Always Look On The Bright Side of Life

by Michael Bear

category: Humanitarian Relief

Published July 20, 2009 @ 08:17PM PT

After a rather depressing series of posts over the past week - take your pick: Congo, Darfur, Somalia, Sri Lanka - we here at the Standing Extraordinary Subcommittee of the Central Committee of the Humanitarian Relief Blog (SESCCHRB) have decided to move in a radically new direction.

Taking our cue from Brian, we're going to start looking at the bright side of humanitarian crises and catastrophes.  Compassion fatigue no more.

For instance, without famines, we wouldn't have plumpynut.  And who doesn't love high protein, high energy peanut-based paste?

There's also a silver lining to seemingly horrific humanitarian statistics.  Some 2.024 million people have fled the fighting in northwestern Pakistan over the past few months.  Which sounds bad. That said, Pakistan's total population is around 176 million - which means that over 98% of Pakistan's population hasn't had to go anywhere.

Yay.

Or, The Times is reporting that 1,400 people are dying each week (mostly of preventable disease) at the Manik Farm displaced person camps in northern Sri Lanka.  Then again, the total camp population is around 230,000 people.  So, if you're in Manik Farm, you have over a 99% chance of surviving until next Monday.

(Granted, not so good if you're, say, young or old or pregnant or injured.  Or a military-aged Tamil male.  Then your chances are probably pretty bleak right now.)

Awkward pause.

Alright people, we're clutching at straws here.  

Which brings up the meta-question - namely, what's the point of a humanitarian blog?  To spread the good (and occasionally not-so-good) word about the work of humanitarian agencies?  To try and draw attention to various semi-forgotten disasters? To suggest ways in which we all can help?

In a perfect world, yes to all.  And perhaps every once in a while provide something useful to those actually out in the field, or toiling at headquarters.

Sparking the occasional debate also has its joys. (Neutrality, anyone?)

I make no claims that this blog is particularly successful at any of the above.  But, a soul-searching past few days, and I thought the least I could do was explain why I write what I write.

Mostly because I don't know what else to do.  I started on a lark - I thought it would be fun to write about humanitarian issues.  I loved my time in the field, and missed it; I also thought the issues were fascinating, everything from the moral ambiguities of aid - when do we help, when do we hurt - to the grity details of how aid is actually delivered.

I also loved the idea of a soapbox.  A chance, occasionally, to rant, or tilt at windmills; a chance to ask questions about the way aid agencies operate, and the way they treat their staff.

And I love to write.

But I think, at the end of the day, what keeps me writing is a sense of outrage.  I claim to be desensitized, I try and make myself laugh writing about horrific things.  What keeps me coming back, though, is this anger - this naive anger that people are treated like animals, and slaughtered like animals.  I have few, precious few illusions about making a difference.  But, as the man said, I'd rather go down swinging.