Only when they become political

Why the world does not notice humanitarian crises earlier

Human suffering is part of history, but not all of it has been recognized equally. In fact, across the globe, many communities have been exposed to violence, displacement, poverty, and insecurity for decades before becoming objects of international concern. Curiously enough, there comes a moment when such disasters become obvious and recognized after having turned into a political issue or security threat.

This unfortunate truth applies to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and especially its areas suffering from militancy and displacement. People in Swat, former FATA areas, and other districts of the province continued to suffer from violence and insecurity. Civilians became homeless, children stopped attending schools, and families lived through military actions and threats posed by militancy. However, their humanitarian situation has not been regarded as important.

A prime example would be the humanitarian crisis brought about by the militants and the military operation against the militant elements in Swat between 2007 and 2009. Thousands of families were internally displaced due to the military actions in Swat, which resulted in one of Pakistan’s biggest internal displacement situations. It was only when this humanitarian crisis started to pose a threat to state sovereignty and national security that it gained prominence among national leaders as an issue to be addressed.

In Swat, the affected civilians were neither numbers nor just faces; they were citizens of the region– teachers, schoolchildren, shopkeepers, housewives, mothers, and many others who suffered at the hands of the Taliban. Schools were destroyed, public executions took place frequently, and people felt constantly at risk of death or imprisonment. In the international discourse, however, the focus tended to be much more on militants, terrorism, and geopolitics than on the actual suffering of these civilians. 

Another parallel can be drawn to the security challenges faced by border territories such as Chitral. In light of the territory's proximity to Afghanistan and its relative instability, the region has on occasion been threatened with insecurity and militant infiltration, generating apprehension within the populace. Nevertheless, the plight of the common individual in the face of such challenges tends not to garner attention until it acquires political or military implications. The cries of the outlying community tend to take centrestage only when they tie into the national security discussion.

All of these stakeholders are required to confront this trend. The media will need to cover humanitarian tragedy even after political interest has waned. Politicians need to focus not just on military action but also on rehabilitating communities, educating citizens, and protecting them. But most crucially, society at large needs to address human misery before it turns political.

This is not an isolated case in Pakistan alone. On the international stage, humanitarian crises are often framed through a political agenda. Conflicts that span weeks and months tend to get the most coverage if they involve a major player or alliance, while equally catastrophic events in other, less politically influential regions continue to go unnoticed. Refugees of one area may be taken in sympathetically, while refugees of another may be seen as an unwanted demographic burden or even a threat to national security.

This selective response reveals an uncomfortable dynamic between politics and humanitarianism. While ideal humanitarian motivation should arise out of human dignity and moral obligation, in practice, it tends to involve aspects like diplomacy, military, financing, and media exposure. Assistance does not necessarily flow to areas with greater suffering; instead, it flows to areas of political importance. The framing of humanitarian stories can also be strategically motivated.

It is also the case that the media influences decisions regarding what deserves attention as a crisis. In the age of new media, suffering is entirely contingent upon its visibility. The crisis is a trending topic online for a few days, emotionally impactful photos are seen around the globe, and the international community shifts its focus to the next crisis that pops up on its radar. Communities that have endured years of conflict or displacement fall into oblivion when politics no longer find them interesting.

These are grave repercussions that have been created due to selective empathy. Whenever people get to feel ignored and abandoned by the outside world, mistrust against the concerned institutions becomes inevitable. They will start thinking that their pain is relevant only in relation to their potential to pose threats to the power structure in place. It is particularly true for those populations who live in areas that are prone to conflicts.

It is imperative that there needs to be a distinction between humanitarian obligation and political expediency. There should be no need for pain and suffering to assume political significance before any action can be taken in response. A displaced family in Swat or a troubled population in Chitral should be considered just as worthy as anyone living in a politically strategic area.

All of these stakeholders are required to confront this trend. The media will need to cover humanitarian tragedy even after political interest has waned. Politicians need to focus not just on military action but also on rehabilitating communities, educating citizens, and protecting them. But most crucially, society at large needs to address human misery before it turns political.

For the world always finds itself waiting too long to deal with humanitarian tragedies once they've turned political.