My humanitarian crisis is bigger than your humanitarian crisis

Earlier this month I grumbled (ever so slightly) over the selective coverage of humanitarian crises in the mainstream press (I was then alluding to the dearth of coverage regarding Sri Lanka). Another case in point: Congo v. Darfur:

According to Julie Hollar of Fair and Accuracy in Reporting:

To put the death rate in perspective, at the peak of the Darfur crisis, the conflict-related death rate there was less than a third of the Congo’s, and by 2005 it had dropped to less than 4,000 per month. The United Nations has estimated some 300,000 may have died in total as a result of the years of conflict in Darfur; the same number die from the Congo conflict every six and a half months. 

And yet, in the New York Times, which covers the Congo more than most U.S. outlets, Darfur has consistently received more coverage since it emerged as a media story in 2004. The Times gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, while Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly 10 times the rate of those in Darfur. 

Hollar goes on to suggest several potential explanations underpinning such a media disparity, among them: journalist access to the conflict zone (or lack thereof); celebrity attention (or lack thereof, until recently); and U.S. political interests which, Hollar argues, are the foremost drivers of where the West happens to invest its attention. While there may be some merit to this claim, my understanding is that the crisis failed to attract much initial attention in the U.S. and beyond, which weakens her argument. Thoughts on this, anyone?

On a somewhat unrelated, albeit related note, Texas in Africa has a great post examining why the Congo remains an "anarchic war-zone" despite all humanitarian, Western, peacekeeping, democracy promotion, and celebrity awareness efforts. Definitely worth a read.

On Sri Lanka (for want of a better title)

It's quite a curious exercise, isn't it, observing which humanitarian crises receive international attention? Perhaps not surprisingly (though most unfortunately), the most talked about issues are often those that have somehow  been sensationalized by the media and/or altogether clueless celebrities who mean well but often lack the knowledge necessary to raise proper awareness, let alone do anything about the problems at hand. Darfur, the Congo, the AIDS crisis more generally, Somalia - which was brought into the international spotlight only when pirate attacks escalated on mostly Western cargo ships - the list goes on.

Yet what about other parts of the world? Places like present-day Sri Lanka, for instance, where the populace is suffering on an unimaginable scale. Yet who can honestly say that they have heard much about Sri Lanka, let alone the country's problems? Few will likely know that a humanitarian catastrophe is raging on in the country after Tamil Tiger rebels ignored a surrender deadline from the government and the government likewise rejected the rebels' offer of ceasefire on the grounds that the offer was "meaningless." While exact figures are unavailable, it is estimated that there are upwards of 6,500 civilian deaths, with over 100,000 refugees and 50,000 civilians trapped in a space roughly the size of Central Park. According to one British official, Sri Lanka's conflict makes "what happened in Gaza look like a sideshow."

Indeed, comparisons are being drawn between Sri Lanka's plight and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tamils are using refugees as human shields; the rebels are accusing the government of trying to starve the population into submission; and foreign media is kept beyond the conflict zone. Indeed:

This is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The party that is perhaps more culpable -- the rebels -- answers to no one. And the Sri Lankan government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists." Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.

The international community has, in fact, stepped in, calling for both a ceasefire and permission for aid groups to access the war zone. Neither call appears to have been met. What becomes of Sri Lanka remains to be seen. As Robert Templer observes: either the conflict will end in a bloody massacre, likely resulting in decades more of war and suffering, or there will be a breakthrough of sorts, heralding in peaceful negotiations and the hope for a peaceful Sri Lanka. But no matter: I don't think Bono has sung about this one yet, has he?