The Inequality of Aid

Two disasters, one minor and one major, happened almost simultaneously on the open sea:
In the Atlantic off Newfoundland, a mini-submarine disappeared with five people who wanted to dive to the wreck of the "Titanic" and are now dead. And in the Mediterranean Sea off the Greek peninsula of Peloponnese, a ship carrying hundreds of people seeking protection from Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere sank. 82 bodies were recovered, presumably about 700 hundreds drowned.

The lost submarine may be more exciting than a capsized ship, perhaps we also feel closer to five men in a narrow capsule, even if they are very rich. Moreover, their fate is more unusual than that of the refugees who drown with sad regularity on their flight to Europe.

The drama is that both events - the disaster in the Atlantic and the permanent crisis in the Mediterranean - testify to the inequality of our willingness to help. We are good at combining enormous forces to save lives in the short term. Many ships set out to search for the submersible in the Atlantic, coordinated from Boston in the US. But in the long term, as in the Mediterranean, we make tough decisions. Who we stand by in times of need and in what form also depends on empathy and perceived closeness, and that is risky.

Emotions are not a good driver in issues that require a political solution. This is especially true for the so-called humanitarian disasters, which tire us because they do not want to go away. If our view of permanent crises were more rational and our handling of them oriented towards a long-term strategy, there would be more aid and fewer deaths.