Not at the forefront of flood relief
By C. Christine Fair, September 20, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010 - 9:39 AM
Share
Within days of the onset of Pakistan’s devastating floods about six weeks ago, the media began reporting that militant groups -- or their purported charity wings -- were at the ‘forefront of flood relief.’ Lashkar-e-Taiba has been singled out with alarm because it is the most lethal group that operates across several countries in the South Asian region and beyond. With the Pakistani government appearing ever more ineffective and with some Islamist militants ravaging Pakistan itself and others yet savaging Afghanistan and India from bases within Pakistan, this could hardly be welcome news. This reportage echoes that of the October 2005 earthquake in Kashmir, wherein several credible journalists claimed that these same militant groups were leading the relief effort while domestic and international organizations dithered. However, a recent important study finds that these groups were only minimally involved. This research should restrain commentators from giving these groups a public relations campaign that they will not likely deserve when the history of this calamity is written.
Lashkar-e-Taiba, now called Jamaat-ul-Dawa and operating under yet another moniker of Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation, has also proclaimed its own prodigious activities through its spokesperson, Yayha Mujahid. The organization also has falsely claimed that it distributed USAID relief supplies to flood victims. Lashkar-e-Taiba particularly discomfits American officials because it perpetrated the four-day killing spree in Mumbai over the Thanksgiving weekend in 2008. More than 170 people died -- including four Americans. The group also has targeted U.S. troops in Afghanistan, along with Afghan and international coalition members, since 2004. If Lashkar-e-Taiba and other Islamist militant groups are truly involved in relief efforts on the scale reported, they could disseminate their message of jihad against kafirs and apostates and foster further erosion of trust and confidence in the Pakistani government under the umbrella of their ostensibly popular humanitarian relief efforts. Discerning their real activities should be an important priority for these reasons.
However, if the facts of their involvement in the 2005 earthquake offer any insights, the media would do well to reconsider how they cover these groups’ purported involvement in flood relief until robust data are available.
In a critical newly released study, Jishnu Das and Tahir Andrabi conducted the most extensive assessment of the impact of domestic and international actors upon the populations in Kashmir and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa that were devastated by that 7.6 magnitude earthquake which killed as many as 75,000 people.
While reports claimed that these militant groups were leading the relief effort, including the deployment and use of tactical x-ray and surgical equipment, the data tell a very different story.
Das and Andrabi surveyed 28,297 households from 126 villages in the affected regions. Among other important questions, they asked respondents which groups were involved in providing relief. More than one quarter of the households reported that an international organization directly provided assistance to them. Another 7 percent of the households identified legitimate Islamic charities (i.e. not affiliated with militant organizations in any way) such as Islamic Relief. In stark contrast, a mere 268 households out of 28,297 recalled groups tied to Islamist militancy such as Lashkar-e-Taiba’s “Jamaat-ul-Dawa” being involved in relief efforts. That is about one percent.
While Lashkar-e-Taiba managed to visit 26 villages, the vast majority of the households reporting such contacts were located near Lashkar-e-Taiba’s extant infrastructure. In other words, Lashkar-e-Taiba (operating under its then purported charity wing Jamaat-ul-Dawa) was engaged in relief efforts largely where they were located in the first place. After the initial advantage afforded by Lashkar-e-Taiba’s proximity to parts of the quake-affected area, they were squeezed out as international and national organizations mobilized. Within six weeks, it was the Pakistani army which carried the load of relief.
As I peruse my copy of Mr. Mujahid’s personal business card, it is clear “Jamaat-ul-Dawa” has an extensive presence throughout the country -- especially in the Punjab, which has been acutely affected by the flood. However, this current catastrophe differs significantly from the earthquake both in terms of the expanse of its damage and the types of problems that will emerge, such as food security, water-borne illness, lack of access to hospitals and other social services, among other enduring challenges. While it is impossible to predict, these differences may render these militant groups more durable in their presence and comprehensive in their geographic areas of operations in relief provision.
However, if 2005 offers any insights, it is possible that these militant groups again may be displaced in the landscape of humanitarian relief provision as the current tragedy unfolds and international and national organizations expand their spheres of operations. Unfortunately, no one will notice -- much less report -- if and when at last they recede into irrelevance. All that will remain is a flawed historical account of their “extraordinary contributions” that will bestow upon them undeserved plaudits at home and abroad while doing harm to the efforts of those legitimate aid groups that stayed the course.
C. Christine Fair is an Assistant Professor at Georgetown University in the Security Studies Program within the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.
CARL DE SOUZA/AFP/Getty Images
US permits Pakistan to harbor and support terror outfits
One fact stands out loud and clear from this apologetic article by Ms. Fair.
Pakistan’s democratic also government continues to allow Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT), the outfit declared as ’terrorist’ by US government, to exist under ever changing names. Therein lies the rub: by not using its aid leverage, US is intentionally not forcing Pakistan to change its behavior.
Is it any wonder that Pakistan has been getting away with harboring terror outfits like Mullah Omar’s Afghan Taliban (QST), Haqqani’s HQN, Hekmatyar’s HiG and Al Qaeda which have been causing daily deaths of US/NATO soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002?
As General McChrystal wrote in his August, 2009 report to Obama: Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan. Senior leaders of the major Afghan insurgent groups (QST, HQN and HiG) are based in Pakistan, are linked with al Qaeda and other violent extremist groups, and are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan's lSI. Al Qaeda and associated movements (AQAM) based in Pakistan channel suicide bombers and technical assistance into Afghanistan, and offer ideological motivation, training, and financial support.
As long as Obama administration continues to ignore Afghan Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘, stability in Afghanistan will remain a distant US dream.
As Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks: “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“
Afghanistan’s national security advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta has asked the same question in a Washington Post article on 8/23/2010: “While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists’ main mentor (Pakistan) continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified? Despite facing a growing domestic terror threat, Pakistan “continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and Al Qaeda. Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “requires confronting the state of Pakistan that still sees terrorism as a strategic asset and foreign policy tool”.
Marty, I don't know whether to be proud or upset you've taken my strategic advice to heart...
i.e. I proposed before cutting-and-pasting your daily screeds, try writing *just one sentence* at the beginning where you pretend that you're actually responding to the substance of the piece, rather than simply using this message board to post your daily infomercial-style anti-pakistan rants. ... I seem to have created a monster. You managed to take C. Fair's piece about flood relief, and strap on your "mollycoddling terrorists!" boilerplate in the space of one sentence.
Oh well. If you're listening, and I assume you are, because you never really even tried to do this before, here's Lesson Number Two: SHUT UP FOR ONE FREAKING DAY. Seriously. You will be 200% less loathed. Try doing your cut-and-paste thing every other day, rather than every 5 seconds. Readers might actually mistake your comments for honest thoughts rather than shameless hackery.
You still haven't learned the law of diminishing returns. When you repeat yourself endlessly, no one listens anymore. You've turned yourself into your own worst enemy. Note to Indian Propaganda Ministry: Diligence is no substitute for quality. Treating issues like 'US policy vis a vis Pakistan' with a Bangalore call-center mentality ("how many posts did we do this week? 500?? Excellent. Next week, 550!") is self defeating. Most American's perception of India is extremely positive...UNTIL they have to call their phone company and end up talking to a customer service rep in india who is expected to deal with 300 calls a day. Point being: it's not about the VOLUME, man. Its about quality. Please, for the love of god, just make a little effort. You have noticed that these boards are increasingly devoid of anyone actually posting commentary?? BECAUSE OF YOU. You have spoiled the environment. You have no audience anymore. If you maybe take a breather, reassess, and try being more topical, and less voluminous, perhaps one day you can rebuild some credibility, and get a little more attention. But in the meantime you're about as interesting as the people who post spam advertisements for cheap Chinese consumer products. Dwell on that my friend.
I would guess one reason that Lashkar-e-Taiba/Jamaat-ul-Dawa is given undue prominence by journalists as being significant to relief efforts is the fact that they are contributing *at all*. The 1% they represent has a multiplying effect in the minds of both American and Pakistani journalists because of the simple fact of who these organizations are - 'islamist extremists'. If it was the Pakistani Red Cross 'outdoing the government', it wouldn't be quite as sexy.
Or rather, when they say, "leading the relief effort", they may initially mean that they were *faster to begin* offering relief... albeit in very small scale... and then over time they seem to begin to inflate their belief in their overall significance.
I think part of this may be journalists start with a hook of a story ("LeT providing flood relief!"), and then develop something of a myopia/tunnel vision, where the small thing they are looking grows in proportion. Or there is an 'echo' effect: where LeT may have actually been more significant in responding to the earthquakes in 2005... and that role is now superimposed on the floods, despite lack of much evidence. Both Americans and Pakistanis have their own reasons for this kind of hyper-focus... and not entirely undeserved. Urbane Pakistanis may have as much cultural paranoia of a looming Islamist menace as do many Americans, albeit for different reasons.
FWIW - the links you post to media 'overblowing' evidence of LeT contribution to relief efforts are ALL related to the 2005 earthquake. I do know there have been some stories about LeT and the floods, and I appreciate your point about media giving credit where it isn't deserved, but it may help to actually cite a few rather than simply warn of a potential repetition of the earthquake-type coverage.
What I specifically mean is that when you say, ""... media began reporting that militant groups -- or their purported charity wings -- were at the ‘forefront of flood relief.’ "", cite some actual examples.
Here's one that fits the bill nicely:
"Hard-Line Islam Fills Void in Flooded Pakistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/world/asia/07pstan.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=flood%20relief%20jamaat&st=cse
This story seems to be a case study in exactly what you're talking about.
e.g. ""In places where foreign and government officials retreated for security reasons, the well-mobilized Islamic charities have consistently been a step ahead and penetrated even remote villages with ease, survivors said. The Islamic charities sprung into action immediately after the floods hit last week, they said, sending a brigade of 4,000 volunteers in Nowshera, in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, to rebuild homes in villages far too dangerous for foreign aid workers to enter.""
"Survivors said" is not necessarily the greatest research in the world...but nevertheless, I'd probably also take the 'survey' research with a grain of salt (or pinch of curry) as well, as data like that can also suffer from methodology issues and selection bias. Does it really mean LeT is only 1% of the effort?... or could it be 10%? There is no real way to say without transparency into a wide variety of data that will never be possible. (how many meals served per week by each group? how many homes rebuilt? What concentration by region? etc. etc.)
I think there is also a question as to the relative 'psychological' impact of LeT contribution to relief efforts, if not the actual substance. The government "looked bad" when the floods hit due to Zadari being abroad; did perception of government efforts improve as there was more mobilization? Perhaps; but I think the 'meme' that journalists are running with is that - actual contribution to relief aside - LeT and their subsidiaries are achieving a net benefit from their efforts (however limited by contrast), while the Pakistani government - not to mention the US! - do not win many 'hearts and minds' no matter how much they do. This of course is a different question, but it is a dimension worth considering.
Is it possible to stop extremist aid?
In Pakistan, the extremists are a huge section of the population itself. They are right there and they have the funds. They have the cadres to put to work immediately. On the other hand, assistance or action against the extremists would be arriving from elsewhere and can't reach everywhere at once.
I think its futile to stop the extremists from carrying on aid efforts. Its better they spend their money on aid than terrorism anyway. Its not like stopping aid efforts is going to mean that they will not try to influence the population anyway.
I think they should be ignored as long as they are providing aid. No need to create heroes out of them. No need to make their contributions larger than they are by paying attention to them. Just ignore them as far as possible. Better still, suppress all 'historic mention' that they could exploit later. Just make sure that donations don't fall into their hands and they are spending off their own funds and let lives be saved.
Possibly, it might be a good time to get infiltrators in.
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE