When the searchlight of world attention sweeps on, who cares?

The earthquakes that hit Turkey and Syria this week have caused heart-wrenching devastation – and also inspired an international campaign to rush help to the stricken areas.

Yet this month’s grim second anniversary of a different disaster, caused not by nature, but by a military coup in the Southeast Asian democracy of Myanmar, suggests a cautionary lesson that applies to the earthquake response – and a lesson for the world’s news media as well.

It is this: The true test of our engagement, empathy, and dedication will come not in the next few days, but in the next few months and beyond.

The initial response matters. The scope for effective action is greatest early on, whether to right a political injustice or help people struck down by a force of nature. In earthquakes, it is especially critical. Very rarely are trapped survivors rescued after the first few days.

Yet in the media, and among governments, attention spans are short. Their focus soon shifts elsewhere and returns only fleetingly, in response to some new tragedy, or the simple dictate of the calendar on anniversaries of the original “headline” event. 

That fickleness matters because of what happens – and what does not happen – when world attention fades.

Displaced Syrians hit by the earthquake, who need not just rescue but ongoing help to rebuild their lives, know this all too well.

They live in the northwest of the country, the sole area still under rebel control, and they were already struggling to feed their families and stay warm during a harsh winter.

In recent years, they’ve endured wanton artillery and air attacks on their homes, schools, hospitals, and aid facilities by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Russian military backers. These assaults initially made the news, and prompted political outrage, in the West. Yet before long, they disappeared from the headlines.

And what of Myanmar?

It has, in fact, been receiving fresh attention in recent days.

There have been newspaper and broadcast commentaries, and a declaration by nearly two dozen governments including the United States, Britain, the European Union, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

There was even a rare U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a return to democracy – facilitated by an equally rare event: Russia and China abstained, rather than casting a veto.

But all that was because of the calendar.

It is now two years since Gen. Min Aung Hlaing quashed the landslide reelection victory of Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy; seized power; arrested the leader and her key supporters, along with social activists and journalists; and began a violent crackdown on protests.

In the intervening 24 months since the initial press coverage and international condemnation passed, the dictatorial general has arrested nearly 20,000 more opponents, some of whom have been executed. Around 3,000 civilians have been killed.

The junta has also slapped a series of jail sentences on Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi, now totaling 33 years, and launched indiscriminate air attacks in what has become a full-scale civil war with opposition activists who retreated to the countryside after the coup.

The coup leader has been lucky to have the neighbors he does. Key trading partners China, India, and Thailand have kept trading and looked the other way. So has Russia, which, along with China, has been providing the junta with arms and other military equipment.

In Myanmar, as in Syria during the Russian-backed bombing of civilians, some people have not stopped paying attention. Human rights groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners have doggedly documented abuses.

Washington and its allies have, at least, responded with economic sanctions, tightened by Britain and Canada this month to cover aviation fuel, in the hope of curbing air attacks on opposition groups.

Even had the media spotlight remained on Myanmar, or on the Syrian war, there’s no guarantee the situations would have turned out differently.

Sustained media attention does, however, serve important functions. It assures the vulnerable they have not been forgotten. And, critically, it forces governments to reckon with the political cost, in the eyes of international public opinion, of failing to act in their defense.

It was that consideration, most likely, that led China and Russia not to block the Security Council’s anniversary criticism of Myanmar’s junta.

The most powerful reminder of how much difference persistent engagement makes is a major crisis where the West has stayed the course, so far.

In Ukraine, foreign eyes have not turned away. There are multiple explanations: the advocacy of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the raw courage of Ukrainians, the leadership of U.S. President Joe Biden. And the breadth and brutality of Russia’s invasion.

But central to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculations from the outset has been an assumption – no doubt encouraged by the West’s short-lived outrage over Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014 – that outsiders would soon stop caring much about Ukraine.

And central to Ukrainians’ fears is the prospect that he could yet prove correct.