International aid
The Chernobyl disaster has resulted in a substantial campaign of
international aid to the former Slavic republics of the USSR. Aid has been
offered by foreign governments; the international scientific community;
independent activist groups, such as Greenpeace International; the International
Red Cross; and scores of individual organizations of a humanitarian nature, some
of which developed in the Ukrainian diaspora. Most of the funding that is
currently used to deal with effects of Chernobyl comes from such sources. Though
enduring and vital, this kind of support suffers from certain drawbacks and
restrictions that are discussed below.
Organizational constraints
The question has often been
raised by external humanitarian groups: with whom should we deal in offering
aid? Between 1986 and 1990, the most substantial assistance was offered through
the central authorities (and, correspondingly, the Soviet Bank) in Moscow. This
development was resented in the republics, especially by those people who were
trying to divert attention from the centre of the USSR to their own areas. It
signified that, after the surprising collapse of the USSR, many aid groups were
left without a known contact when administration of Chernobyl problems was
transferred from Moscow to the republics. Russia, though widely affected by
Chernobyl, was not as seriously damaged as Belarus and Ukraine, and yet most of
the central ministries were readapted as purely Russian variants. Conversely,
many international groups had no wish to deal with organizations based in the
republics that, before 1991, had little or no decision-making experience or
authority.
International aid groups
In both Ukraine and Belarus,
the ending of Soviet hegemony has not made it easier for grass-roots
organizations to aid Chernobyl's victims. True, the dominant political systems
are less oppressive than in the past, but they are often staffed by the same
individuals. Moreover, independent associations face severe financial handicaps
that preclude large-scale action. A plethora of such groups vies for public
support and the ear of decision makers. In Belarus, it has been speculated that
the government has deliberately tried to organize groups with
independent-sounding names to facilitate the diversion of funds away from
charitable associations. In mid-1991, for example, there were 13 officially
registered charitable Chernobyl funds (as listed in Narodnaya hazeta, 20
July 1991), namely:
1. The Belarusian Social-Ecological Union "Chernobyl," founded on
16 November 1990 to protect the rights of citizens suffering from the
catastrophe;
2. The Belarusian-Japanese Society "Chernobyl-Hiroshima," formed
on 19 November 1990 as a technological provision programme for the "liquidation
of the accident";
3. The Charitable Center "Otklik" (Response), founded on 19
November 1990 to offer charitable aid to those "suffering from the catastrophe";
4. The Belarusian Charitable Fund for the Children of Chernobyl,
registered on 20 November 1990 and described above;
5. The Belarusian Committee "Children of Chernobyl," founded on 21
November 1990 to give aid to those suffering from the disaster;
6. The Belarusian Action Committee "Echo of Chernobyl," formed on
23 November 1990 for the same purpose;
7. The Belarusian Union of Participants in the Liquidation of the
Consequences of the Catastrophe at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, created on 6
December 1990 to provide social, material, and medical aid to those in need;
8. The Fund of International Cooperation for Social Protection
"Byelorussian," founded on 20 December 1990, whose mission is described in its
title;
9. The Belarusian Union of the Participants in the Liquidation of
the Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe "Pripyat," formed on 24 December
1990 to protect the interests of the clean-up crews;
10. The "Chernobyl" Union of the Belarusian SSR, founded on 6
February 1991 - a state and government organization aimed at protecting the
rights of those affected by Chernobyl;
11. The Young Ecological Movement of the Belarusian SSR "Belarus,"
formed on 30 April 1991, which was involved in the state programme to eliminate
Chernobyl's consequences;
12. The Belarusian Society of Radiobiologists, created on 30 April
1991 to study the results of the disaster;
13. The Belarusian Homeopathic Association, which dates from 28
March 1991 and was devoted to medical assistance for the victims of Chernobyl.
With so many apparently praiseworthy competitors it has been
difficult for any single fund to receive the scale of aid that is required to
make real inroads on the problems engendered by Chernobyl. Moreover, the fact
that the government itself has organized several of the associations named above
may have precluded "fair competition" between them. Almost all newspapers in the
republic are funded by state and government organs and can draw attention to
official rather than to privately run charitable bodies.
Information problems
A third problem, and perhaps the
major one to date, has been the lack of accurate information about radiation
fallout and the health effects of the disaster. We have seen that the first maps
of the fallout were released only in the spring of 1989, and the overall picture
has emerged only since that time. It is still not clearly defined. There is not
even an accurate tally of deaths. There is no single and complete data bank that
encompasses those affected by Chernobyl, and may never be.38 The
effects of low-level radiation on the population are not known. On the one hand,
some scientists maintain that there have been no discernible effects; others
state that the results are already being seen and that even very small rises in
background radiation can cause changes to the human organism. We do not know the
precise area of all radiation fallout, particularly hotspots of plutonium,
caesium, and strontium fallout in parts of Russia and the Baltic republics.
Ultimately establishing the effects of Chernobyl radiation may come down to
mundane questions (such as what people were doing at the time of the accident)
and to matters of general health (such as how healthy were such people in April
1986; did they smoke; did they have access to clean food?). All these factors
render Chernobyl one of the most difficult disasters about which to offer
definitive
statements.
