Do you remember the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami in South-East Asia? How it seemed so many people, across such a wide area, had been affected; the widespread devastation; the millions seeking help?
Well, far more people have been affected by the floods in Pakistan than were by the tsunami. Indeed, throw in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti quake and you're still not near the figure - a total of 14 million in need of humanitarian assistance, according to Maurizio Giuliano, a spokesman for the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
To put that into context, that is the entire population of a country like Ecuador or Mali, or a megacity like Delhi or Lagos.
Of course, only a tiny fraction of the number of people killed in the tsunami have perished in the floods. Casualties are estimated at 1,600 - around 0.003 percent of the numbers killed in the other disasters.
But does it perhaps seem a bizarre contradiction that more money is raised when more are dead. By definition - and not wishing to seem crass - the dead are beyond help; it is the survivors who need the aid.
The money pledged so far to help survivors in Pakistan is $95,604,766, - although two thirds of that is in the form of "unconfimed pledges" that, if history is any guide, are likely to go unfulfilled.
That equates to $6.82 per survivor. In contrast, after the tsuanmi, $3,348,000,000 was committed for five million survivors - which works out at $669.60 for each of them.
Pakistan is known to be desperate for outside help - the New York Times reports that members of the country's government appear "overwhelmed and daunted by the magnitude of the devastation."
Hina Rabbani Khar, the state minister for economic affairs, broke into tears as she described the plight of her constituency in the Muzaffargarh district of southwestern Punjab to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani during a meeting that was broadcast live on state-run television. "We were not prepared for this kind of a disaster," Ms Khar said, her voice quivering and tears running down her face. There are now concerns that because of the lukewarm international response, organisations with links to terror groups - including the Taliban - are stepping in to fill the gap.
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, has had to issue an appeal for "several hundred million dollars" at a news conference.
Meanwhile the focus has fallen on the leadership - or, some argue, absence of same - of the country's president, Asif Ali Zardari.
Zardari has only now arrived back in the country following a tour of Europe that shoes being thrown at him in Birmingham - a tour that prompted much criticism at home.
Here's Ayaz Amir, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader :
"Even when governments can't cope, they can at least show empathy. That was missing. Who was the first person on the scene? The army chief. This has really cost [Zardari] heavily... The image of President Zardari visiting his chateau in France, while there was devastating flooding in Pakistan: this will have long-term effects."
And here's Zaman Malik, a retired civil servant in Islamabad:
"I was part of the earthquake effort. We had so much more confidence. Today, this is a major disaster but who is in the driving seat?" Others, however, have defended the president - such as blogger Cafe Pyala:
Were he not the president, would the suffering of the affectees of the biggest floods in Pakistan's history be any less? Would the administration become super-efficient? Isn't the issue of the inherent lack of capacity of the Pakistani state to deal with such crises a bigger issue than Zardari and his jaunts? Criticise him by all means but is a man chucking a couple of shoes in his direction really a bigger story than the tens of millions displaced from their homes? Or have we become so blinded by our rage and the cult of personality that we are willing to jettison all sense of proportion? Meanwhile, after the initial coverage as the worst of the monsoon struck 10 days ago, the story has somewhat fallen away from the news agenda.
On Monday, for example, the news was dominated by a dispute - in admittedly a very important case - between a 1990s supermodel and an actress best known for a 1960s horror film.
So why has Pakistan dropped down the agenda? Do you wish more was being done? Or do you think there is simply too much to cope with at the moment? Are you embarrassed by the actions of the President, or is there nothing more he can do? Do you worry about groups linked to terror taking over the administration of aid?
ONE ACTRESS TESTIFIES OF A ’BIG DIAMAND’ NAOMI’S FORMER MANAGER TALKS OF ’SMALL PIECES OF ROUPH DIAMONDS’ DID THESE LADIES HEAR THESE FROM THE SAME SOURCE? I HOPE THE THE DIAMANDS CAME FROM SOME PLACE IN WEST AFRICA. BUT IS IT WORTHWHILE 2SPEND MORE THAN 80MILLION DOLLARS &SO MANY YEARS ON ONE TRIAL. WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN ! ! Concerned Ugandan.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
19:17
113631290
Rachael Noel Fox - New Jersey, USA
You are asking the question if Naomi Campbell's involvement has increased the reach of this story... but you are asking this on a news network. Those who choose to listen to a global news service are not the people who would be blind to troubles in African nations. The involvement of Miss Campbell and Ms Farrow has allowed this story to find it's way to people who'd never think to investigate world politics; people who DO NOT pay attention to either local or global news issues.
The manner in which the terribly shmaltzy Hollywood-formula film "Blood Diamond" was cast (with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly to lead and Djimon Hounsou as a background catalyst figure) was shameful, but unfortunately necessary for the bulk of the American public to pay attention to the issue. In the same way, the invovlement of famous faces in this case is pricking up the ears of people who don't peer outside their own daily lives.
Comment sent via Facebook
19:09
113631290
Shadrach Kerwillain As a Liberian, I recognized the fact that Mr. Taylor should stand and face trial for the mayhem that emitted from his greed among other things. However the fact that this trial has gotten so much media coverage since Ms. Campbell testimony ...speaks volume on what international media institutions see as important and news worthy. I wonder if the common man in Sierra Leone or Liberia care if Mr. Taylor give Naomi a piece of diamond or not? Is it also possible that the prosecution case is so weak that it is depending on one signal testimony to determine the verdict?
Comment sent via SMS
19:09
108933096
I stand by my statement that was deleted on the WHYS page that naomi campbell lied in court. Mohammed Ali, liberia.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
19:01
113631290
Kathleen O'Neill
Ms Campbell's retience to testify exemplifies the contempt very rich people have for the rest of us. By the way, just what is a supermodel?
Comment sent via Facebook
19:00
113631290
David, Glasgow
Of course the povery and troubles in these countries deserve attention, but the justice system should not be used as a media outlet to sensationalise any case.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:54
113631290
patricia bannister in high point north carolina,
While listening to npr, i heard some of campbell's testimony: Her declaration that she had never heard of Liberia or blood diamonds or for that matter Charles Taylor, left me stupified. Is she really that clueless about everything?
Second, a woman, opening a door in a hotel in the middle of the night, accepting a package?
Her credibility died for me with that.
of course, her celebrity brought attention to the matter, but sadly, i doubt that celebrity hounds will know more or care about sierra leon.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
18:50
113631290
Neema - Tanzania
I came across this story a few weeks ago due to coverage on Naomi Campbell. I had heard of Charles Taylor on trial for a long while but this was the first time that I bothered to research on it. Now I am very intereted in the outcome and if the right thing will be done more than whether Naomi is telling the truth or not, though a lot does hinge on her testimony.
Comment sent via SMS
18:49
114011476
D excerpts / clips from d trial informed abt d impressive competence of d legal team. Which I find of utmost interest .
Thanks ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳
Comment sent via Facebook
18:48
113631290
K Adrian Denton
Focusing on naomi campbell has trivialised this case especially seeing that the prosecution's case is now like a fisherman's net as these witness are of no help to all those who the prosecution is supposed to be representing ....
Comment sent via Facebook
18:43
113631290
K Adrian Denton i have a question .... IF NAOMI WAS NOT CALLED TO WITNESS WUD THE ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ HAVE GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO THE TRIAL? i am so fed up with this bias ...
Comment sent via Facebook
18:42
113631290
ancy Muya Was campbel ever in a history class to know liberia exists.shes derailing the real case,we need to know about the war not about the damn diamonds ,it adds no value to liberians who suffered during his regime.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:41
113631290
Bonnke Wordsmith Mutias That Campbell doesn't know Liberia exists,i couldn't be more surprised
Comment sent via Facebook
18:40
113631290
Dave O'Connor Interesting that a media outlet would ask this question. Seems to me you guys are the ones that ought to be answering it since you're the ones that dictate what gets reported. The question for us is actually: has the 'news' media become a... vapid celebrity obsessed nightmare that only cares about something like a war crimes trial when there is a celebrity involved? My answer: yes.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:39
113631290
Kaggwa Myga Andrew I followed the case since i was in school. Some where on the way i lost interest upto when a model took the stand. Guys its hard 4 any journalist to admit but this case was saved by some woman in heels, we had lost interest. Think about it when was the last time ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ broadcast this trial live?
Comment sent via Facebook
18:39
113631290
Daniel B. Ochiche At least Naomi did well to come and give her testimony. Her appearance give the trial media attention. By so doing, it exposed the biase of the international community in wrongly prosecuting blacks. We'll follow it till the end.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:37
113631290
Lianne Barnard If the UN can have Goodwill ambassadors, why should we deny the War Trials Tribunal its Badwill ambassadors. Publicity is publicity.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:35
113631290
Nads Brown Live naomi alone she never shot any one with a gun in leone lets talk the real story.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:35
113631290
Owen Onaah Well i began following this case since 2008. So this Naomi Campbell, has no impact has no impact on me what so ever.
Comment sent via Facebook
18:34
113631290
Sanousi Sesay Her initial account of what happened seems to contradict that of Mia Farrow and Carole White. Someone is not saying the truth
Comment sent via Facebook
18:33
113631290
Chris Akorlie Basler Mario-Tordomefla Lets wait for what happens later!! But where are the 'dirty stones'?
Comment sent via Facebook
18:33
113631290
Muyunda Yuyu Chansa come on...this woman didnt even know where liberia was in the first place(so she says,but she was there).for me it was the bbc that made me knowledgeable about the trial and not miss model.it has been a common topic over the years on the bbc....the trial actually seems to be losing direction and seriousness.its peoples lives were talking about...
Is Pakistan getting the attention it deserves?
| Tuesday, 8 Aug. 2010 | 18:00 - 20:00 GMT
Do you remember the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami in South-East Asia? How it seemed so many people, across such a wide area, had been affected; the widespread devastation; the millions seeking help?
Well, far more people have been affected by the floods in Pakistan than were by the tsunami. Indeed, throw in the 2005 Kashmir earthquake and the 2010 Haiti quake and you're still not near the figure - a total of 14 million in need of humanitarian assistance, according to Maurizio Giuliano, a spokesman for the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
To put that into context, that is the entire population of a country like Ecuador or Mali, or a megacity like Delhi or Lagos.
Of course, only a tiny fraction of the number of people killed in the tsunami have perished in the floods. Casualties are estimated at 1,600 - around 0.003 percent of the numbers killed in the other disasters.
But does it perhaps seem a bizarre contradiction that more money is raised when more are dead. By definition - and not wishing to seem crass - the dead are beyond help; it is the survivors who need the aid.
The money pledged so far to help survivors in Pakistan is $95,604,766, - although two thirds of that is in the form of "unconfimed pledges" that, if history is any guide, are likely to go unfulfilled.
That equates to $6.82 per survivor. In contrast, after the tsuanmi, $3,348,000,000 was committed for five million survivors - which works out at $669.60 for each of them.
Pakistan is known to be desperate for outside help - the New York Times reports that members of the country's government appear "overwhelmed and daunted by the magnitude of the devastation."
Hina Rabbani Khar, the state minister for economic affairs, broke into tears as she described the plight of her constituency in the Muzaffargarh district of southwestern Punjab to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani during a meeting that was broadcast live on state-run television. "We were not prepared for this kind of a disaster," Ms Khar said, her voice quivering and tears running down her face.
There are now concerns that because of the lukewarm international response, organisations with links to terror groups - including the Taliban - are stepping in to fill the gap.
The UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, has had to issue an appeal for "several hundred million dollars" at a news conference.
Meanwhile the focus has fallen on the leadership - or, some argue, absence of same - of the country's president, Asif Ali Zardari.
Zardari has only now arrived back in the country following a tour of Europe that shoes being thrown at him in Birmingham - a tour that prompted much criticism at home.
Here's Ayaz Amir, a Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz leader :
"Even when governments can't cope, they can at least show empathy. That was missing. Who was the first person on the scene? The army chief. This has really cost [Zardari] heavily... The image of President Zardari visiting his chateau in France, while there was devastating flooding in Pakistan: this will have long-term effects."
And here's Zaman Malik, a retired civil servant in Islamabad:
"I was part of the earthquake effort. We had so much more confidence. Today, this is a major disaster but who is in the driving seat?"
Others, however, have defended the president - such as blogger Cafe Pyala:
Were he not the president, would the suffering of the affectees of the biggest floods in Pakistan's history be any less? Would the administration become super-efficient? Isn't the issue of the inherent lack of capacity of the Pakistani state to deal with such crises a bigger issue than Zardari and his jaunts? Criticise him by all means but is a man chucking a couple of shoes in his direction really a bigger story than the tens of millions displaced from their homes? Or have we become so blinded by our rage and the cult of personality that we are willing to jettison all sense of proportion?
Meanwhile, after the initial coverage as the worst of the monsoon struck 10 days ago, the story has somewhat fallen away from the news agenda.
On Monday, for example, the news was dominated by a dispute - in admittedly a very important case - between a 1990s supermodel and an actress best known for a 1960s horror film.
So why has Pakistan dropped down the agenda? Do you wish more was being done? Or do you think there is simply too much to cope with at the moment? Are you embarrassed by the actions of the President, or is there nothing more he can do? Do you worry about groups linked to terror taking over the administration of aid?
Your comments
Comment sent via SMS
ONE ACTRESS TESTIFIES OF A ’BIG DIAMAND’ NAOMI’S FORMER MANAGER TALKS OF ’SMALL PIECES OF ROUPH DIAMONDS’ DID THESE LADIES HEAR THESE FROM THE SAME SOURCE? I HOPE THE THE DIAMANDS CAME FROM SOME PLACE IN WEST AFRICA. BUT IS IT WORTHWHILE 2SPEND MORE THAN 80MILLION DOLLARS &SO MANY YEARS ON ONE TRIAL. WHAT A WORLD WE LIVE IN ! ! Concerned Ugandan.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Rachael Noel Fox - New Jersey, USA You are asking the question if Naomi Campbell's involvement has increased the reach of this story... but you are asking this on a news network. Those who choose to listen to a global news service are not the people who would be blind to troubles in African nations. The involvement of Miss Campbell and Ms Farrow has allowed this story to find it's way to people who'd never think to investigate world politics; people who DO NOT pay attention to either local or global news issues. The manner in which the terribly shmaltzy Hollywood-formula film "Blood Diamond" was cast (with Leonardo DiCaprio and Jennifer Connelly to lead and Djimon Hounsou as a background catalyst figure) was shameful, but unfortunately necessary for the bulk of the American public to pay attention to the issue. In the same way, the invovlement of famous faces in this case is pricking up the ears of people who don't peer outside their own daily lives.
Comment sent via Facebook
Shadrach Kerwillain As a Liberian, I recognized the fact that Mr. Taylor should stand and face trial for the mayhem that emitted from his greed among other things. However the fact that this trial has gotten so much media coverage since Ms. Campbell testimony ...speaks volume on what international media institutions see as important and news worthy. I wonder if the common man in Sierra Leone or Liberia care if Mr. Taylor give Naomi a piece of diamond or not? Is it also possible that the prosecution case is so weak that it is depending on one signal testimony to determine the verdict?
Comment sent via SMS
I stand by my statement that was deleted on the WHYS page that naomi campbell lied in court. Mohammed Ali, liberia.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Kathleen O'Neill Ms Campbell's retience to testify exemplifies the contempt very rich people have for the rest of us. By the way, just what is a supermodel?
Comment sent via Facebook
David, Glasgow Of course the povery and troubles in these countries deserve attention, but the justice system should not be used as a media outlet to sensationalise any case.
Comment sent via Facebook
patricia bannister in high point north carolina, While listening to npr, i heard some of campbell's testimony: Her declaration that she had never heard of Liberia or blood diamonds or for that matter Charles Taylor, left me stupified. Is she really that clueless about everything? Second, a woman, opening a door in a hotel in the middle of the night, accepting a package? Her credibility died for me with that. of course, her celebrity brought attention to the matter, but sadly, i doubt that celebrity hounds will know more or care about sierra leon.
Comment sent via YOURSAY
Neema - Tanzania I came across this story a few weeks ago due to coverage on Naomi Campbell. I had heard of Charles Taylor on trial for a long while but this was the first time that I bothered to research on it. Now I am very intereted in the outcome and if the right thing will be done more than whether Naomi is telling the truth or not, though a lot does hinge on her testimony.
Comment sent via SMS
D excerpts / clips from d trial informed abt d impressive competence of d legal team. Which I find of utmost interest . Thanks ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳
Comment sent via Facebook
K Adrian Denton Focusing on naomi campbell has trivialised this case especially seeing that the prosecution's case is now like a fisherman's net as these witness are of no help to all those who the prosecution is supposed to be representing ....
Comment sent via Facebook
K Adrian Denton i have a question .... IF NAOMI WAS NOT CALLED TO WITNESS WUD THE ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ HAVE GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OF ATTENTION TO THE TRIAL? i am so fed up with this bias ...
Comment sent via Facebook
ancy Muya Was campbel ever in a history class to know liberia exists.shes derailing the real case,we need to know about the war not about the damn diamonds ,it adds no value to liberians who suffered during his regime.
Comment sent via Facebook
Bonnke Wordsmith Mutias That Campbell doesn't know Liberia exists,i couldn't be more surprised
Comment sent via Facebook
Dave O'Connor Interesting that a media outlet would ask this question. Seems to me you guys are the ones that ought to be answering it since you're the ones that dictate what gets reported. The question for us is actually: has the 'news' media become a... vapid celebrity obsessed nightmare that only cares about something like a war crimes trial when there is a celebrity involved? My answer: yes.
Comment sent via Facebook
Kaggwa Myga Andrew I followed the case since i was in school. Some where on the way i lost interest upto when a model took the stand. Guys its hard 4 any journalist to admit but this case was saved by some woman in heels, we had lost interest. Think about it when was the last time ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ broadcast this trial live?
Comment sent via Facebook
Daniel B. Ochiche At least Naomi did well to come and give her testimony. Her appearance give the trial media attention. By so doing, it exposed the biase of the international community in wrongly prosecuting blacks. We'll follow it till the end.
Comment sent via Facebook
Lianne Barnard If the UN can have Goodwill ambassadors, why should we deny the War Trials Tribunal its Badwill ambassadors. Publicity is publicity.
Comment sent via Facebook
Nads Brown Live naomi alone she never shot any one with a gun in leone lets talk the real story.
Comment sent via Facebook
Owen Onaah Well i began following this case since 2008. So this Naomi Campbell, has no impact has no impact on me what so ever.
Comment sent via Facebook
Sanousi Sesay Her initial account of what happened seems to contradict that of Mia Farrow and Carole White. Someone is not saying the truth
Comment sent via Facebook
Chris Akorlie Basler Mario-Tordomefla Lets wait for what happens later!! But where are the 'dirty stones'?
Comment sent via Facebook
Muyunda Yuyu Chansa come on...this woman didnt even know where liberia was in the first place(so she says,but she was there).for me it was the bbc that made me knowledgeable about the trial and not miss model.it has been a common topic over the years on the bbc....the trial actually seems to be losing direction and seriousness.its peoples lives were talking about...