Run Foot Campaign

The last weeks I’ve seen several documentaries about the drought in the Horn of Africa. A drought which keeps on for over 2 years now and has ruined the harvest and the cattle of the farmers. They were basically left with nothing to feed their children, -the elderly or themselves. A human tragedy of enormity.
Cause the picture of men and women telling about the lost of one or more of their children, – parents and other relatives, did choke me, I got more interested and started reading everything about this disaster. ‘How is it possible that in 2011, it still seems that we need another ‘Live Aid’ to get people interested in the deadly fate of fellow human beings?’

Trying to survive these people walk for weeks, sometimes hundreds of kilometers, just to reach the most nearby UNHCR refugee camp. Many of them are too weak and won’t survive this exodus. Especially many of the children and the old people die like flies before they reached their destination.
Once arrived the children are provided with a little food and water in a separated tent. The emaciated adults receive immediately medical treatment. For some on time, but for the less fortunate the hospital tent is their final destination and becomes a place to die with some dignity.

One of the reasons that there’re not enough refugee camps is because of politics. Local rulers don’t want the camps around cause they’re afraid that the survivors won’t leave for years to come. They simply deny the problem and refuse any cooperation with the aid-organizations.

In brief: a human disaster of unknown proportions is unfolding right in front of our eyes and we, the ‘civilized’ part of the world, are apparently unable to stop it. A tragedy of which we all should be ashamed for.

Running shoes for Africa
When I at first read the post about the campaign for running shoes for Africa it didn’t make much sense to me.
‘Shoes?’ For Africa? Where in Africa? In which country or part? What charity work do they cooperate? Which people in this enormous continent will they make happy with running shoes? Are there already made agreements and/or contacts with representatives of one of the aid organizations?
And many more questions which were not been answered in the article.

As for my interest in the developments in the Horn of Africa, I presumed that these were the people who’re most in need and required immediate help. But if my presumption was right, -why the ‘heck’ do they collect old running shoes for them?
There was no way in my mind I could make the connection. Never before, after watching a news item about the circumstances that these people have to live in, it has crossed my mind to send them my old running shoes. Never.

So after my first comment I hoped to be better informed and reassured that I totally misunderstood this campaign. Unfortunately it didn’t. The reactions were a bit hostile, -irritated and did not show any understanding for my point of view. Leaving me behind with the same questions I had before.

Exploit and commercialize
Though I understand that the initiative for this campaign comes from a non-profit organization, they work together with commercial enterprises. As in a troika.
In the post was even stated that VIVA is a partner and that several -mainly- sportswear stores offered their help by collecting the shoes. For this reason all the names of these stores were published in the post (-and comments), which by itself is already a nice marketing benefit, -and for free!
People are being seduced to visit one of these stores to donate their old shoes. Getting people/potential customers in the shop is the first aim in every marketing campaign. So the theorem that the companies of the ‘troika’ have no commercial benefit is doubtful.
Being associated with charity and extra visitors in the store is the dream of every person working in the marketing industry.

Having said this, I have to stress that I didn’t find anything which should proof that this constellation was a well-thought and conscious action by the organization.
Nevertheless, the result remains the same.

Now the million dollar question. The benefits of the companies are clear, also the donators get a ‘good-feeling’ by the idea that they’re actually doing something good for people in need. No problem with that.
But what does this campaign for good for the starving people in Africa, which situation is suggested to be the reason of this ‘shoe-collecting’ action? They are the people who have to deal with the loss of loved-ones almost on a daily basis. They’re the ones why good-faith people donate their old shoes. They are the ‘logo’ of this charity. But in the end they’ll have no benefit of it at all. Nothing! Zero!
Not a dime of the extra profit companies make because of this campaign will be spend to provide them any relief. No, while dying they’re provided with old running shoes.

Am I cynical? May be. But these are the clear facts.

Final: A jungle of charities
Several comments stated that all kind of help by any organization is a good thing. I have to disagree on that.
I have no doubt to the good intentions of the ‘troika’. I’m sure that they’re all decent companies or organizations, which by no means want to exploit human suffering. Though not intentional, harm will be done.
As said earlier, the result of this campaign will have zero influence on the suffering of these rejected people. On the other hand, people who might be interested in doing something for them, could become in a mind-state of false assumption that they added their part of help by donating their shoes. It could well be the reason to give less money or even no money at all to International Organizations who have the possibility, how little it might be, to really help these people.
Should this aid be organized by Governments? I agree, but the worldwide (financial-) crisis is not really helping to get more attention for human disasters (sorry for generalizing again..). That-, and because of logistic reasons, private initiatives put more pressure on the work of International AID organizations than that it actually helps them saving lives.