Emergency relief: the distinctive ecumenical contribution

The world today -- at least as it is projected by the mass media -- seems to be looking at reality through a changed set of lenses. No longer are the actions of governments and peoples determined by the cold war, with its division between the "communist East" and the "capitalist West", overshadowed by the possibility of a nuclear holocaust. The fight to eliminate poverty and stimulate development, though still paid occasional lip service, has been robbed of its vitality and impact by widespread economic crisis which has brought joblessness, uncertainty about the future and misery even to so-called developed countries. The quest for a new international order that takes account of the vital interests of all, especially the weak, seems to have lost its urgency, as some now believe they know where power lies and the only remaining problem is deciding how to wield it.

Against this backdrop, what seems to move women and men the most nowadays are emergency situations, with their disturbing and often unbearable images. It is such emergencies, provoked by natural or human-caused disasters, that bring out the full capacity of men and women, of governments and of the private sector to mobilize their resources and know-how. It is in such situations that we can admire the best in people: selflessness, solidarity and compassion. From the former Yugoslavia to Rwanda, via Bangladesh, Somalia and Sudan, the picture speaks for itself.

In fact, many of those once engaged in improving the lot of the most destitute today specialize in emergency relief work, because that is where funds and donations are available. One could go almost as far as saying that it takes a disaster to untie the purse strings.

Yet, solemn tribute is due to those who refuse to abandon their faith in humanity and become defeatist, who cling to hope against all odds. Since long before emergency assistance became fashionable, the ecumenical family had always stood by those overtaken by disaster, for such is its vocation. But what distinguishes its contribution from that of others? What is unique about it?

Being neither an expert on emergencies nor a citizen of a country with the means of providing relief in times of disaster, I must inevitably speak in general terms. I shall nevertheless draw on my experience in the ecumenical movement and in the field in which I claim some competence, political science. It seemed to me essential to point this out, not as a preface to a political science treatise on emergencies or a pronouncement on ecumenical experience in the matter, but for the sake of clarity. I became involved in the ecumenical movement through development, the pursuit of a society that is just, participatory and sustainable, of an international community where the voice of the weak and helpless is sure to be heard, and in the fight against discrimination. As an African I have experienced in the depths of my being and in my hopes and dreams the challenges of natural disasters in Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, the Sahel and Cameroon, and above all the horrors caused by human beings in Biafra, Rwanda and Burundi, in Uganda, Angola and Mozambique, in Sudan, Zaire and South Africa. Nature often teams up with humankind to drive families from their homes, dislocate or kill them, or to undermine their will to live.

Whether the calamity be natural or human-caused, we now know that it is better to anticipate and prepare for it rather than to wait for it to happen and then try to repair the damage. Science has identified the areas prone to natural disasters such as earthquakes, cyclones, volcanoes, etc. We now know the building techniques that can minimize the damage caused by the elements. We know the areas which it would be unwise to place under construction or cultivation because they are naturally vulnerable. We know the ecologically fragile areas where certain rules must be obeyed to avoid tragically upsetting the balance essential to survival.

War has resulted and still results from the determination to acquire territories and to control wealth, but primarily from the desire for power, which means deciding who should own what, when and how. The desire to safeguard cultural or ethnic identity and the will to preserve one's own view of the world are always at the root of these conflicts. Economic wars are still possible, though they are potentially so costly to all involved that the threat of war is often preferred to war itself.

Wars waged in defence of a particular identity, way of life and vision of the world and wars started for reasons of survival were long considered typical of "primitive" and backward peoples. The tribalism which is nowadays nobly rechristened "ethnocentricity" falls into this category. All nations were formed as a result of a process, a transition from tribes to nation. Constraint has always been inevitable, but national communities have been stabilized only when the federalizing group or groups have managed to convince the others that their power would really be for the common good. Upheavals may continue for centuries, focusing attention on inadequacies or perhaps the inappropriateness of the way governments communicate with certain groups who fear being marginalized. Whether it be in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the former Soviet Union, in France, Switzerland or the United States -- and no doubt we would name every country here -- the problem is essentially the same, with different manifestations, triggers and justifications.