Peacebuilding: quest for professionalism

Richard Munz has written this book because he’s annoyed – especially with the media. In his opinion, reports from disaster areas are simplistic and depictions of victims and helpers, stereotyped. Munz aspires to explain in 240 pages “what it really means to help in the field”.

This emergency surgeon knows what he’s talking about. For more than twenty years he has organised and headed disaster-relief missions around the world. A major part of the book is devoted to his own experiences. He also teaches international humanitarian aid at Ruhr University Bochum.

Munz identifies twelve disaster-related myths – including the one about the helpless survivors who in reality are usually the first aid workers on the spot. He goes on to describe the utter chaos that often occurs when hundreds of helpers from around the world arrive at the same time, all wanting to help. The dominant theme of the book, however, is the media. Journalists, writes Munz, are just on the lookout for “the greatest human disaster of all time”. At the heart of the matter is that Munz pretends to have seen for himself, and correctly, what journalists have reported about. He does not explicitely make this claim, but does state that media reporting does not reflect “the reality”. He does not mention at all that many media correspondents have lived for years in the regions concerned, and know them intimately – frequently better than the aid workers.

Inevitably, relief agencies and the media have different objectives. Munz describes those of rescue workers as good and proper, those of the media as naive at best, and reality-distorting at worst. He makes out the aid agencies based in rich countries to be virtual collaborators of the journalists, claiming that their main aim is to spotlight their own work – usually contrary to the greater knowledge of those working in the field. Here Munz is guilty of painting a picture that is too black and white, which is exactly what he accuses the media of doing. Coupled with his know-all tone, this does not make for pleasant reading.

However, he does have some points. To his credit, he does not spare his employers. He refers to an absurd outcome of televised fundraising galas on behalf of aid organisations in the wake of disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami of late 2004. Vast amounts of money pour into irrelevant projects because they are earmarked for this particular catastrophe, while funds are desperately needed in other crisis areas. However, Munz does not mention that such shows are not organised by journalists, but rather by entertainment programmers whose main objective is to attract high audience numbers; aid is only a side issue.

It is irritating to read that journalists do not report on “forgotten conflicts” such as Somalia, Northern Uganda or Darfur, because they are not sensational enough to attract the media. That is simply not so. However, in places like Darfur almost all aid agencies refuse to support reporters or even to give interviews. Their reservations are understandable. The Sudanese government has already expelled many aid workers from the country for their perceived criticism. Nonetheless, the aid agencies are displaying of pre-emptive obedience to a dictatorial regime, and this scenario would have been worth a few words too.