The Image and the Pseudo-event

Human: Characteristic of people as opposed to God or animals or machines, especially susceptible to weakness, and therefore showing the qualities of man.

Just a brief interlude.

After the chaos following the overthrow of a murderous American-backed dictator there had been a terrible famine. By the end of 1992 it was virtually over. Red Cross supplies were getting through to the people. The situation appeared to be under control. It was at that point George Bush (Papa Bush not Baby Bush) decided to make a spectacular show of “humanitarian aid.”

Marines were sent in. Naturally all the news networks were notified. What would be the point otherwise? There was a night landing in front of TV cameras waiting for them. It was so comical that even the television teams couldn't take it seriously. But the marines with their night vision equipment were blinded by the camera lights and the crews had to be ordered to shut them off. Of course, there was no resistance.

Then followed a tragicomedy in which some lives were saved by humanitarian aid but many were lost by heavy-handed military tactics. All of this was later blamed on the United Nations. It was a fiasco, and it was all under American military control. Almost all their most elite troops were there. The Americans estimated that between 7 000 and 10 000 locals were killed. Fewer than a hundred Americans lost their lives. They seemed to accept that for what it was worth. Specialists who have worked in the area estimated that about as many people were saved by the humanitarian intervention as were killed by the military operation. They could even have been the same people. It was felt that the whole matter may even have proceeded better without the military. It also appears that the whole thing was done mostly for Public Relations purposes. It was at any rate promoted that way. That's only the beginning.

Genuine offers of assistance and subsequent intervention in other peoples’ lives would often be considered a good thing. It is often quite easy.

There is much soul-searching and a lot self-flagellation on why we so often get it wrong.

As a result of this shambles and the subsequent soul-searching, the Americans refused to get involved in the Rwandan genocide. When they refused, all in the West also decided not to intervene to stop it.

Today Rwanda is often mentioned as an example of the failure of the United Nations, and it was that indeed. But what is possibly even worse is the failure to mention that the UN failed because the United States kept UN peacekeepers from being reinforced, cut off their supplies, and pushed ceaselessly to have them removed. Or the failure to mention that the State Department deliberately covered up its clear knowledge that what was happening was genocide.

For 100 days, people were killed at the rate of about 8 000 a day. It is the same as about a third of the number of children who die every day in the world from easily treatable diseases, not for 100 days, but every day.

This is far easier, but not very glamorous, to stop than sending troops to Rwanda. All that is required is to spend a small amount to bribe drug companies to produce the required remedies. It would require them to do something different than that which they are required to do by law: maximize profits at all costs, often by making medicines only for the rich.

That should be enough to stop ongoing Rwanda-style killings, and stop this not just for one hundred days, but constantly.

Is anyone doing it?

What does that tell us about the alleged humanitarian concerns over Rwanda?

Or Darfur? Or Aghanistan? Or Iraq? Or the Congo?

What it does tells us, very clearly, is that humanitarian concerns are wonderful so long as it's someone else's crimes and we do not have to do anything about them apart from striking heroic poses.

It also tells us a lot more.

Much of the formal structures on which we depend, and told that we have to depend upon, are simply a motley collection of institutions, a few individuals that had conferred upon themselves a series of mandates of their own choosing, and now function as a mutual backslapping society, giving one another high office and all the power, influence and prestige that go with it.

Ponder for a moment upon the savagery and criminality of a society that is based on institutional structures so utterly insane that in order to stop, not only genocide but permanent Rwanda-style killings among children of the world, there are no tools available except to bribe unaccountable private tyrannies to pretend to save them.

". . . a land of facilities, where nothing had to be striven for, and success was indistinguishable from failure." (E.M. Forster "Maurice")

Edward Girardet - a writer and journalist specializing in media, humanitarian aid, and conflict - provides some interesting insights into the Aid Industry in the following article “Aid Projects Need More Critical Media Coverage”
The article contains the usual list of wrongdoings and abuses committed by Aid and UN officials but also some very useful suggestions and observations (listed below).
1. Wrongdoing is nothing new to the international aid industry. But in most cases there is no dogged media reporting or public will to bring the culprits to task.
International aid is in desperate need of more critical reporting. This is crucial if committed aid professionals are to do their jobs properly. Many feel frustrated by their inability to thwart the inherent nepotism, corruption, and power abuses that pervade much of the system.
2. Aid organizations regularly cover up managerial dysfunction, including sexual harassment, by ignoring the actions of those responsible. This has led to an environment of impunity with few employees daring to speak out.
3. Many organizations are burdened by incompetent individuals who stifle the initiatives of others, sometimes with resounding consequences for the victims of war, HIV/AIDS, or drought.
4. Every year, the UN and NGO’s, and also the military, spend (up to) billions of dollars on humanitarian, reconstruction, or peacekeeping programs of dubious impact. (Although) NGO’s, which rely heavily on donor funding, can cite innumerable examples of aid that makes little sense, they are (nevertheless) cautious about criticizing their benefactors.
5. Many NGO’s, including highly respectable organizations, have become obsessed by image as a means of promoting fundraising (and) seek to focus on initiatives that make them look good but do not necessarily respond to on-the-ground needs.
6. Humanitarianism should not "belong" to any one group. What the international aid industry urgently needs is more hard-nosed and independent reporting.
7. The best solution would be the creation of a viable media watchdog capable of reporting the real causes behind humanitarian predicaments, including how the international community responds.

In his review of “The Road to Hell: The Ravaging Effects of Foreign Aid International Charity” by Michael Maren, Steven Hansch makes the observation that:
“Curiously, Maren concludes that NGO’s cannot be trusted to monitor themselves, and are best evaluated by journalists. Since few journalists have any of the technical expertise necessary to interpret project data, epidemiologic trends, or economic effects, Maren is encouraging more of the simplification that already exists.”
It has to be understood that none of the suggestions by Edward Girardet - useful and necessary as they are - will lead to any meaningful change in the Aid Industry unless they are applied within a functioning legal framework where wrongdoers are ultimately held liable for their actions and punished when necessary. (Like, for example, Kenneth Lay, et. al.)
That is yet to happen.