Over the past two weeks, I have attended two international, disaster-related
conferences in different countries and next week I shall participate in
another international, disaster-related conference in a third country. The
two conferences so far have been stimulating, interdisciplinary,
thought-provoking, and wide-ranging yet produced solid, pertinent outputs.
The participants in each included philosophers, engineers, human
geographers, physical geographers, meteorologists, anthropologists, and
disasters and development practitioners amongst many other disciplines.
Despite the named focus of each meeting being the 'natural' aspect of our
field, it was impossible to stick to that theme. September 11, armed
conflict, underdevelopment, inequity, national security, human rights, the
rich-poor gap, states' constitutions, greenhouse gas emissions, local
empowerment, water (mis)management, gender issues, utilitarianism, and
diplomacy amongst many other non-'natural' themes entered the discussions.
They had to.
I am therefore saddened to peruse my email to discover a plethora of
messages which include views that 'natural' disasters can artificially be
separated from non-'natural' disasters. The comment "The fundamental
difference in my view is that in a natural disaster, everyone (at least in
principle) wants to help the afflicted" was particularly surprising. I wish
that were the case. Then our jobs would be much easier.
I cannot match Ben Wisner's elegance and wealth of experience in describing
why the issues are inseparable. Fred Krimgold's brevity summarises the
fundamentals we seek. The work of many others, including Radix co-creator
Maureen Fordham, illustrates how subpopulations are marginalised, the
afflicted are ignored, and resources are deliberately misdirected or
misused, even when natural hazards are a significant input to the disaster
event. Motivations are not necessarily Machiavellian. They may include
apathy, ignorance, greed, disinterest, fear, hate, misapprehensions,
corruption, poor prioritisation, lack of governance, or any of the multitude
of sins we see daily.
Hazards may differ, vulnerabilities may differ, and risks may differ. Our
interests, resources, abilities, and successes may differ. But remarkable
similarities manifest in numerous aspects and themes, theoretical and
practical, of disaster events and related issues. Without recognising these
similarities, we will miss lessons and we cannot understand how to tackle
the disaster problem.
My own, perhaps futile, attempt to grasp a fraction of these issues from the
Radix world appears at
http://www.anglia.ac.uk/geography/radix/reflections2.htm
The ideas described are not mine. They state only what I have learned from
others (but any misrepresentations or errors are entirely my fault). I
would urge readers of this list to explore the Radix vision and resources,
to state their opinions, to ask questions, and ultimately to expand the
scope of the fields and issues which they deal with and the solutions and
concepts which they implement.
If we fail to do so, we copy the same mistakes which have created the mess
we currently live in. We thereby fail the communities and globe which we
serve.
From an often-confused speck on a ridiculously big planet,
Ilan
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
|