Thinking VS Knowing What is Best: Looking at Tuvalu

The differences between what government officials and people from afar think about the problems of the rising sea levels in Tuvalu versus the attitudes of Tuvaluan people highlight a major problem in how countries go about aiding others. There is a big difference between what external countries think is best for a country facing a crisis, and what the people of that country actually need to be helped. Talking to the civilians of a country and gathering first hand knowledge of the attitudes of those civilians should be the first step taken when trying to give aid and support to that country.

The citizens of Tuvalu are facing a national crisis: given the trend in rising sea levels and the fact that Tuvalu is mostly only 2 meters above sea level, it is predicted that in the next few years or decades, most of the country will be under water. The problems facing Tuvalu have started to garner international attention. The Pacific Islands, and Tuvalu and particular, have become widely understood as a place where the displacement and emigration of the whole populace is imminent. Documentaries have described Tuvalu as “‘disappearing’, ‘drowning’ and ‘sinking’” which will result in forced migration (Mortreux and Barnett). The outside world has therefore depicted Tuvalu as a vulnerable and powerless nation that will eventually be forced to leave the Island with which they call home. The world sees the people of Tuvalu as people who have no other option but to become ‘climate refugees’ in the near future.

However, the people of Tuvalu do not view mass exodus as a viable future scenario (Farbtoko and Lazrus). In a survey regarding the opinions of the Tuvaluan people, climate change was not viewed as a reason for concern, let alone a reason for migration, and among those considering migration, climate change is generally not the main motivation (Mortreux and Barnett). Furthermore, even if the people of Tuvalu are going to be forced to move, they do not want to be considered refugees, and people without a voice (Farbtoko and Lazrus). “It is not migration in and of itself that involves significant threat to the way Tuvaluan people imagine their future, but how sea level rise is framed and governed” by the rest of the world (Farbtoko and Lazrus).

In summation, the people of Tuvalu do not wish to be viewed as a civilization that will become reduced in status to mere, poor, refugees. In actuality, many people of Tuvalu do not actually perceive climate change as an imminent threat. Thus, the classification of the Tuvaluan people as a community in dire need, may actually cause more harm than good, especially considering the negative implications that the word ‘refugee’ brings. These differences in perspectives could potentially be very problematic for the people of Tuvalu of they are continued to be considered, despite their objections, the inevitable subjects of climate change and climate refugees, and the actions that dominant countries around the world may take, may actually do more harm than good.

It is important to recognize these differences of opinions as a case study to how humanitarian aid should be undertaken in the future. Countries that wish to help others must first understand what the people of the country in need actually want/need in order to effectively benefit that country. Thinking that you know what is best for another is not actually knowing what is best for that person. The humanitarian efforts undertaken by globally dominate countries must be reshaped to understand the personal attitudes of the people whom they are trying to help before just blindly going into a country with the belief that they have all the answers. The dynamics of Tuvalu are just one example that highlight the importance of this change.