Thursday, 13 October 2005

Globalisation of disaster relief


Weapons of Mass Relief
One could not help but wonder at the complete inadequacies of developed, developing and under-developed countries (used in the context of 3rd-world dialogue) in dealing with the natural disasters that have hit their peoples in the last few months.
To surmise, one can see the sweeping global phenomena of globalisation, trade liberalisation, democracy and eradication of poverty through debt forgiveness and other do-gooder mechanisms have overlooked pertinent issues.
This is made ever so stark from the fact that “so-called” Nuclear powers with hefty defence budgets to defend the realm have forgotten that there would be no realm to defend if the citizenry of the realm have been wiped out and left destitute by natural disaster.
More so, these countries have their military forces pre-occupied with unnecessary wars and disputes that seem to foster more havoc than peace with their presence.
The political landscape is both littered and cluttered with intransigence and belligerence that make the Middle Ages seem rather tame.
What has happened to the civilisation of humanity that puts these quests for military aggrandisement over the welfare of its peoples?
We have come to cross-roads, is it weapons of mass destruction in the hands of the powerful or weapons of mass relief from the powerful to the weak?
I hear no leaders speaking up for this.
In the end, the global co-operation needed for attending to natural disasters should involve allocating part of the defence budgets to relief where Africa hosts relief materials for immediate despatch to Asia and Europe, Asia for America and Europe, Europe for America and Africa and so on.
This under the co-ordination of the UN or some other International body like NATO should despatch with immediate effect when disaster strikes at their support areas.
Military weaponry as drones, satellites, recognition and surveillance systems should come in to play to identify the worst affected places and assets brought to bear.
That would be global progress very much in the light of the establishment of the UN.

No comments: