Today's Guardian on the Disaster

I have not donated a penny. No intention of doing so either!

The foreign office is advising against travel to Krabi, and yet the resorts are open, the beach cleaned up, and the businesses facing ruin through cancellations brought on by the Western presses desire for headlines.

I'm going out there instead - sadly can't get away for six weeks or so. I am taking my "donation" with me. I will supprot local businesses whilst I am there, and intend buying two longboats for friends who lost theirs in the disaster.

I get a holiday and some sun, the locals get to keep their businesses and build for the future. And my money doesn't go into some black hole called charity.

Do as I am and the Thais at least wont have any problems. Stay away and the direct effect of the Tsunami will pale into insignificance.

 

True.

But there aren't that many saints in the world and do we really know the true motives behind any charitable, altruistic or humanitarian act?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the people affected by this disaster need aid, supplies and help - whatever the motives behind it. If my family and I were stuck on an Island with no house, food or drinkable water, I'd rather see an American helicopter than a UN inspector with a notepad.

 

That is a ridiculous thing to say, and shows that you have no understanding of how basic logistics, let alone the world, works.
FWIW, I am no lefty or do-gooder (according to your vocabulary), but this ignorant ranting about the UN is, well, ignorant.

 

Speaking from experience, one cannot fly a helicopter and hold a notepad at the same time.

JonR

 

Well Joel, I don't recall using the term 'do-gooder' which you say is my vocabulary. Not that you should allow the truth to interfere with your criticism.

When I criticized the UN's modus operandus, I gave links to people that had better informed opinions than my own. For example, I said

But I guess that you didn't bother to follow that link, Joel.

When you criticized my modus operandus, on the other hand, you simply call my statements ridiculous, and accuse me of having no understanding of how basic logistics, let alone the world, works. With no explanation, references or links and no reasoned counter arguments, you describe my posting as ignorant ranting.

And that's your idea of informed debate?

 

"Whatever your spiritual or ethical tradition, ask yourself where the person of the highest integrity in history would bank if he or she were alive today"

I guess he/she/it would use the simple 'no frills' current account set up by the govt for everyone who didn't have/want access to commercial bank accounts

no, wait...bummer!....the govt caved in on that idea didn't they? I wonder why??

 

In order for the US helicopter to know that you are on an island (there are over 13,000 of these in the Indonesian archipeligo alone) and in need of help, where to find you, to get into a local airbase to pick up supplies, to make contact with aid workers, that US helicopter will be working, in good part, in conjunction with UN people already on the ground.
Aid is essentially a logistical exercise. Logistics in difficult conditions requires planning and takes time.
Last year NHK calculated the costs of providing aid in various ways. What they found was that using the military (they looked only at Japan's military and domestic NGOs/NPOs) to provide aid was 3-4 times more expensive and the quality of aid less good than when provided by a specialised aid agency.
Now the UN hardly ranks as one of the best aid agencies or even as a particularly good one, but it has a role.
And it's far too easy for individual states to pick and choose which disasters they want to get involved with.
Darfur, anyone?

Oh yeah, I followed the link and read it. It's hilarious. But your State Department guy could easily write the same kinds of thing about... the US government. I mean if he wants a paradigm of waste and pork-barreling, he need look no further than the Pentagon.
Perhaps we should do an inventory of all the people saved and not saved by the UN in 2004, and then we could do the same for the US.
We could also ask ourselves how much the US is spending each month on fighting a war in Iraq and how much it has pledged to help the tsunami victims in SE Asia.

 

Thanks Joel. I can appreciate a post like that one.

 

The cynical view is there's no such thing as charity, as it only exists in order to make the person giving feel better about themselves.

Still, I would never hold up the US as an example of any sort of caring sharing society, as it's stated aim is just the opposite ("The American Way"). At least the UN was founded on principles that were meant to benefit the world as a whole.

But the only problem with people is, that in general, if they're given a little bit of power they'll abuse it for their own benefit.

I was always a "proper lefty" - i.e I used to sell Militant in the old days, always believed in "from each according to their means and to each according to their needs", but time and advancing cynicism have led me to think that any sort of Utopian vision is just a pipe dream, and that the human race en masse is/are a parasite on the world, slowly choking it to death.
That's probably why I moved into rural isolation! (that and the fact I can play the stereo as loud as I like...)

 

I worked for a very short time at an NGO, and left feeling very much that way. However, I have some friends who work for the UN, and they certainly aren't in it for the cash or, as far as I can see, self-gratification. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter, especially at times like this, what the motivation is, as long as people are helped.
I think the "American Way" is that people should be allowed free reign to develop and succeed (or fail) according to their ability and desire. This is why America continues to be such a powerful magnet for talented and ambitious young people from all over the world. The reality, of course, falls short, but the "dream" is there.

 

About 170 million dollars per day (this figure may include Afghanistan)

Initially 25 million dollars

 

$350 million has been pledged by Bush so far and it is reckoned that US aid will rise to several billion dollars.

So far 12,000 US military personnel have been deployed to aid the tsunami relief effort, most of them aboard Navy ships. US ships and aircraft were also ferrying aid from other donors.

The figures above do not include the aid given by US individuals and businesses who are traditionally 'bigger givers' than the US government.

The US may be criticized for many things but lack of generosity is not one of them.

 

or clever politics Steve

Bush isn't stupid and realised the opportunity the Tsunami presented very quickly.IMHO that is,but I fail to see any good in that man,or his government.

 

Au contraire, Saab.

Bush's initial response was to pledge a meagre $15 million, triggering accusations of 'stinginess'.

Now you can accuse the US of stinginess or of opportunism. It's difficult to accuse it of both with any real credibility.

 

Not to mention that it takes the focus of world attention away from Iraq, where some estimates put the number of Iraqi civilian casualties as a result of the US invasion as high as 100,000 - getting on for the number killed in the tsunami.

As for the level of response to this disaster, everyone accepts that it is unprecedented and I maintain my earlier claim that if a disaster of a similar scale happened in inland China the response would be much less generous. Yes, people reacted to the earthquake in Bam, Iran as they have to other tragedies but not in such an unprecedented way. After all, hundreds of thousands of people die every year from starvation in Africa and no one really seems to give a toss about that crisis.

Of course all aid is good, even if it comes from the US government but I for one remain deeply suspicions about their motives.

Michael.

 

The 100,000 Lancet figure is disputed by many respected authorities who think it considerably overstated, mainly on the grounds that no such toll of bodies have been found. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that many thousands of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives.

However, if we are to believe the writings and documentary made by John Pilger, the US led, UN sanctions against Iraq led to the deaths of a million Iraqi children. By this reckoning, the war is saving many lives.

Of course, I'm not seriously claiming that this is the case. I'm just illustrating that, as before with the stingy/opportunist dichotomy, in the eyes of many who are anti-American, the US are always the 'Evil Empire'.

Poor old GW. Must be losing sleep at night.

'Do They Know it's Christmas' aside, I totally agree with you on this one, particularly concerning the Genocide (and I'm careful not to degrade this term, Michael) in Dafur.

 

While US and its media is keen to maximise publicity for its money and effort, truth of the matter is that their contribution is small for a rich country with 300 million population.
Below is a list based on per capita basis. (US$ used)

UK 3.32
Sweden 8.48
Spain 1.58
China 0.05
France 0.93
Netherlands 2.22
U.S.A. 1.19
Canada 1.04
Japan 3.91
Australia 1.34
Switzerland 3.21
Norway 3.69
Denmark 2.89
Saudi Arabia 0.40
Taiwan 0.23
Finland 0.65
Kuwait 0.81
UAE 0.67

A calculation of the above figures as percentage per capita GNI (Gross National Income) will show that donations and pledges are miniscule.

And let us not forget that governments of some major countries have a record of pledging large amounts (to catch the headlines?!) and then put all sorts of bureaucratic objections; delivering only a fraction of what it pledged.

However private cash donations have much better chance of getting there.

 

I'm not accusing Bush of both,I have never accused the US of being stingy.The US like everyone else understimated the size of the disaster,it was a genuine mistake.But Bush wasn't slow take his opportunity imo.

 

Steve (7_V),

The generosity of US population is not in question - it's the government's motives we are questioning here. I would venture to suggest that there is more than a whiff of belated realpolitik about Bush's sudden increase in funds, his sending in of his good ol' bro Jeb with poor old Colin Powell, US Administration fall guy, to add some much needed credibility to the proceedings. The US knows it's got a lot of ground to make up after the debacle in Iraq, so here is a heaven sent opportunity to help, amongst others, the most populous Muslim country in the world, Indonesia.

Not entirely altruistic motives, are they? Having said that, the region needs all the help it can get right now, so whatever the reasons, the help is not, and should not, going to be denied.

Michael, as to your point about a similar (in terms of numbers killed) disaster happening in mainland China, I find it difficult to imagine China opening its doors and pleading for outside help in such a situation. Don't forget this is a country with pretentions to super-power status itself, and as such is extremely sensitive to showing any signs of what it might perceive as 'weakness'.

Regards,

JonR

 

Guys, one quick question. If the American Government has always been generous why haven't they shown it before by helping poor Countries? What have they done about the 3rd World debt and poverty?

While I welcome all the help they give, I do question their motives.