Opening the floodgates – perceived terrorist threats in the wake of the Pakistan floods

This article was co-researched and co-written with Weh Yeoh.

Less than 2 months out from the devastating floods in Pakistan and the international response can only be described as woeful and inadequate. Consider these mind-blowing facts: the number of people displaced by the flood in Pakistan is almost the same as the entire population of Australia. The area that is currently underwater is about 600 000 square kilometres – an area larger than England. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described the floods as the worst natural disaster he has ever seen.

The area affected by the Pakistan floods dwarfs the area of England. Image courtesy of http://howbigreally.com/

When we compare this disaster response to that following the devastating earthquake in Haiti at the start of the year, a response that we heavily criticised in this post, we can see a huge disparity. Within 10 days of the Haiti disaster, $742 million was committed and $920 million pledged internationally. This worked out to $495 allocated per person. Within 3 weeks of the Pakistan disaster, only $230 million was committed to help a much larger population. Per person, this works out to only $15.

Why has there only been a trickle of money into the country from outside donors?

Is it because of “donor fatigue”, where preceding disasters such as Haiti’s have distracted us from Pakistan’s needs?

Do we feel that our donation is not in safe hands, because we are constantly reminded of the Taliban’s ever growing threat to commit an act of terrorism towards aid workers?

Or is it because, like British Prime Minister David Cameron, we still harbour fears that Pakistan is susceptible to being overrun by terrorists, so that perhaps money towards aid in Pakistan is likely to promote terrorism?

In short, why doesn’t the world care about Pakistan?

The post-disaster vacuum and the perceived terrorist threat

Amira, 2, a flood victim suffering from skin and stomach problems, cries at a hospital in Sukkur, in Pakistan's Sindh province. Image courtesy of the Boston Globe. Click through for more striking images.

Many commentators and media outlets have expressed concern over Islamic organisations involved in humanitarian aid, linking them to groups identified as militant or terrorist. How justified is this concern?

The fear is that in the wake of such a disaster, and the government’s torrid and wanting response, a vacuum will be created into which such groups will move and convert. And they have – at least moved, that is. According to Reuters and other outlets, relief camps are being served by Falah-e-Insaniyat, a charity with suspected ties to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its humanitarian wing Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD). Both the LeT and JuD are blacklisted by the United Nations. But the UN blacklist, which is drawn up in total secrecy by a committee in New York at the call of the Security Council, is hardly part of a transparent process. In fact, according to a report of the Council of Europe,

“Persons placed on the list are not informed of the fact and have no possibility of being heard, nor do they have any remedy…these methods illustrate the dangerous erosion of rights and fundamental freedoms which is going on even in assemblies mandated to safeguard and further them, and discredits the international fight against terrorism”.

The inept Pakistan government has moved to shut down and ban some relief camps run by such organisations. The fear is that militant groups are attempting to win over the support of the local people. But discrediting these organisations hastily is problematic. Previously, international NGOs have co-opted with workers from the JuD in the 2005 earthquake in Kashmir. The organisation had valuable knowledge of the local terrain and were able to effectively deliver supplies. In response to the floods, the JuD, according to reports, were the first to arrive, bringing with them vital medical and food supplies.

Undeniably, winning the support of the people is also an important objective of US foreign aid and assistance. In a recent announcement of a new Global Health Initiative, Senator Hiliary Clinton remarked that, “For millions of people worldwide, the prevention, treatment or care that the United States makes possible is their main experience of us as a country and a people…Giving people a chance at a long and healthy life or helping protect their children from disease conveys as much about our values as any state visit or strategic dialogue ever could.” The perceived attitudes of both the above Islamic organisations and the US government are strikingly similar, and remarkable. Do they really believe that their respective contributions will dispose long-term positive attitudes in the recipients? In particular, will their contributions convert the recipients to the cause of either the LeT or the US government? Surely we must give those affected by such natural disasters more credit than they are currently being given. It is pathetic and condescending to think that those who are surviving a disaster on such a scale are weak and pliable. According to Imtiaz Gul, an expert on militancy, “It’s not just for a packet of food that you will convert to another sect”.

Media has been spurned on by key international political figures who are trying to direct the discourse. US Senator John Kerry and Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari suggest that if the international community does not act swiftly, extremists will exploit the country’s devastating floods. In contrast, Kristalina Georgieva, the European commissioner for international cooperation, has attempted to downplay the concerns. She stated that although these religious organisations are involved in relief efforts, “I haven’t got anything from our partners that this growing problem with the disaster is being used for the purposes of breeding extremism.” Is raising concern over the influence of Islamic organisations a case of bias, prejudice or at worst, Islamophobia?

If it isn’t Islamophobia, why haven’t we asked the same questions in previous relief efforts conducted by other faith-based NGOs?

“On those occasions when faith is accepted as a legitimate issue for investigation, it is often in the context of the existence and spread of religious fundamentalism. While not seeking to deny the significance of this issue for the practice of development and emergency relief, the problem with this approach is that it suggests that faith is relevant only in the margins, where it can be clearly identified as the explicit and dominant organising force within communities. Such an approach continues to ignore the relevance of the faith of development practitioners, which, even when it is exposed, is necessarily inscribed as ‘reasonable’ when compared to the belief systems of fundamentalism” (Kennedy & Nolan, 2004, p.93).

World Vision, whose logo doesn't attempt to hide its religious background, rarely has its intentions questioned in non-Christian areas.

World Vision, the world’s largest Christian NGO, recently won a decision on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to discriminate on a faith basis in its employment procedures. Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain stated that, “World Vision is a nonprofit organization whose humanitarian relief efforts flow from a profound sense of religious mission.” So, should we question World Vision’s intentions in emergency response situations such as Pakistan? Do we fear that they will take advantage of disaster situations to “win the support of the people” to Christianity? World Vision ascribes to the International Code of Conduct for emergency relief and states that it practices Christian engagement by example – not be conversion. World Vision also “seeks to make known God’s offer of renewal and reconciliation through Jesus Christ, and to encourage people to respond”.

The fact is that World Vision’s intentions are rarely questioned in the Western world, but there seems to be a huge double standard when Islamic organisations are involved. This doesn’t help those affected by the Pakistan floods of course, who only require basic human needs such as food, water and shelter. The longer we maintain this double standard and accept suspicions of terrorism in this region, the longer these people will suffer.

If you would like to donate to relief efforts in Pakistan, you can do so via many organisations, such as Oxfam, Australian Red Cross, UNICEF, and World Vision. The authors of this post strongly encourage you to do so.

Follow whydev on Twitter here. Follow Weh Yeoh on Twitter here.

References

Kennedy, R. & Nowlan, K. (2004) ‘Gender, faith and development: Rethinking the boundaries of intersectionality’. Development Bulletin, 64: pp. 92-94.

About Brendan Rigby

Brendan is a professional educator, having worked as a teacher at both the primary and secondary levels in China and Australia. Although he pursued the dreams of Indiana Jones in Uzbekistan, he eventually completed an MA in Development Studies at the University of NSW. Brendan has interned with the Centre for Refugee Research and volunteered at ActionAid Australia, Football United & Wokai. After teaching, he became a Senior Researcher and Project Manager in Learning & Teaching at Macquarie University. Brendan currently works as an Education Officer with UNICEF in Tamale, Ghana.

• Web
|
• Twitter
|
• LinkedIn
|
• More Posts (41)

Tagged as: Hilary Clinton, Islamophobia, Jamaat-ud-Dawa, LeT, Oxfam, Pakistan floods, Red Cross, UNICEF, World Vision