The Proportionality of Our Attention

Depending on how you look at it, it was Day 4 or Year 8 of the war in Ukraine when I began drafting this blog.  It is now Day 145. I recall those early days, the emotions stirred as I saw my younger self in the wire-rimmed glasses and quilted winter coat of a young Kyiv professional, or my family in the hand of a child clutching his mother’s luggage strap as the throng surged for the door of a train. There was little in my head that could be labelled dispassionate. In other words, my head held little professional interest in the Ukraine news, even as my unease grew at the white-out erasing all line of sight to any other crisis.

It is OK to identify with people because we find something of ourselves in them.  These paths of affinity trace paths of identity such as race and gender as well as less obvious similarities.  In March 2002, in the back of an MSF Landcruiser, I sat opposite an Angolan man who had already lost four children, cradling a last, limp daughter on his lap. My next several nights brought terrible imagery, and in the mornings came panic attacks at the thought of going to work.  Weeks later, debriefing with a psycho-social care counsellor in Amsterdam, I came to understand why I’d experienced such a reaction on this occasion, and not on others.  I’d become a father in 1999 and was struggling with a new kind of performance anxiety. This man and his little girl were no longer ‘simply’ a pair of humans in extreme distress.  I saw a dad, unable to protect his child, and to this day it seems like the most terrifying feeling in the world. 

It is even OK for the countries of Europe to devote far more attention and aid to the crisis in their back yard, just as we would expect the African Union to be far more involved in a crisis in the Sahel than the OAS or ASEAN nations.  But…

It is not OK to ignore the structure of the aid system to the point that our affinities undermine our common humanity; to ignore the significantly skewed concentration of ‘certain’ affinities in the decision-making clubhouses across major donors, UN agencies, and the large INGOs. Voting on the Christmas dinner menu is not a problem until we in the clubhouses ‘discover’ that turkeys own the bulk of the votes. Neither human affinities nor the AU nor the OAS create a global distortion in aid resources.  The formal humanitarian sector does. Notably, in 2022 this distortion has been noted. Witness the mainstream critique being raised re the proportionality of aid going to the Ukraine versus other crises, such as Somalia, Yemen, or Ethiopia. (see here or here).  And yet our fixation on Ukraine has endured these past months, only beginning to wane in June and only fleetingly interrupted by an earthquake in Afghanistan.

Bias in the ignoring of bias.  Following the previous point, perhaps more revealing and yet less revealed is the double-standard; the non-response to partiality’s contamination of the principled ‘purity’ of aid.  For years now, ‘local’ actors have been forced to swallow the bitter pill that they cannot be neutral because of their local identity, and hence were disqualified from ascending to the penthouse suites in the global humanitarian club. Their ‘natural’ bias of being in their home context, full of affinities, has been judged as threat to principled aid. The system assigns consequences to such bias. So where was the call in the Ukraine crisis for humanitarian decision-makers to step aside given their bias; given their conflicted interest and powerful affinities?  Where was the challenge to the neutrality of their agencies and the appropriateness of having authority over their work given the undivided support for Ukraine among their home country governments and citizens?

Humanitarians need to be particularly mindful of impartiality in this regard, because this is the substantive ethical principle that operationalizes our affinity-laced humanity.  Impartiality instructs humanitarian aid be delivered on a non-discriminatory basis and therefore in proportion to the urgency of need.  We may forgive media corporations for following the cash and clicks even as we might hope for a more equitable distribution of news content.  If it bleeds, it leads – that is their credo?[1] But it is a problem for humanitarians when not all bleeding is of equal media value because humanitarians have a different obligation. Where is the assessment of the sector’s principled performance? As the Ukraine crisis produced and engulfed resources, how did impartiality fare at the global level of distribution?  Where is the concern over agencies pulling staff/resources away from other crises to manage the well-funded expansion of operations in the Ukraine war context? Tellingly, the Ukraine response suggests a pathogen in the system at the level of impartiality, which as an ethical rather than operational principle should raise far greater discussion than the neutrality of local organizations. 

Is institutional attention a critical resource, like healthcare, food, or cash? What does it mean when GD (General Director) after GD heads to Ukraine for a photo op and website home pages greet the visitor with the faces of Ukrainian children in March, April, May, and often still in June? Given the causal linkage of attention to the provision of assistance, asylum, refuge, and compassion, shouldn’t impartiality guide the institutional use of humanitarian media resources, such as an agency’s home pages or its Twitter feed? Perhaps this would have been the perfect time to counter the prominent bias in media attention by devoting prime website real estate to other crises, or sending GDs to other contexts, to interrupt the frozen gaze on Ukraine. To some extent this discussion is taking place. Good. But is the issue being framed as a matter of obligation and principle? Is this discussion alive in board rooms as an issue of accountability? Or are some humanitarians simply feeling uncomfortable with their in-house disproportions?

Privilege is the power of an agency to assume it can determine right from wrong for itself, especially in a system so weak in accountability. The entitlement of the formal Western sector is well illustrated in deciding for itself when it must play by its own rules, when compromising them is ok for itself or not OK for others.

Power is the privilege of not even being conscious of this assumption.


[1] Actually, when you think figuratively about it, If it bleeds, it leads wouldn’t be such a bad standard to guide impartiality.  Certain better than If they’re white, the aid shall take flight.

4 thoughts on “The Proportionality of Our Attention”

  1. thanks Marc, I fully agree, below the link to my article on the same subject. Cheers, Sandro

    DOI: 10.19191/EP22.3.036

  2. Sadly, the reality of the [current] world is “follow the money.” And, sadly, despite our ideals, bigotry thrives.

    I suspect the bulk of donations to NGOs comes from the western middle class, whether directly or indirectly through corporate/state-sponsored giving, which is directed by the “values” of the western middle class voters.

    Ukrainians look like us. Their houses look like ours; their cars look like ours; their jobs are similar. It is much easier for us to empathize with them than some emaciated subsistence farmer-of-color in a vast refugee camp.

    And where we empathize, the media follows. The murder of a white girl by her boyfriend in Wyoming gets covered from head to toe by the 24/7 US cable news channels. Similar murders of women-of-color barely make a paragraph on an inside page of the local paper. The Wall Street Journal runs a detailed article about Ukraine every day; Afghanistan occasionally; Yemen, Sudan, … rarely. Our local (Chicago) TV news devotes almost as much coverage to the war as it does to the carnage in Chicago where, despite being slightly smaller, more have met a violent end in 2022 than in Kyiv. Most of the victims in Chicago are people-of-color.

    The media isn’t biased. It just doesn’t care about what’s right and wrong; it cares about selling ads. So if the audience wants stories about Ukraine and a 22-year-old murdered white woman, the audience gets what it wants, the advertisers get what they want, and the media gets what it wants.

    You may not like it; you may find it disgusting; but it’s life. Fox News is the #1 cable channel not because Rupert Murdoch has thugs putting guns to people’s heads to force them to watch; the people watch because he gives them what they want to watch.

    But can’t NGOs be better than the biased western middle class?

    Not really; not since 9/11.

    Right after 9/11, several respected non-profits raised money “to help the victims.” Some of that money, however, was spent on other worthy and important causes. “Tone-deaf” given the angry and surly mood of the country especially when it was discovered by the 24/7 cable news channels. The nuance of the fine print under the credit card form on the donor page was lost in the cacophony of claims of “fraud” and “stealing from the victims.”

    So now, if you raise money for Ukraine, almost all of it better go to Ukraine.

    And if you want to raise money, the western middle class bias dictates that it be for Ukraine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *