The recent earthquake in Haiti brings to light problems in the way very large scale disasters are perceived and managed.
A newspaper in the UK recently had a two page spread that included several different stories on the situation. There were the political concerns within the EU as much about being seen to provide aid as the provision itself; there was an article that examined possible jostling for position on news coverage amongst agencies trying to raise funds; and there was an examination of the social consequences of out of country adoptions for child survivors.
Money on a grand scale is being raised around the world. The United States are sending in so many military resources that some feel it is almost an invasion. Rescue teams from around the world have descended on Haiti, located a hundred or more survivors, and having dug them out of the rubble, are now starting to go home, their job done.
All this activity and political playing is set against the reality, and one assumes it is the reality, of the news reports seen on TV. The impression given by reporters, and by all accounts the perception of the survivors on the ground, is that little aid is getting through quickly enough to where it is needed most.
The majority of observers, or indeed the survivors, have no comprehension of the logistics required in such a situation, and few are aware of what it is like to be at the receiving end of emergency aid. Similarities with the relief effort immediately after hurricane Katrina come to mind. The question is just how quickly can any organisation or donor nation respond to such a large scale disaster. Maybe what we are seeing really is as good as present resources and experiences allow.
For sure, the disaster will continue to unfold long after the reporters and cameras crews have gone home and attention has turned to analysis of how well we did (or didn’t do) the things that were needed.
