Earlier this week, as economies in the developed world anxiously awaited the fallout from China’s tumbling stock market, key international aid agencies issued a warning that a severe El Niño event this year will likely produce drought, crop failures and food shortages for millions of people during the next few months. The resulting crises could cause even more displacement and migration, placing an already faltering system of humanitarian relief under an “unprecedented level of strain”, according to an Oxfam briefing paper.
Modern capital migrates so easily between countries that further instability in Europe, or a sharp correction in the US stock market, can quickly spread panic elsewhere, stalling growth and spurring job losses in places that have little to do with the events that caused the initial loss of confidence. Unfortunately, when developed economies contract they often lose the political will to attend to crises in other parts of the world. Only governments that are willing to look beyond their immediate economic challenges can commit themselves to the relief efforts needed to address the largely climate-driven threats to substantial parts of Africa, Asia and the Americas.
Decades of failed responses to similar scenarios, on both economic and humanitarian fronts, have shown that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Just as an international financial system becomes robust when tightly coupled economies shield each other from the vagaries of modern capital, by forging agreements and institutions that provide mutual support during hard times, so too does international aid function best when wealthy nations maintain commitments to relief efforts irrespective of their economic fortunes. Worst case scenarios in Ethiopia, Haiti and Papua New Guinea can be prevented, but only if there is sufficient political will to provide the vigilance and financial support that is needed.
Governments that ignore the relief of those affected by the current drought in Ethiopia, for example, will only have themselves to blame if images of starving children fill our newspapers and television screens in the next few months. Right now, informed observers are raising alarms that the present situation is reminiscent of the terrible drought in the 1980s. But the international response to this looming disaster, not to mention the urgent preparations needed for those in the other countries which have been flagged, is barely noticeable.
If last year’s migrant crises taught the developed world anything, it should have been that ignoring the wretched of the earth is a perilously myopic policy. UK development minister Nick Hurd recently said that that if wealthy countries “fail to act now . . . we will fail vulnerable people across the world.” He added that while food security for those immediately affected is important, relief efforts are also in Britain’s national interest, because “only by protecting and stabilizing vulnerable countries can we ensure that people are not forced to leave their homes in search of food or a new livelihood.” Other politicians ought to support similar lines of reasoning and ensure that their electorates understand the self-interested reasons for intervening in foreign countries to prevent current problems from turning into disasters.
Sadly these problems will most likely be treated in very different but predictable ways. The ailments of our chronically pampered global financial system will be closely analyzed, and treated with careful doses of higher interest, refinanced debt or quantitative easing, while the undernourished international relief agencies charged with distributing aid to millions of vulnerable people who face drought, famine and other humanitarian crises, will mostly be left to fend for themselves.
