisis - I would like a greater clarity of factual information. I admit I am more sold by the MSF article which explains simply and logically the different regions within which they operate - something I have not seen in any other articles. Admittedly I have not searched very far because as much as I want to share this disparity of information, it has also caused me to reflect on how the average individual gains information on issues such as this.Even well informed accounts with the intent to inform the international world cannot give us a total picture. This is just another example that reinforced this fact.
Considering all of this causes one to ponder what we don't know, and what the importance of all that is. It is considered the mark of a good democratic society that we are aware of national and international issues; 'good' in relation to our own country as well as the country of the subject. Engaging with the issues also allows other nations to provide assistance to ailing countries. I myself believe that it is important to be aware of global issues, they give perspective - a reminder of the great size of the world in which we are only a tiny part.
But it is the disparities such as this and the continual unearthing of unreported years-old disasters that call in to question whether what we are told is truthful and what other disasters are left untold in the wake of such concentration on single issues.
Reports come into Australia of a bombing in Afghanistan - 1 Australian killed and several others injured. What about the others? I may be Australian, but that does not mean I only want to hear about our soldiers. I have friends serving overseas, I have some reason to be concerned. But I am also concerned about my awareness of how many other hundreds of local people have been killed - not just our Western forces. The world is greater than that.
I could go on, but this last point in particular will not doubt be the subject of a post in the near future.
This has been a little bit of a ramble - I have spent time writing overly conscious of the fact that I should be studying. So excuse the lack of structure or proper thesis.
-Emily
No comments:
Post a Comment