‘A SLOW-motion tsunami; unprecedented; heart-wrenching; calamitous’ – just a few of the expressions used to describe the devastation wreaked on Pakistan.

Four weeks into the deluge which is overwhelming large tracts of the country from north to south, the suffering continues unabated.

Only now is the international community grasping the sheer enormity of the disaster and the task ahead to combat its effects.

Twenty million people in desperate need of rescue and relief. One-fifth of the country’s land mass under water – an area the size of Italy waterlogged. What greater disaster has hit the modern world, unfolding with relentless misery as the floods have made their way the length of impoverished Pakistan?

Yet, for once, the UN was forced to issue a special plea for support from the world community.

The UK raised £4million in as many days, but normally there is a global rush to pledge support and aid relief.  Nick Clegg, in his first day of ‘glory’ as David Cameron’s stand-in, described the international response as ‘absolutely pitiful’.

At that time – the beginning of last week –  the UK accounted for almost a quarter of all the external aid effort devoted to Pakistan.

Maybe it was because, unlike Haiti or the Indonesian tsunami, the initial casualty figure was not a horrific headline.  Perhaps it was a genuine failure to grasp the enormity of the disaster, or understand the difficulties of distributing of supplies and rescue work.

It could have been down to the confusion spread by a president apparently unwilling to curtail his tour of European capitals, as fellow countrymen struggled to keep their heads above water.

What’s more, there’s an underlying lack of confidence in the country’s political security, and, in the background, the refusal by fanatics to accept western aid whatever the cost to beleaguered victims casually exploited as political pawns.

At least, so far, we’ve been saved from the vanity opportunities for publicity-hungry celebs. Their agents will have advised them the current conditions are too unpleasant for their comfort.

Yet we have heard far too many wide-eyed reporters, politicians and NGO representatives returning with nothing more constructive than ‘it’s so terrible’, and tales of desperate victims mobbing relief vehicles.

Indeed, the UK International Development Secretary and Tory Party Chairman had to be rescued from protesters seeking aid. But you have to ask, ‘Why were they there?’ It’s hard to justify the use of fuel and helicopters for sight-seeing missions when the priority rests with distributing aid supplies by whatever means available.

The curse of international 24-hour news has spawned the intrusive ‘gawp factor’ which demands relentless ‘what’s the latest?’ responses – even if there’s nothing to add.

So journalists are dispatched to shove cameras and microphones in the faces of personal tragedy and distress. To add insult to injury, one reporter related with pained surprise that the appearance of the news helicopter prompted a wretched scramble from bedraggled victims who thought it was bringing relief.

From the security of her hovering observation point, she then berated the authorities for not responding more swiftly to the emergency.

The insensitive voyeurism continued as another clambered over the wrecked remains of village homes with barely a crease in her well-laundered trousers. But, we were finally assured by the studio anchor that she was now back in Islamabad.  So that’s OK then.

It may be uncharitable to suggest that eventually the realisation that those whom Pakistani government officials refer to as ‘dark forces’ were making political inroads into the country’s fractured society, spurred the international community to action.

The eloquence of desperation in the warning by US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, to the emergency session of the UN General Assembly last week, that ‘we are facing a humanitarian crisis of monumental proportion’ was prompted by her concerns about the security of the region. Chaos, just as much as ideology, could pose the greatest threat.

In a short concentrated spell, we’ve witnessed the deluge in Pakistan, calamitous landslides in China and India, devastating floods in Niger, alongside heat-wave, fires and drought in Russia.

As climate change affects us all, it’s not beyond expectation that today’s ‘unprecedented’ is likely to become tomorrow’s ‘commonplace’, and it won’t just be traditional areas in the developing world that will be affected.

It is too simplistic just to say that international bodies like the UN should be more prepared, with resources primed to go. But, as we’ve just seen, the response is too often blighted by political point-scoring and ideological reticence. As a result, the characteristic ‘reactive’ response slips many gears before grinding up to speed.

In tackling disasters, it’s the logistics that count, particularly the speedy deployment of supplies and manpower.  China, with its massive resource of conscripted labour leads the way – though that’s not an overseas option.

An element of ‘swords into ploughshares’ wouldn’t come amiss either.  I can’t help believing that a fraction of the effort that went into building Bagram air base in Afghanistan would have dug out Port au Prince to some basic level of order in a matter of months instead of it still languishing in wreckage and despair a year since.

Any disaster or tragedy is felt equally by victims, whatever part of the globe or standard of life they enjoy.

It is impossible to compare reaction to the plight of one against another.  The natural response to appeals for assistance is a positive and generous one, be it Pakistan, Funchal or Haiti.

It may be that the powerful do get aid first and the poor last, and yes, some relief does inevitably go astray.  But it is vital that compassion fatigue is kept at bay, and that ‘out of sight’ never becomes ‘out of mind’.