Aid Watch Rerun: And Now For Something Completely Different: Davos Features “Refugee Run”

NOTE FROM THE EDITORS: Over the holidays, we'll be publishing reruns of some of our posts from the first 2 years of Aid Watch. This post originally ran on Jan 28, 2008, and attracted a firestorm of comments, passionately for and against the idea. There will be a similar event again this year at Davos.

When somebody sent me this invitation from Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, I thought at first it was a joke from the Onion. What do you think of the Davos rich and powerful going through the “Refugee Run” theme park re-enactment of life in a refugee camp?

Can Davos man empathize with refugees when he or she is not in danger and is going back to a luxury banquet and hotel room afterwards? Isn’t this just a tad different from the life of an actual refugee, at risk of all too real rape, murder, hunger, and disease?

Did the words “insensitive,” “dehumanizing,” or “disrespectful” (not to mention “ludicrous”) ever come up in discussing the plans for “Refugee Run”?

I hope such bad taste does not reflect some inability in UNHCR to see refugees as real people with their own dignity and rights.

Of course, I understand that there were good intentions here, that you really want rich people to have a consciousness of tragedies elsewhere in the world, and mobilize help for the victims. However, I think a Refugee Theme Park crosses a line that should not be crossed. Sensationalizing and dehumanizing and patronizing results in bad aid policy – if you have little respect for the dignity of individuals you are trying to help, you are not going to give THEM much say in what THEY want and need, and how you can help THEM help themselves?

Unfortunately, sensationalizing, patronizing, and dehumanizing attitudes are a real ongoing issue in foreign aid. David Rieff in his great book A Bed For the Night talks about how humanitarian agencies universally picture children in their publicity campaigns, as if the parents of these children are irrelevant. A classic Rieff quote: “There are two groups of people who like to be photographed with children: dictators and aid officials.”

Former World Bank President Wolfowitz with a few children

Alex de Waal in his equally great book Famine Crimes (and continuing writings since) writes about “disaster pornography.” He gives an example of a Western television producer in Somalia in 1992-93 who said to a local Somali doctor: “pick the children who are most severely malnourished” and bring them to be photographed.

Here’s a resolution to be proposed at Davos: we rich people hereby recognize each and every citizen of the globe as an individual with their own human dignity equal to our own, regardless of their poverty or refugee status. And Davos man: please give Refugee Run a pass.

What the World's Leaders did on their Winter Vacation: Nothing

Mark Thoma has a different take on Davos than our little dust-up on this blog about Refugee Run:

Faced with the opportunity of a generation to fix global finances, the world’s most powerful people went skiing.

Perhaps @amonck would like to start a dialogue with Professor Thoma?

Maybe I can "help." I think Davos has always been oversold as a global problem-solver, in the same category as G-7 summits. There is no good historical evidence that grand international meetings devoted to collective international action to solve problems successfully do so.

Refugee Run Redux at Davos: the UNHCR displaced?

A year ago this blog featured an invitation to Experience Life as a Refugee at Davos.  Some commentators and myself criticized the Refugee Run as an insensitive fund-raising event by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. UNHCR listened to the criticism -- and repeated the event this year at Davos. (HT Rex Brynen at PAXSIMS.)

The Refugee Run provides a snapshot of the often terrifying ordeal suffered by people forced to flee their homes because of violence or persecution. In Davos, the unique simulation is being used to help some of the world's most influential people understand the plight of refugees and internally displaced people, empathize with them and support the efforts of UNHCR to help them.

Participants face a range of scenarios, including fleeing a rebel attack, navigating a minefield, .... facing up to potential sex traffickers...

Lord Mark Malloch Brown, the former UN deputy secretary-general and one-time UNHCR staff member, was among those who have taken the run this week.... "this is a compelling way to remind one of what it's like," he said, after completing the hour-long exercise. "I felt helpless all the time, and very exposed," he added.

Did Bill and Melinda Gates Claim Malaria Victories Based on Phony Numbers?

Tuesday’s Financial Times printed a Martin Wolf interview with the Gateses from Davos, available as a video on the FT web site. A sample quote from the interview:

We’re trying to make sure that people understand this: aid is effective…So, for instance, malaria incidence is down in countries such as Zambia, Ethiopia, and Rwanda. It’s down in some countries by over 50 percent and some by 60 percent…[if we and other donors] come in and distribute mosquito nets – 60m to date – that is how we have achieved these declines. So we are able to say, “Look, aid is making a huge difference, we are literally saving people’s lives."

Real victories against malaria would be great, but false victories can mislead and distract critical malaria efforts. Alas, Mr. and Mrs. Gates are repeating numbers that have already been discredited. This story of irresponsible claims goes back to a big New York Times headline on February 1, 2008: “Nets and New Drug Make Inroads Against Malaria,” which quoted Dr. Arata Kochi, chief of malaria for the WHO, as reporting 50-60 percent reductions in deaths of children in Zambia, Ethiopia, and Rwanda, and so celebrated the victories of the anti-malaria campaign. Alas, Dr. Kochi had rushed to the press a dubious report. The report was never finalized by WHO, it promptly disappeared, and its specific claims were contradicted by WHO’s own September 2008 World Malaria Report, by which time Dr. Kochi was no longer WHO chief of malaria.

(There was never a retraction in the New York Times, so perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Gates can be forgiven for being confused – although with most of the world’s public health professionals on Mr. and Mrs. Gates’ payroll you would think their briefers would have access to the most accurate information.)

The September 2008 WHO Malaria Report keeps Rwanda as a success story (along with some other new success stories – not mentioned in the New York Times – like Sao Tome & Principe and Zanzibar), but Zambia and Ethiopia are gone: the effects of malaria control in Zambia were “less clear,” and in Ethiopia, “the expected effects” of malaria control are “not yet visible.”

Digging deeper into the WHO Malaria Report, the standards for data on malaria are set so low, it is even more striking how the Kochi numbers – those numbers that fueled a February 2008 New York Times story and a February 2009 Gates claim – failed to meet even these low standards. The WHO says (in a small print footnote): “in most countries of Africa, where 86% cases occur, reliable data on malaria are scarce. In these countries estimates were developed based on local climate conditions, which correlate with malaria risk, and the average rate at which people become ill with the disease in the area.” Another stab at explanation of their malaria numbers was: “From an empirical relationship between measures of malaria transmission risk and case incidence; this procedure was used for countries in the African Region where a convincing estimate from reported cases could not be made.” (Possible translation: we make the numbers up.)

The shakiness of the numbers is visible when you look at them by country in the WHO Malaria Report. For the “success story” of Rwanda, there is an estimate of 3.3 million malaria cases in 2006, with an upper bound of 4.1 million and a lower bound of 2.5 million. But wait – another way to estimate cases, which is the one used to estimate trends, shows 1.4 million cases in 2006 (and this was an increase over the 2001-2003 average). Estimates of child malaria deaths in Rwanda are similarly all over the place – they do show a drop from 2001 to 2006, but the change is dwarfed by the vast imprecision conveyed by the lower and upper bounds.

In another WHO success, Zanzibar (which, to be fair, Mrs. Gates also mentioned as a success by in the interview), there seems to be more consensus on success from a combination campaign featuring indoor spraying of homes, insecticide-treated bed nets, and treatment of malaria patients with advanced drugs. It seems to be easier to make inroads into malaria on small islands. The American Journal of Tropical Medical Hygeine has published two articles suggesting there was success of malaria control in Sao Tome (also an island) and a corridor in South Africa, Mozambique, and Swaziland, apparently using more rigorous data methods.

As far as the country claims by the WHO and Mr. and Mrs. Gates, however, there seems to be mass confusion, and data that ranges from phony to made-up to shaky, about what interventions are responsible for what trends where. The WHO Malaria Report offers this ringing conclusion in its “Key Points” summary on how to control malaria:

In general, however, the links between interventions and trends remain ambiguous, and more careful investigations of the effects of control are needed in most countries.

Maybe the Gates Foundation should be funding more rigorous data collection. With all this effort to fight the tragedy of malaria, it’s even more tragic that the malaria warriors can’t even get accurate reports of who is sick and dying when and where.

I Call Your Authenticity, and I Raise You One Ideology

People sometimes try to win a debate by playing “trump cards” that allegedly overturn any other argument, instead of practicing reasoned arguments based on logic, common sense, and evidence. One attempted “trump card” is that an “authentic” member of group X is in favor of a certain policy towards group X. The hidden assumption is that any “authentic” member of group X can speak for all other members of group X, and knows what is best for group X. When these hidden assumptions are clearly stated, they are clearly silly. I was authentically born in West Virginia, but I would not dare claim to know what’s best for Appalachian poverty based on my accident of birth (or speak for my fellow “Appalachians.”)

A recent use of this “trump card” was UNHCR’s statement defending its “Refugee Run” at Davos, which we debated on this blog last week: “The exhibit received a seal of approval from a genuine refugee, Raphael Mwandu from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.” I have every respect for Mr. Mwandu’s opinion, but I don’t approve of UNHCR’s using him as a trump card. What did it mean that one refugee was “genuine” – did they disqualify some other refugees that were not “genuine”?

Another example of this was the article this weekend in the Financial Times about Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo and her new book Dead Aid. Again, there seemed to be the idea that Dr. Moyo should win the argument because she was born in Zambia. This is unfair to Dr. Moyo and unfair to other African intellectuals. It also seemed very unnecessary because Dr. Moyo’s opinions are fascinating on their own merits. About celebrities working on African policy, she says “Americans would be put out if Amy Winehouse went to tell them how to end the housing crisis. I don’t see why Africans shouldn’t be perturbed for the same reasons.”

The FT article continues, “Moyo says it is easy for the western media to paint a doomsday scenario – one which depicts Africans as helpless – to justify the delivery of yet more aid.” I can’t wait to read her new book (it comes out February 5 in the UK and March 17 in the US).

Another very popular “trump card” is to dismiss your debate opponent as being “ideological” (variants on this trump card are to attack the research financing or think tank affiliation of your opponent). This has shown up quite a bit in comments on this blog. Now it is certainly true that some people make arguments based only on ideology and not on legitimate grounds like logic, common sense, or evidence. How can we tell who is being ideological? By doing what we should have done in the first place: debate the argument using logic, common sense, and evidence.

“Trump cards” are out, reason is in.

And Now For Something Completely Different: Davos Features “Refugee Run”

When somebody sent me this invitation from Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, I thought at first it was a joke from the Onion. What do you think of the Davos rich and powerful going through the “Refugee Run” theme park re-enactment of life in a refugee camp?

Can Davos man empathize with refugees when he or she is not in danger and is going back to a luxury banquet and hotel room afterwards? Isn’t this just a tad different from the life of an actual refugee, at risk of all too real rape, murder, hunger, and disease?

Did the words “insensitive,” “dehumanizing,” or “disrespectful” (not to mention “ludicrous”) ever come up in discussing the plans for “Refugee Run”?

I hope such bad taste does not reflect some inability in UNHCR to see refugees as real people with their own dignity and rights.

Of course, I understand that there were good intentions here, that you really want rich people to have a consciousness of tragedies elsewhere in the world, and mobilize help for the victims. However, I think a Refugee Theme Park crosses a line that should not be crossed. Sensationalizing and dehumanizing and patronizing results in bad aid policy – if you have little respect for the dignity of individuals you are trying to help, you are not going to give THEM much say in what THEY want and need, and how you can help THEM help themselves?

Unfortunately, sensationalizing, patronizing, and dehumanizing attitudes are a real ongoing issue in foreign aid. David Rieff in his great book A Bed For the Night talks about how humanitarian agencies universally picture children in their publicity campaigns, as if the parents of these children are irrelevant. A classic Rieff quote: “There are two groups of people who like to be photographed with children: dictators and aid officials.”

Former World Bank President Wolfowitz with a few children

Alex de Waal in his equally great book Famine Crimes (and continuing writings since) writes about “disaster pornography.” He gives an example of a Western television producer in Somalia in 1992-93 who said to a local Somali doctor: “pick the children who are most severely malnourished” and bring them to be photographed.

Here’s a resolution to be proposed at Davos: we rich people hereby recognize each and every citizen of the globe as an individual with their own human dignity equal to our own, regardless of their poverty or refugee status. And Davos man: please give Refugee Run a pass.