US stingy tsunami relief?

[Faithless]

Didn't want to insert this into the current thread having to do with the facts and the concerns in Asia.

But there is this little political issue. Is it worth it to criticize at this stage?

UN Says Cost of Tsunami Disaster Without Precedent

...
A massive appeal for aid is to be launched in the next few days. Mr. Egeland expressed concern, however, that several rich donor countries are becoming less generous, even as needs continue to grow.

"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. It is beyond me why we are so stingy," Mr. Egeland says. "Actually foreign assistance for many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of gross national income, that is stingy."
...

.
The US's response --
US not stingy over aid: Powell

From correspondents in Washington
29dec04

US Secretary of State Colin Powell insisted today that the US has not been "stingy" in its response to the Asian tsunami disaster but admitted that much more international aid would have to be given.

"The United States is not stingy," Powell told CNN television after a top UN official appeared to criticise the world's rich countries for the amount of aid they give each year.
"We will do more. I wish that comment hadn't been made," Powell said on ABC.

"The world is now responding to this catastrophe. The United States has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world.

"We had a significant increase in our development assistance and other kinds of assistance, and we will do more."

Powell emphasised how the United States has already given or promised about $US15 million ($19.58 million), sent nine P3 reconnaissance aircraft and 12 C-130 transport planes loaded with relief goods to the stricken nations around the Indian Ocean.

With the death toll from the worst hit countries now above 55,000, Powell also emphasised that there was still no clear idea of what help and how much was needed.
...

[deez nuts]

beggars can't be choosers.

[asvenus]

oh please...america only give 'aid' when it really benefits themselves and if thres a guaranteed rebound of it doubling back...once they work out the returns they can make they'll whip out the 'big bucks'

[applehead]

jesus.
something like this happens and they want
millions of money right away?
shit takes time. instead of countries
and agencies coming together at times
like this, they resort to finger pointing.

it's digusting.

[Faithless]

Originally Posted by Chasiubao_Boy

beggars can't be choosers.

According to this article: Asia Struggles to Cope With 44,000 Dead

The disaster could be history's costliest, with "many billions of dollars" of damage, said U.N. Undersecretary Jan Egeland, who is in charge of emergency relief coordination.

.
At this moment, CNN is covering Colin Powell's press conference -- probably in response to the UN officials comments.

.

Originally Posted by applehead

jesus.
something like this happens and they want
millions of money right away?
shit takes time. instead of countries
and agencies coming together at times
like this, they resort to finger pointing.

it's digusting.

In a sense that's true.

But I guess the UN is responding to what it sees as very problematic in the immediate future. Disease for one.

.

Originally Posted by asvenus

oh please...america only give 'aid' when it really benefits themselves and if thres a guaranteed rebound of it doubling back...once they work out the returns they can make they'll whip out the 'big bucks'

Well yeah, it sometimes seems that way.

Maybe a little bad press will help prod this country in a better direction.

[SunWuKong]

finger-pointing is distasteful at this time of crisis. but measuring the amount of aid given by the raw dollar amount is not really an accurate measure of how much we're giving. a more accurate measurement is what percentage of our GDP are we giving.

a guy who earns 1,000 giving 100 to charity is giving a lot more than a guy who earns 100,000 and is giving 1,000 to charity.

[thaite]

Oh come on. The EU pledged initially $4 million. The $15 the US is giving is only the initial aid, after which will come more aid based on assessed need.

[Banana]

Yea really. I normally criticize the US's foreign policy but I think that this statement was unwarranted.

I mean, the US gives 15 million but the EU, a combination of several wealthy European countries, can only muster up 4 million total? The UN really needs to shut up.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by Banana

Yea really. I normally criticize the US's foreign policy but I think that this statement was unwarranted.

I mean, the US gives 15 million but the EU, a combination of several wealthy European countries, can only muster up 4 million total? The UN really needs to shut up.

i think according to the article, the UN representative was talking about rich countries in general, not just the US alone.

[Arex]

While I agree it's much too soon to be finger pointing, particularly if the pointing is done at those who're still offering more than any other nations at this time, in the grand scheme of things, even $15 Million is nothing compared to what the U.S. could be providing in the way of aid.

Look at how much we've wasted so far on the war in Iraq. There's talk now that the cost of the war through 2005 could reach $200 Billion. Now if you believe the Bush administration's position that we didn't invade for oil, that means we're now throwing away all that money simply because we we care about the Iraqi people and want them to enjoy democracy. Now if we can commit $200 Billion to the Iraqi people's cause, then certainly we can commit more than 1/13,333 of that amount to this cause. I'd much rather see my taxpayer dollars being spent on disaster relief than on more killing.

Edit: I'd rather see my future taxpayer dollars being spent on disaster relief than on this stupid war.

RX

[Faithless]

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

i think according to the article, the UN representative was talking about rich countries in general, not just the US alone.

Jan Egeland has been trying to clarify his statement since Powell had taken issue.

Egeland was talking about rich countries in general, but also talking about the sum of different crisises around the world -- among which, the Sudan.

I'm gathering that Egeland has seen a lot of different world disasters/health problems, and if you look at overall concern for them, the aid probably does seem stingy.

Egeland's comments should probably have been saved for a different time, offering instead some sort of early appreciation of the US efforts "with some expectation of more".

I think this is the tact of many charitable organizations. Get what they can with a hot issue, then come back for more later with other concerns.

[Mr.Lum]

US has given $35 million....most nations seem to be pretty damn stingy. Look at the Gulf states, Europe and the US. Its going to take billions to rebuild/fix this. Some stingy ass bitches I say. I mean, I'd give if I could. I don't have money like that though.

[Faithless]

With that, though, I was watching a CNN show, where they had a US representative talking about the monetary aid being sent.

He qualified the fact that we were giving aid, but also wanted to link it to some sort of political reform. Or something like that.

[Mr.Lum]

That kind of shit is unnecissary. They're not fighting against totalitarianism or something like that right now, they need to get their villages and homes back. Talk about political reform when there aren't hundreds of their people floating around in the ocean or roaming around w/o any place to be.

[AngryABCGirl]

Dude, they deserve to get a finger pointed, a fucking middle finger.