The main belief that Bennett communicates is coordinated charity; she is opposed to uncoordinated charity work. She says that results in delay in the most efficient emergency responses from trained people such as the army, firefighters, and medical practitioners (Bennett).
I am in agreement with the author’s claims. Moreover, I am impressed by the way she blatantly attacks the people that involve themselves with the emergency responses yet they have no training at all. The society needs such authors that illuminate the real issues facing different communities. Additionally, the fact that the author provides alternatives for people to help in cases of emergencies emphasizes her rationale. Cutting off all the untrained personnel in the rescue missions increases the missions’ effectiveness since the people on the ground have people on the outside supplying them with the required resources.
There are several compelling arguments made by the author of the article. First, she says that what Nepal needs in the midst of its disaster is money. She says that the people there do not need a supply of second-hand clothes or the presence of people that have spent a lot of money on plane tickets. Rather, they require money donated to the reputable organizations that assess the situations and provide the necessary supplies. Second, she says that people should not get attached to such situations on a personal level since the impact they create by rushing back to their country is insignificant (Bennett). What makes the point compelling is the fact that Bennett suggests that individuals collaborate with international agencies on the ground that would effectively represent people where they are needed most. Finally, Bennett talks about the future rebuilding of sustainability. Her argument is made compelling by the fact that people should contribute money to the affected families even after the disaster has been cleared. As such, the affected people receive help to rebuild their houses and start their lives afresh.
Bennett, however, presents some arguments that are not compelling enough. First, she talks about people reading the different resources if they, altogether, decide to go, should take the time to reflect on their skills and how to use them. The argument could have been made better by delineating the several skills that could qualify a person to volunteer in an emergency response. Second, she talks about giving handouts to the affected persons (Bennett). The argument could be made better by explaining how the handouts could be delivered or used for survival. Finally, her argument against donating stuff has not been fully explained on why it should not be done. The author could have strengthened her argument by explaining that the shipping of the stuff would not be as easy as the transfer of money to a foreign country. Moreover, it would take a longer response time trying to sort out all the donated items.
Work Cited
Bennett, Claire. “Do not rush to Nepal to help. Read this first.” The Guardian, 27 April 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/27/earthquake-nepal-dont-rush-help-volunteers-aid
