Both Oars In Relief Incorporated

Apr 1, 2011

Having climbed over, sifted through, and shoveled tons of refuse created by Haiti’s 7.0 earthquake and, more importantly, having seen the dead waiting for burial and the emotional and financial impact on the families who lost loved ones in the earth’s spasm on January 12th, 2010, I cannot help but feel deep sympathy for the Japanese families who received the brunt of the earth’s recent, stronger and longer disturbance. Subsequently, I am a bit uncomfortable with using the matter even tangentially to illustrate a negative point.

However, I was a bit shocked on a recent trip back to the US when I heard a radio announcement from the American Red Cross soliciting donations for Japan in the same manner as they had for Haiti. As I listened to the eerily familiar message of how I could text a $10 donation, I could not help wonder why the immense difference in the socioeconomic circumstances of the two countries seemed to have little impact on the nature of the appeal.

A quick web research revealed that the American Red Cross was not alone; all the major international relief organizations, World Vision, CARE, and UNICEF to name a few, were hard at it. As I read World Vision’s website, I could not fathom how Japan would require their assistance to provide emergency water and food for its people. My alarm increased.

I am not trying to dampen global compassion; but, I am surprised that large relief organizations are calling for funds for Japan just as they did for Haiti. Has Japan given any indication that it is unwilling or incapable of meeting the needs of its people? Wouldn’t refugee style relief services be out of place in a country with a modern and well-funded social service program? At the very least, it is unclear why these organizations have taken upon themselves the onus of raising funds and promising services to Japan.

It seems UNICEF also recognizes that is not readily apparent why Japan, a country with a per capita income near that of the US, would need the sort of direct relief normally provided to impoverished countries by organizations like itself. In their March 14th appeal for funds, they note, “…raising funds to help children in Japan…is an unusual decision, as Japan is a donor to UNICEF, not a recipient of its assistance. However, due to the unprecedented nature of the epic disaster and its impact on children, resources will be critical to provide for the very unique needs of the children.”

I agree that any child caught in the aftermath of this unprecedented disaster will need very special assistance. But how does that create a mandate for UNICEF to do something equally unprecedented, namely raise funds to help children who live in the third richest country in the world, and which, coincidently, also has the third oldest population on earth?

What happens if Japan does not need the money? Oddly enough, the American Red Cross has presciently provided an answer to this question on their website. “On those rare occasions when donations exceed American Red Cross expenses for a specific disaster, contributions are used to prepare for and serve the victims of other disasters.” World Vision placed a similar statement on their site. Evidently, emergency relief organizations think of everything to be prepared, even loopholes.

I cannot help but wonder if the major international relief organizations, which have grown into mega corporations since the 60’s, have gotten a bit off track. I am not suggesting that they are seeking profits, but it is clear that they have become an industry skilled at seizing market opportunities to bolster their operating budgets. So good that I wonder if they are intentionally using methodologies, like texting, to encourage reflexive rather than reflective giving — the way to go if you want people to give to Japan as they did to Haiti without thinking about the difference.

There is no doubt that the big relief organizations’ methods bring in the bucks. But, what about the potential long-term negative effects? Is it possible that their “seize the disaster” strategy will eventually have a numbing effect on donors? Could their new policy that every disaster is a chance to raise relief dollars and those that don’t need much will help pay for those that do backfire? Clearly, it is not good to confuse donors; it’s even worse to leave them feeling milked.