To put it crudely, if the people suffering are geographically proximate to the potential donors, or the level of media coverage has reached such a point where people in effect become proximate the response will be greater. For those in far away places, it is easier to ignore the commitment to universal entitlement that is at the heart of the humanitarian idea. The authors of an evaluation of the humanitarian response in the Great Lakes region in 1994 offer an example of the correlation between the volume and intensity of media coverage and the level of resources provided by international donors. Although the genocide began on the 6 April, it was not until the end of July and intense media coverage of the flight of refugees into neighbouring Zaire that donors' contributions soared. Of course, donor funds are not the sole determinant of the varying degrees of humanitarian response.
All governments have obligations to uphold the rights of civilians and citizens.
Governments of countries in crisis bear the principal responsibility to aid their citizens. Their willingness or ability to meet needs plays a part in determining the levels of response to humanitarian need. For example, in north-east India, as a result of the quality of governance at state level, people living in Bihar or Assam, have a far worse chance of getting humanitarian assistance to help them cope with floods than people living in West Bengal. The decreasing commitment to aid Despite the increasing demand for international engagement and assistance, over the last decade, there has been a steady decline in the flow of official development assistance to developing countries from the world's richest countries. This has knock-on effects on levels of humanitarian assistance.