More Zonkyness

Category: Politics

  • Haiti: The Speed Of The Response

    Before reading further, go and visit http://www.dec.org.uk/ and make a donation.

    One of the things that is clear from the current chaos in Haiti approaching nearly four days since the earthquake (and to be fair from other disasters) is that getting aid on the ground takes far too long. This is not supposed to be a criticism of anyone – I’m simply at this stage wondering what the delay is caused by.

    Perhaps we have unrealistic expectations of how quickly aid can be sent in – I’m sure that it is a lot harder than we think it should be! I’m sure there will be those throwing criticism at the UN, the Haitian government, etc. all without much in the way of justification.

    What are the politics of sending in assistance in situations like this? Normally if US troops were to “go in” to a country to help out n a disaster without permission from the government it would be an act of war – can you imagine how the Chinese government would react ? So normally we can assume that those offering assistance need to obtain permission from the local government.

    But what happens when the local government has effectively ceased to operate ? The Haitian government has problems at the best of times, and was effectively unreachable for a while during the immediate aftermath of the earthquake. Did the rescuers have to wait until they could get someone from the government on the phone ? I cannot imagine the UN operating any other way – they are (and in fact should be given their other work) the paragons of diplomatic nicety.

    Perhaps governments could consider giving advanced permission along the lines of “Hey! If a really big disaster happens, you’ve got permission to come in and help and we’ll have a nice polite chat about it afterwards”. Do such arrangements already exist ?

    The other thing that springs to mind is that there needs to be some way of arranging air transport very rapidly. In this case there is an airport close by, but an airport that is not up to dealing with a such a large influx of cargo planes. In many other cases, there is no convenient airport. Perhaps it is not possible to build a temporary airport in a matter of hours, but it is something that needs someone to think about a way of trying. At the very least it should be possible to “upgrade” the air traffic control system equipment in a matter of hours – which appears to have been a problem in Haiti.

    People can survive without food for quite a while, and without water for not so very long, but those in need of medical help need it now. Do we need to consider parachuting in small medical stabilisation teams ? Obviously a full field hospital would be preferred but a small team (or many of them) with supplies that can be carried can at least stabilise causalities to give them a better chance of surviving until more comprehensive facilities are available.

    Similarly in the event of earthquakes, parachuting in search and rescue teams with minimal equipment could accomplish quite a bit even before heavy equipment is available.

    There is also the psychological effect of having someone on the ground. Even if those early aid workers cannot accomplish much for those who are fit and healthy, they at do least indicate that help is coming and that they have not been forgotten.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we need a more military approach to emergency aid in situations like this. And I’m not exactly a fan of the military! The military are used to reacting very rapidly to a limited extent with rapid reaction forces available to go into action on very short notice. If the UN were given the resources to setup an organisation that would work in the same way (but with different aims) it would be very much more effective at responding to disasters like this.

    After all, we use the normal military in situations like this – who aren’t even properly equipped for performing this job!

  • Snow and Pavements in the UK

    I dare say everyone in the UK is familiar with this problem – pavements that after a big snow fall end up coated in a thin (or thick) sheet of white ice. It varies in slipperiness from “quite” to “you’re going down”, and is very tiring to walk on because of the strain of making sure you have a good grip before taking the next step.

    Apparently in the dim and distant past – before the winter of 1962/1963 (which was a biggie if anyone is wondering), it was common for everyone to clear the pavement in front of their house. Now there’s still a few who do it today, or at least there are a few who eventually get around to it after a few days – suggestion: if you’re going to clear your pavement, do it early before it ends up as ice, it will be a lot easier!

    But the vast majority of pavements do not get any kind of treatment until the council gets around to them. We could be all pathetic and whinge about how the council is not doing its job properly and do nothing else. Or we could do something sensible – like clear our pavements ourselves.

    But what about all those dire warnings that clearing your pavement could make you liable for being sued when someone takes a tumble ? It is rumoured that this is why people stopped clearing their pavements after 1962/1963, after someone did sue. Well it’s a load of rancid rhinoceros dung :-

    • BBC News (the journalist says “possibly”; the solicitor says “It would be quite difficult to prove and quite difficult to proceed with a claim.”

    There’s plenty of other articles out there saying that you might be sued for clearing the pavement outside your home; but you can be sued for popping out of the house and accidentally knocking over someone in your rush. The fault is not with the law (or with clearing pavements), but with morons who sue at the drop of a hat and at the sniff of a lucrative payout.

    We could do with a law saying that those responsible for falls on icy pavements are a) the person who fell (whatever happened to personal responsibility anyway?) and b) the weather (or if you want a person to blame, start believing in one of those god people).

    In the absence of such a law it is worth remembering that :-

    1. You are exceptionally unlikely to be sued.
    2. You can always counter-sue the moron for being an anti-social moron (well you can try).
    3. You could always clear half of the pavement so people have a choice of whether to use an untreated surface or a treated surface.
    4. You could always have a lottery for your street so you get to clear the pavement in front of a random house, and destroy the results afterwards. When the householder is sued they can legitimately claim “it wasn’t me wot done it”, and if you destroy the results of the lottery, and carefully forget who did what, the “culprit” won’t be found. Incidentally this also solves the problem of those who can’t or won’t help – those who volunteer get two or three houses to do, and the whole street gets cleared.

    Going back a bit, the responsibility for falling rests with the person who slips and falls. It may be harsh, but so is life. It is perfectly possible to arrange for adequate footwear (and straight after this blog is posted, I’ll be buying online something equivalent to crampons). Blaming someone else for your tumble is the sort of behaviour that should bring howls of derision and a few rotten vegetables.

    Similarly blaming “the council” for not sorting out the pavements is a little unfair – whilst the council may grit pavements when it is convenient for them to do so, their main responsibility is to ensure that food can get to the shops. In unusually harsh weather (which we have had just now), the council simply isn’t going to be able to get around to the “nice to haves”.

    Part of the problem is the possibility of legal liability which the media does it’s unfortunate best to promote – not intentionally perhaps. But by mentioning it whenever the subject of clearing pavements comes up. Usually in a context that on the surface allows for the possibility that liability is ridiculous, but with an undercurrent that re-enforced the myth that clearing pavements could lead to legal trouble.

    Is it too much to ask that the media leave this subject alone as much as possible ?

    And lastly, lets ignore the possibility of being sued and just clear the pavements.

  • Chinese Government Kill The English Madman

    (With apologies to the relatives of Akmal Shaikh – I’m using somewhat impolite terms for mental illness)

    The Chinese government has just executed an Englishman for drug smuggling despite the fact that he was plainly more than a little unhinged.  Even ignoring the fact that executions are a barbaric way of dealing with criminals, not taking into account someone’s mental health is positively medieval.

    Well it would be except that medieval societies may well have been a trifle more understanding of those with mental health issues than the Chinese authorities have been.

    The Chinese authorities are claiming that there are no reports indicating that Akmal has mental health issues, but it doesn’t take a report to know that he’s a bit of a fruitcase. And if there has not been a mental health assessment it is fully the responsibility of the Chinese authorities that there hasn’t been one!

    Apparently the Chinese authorities are annoyed that people are criticising them for executing Akmal. They claim we have no right to criticise them! Well it’s not about whether we have the right to criticise them but about whether we find the behaviour of the Chinese authorities repugnant.

  • Gender Differences In Photography

    I have just read this article on whether men and women take different photograph. Without going into too much detail, the overall impression is of confusion with some people saying yes and others no.

    This is going to be very short. Whilst there may be gender-based differences in the way that we make photographs, these are likely to be overwhelmed by the simple differences between us that are down to us all being individuals. Most of us are far too keen to jump on the obvious differences (gender) and assume that these explain everything.

    Or to put it another way, why did Robert Capa and Henri Cartier-Bresson make images that were so different when they are both men ? That’s right, because they were individuals and so was Gerda Taro. That she was a woman adds to her individuality, but being a woman didn’t make her any more of an individual or any less of an individual than Robert Capa was.

  • The End Of The Death Penalty In The US?

    It has been announced this week that one of the alleged perpetrators (although he has freely confessed) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in New York for orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The prosecution is rumoured to be asking for the death penalty.

    If he is found guilty (and there seems little doubt he will eventually be found so), will he actually be put to death?

    Whilst those in favour of the death penalty will argue in favour, there is a very good pragmatic reason why he should not be put to death. If he is executed by the US authorities, he will be regarded as a martyr by the Islamic extremists which will encourage others. Indeed he probably wants to be martyred by being executed; does it make sense to “punish” a mass murderer by giving him what he wants ?

    Life imprisonment without parole is a far nastier punishment.

    Hopefully someone in the US justice system will take the pragmatic approach and not give him what he wants as punishment and does not sentence him to execution.

    But if you do not execute this mass murderer, how can you justify executing others whose crime is less extreme?

    With any luck (yes I am opposed to the death penalty), the long term effect of taking the pragmatic approach will be that the death penalty will come to an end in the US.