Nothing like a good ole mystery to garner the attention of the international community. The disappearance of Malaysian flight 370 has accomplished a feat that very few things can do, and that is to bring the international community together efficiently. With round the clock media coverage, a multitude of conspiracy theories and thousands of personnel involved, the Malaysian flight is proving that countries can work together effectively when motivated enough. But if I may, let's take on a more cynical outlook on life. Though we can all agree that the mystery of Flight 370 is a tragedy, the amount of effort undertaken by, according to ABC news, the 26 countries still involved in search efforts is absolutely astonishing. In a world where countries can rarely be motivated to intervene when millions of lives are at risk due to famine, war, pestilence or whatever it may be, it is quite astounding that millions of dollars be expended on the fate of 239 people. You can argue that the scope of the disaster is lesser in the case of Flight 370 from say a hurricane and that makes it easier to support, but is it really? Search parties are combing over a 23,000 km chunk of Asia, that seems like a pretty significant endeavor to me.
I find it hard to believe that governments are willing to devote the time and funds on 239 lives so readily, while many many more at risk are neglected annually. But can I complain about the international community's fastidiousness when it comes to responses? They are only human and who doesn't like a good mystery? Maybe that's what is missing from the other disasters in the world...the mystery. What's fun about knowing the terrible truth about famines and wars in the world?! Food for thought, maybe if the media starts dishing out headlines like "Thousands Mysteriously Disappear in the DRC" we would get governments willing to put forth funds to solve that enigma. Media coverage has hardly lessened as the search nears the second week mark. It is a testament to the power of the unknown that the world has become preoccupied with this one event. It is disasters like this, that help me realize the potential for good the international community sometimes wastes. The disappearance of the flight truly highlights how much of a role the media and the willingness of states plays in efficient responses to disasters. If the catastrophes presently occurring received half the vigor and support of the international community that the Malaysian mystery is, I wonder what could be accomplished. Though the mystery of Flight 370 is indeed a tragedy, I believe the real tragedy is the continual negligence of the millions of others that go missing annual, without anyone willing to lift a finger.
Food security refers to the availability of food, generally at the national level. When the storage of food of a nation runs out due to climate, political or social factors, the authorities must act in response. As we know, every crisis is not a disaster. In these cases of food scarcity, food insecurity would be declared a crisis that can lead to a major disaster, a famine. These issues can be caused by proximate or distant causes. A proximate cause would be a drought or a climate factor, as it happened in Sudan in 2011, or in Ethiopia in the mid 1980s. A distant cause would be a long term reason in the structure of the nation, such as a civil conflict. For instance, the famine in Ethiopia at the end of the twentieth century was aggravated by the civil war. The Ethiopian government, the Derg, used food as a weapon of war to combat the rebel groups in Eritrea.
Once there is a food scarcity in a nation, the United Nations along with governmental and non governmental aid agencies proceed to determine if it is the case of a famine. A famine can be declared only when certain measures of mortality, malnutrition and hunger are met. These are: “at least 20 per cent of households in an area face extreme food shortages with a limited ability to cope; acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 per cent; and the death rate exceeds two persons per day per 10,000 persons.” When a disaster such as famine is declared there is more international coverage and visibility which leads to more international response. Even though the declaration of a famine does not obligate the UN or other organizations to get involved in the problem, when a famine is declared it serves to focus global attention in the issue and to increase the humanitarian response to it. According to WFP, famines have been declared in recent years in southern areas of Sudan in 2008, in the Somali region of Ethiopia in 2000, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1996, in Somalia in 1991-1992, and Ethiopia in 1984-1985. On the other hand, when food shortages do not meet the scale of a famine, they are not usually covered by the media, which implies a reduced or inexistent humanitarian response. For instance, in the last years about 10 million people in Southern Africa has died due to food shortages. In Malawi 70 percent of the population is affected and there has not been the same international coverage as the famines in Ethiopia, Sudan or Somalia. Most of these crises did not meet the requirements to be declared as a famine. Thus, the response to food crises depends on the scale of it and its declaration as a disaster, in this case famine, and consequently, the international coverage to attract humanitarian aid attention.
Here is a link to a video that explains the food crisis in Burkina in 2012. As I explained, because it is not yet declared as a famine, the coverage of this issue has been very little. The consequences of this ignorance of the problem can be extreme, aggravating the situation in the country. What are the consequences for Burkina and other countries that are suffering food crises but not famine? Is humanitarian aid arriving only in countries where famine is declared and ignoring extreme food crises that also cause deaths? Links to articles:
http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib8.pdf
http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2013/09/harvesting-peace-food-security-conflict-cooperation/#.UytRJqXLDwI
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39113#.Uyt5jaXLDwJ
This is just a follow-up post related to the nukemap class activity (http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ if you want to revisit), to help us grasp the effects of radiation during a nuclear attack. Two lessons can be drawn from this: 1./ as you collectively concluded, as a matter of distance AU probably benefits from not being right by the most likely targets in DC (although nukemap biggest blasts make that a bit of a moot point), 2./ as we all collectively suspected, there are some definite advantages to the location of our classroom.
This infographic helps us wrap our minds around the procedures of crisis response in case of a nuclear attack. I find it amusing and worrisome at the same time that the author of the article labeled this "choose your own adventure."
The questions to consider: how widely available is this information and even IF there is an optimal response, how many people are likely to follow those steps. Case in point, in Chernobyl, everyone had their windows wide open during and after the explosion because it was "unseasonably hot that late April day" and there was little or conflicting communication to correct this.
The source article for the infographics, with more detail: http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-survive-a-nuclear-blast-2014-1
And speaking of education:
http://youtu.be/Fn7FttaTRms
Is it good or bad that none of us has seen as similar video lately?
The conflict in Ukraine and Crimea is now officially an International "crisis". I'm referring to an article posted by BBC news earlier in the day on March 6th concerning the International community's response to the recent actions taken by the Russian Federation. The US and EU have just condemned the supposed Illegal referendum by Crimea to join the Russian Federation along with Ukraine, and they also administered sanctions until these actions by Russia are de-escalated.
According to President Obama, Russia's actions are a clear violation of Ukraine's sovereignty as many would agree. The President has attempted diplomatic solutions with Mr. Putin, however he only responded saying that he doesn't believe the actions he is taking should hurt the US and the Russian Federation's relationship. So essentially Mr. Putin honestly doesn't care what Obama or the rest of the international community thinks, he is only worried about the power and wellbeing of his own nation and he is willing to do whatever it takes to ensure his country comes out on top.
This is indeed a crisis, and could potentially reach disaster levels at quite literally the press of a button. If one looks closely at the techniques of Putin in obtaining territory as well as his diplomatic strategies, it closely resembles that of Adolf Hitler before the second world war and his rise to power. It is a bit extreme currently to consider the possibility of another world war over this crisis, although if the infringement of sovereignty continues it may warrant international military intervention based on treaties created in the 1980's between the US and Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin as well as the rest of Russia is well aware of these treaties and agreements, which is why they are currently treading very carefully and strategically in order to satisfy their interest without pushing the international community to direct involvement. The ball really is in Putin's court now though, and that was one of the main objective of the EU and US's sanctions. Putin can now either obey the demands, or deal with the sanctions and risk further involvement. This will cause a severe escalation in the loss of life and may even cause the use of nuclear weaponry which would then cause this contained crisis become a disaster on a global scale.
Ukrainian Military standing guard in front of Pro-Russian Protestors:
Before and after the current crisis in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev:
Hey guys, this will be the weekly post for the Earthquakes group. We've talked about a lot of different types of disasters so far, and this week we're focusing on terrorist attacks as disasters. I came across an article about a recent incident in Kunming, China, that has been labeled by the government as a terrorist act. A group of eight people armed with knives attacked a railway station, killing at least 28 people and wounding 113. The attackers killed at random and gave no warning prior to the attack. As of now there is still a lot of confusion surrounding the attack, but it is believed to have been the work of a separatist group in Xanjiang, in the northwest of China. The Uighurs are an ethnic minority in Xinjiang whose members, primarily Turkic-speaking Muslims, are engaged in an ever-growing conflict with China’s ethnic Han majority. The Uighers complain of discrimination from the Han, and many want to create their own separate state called East Turkestan in northwest China. Terrorist attacks are much different from natural disasters because there are very few ways of predicting or preventing them. In creating a risk model to help predict when and where a natural disaster will strike, we can better prepare for its aftermath. However, it is harder to predict human behavior than the weather. In his article "Risk Modeling Advances for Natural Disasters, Terrorism," Ben Dipietro argues that in order to create a model for terrorist attacks, "researchers need to try to understand the motivations of someone pursuing an attack, the logistics available to someone to launch an attack as well as what would be a high-profile target." As we already know, terrorist attacks are focused on civilians, and their effect is mainly psychological. Terrorists usually try to use these attacks as leverage against governments to try and attain larger political goals. If we were to try and make a risk model for terrorism, we would first have to understand the motivations of the people planning an attack, including both their short-term and long-term objectives. For example, while the Uighers want to prove to the Chinese government that they should be taken seriously, and to the Han people that they are a legitimate threat, but they also want sovereignty and statehood in the long-term. They are more likely to attack a large city in a public place where they will be guaranteed media coverage. Although weapons such as bombs may cause more casualties, these separatists chose to attack with knives--why? Looking back, there have been multiple mass knife attacks in China in the past three years, and inciting terror, as those attacks did, may have been a more important motivational factor to these separatists rather than killing the most people. In the aftermath of the attack, it is relatively easy to see what caused it, but hindsight is 20/20. The question remains: how accurately can we predict the actions of terrorists? To what degree can governments prevent these types of attacks? What are some types of models we can use or create that would aid these types of disasters? Here is the CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/02/world/asia/china-railway-attack/ Here is the risk modeling article: http://blogs.wsj.com/riskandcompliance/2014/03/04/risk-modeling-advances-for-natural-disasters-terrorism/
We have now covered a wide variety of disasters in our course. From weather-related, natural disasters to the disastrous natures of starvation and nuclear meltdown, calamity can be found in many places. After perusing recent articles from CNN, I think it is important that we now discuss disease. As horrific and exhausting of an experience as going through it (or having a loved one go through it) is, I did not previously think to catalog cancer under our conceptual understanding of disasters. This has changed for me, though, after seeing the risk-calculus we explored earlier in the semester written all over the CNN article. What journalists Tim Hume and Jen Christensen emphasize in their piece is that there are a slew of factors that increases one's risk of contracting cancer. Exposure to cigarettes, alcohol, and a poor diet is something that greatly contributes to the stark increases in persons with cancer anticipated in the coming twenty years. A spike in the longevity of populations world-wide (laregely thanks to advancements in medical technology, ironically) is another key factor of exposure to the hazard of the "cancer disaster". Vulnerability is also noted in the article. Emory University's Dr. Walter Curran is quoted as saying that a young person who does not habitually smoke and "has a good diet and a healthy lifestyle, someone with moderate alcohol consumption and who takes preventive health measures like regularly seeing a doctor and getting exercise -- their chance of cancer is significantly less than someone who for example lives in a developing country in Africa right now." More questions emerge as we arrive at the manageability side of the risk calculus. This, too, connects to previous discussions and readings, as Christopher Wild from the International Agency for Research on Cancer is quoted as saying "More commitment to prevention and early detection is desperately needed in order to complement improved treatments and address the alarming rise in cancer burden globally." This reflects the trend also noted in Hannigan concerning humanitarian efforts' transition from being more reactionary to more preventative. I want to consider whether or not we can eradicate the disparity in risk-level between countries and regions of the world. If we can, how? If more people in Africa are at risk due solely to external factors, should development efforts attempt to counteract those factors? Furthermore, while prevention being :given equal footing with disaster assistance" (Hannigan 2012) makes sense to me, there doesn't seem to be a clear-cut way to do this when dealing with increased cases of cancer. I will close with words from Curran, who is credited in the article as deeming preventative measures in fighting cancer "an investment rather than a cost." Can these words be debated? Or is re-evaluating how we treat cancer both medically and socially in order? -Anthony DeSantis (Hurricane Group)
