Missing
buckshee
Pledges are pledges, but hard cash is a different matter altogether.
This has been the lullaby of the state spokespersons the entirety
of last week. From P. B. Jayasundera to Mano Tittawella, they have
been saying that the downpour of dollars was for special effects
only. In reality, the bucks have not come, which means that only
4 percent of the tsunami reconstruction effort can be completed.
If
they are correct, then there are more questions than answers. If
they are incorrect, then there are still more questions than answers.
Did the international community engage in a form of kite-flying
when it pledged millions of dollars of aid in the middle of the
post tsunami media orgy?? The Sri Lankan government version is that
8 billion dollars was pledged as tsunami aid, only 75 million of
which materialised.
If
this is correct, it appears that we are living in the age of Hollywood
style international special effects and acting. Pledging aid and
not delivering is not just an exercise in kite flying -- it is also
a lot of chutzpah, and a great deal of bull.
It's
in other words a way of making use of a tragic natural calamity
as a good public relations opportunity. Certainly, we are told that
there has been precedent for this, as in Bam in Iran, where pledges
made after the earthquake never materialised according to aid workers.
But,
we thought the tsunami was different because it saw in its aftermath
perhaps the most comprehensive coverage of any event since the birth
of television. This we would have assumed necessarily changed the
equation. Governments of rich nations could not ignore the plight
of tsunami victims. The subsequent travels undertaken by the biggest
names in the game of international relations such as Colin Powell,
George Bush and Bill Clinton indicated that foreign powers are energised
by the tsunami to the point of being completely, relentlessly engaged.
But
now we are hearing the incredible. All this they are telling us,
was a charade. Clinton was here, but there is no money trail that
followed him. We are running on empty.
If
that's the case, shouldn't the international community be held to
account for breach of promise? Granted that there isn't a ghost
of a chance of pressing that line of litigation in international
courts of law. Bedsides, it would invariably be argued that the
needy and bereaved have no business raising a shindig about charity.
But
then again, is this really the case? We are not at all sure. If
international pledges have not materialised as we are being made
to believe by the government, why have Mano Titawella and P. B.
Jayasundera waited until they were poked in the ribs and asked "what's
happening to reconstruction chum?'' to come out with the facts about
it?
We
can ask the Ambassador of the United States of America here and
now, dear sir, is it true that your government does not intend delivering
an n'th of the massive aid that it pledged to this country with
copious sentiments that conveyed an extraordinary empathy for us
the stricken? Mr British High Commissioner, is it true sir, that
your government has been pledging us a whole stable of Mustangs,
when it intends eventually delivering only a dollop of horse pat?
Can
an international charade really be played to such an extraordinary
denouement? Or is the international community pledging to deliver
only if the government can get its act together and make things
happen in reconstruction and relief.
We
are yet to hear from the donors, but it’s time to investigate.
If Titawella and Co are proved correct on the long run, then maybe
we must forever be wary of these Greeks who come bearing gifts for
us. But, if they are wrong, then is it the state which is guilty
of deception of the grossest order. Lethargic reconstruction is
an injury -- but to deceive about its causes is a particularly egregious
insult.
Oh
boy!
Baby 81 has gone home - - to America? That's the tone
and tenor of the media coverage is it not? After all, he was a baby
celebrated in the Editorial pages of the New York Times as a 'little
bundle of hope.' But the case of Baby 81 -- was it one of media
pampering the baby, or the media pampering itself? The international
networks almost swooned over this gurgling wonder-child, and he
was certainly American media's darling baby boy.
But
we didn't see coverage that even came close to that volume for the
over 1000 Sri Lankan kids who lost their parents in the tsunami.
Baby 81 is a particularly resilient and bouncy tyke -- and we wouldn't
grudge for a moment his hour in the network spotlight. But aren't
the networks, and the media perhaps including our own, self serving
more than caring in its sensational coverage of this baby who defines
the phrase 'Lost and Found'? |