Thursday 17 May 2012

Starving for the Cameras.


 Not a lot of lols in this one, I'm afraid. It's just not terribly funny. 

I recently visited the Imperial War Museum to see Shaped By War, the exhibition of Don McCullin’s war photography. The images were earth-shattering. One or two were particularly striking; a shell-shocked marine in Vietnam, eyes wide with horror, trying to unsee what can never be forgotten. A Greek Cypriot woman’s grief in the moment she learns of her husband’s death. But the pictures that stayed with me are the children. A Bangladeshi child screaming with hunger in her mother’s arms, face wet with tears; a starving albino Ethiopian boy, eyes huge with reproach and exhaustion; an abandoned baby in the mud, bawling with loss and terror. In a Beirut mental hospital, a scene of utter bedlam during the massacre of Palestinians by Phalangist Christians, one figure alone caught my eye amidst the chaos; one little girl, naked on the ground in the bottom right of the photograph – hardly the focus – but her face is contorted in a primal scream of confusion.

A ‘biblical famine.’ This was Michael Buerke’s appraisal of the suffering in Ethiopia in 1984. The images flooding out of Africa precipitated a global response, much needed media attention, and a subsequent flood of aid, as did Bob Geldof’s presence and Band Aid. The world declared a lesson learned, and the Famine Early Warning Systems Network (FEWS Net) was established in the region to aid efficient prevention of starvation on a massive scale rather than cure; Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) initiatives boomed. The media presence in the area refused to allow the world to forget, and moved unprecedented numbers of people to donate. Governments around the world were held to account; failure to intervene while highly emotive images of dead and dying children were beamed across the globe would have been political suicide. 

Why? Because to see a child starve to death is to see where we as an increasingly global community have failed, and continue to fail. And the pity – and guilt – we feel is infinitely powerful.

But it seems that we have become all too dependent on such images. When the recent 2011 famine in the Horn of Africa loomed – affecting Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia – it took time for even the UN to declare an emergency. FEWS Net had forecast famine as early as November 2010, but it was not until July 2011 – when the journalists arrived – that the UN offered its first tentative aid deliveries to the region. 

Eight months had slipped away before the world took significant action. In this time, famine – defined as such when a terrible 30% of children are acutely malnourished, and 20% of a population is without food – took hold. Not only is the shambolic response ‘criminally wasteful’, according to The Economist, but resulted in the needless deaths of thousands. Children are disproportionately affected; too many died in the interim from starvation, and from diseases their tiny bodies were too weak to fight.  By this point, almost ten million people were in serious danger of death by starvation. It was the pictures of these starving people that caused the well-meaning people in the wealthy West to reach for their chequebook. In and of itself, this is by no means a bad thing.

The problem is that by this point – the point at which children’s stomachs balloon beneath razor-sharp ribs – the damage has already been done. Famine has not been averted, and people have not been protected. Treatment of famine-related illnesses and starvation is expensive, and bringing a severely underweight child out of danger is more costly and difficult than maintaining the condition of a healthy one. Prior to the famine in Niger in 2005, the cost of preventive aid was put at $7 per person. When famine struck, the cost of simply keeping a person alive rose to $23. The media, despite its power to galvanise empathy, too often arrives too late; and donors are unwilling to donate without the guarantee of media coverage, even in the face of official warnings of impending disaster. Perhaps this is misplaced altruism; a picture of a dying child shocks the world into greater action, and therefore more generous donation, than a thousand images of laughing toddlers ever could. Put bluntly, more money can be made by waiting. Our empathy for the starving innocents of the world has worked against them.

Prevention is surely better than cure. But the question becomes one of how to mobilise a population so saturated with images of suffering that only the most terrible of pictures will rouse us from apathy. It is now more apparent than ever to find the answer to this question; another drought is predicted by FEWS Net in the Horn of Africa this summer, and at this moment, renewed fighting between Sudan and South Sudan over oil and land has displaced thousands, leaving them vulnerable to food insecurity. If further human tragedy is to be avoided, DRR must be given adequate time and funding to work.

The world’s food reserves are abundant. Starvation is not a simple consequence of drought and dearth. The same can be said of aid; it is demonstrably and admirably present – but only when the cameras are rolling. In 1997, FEWS Net produced an inquiry simply entitled, ‘What Went Wrong’. The paper demanded that the world answer for its failure to respond quickly enough to save lives in the wake of the Niger drought of the 80s in that killed so many. It asked that we do better next time.

But the next time, and the time after that, and even after that, has come and gone, and still the world has failed to react. A child should not have to wait for a cameraman to turn up before she gets the food she needs to live. Yes, the human suffering angle is potent; yes, it musters support in an undeniably important way. But the causes of such events cannot be swept to one side. Engineers Without Borders, with its awareness of the potentially detrimental appetite for disaster coverage, has come up with this campaign: ‘Sponsor an African Child Spreadsheet’.  Perhaps this is the way forward; increasing awareness of the need for preventive measures. The individual suffering must not be forgotten – but we must not wait until their plight becomes irreversible before we recognise it as real. 

Thursday 3 May 2012

Marine Le Pen: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

A wee scenario for you.
Oh no! The world needs a new leader!  Dunno what happened to the last one. Got bored. We have to vote for a new one! Now! DO IT!
Here are the illustrious candidates.

A: Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists.
He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10
martinis a day.
B: He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used
opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

C: He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an
occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.

.................................................................


Well, if you chose C, who admittedly sounds like a lovely, if slightly dull bloke, congratulations! You just installed Hitler as head of the WORLD. A is Roosevelt and B is Churchill, two men credited with successfully defending the free world from the fascist onslaught of Nazism. Appearances can be deceiving; I’m not suggesting that superstitious drunken adulterous dropouts are necessarily a good thing, but I am arguing that in the light of the disturbing results of the first round of French presidential elections, the French must delve a little deeper before making a catastrophic mistake.
Sarkophobia is in full swing in Paris. In the last year, his presidency has been a series of political mini-deaths; in the midst of a swathe of publicity for austerity measures, it emerged that he was spending £10,000 a day on food in the presidential palace, and kept an impressive (overcompensating for something, Nick?) 120 cars. His son, a DJ, was kitted out with bodyguards worth £150,000 a year. The average Jean-Pierre is, understandably , un peu pissed off.Sarkozy won only 27% of the vote, which is quite a feat; no other incumbent has failed to win this round of elections since 1965. Merde.
The real kick dans la derriere, however, is the fact that Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front, won 18% of the vote. This is the largest win for a right-wing party since the collapse of European fascism. On some level, she is a runaway success story. In 2002, her father, from whom she (cough) inherited the party, won 17% of French votes. A mass protest ensued against his plainly racist, xenophobic, homophobic views. She has turned much of that around; rather than launch a protest, most people have shrugged Frenchly (‘Baaaaah, vraiment?’) at the inevitable, and opened another bottle of Cognac. This is a woman who compared Muslims praying in the streets of Paris to Nazi occupation. How times have changed.
It is yet another example of a creeping and sinister nationalism pervading various Western states. White supremacist movements in the US have swelled in number in recent years; a documentary by Al Jazeera showed an elderly member of a neo-Nazi group shouting ‘No more n*****s, P***s, Jews!’ (If you don’t know what the starred words mean, bless your innocent cotton socks) before the rest of his group suggested a gentler tactic – ‘Jobs for whites! America for the whites! F**k off where you came from!’ (yes, job well done, there, much less offensive). It exemplified the way that racist groups have identified popular concerns – unemployment, immigration, global terrorism – and in this breeding ground of xenophobia have articulated racial agendas through the appropriation of political language to garner support. The same documentary spoke to the founder of one such group; he spoke eloquently of socio-economic concerns over the marginalisation of poor American whites. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see how this party line might appeal to a pretty wide demographic. He then also went off on a rant about how Obama can’t be American because he’s black – appealing to probably a far smaller number of people, but still very much part of this particular ontology.
The political grievances that such people give voice to publicly are part of their appeal. People are struggling. And given today’s political climate, what with current fears of radical Islamists being as they are, ‘foreigners’ make useful political scapegoats, if you are that way inclined. Sound familiar? Oh, yes – Hitler again. While she may have presented herself as the friendly face of French nationalism, the agenda has not changed. Young (ish), blonde, attractive, well-dressed, she makes a welcome change from the figures we usually associate with fascism (scary, shouting, black-shirted killers). And this is reflected in her electorate; a staggering 26% of young people, aged 18-24 are expected to vote for her. The young ‘don’t seem to smell sulphur and swastikas’ when they see her, says the Guardian; ‘they just see a fellow outsider.’ An outsider who is promising them reform, jobs, justice and national pride, and offering them people to blame for what has gone before. Ummm, yes, that sounds like Hitler again.
Such beliefs aren’t limited to the US; just last week, two pensioners in Lewisham protesting against a fascist rally were set upon by neo-Nazi thugs, and hospitalised. The broad appeal and danger of the far-right cannot be underestimated. In Norway, self-confessed racist Anders Breivik killed 77 people in what he calls a ‘legitimate’ fight against multiculturalism. Debate rages over whether he is clinically insane or not. My feeling is that he is not. A crime of terror is a crime of terror. We don’t seem to question the sanity of suicide bombers; he is demonstrably a violent and hideous individual, but his actions are rooted in issues of what he feels to be socio-economic ‘justice’, and nationalism.


The adage goes that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are that, y’know, it’s a duck. But it’s no longer that simple. Le Pen, and fellow right-wing adherents and advocates, are increasingly shrouding their offensive bigotry in language that can be attached to powerful and important political concerns. Yes, unemployment must be addressed; yes, Islamic militancy is something we must keep a beady eye on; but attributing these problems to anyone ‘not like us’ is a dangerous precedent to set. Stirring up racial hatred to win votes is never right. Neither is apportioning blame where none exists. Europe took a real bashing the last time that happened. Let’s hope this is just another chapter in evolution of democratic multiculturalism and not its demise.