Centerfield

I predict that Americans will demonstrate forcefully, through private donations, that we are not "stingy."

Yeah, I think so too Todd. Just yesterday I saw a comment speculating that this would fade from the news within a day or two, but events have already outpaced such snide comments.

Most everyone can recognize that this is simply an epic tragedy, a natural disaster of a scope we've never seen before, and I expect the world's response to match that.
I have no problem digging down into my pockets as deep as or even deeper than I ever have before for this.

I expect most sensible people will refrain from politicizing this, but I do expect a scattering of morons from both the right and the left who will indulge in the "it just goes to show ya-s" over it. If it takes a sense of needing to prove our bonafides for some to contribute, that's OK with me, because the need is bound to be unprecedented.

But hopefully most of us will help out as we can just BECAUSE we can, and because we feel that we simply must. Without any self-congratulation, or bitterness, or politicizing, or opportunistic comparisons.

There are those inclined to point out our many domestic needs whenever the issue of foreign aid arises. I hope that just for this horrible and most wretched case, they refrain from that chorus.

I found Egeland's comments really interesting. He was specifically asked about aid over the past year, and how satisfied he was about that. I actually didn't take his comments to be referring to the U.S. in particular, though I'm sure he would apply it to the U.S. He's scandanavian, and I got the impression he was actually primarily thinking of countries like Norway and Sweden. Norway in particular is pretty wealthy, it's sitting on a pile of oil, and I think the $$ going to aid haven't kept up with increases in wealth. And Americans, at least, (I don't know about Europeans) tend to overstate how much of the budget goes to international aid. And few wealthy nations have met their targets.

I agree with those who have observed that we're pretty generous; there's no question that we're the most generous nation in the world, and frankly I think we're particularly good at aiding wide-scale tragedies. But I also think that people *could* probably do more, both here in the U.S. and internationally. And in general -- not just for really high publicized cases.

Anyway, I suspect Egeland an aid worker at heart, so it's not surprising that he thinks that people are stingy. He's given much of his whole life to this sort of effort, and aid workers always think that people can and should do more. I doubt he's at all misinformed; he just thinks people can afford to do *even* more, more consistently. I have to say, I'm just in awe of a lot of these people -- I know, a lot of them aren't running efficient ships, and some are really corrupt, but there are just a tremendous amount of aid workers out there that, in uncomforable and unsafe situations, dedicate their lives to helping others. And on the bright side, I suspect his comments didn't at all discourage contributions.

But, oh, the children. It's tragic. It really puts things in perspective, at least for me.

Bush was pretty stingy with the money...especially at the outset. The comment was directed at him..not at Americans in general.

And the comment has worked...Bush has pledged more money.

I took my first cruise over to Powerline, and was disappointed to read someone blathering about how liberals would be trying to use this as an opportuinty to criticize Bush. This gave me a bad first impression of powerline, as I felt that they were speculating for the purpose of politicization of the disaster for partisan purposes.

Then I came back here and found Carla's comment. If it can be about Bush, it MUST be about Bush, I guess.

Seems every news story really is just another opportunity for a partisan food fight. For powerline, it's an opportunity to parody liberals. For liberals like Carla, a chance to take another shot at the President. It's no longer tragedy, it's farce.

How long will it be before someone tries to start a donation center where you give money as a red stater or as a blue stater, so the partisans can fight over who is more humane, generous, and kind-spirited? Actually, it's not a bad idea if it swells the coffers...sort of like if we got a bunch of partisan windbags in a room to argue "tastes great...less filling," and then plopped in some windmills to harvest the wind power.

Carla,

I really don't know if Egeland (sp?) directed the comment at Bush. I mean, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Egeland thinks Bush *could* do more, but I have a feeling that he thinks that of a lot of people and governments. I'm hardly a defender of Bush. But I do assume that we're planning on giving much more that initially stated and pledged, both privately and publicly ,and I'm not at all sure that the Bush administration compares poorly to, say, Clinton on this measure. My distinct impression is that relief officials have been complaining about the U.S. and other countries for years.

Egeland was asked a specific question about how satisfied he was with donations over the past year. I'm sure he's happy that he might have spurred on even more donations, but I think he was expressing a pretty common opinion among relief officials.

He was described as backpedalling on his comments, but when I saw him on tv last night, he looked genuinely ticked off that people were complaining, and he talked a little bit about the people in Iran still living in tents, and chldren elsewhere, and how relief pledges weren't met. And he's right, pledges of money -- for relief or anything else -- are rarely fulfilled entirely. That's human nature, I think, but it's not surprising that someone like Egeland complains. I don't know that much about Egeland specifically, but relief workers / officials see the incredible needs, on a day to day basis -- for some of these people, it's their life mission, so it's not terribly surprising that they want others to do more.

And I think Egeland probably knows that Americans are pretty good at stepping up to the plate for major disasters -- I remember how much money flowed into 9-11, even though that wasn't a natural disaster of the same sort -- he just probably wishes it was even more, and more consistent. I mean, I'm sure lots of people contributed for even something as well-covered as the Iran quake, but contributions are not as commonplace as someone like Egeland would want.

It's a hard question, in the abstract. I remember a NY Times article about a wealthy individual who was in the process of taking the "share with others" principle to the extreme -- he'd given away most of his money, and he was sharing body parts. But the reality is that this sort of approach isn't likely (or healthy, in my opinion) for the vast majority of people. So, at least in terms of private donations, each person has to decide for himself how much to give to others -- in various forms of charity, whether in one's own nation or elsewhere. Some peole set aside very little, some 1%, some 10%, some give up vacations, some donate time -- whatever. I mean, everyone's got to answer for themselves whether they're doing what they can and should, and people like Egeland are almost inevitably going to voice frustration, particularly when he's in these circumstances.

Aside from the abstract, I do wish people were better informed about the very real needs out there -- but then again, it's hard to wrap your mind around just unimaginably tragic and sorrowful things. It takes a really special person to be a good relief worker.

Anyway, we sent off our donation this morning. I figure we can give up eating out for a short while (not that we eat out much, but still, the occasional lunch adds up). It seemed like a almost embarrassingly small sacrifice. I keep looking at my children and just feeling so....blessed with sheer luck.

Actually bk...I did a little more indepth reading on Egeland's actual comments...as opposed to how the WSJ and Washington Times reported it.

The Times says:

U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.

"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."

Egeland actually referred to "wealthy states" and didn't single out the US (or Bush) specifically.

I'm curious though..did you think $15 million was an appropriate amount of aid for this disaster when you heard it? Even some of my Republican friends were a bit surprised at the low number when it was originally announced.

Yes Bush was slammed by liberals and centrists for it. Rightfully so. Is it now not okay to take Bush to task when it's REALLY OBVIOUS he deserves it?

Powerline is too busy trying to make stuff up as they go along. LOL

I simply assumed any criticism of the initial amount was inapproriate because there'd be more to come, so that any criticism of our response could fairly wait until one ehad a better sense of what that scope was.

In the initial stages of a crisis, I figure it's speed that is of the essence, not money. Free up some dollars asap to get the ball rolling, and then give more as you get a progrssively better idea of what's going on.

Right and righteous as always, eh Carla?

Egeland is Norwegian, a socialist UN bureaucrat (United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator), and he knew exactly what he was saying and meant every word of it. In his defense, I note that Norway is right at the top of international giving in terms of %GDP, so a point of national pride may have been involved. There is nothing stingy about the Norwegians, in any sense of the word. And anyone who is startled by a Euro-socialist relief bureaucrat saying we all need to give more hasn't been paying attention.

However, a few points are in order.

First, the US is consistently #1 in terms of international aid provided, beating #2 (Japan) by a 50% margin. The US provides 40% of ALL international aid, a great deal more than the equivalently-sized EU.

Second, the $35 million in current US pledges is the entire remaining amount in the USAID budget. ALL of it. Every last freaking penny. They (we!) can't commit any more cash aid under our own laws until Congress re-convenes and approves it.

Third, right now at least five US Naval vessels are en route to the area, including the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, complete to their on-board hospital facilities and military personnel and support aircraft--all assigned to the relief effort. I don't know the specifics of those ships other than the Abe, but that's several thousand people and a big chunk of mobile facilities and communications/command and transport.

On another note, if your local blood banks could afford it they may have already shipped out a bunch of current stock for emergency relief, or to closer banks that shipped their stocks out for relief. Drop 'em a pint or so if you can. If you are involved with your local emergency services on a stand-by or volunteer basis, check with your units. Some of your full-time regulars may be on the way overseas, leaving holes in your local shifts. You can check and see if your employer is willing to make or match contributions to the relief funds. Or you can chip in a few bucks, even if you don't have the time to do anything else. The Amazon link (currently at $2.54 mil and rising) will happily take as little as $5 from you, about the price of a meal deal at most fast food places. Have a PBJ tomorrow instead.

If you can't think up any ways to help pick up the slack, you're not thinking.

It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."

It's true, as Tully says, that Norway is right at the top of the giving list -- and that this is a source of national pride for Norwegians. But I suspect Egeland would even think Norwegians should give more, hence the "we" in his comments. I think Tully's right, he meant what he said -- later on, he noted that people in Iran are still living in tents. I don't think he *is* satisfied with aid given over the last year -- which was the specific question he was answering. I can't imagine what *other* answer he would give. I mean, there's probably a better to express the sentiment of "I think people could do more", without using the word stingy, but I suspect that's his heartfelt opinion.

It seems to me to be totally not contradictory to (1) recognize that the U.S. gives a lot of money, publicly and privately, accounting for a large % of aid (2) the U.S. is particularly good at giving aid for wide scale disasters and (3) understand that aid officials genuinely wish more was done, because the needs far outpace what is given. There's nothing new about all this.

I simply assumed any criticism of the initial amount was inapproriate because there'd be more to come, so that any criticism of our response could fairly wait until one ehad a better sense of what that scope was.

When Bush made the announcement yesterday..we had projections that the dead would be over 100,000. That's a pretty massive scope by itself. $15 million is a pittance for that kind of death and destruction. It's horrible PR for us as well...especially when we're already short good will on the world stage.

Right and righteous as always, eh Carla?

It's a burden I manage on a daily basis, bk. Would that you could. :)

Listened to BBC World interview Patrick Leahey. "We spend more before breakfast everyday in Iraq than we are spending on disaster relief."

Must it always be a about Iraq?

Carla,

It was silly of me to think that you'd take a momentary step off your high horse to address the fact that, as Tully described, the interim dollar figure announced consisted of every penny currently budgetarily available in our foreign aid account.

As I suggested, there is valid reason to believe that the number was a function of bureaucratic logisitics, instead of a function of American stinginess or presidential character flaw. Of course, when one is already certain of GWB's basic evil and lack of human compassion, it is no leap to slam him for the miserly sin of quickly freeing the most quickly and easily available cash from the appropriate account.

Nicely done. Now you're all set up to pat yourself on the back. Whatever else America does, any generosity can be characterized as a response to sanctimonious criticism of our stinginess. You are a chorus leader, and we the stingy and unworthy followers. Good for you, you get to call for action _AND_ paint the president as a bad guy.

Meanwhile, I believe this has little or nothing to do with GWB. America will respond as the situation calls for, hopefully with unprecedented genrosity to match the unprecedented scope of the crisis.

$4.4M and rising--through one web page.

Amazon's American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund

This is on top of the $18M collected directly by American Red Cross as of noon 12/29--a figure that was out of date even then. Their mail is coming in bags right now. Big ones.

American Red Cross International Response Fund, P.O. Box 37243, Washington, DC 20013

That's just one of many US charities now gearing up, if the most obvious and visible one. DRI already has medical teams and materials on the ground. Our local Sri Lankan community is already on line with their own home relief effort. I will post that donor link when it becomes operational.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and instilled in him a terrible resolve." --Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, December 7, 1941

Poking America with a stick risks provoking a massive retaliatory reaction, but sometimes that's a good thing for the poker. I suspect Egeland knew exactly what he was saying and doing--and is smiling privately at a job well done. I also suspect he's patting himself on the back for nothing.

"Poking America with a stick risks provoking a massive retaliatory reaction, but sometimes that's a good thing for the poker. I suspect Egeland knew exactly what he was saying and doing--and is smiling privately at a job well done. I also suspect he's patting himself on the back for nothing."

I agree that he's not at all unhappy about the response, and he likely knew that it couldn't possibly hurt donations to complain. That said, he was asked a specific question about satisfaction with aid in the recent past. I've never met an aid official who was satisfied with relief efforts. I agree with those who have said this isn't about GWB -- Egeland is an aid official, and he wants more aid. For disaster relief *and* development. Relief officials have complained about wealthy nations, in general, for years.

I also believe that Egeland will probably continue to be dissatisfied. I'd guess aid officials are probably very happy with efforts to address *this* situation thus far, but worried about the long-term. They need billions here, if not a few hundred billion, at least. And I'm imagine that they are worried, too, that a disaster like this means less contributions for other less wide-scale tragedies, or just for development in general. I know after 9-11, that was one of the concerns from charitable organizations -- there was an unbelieveable amount of money flowing in, and there was a real question about whether it could be used for other purposes, and what this would do to giving for other needs (although 9-11 is somewhat unique in the sense that it was a disaster that didn't involve many monetary needs --- there weren't large scale problems with homelessness, or drinking water, or medical needs).

I'm hopeful though -- I'm hopeful that Americans will contribute at least as much as they did, for instance, this summer for hurricane relief. Granted, that was on our shore, but plenty of Americans have connections to these countries, and this is a tragedy that is so global in nature that I really see it as affecting the entire world. And I'd like to beileve that everyone, American or not, would think about what more they can do in general -- not just for this -- but I confess I'm a little more skeptical on that.

As an aside, whatever happened to the whole Africa initative?

BK:

How nice of you to give me one of your usual snitty replies. It's nice to know I can consistently count on you to deliver.

(for Chris...prepare your Jaws theme)

The interim $15 million initally announced was not the full amount of USAID. That figure is $35 million, as Tully reported. That's the current pledged amount. Not that Bush is all that great at keeping aid pledges:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html?hp

Now perhaps you could enlighten us ignorant unwashed masses by telling us exactly how Bush arrived at the $15 million number? You obviously believe that those three days it took him to get off of his ass and actually say something aren't indicative of a major character flaw...so fill us in. Clearly it wasn't the full USAID allocation when they made the initial announcement, either. So please give us the benefit of your wisdom, oh wise one.

And how could we possibly think this has anything to do with GWB? He's only our President..our representative on the world stage. He's merely the one who's the figurehead for most of the rest of the world loathing us. But it's only "hearts and minds" we're trying to win, right? It's just a chunk of the Muslim world of SE Asia in which Bush had a golden opportunity to come out with a very generous and quick response. But hey....who cares, right?

Incidentally..the response of the American people is, as always, hugely generous. We Americans tend to be that way. Fortunately we're much better than our government.

Okay, I've been doing some hunting around for information. For what it's worth...

According to the OECD, regarding government aid for development, the U.S. is the second highest donor (Japan is #1). The U.S. is pretty low in terms of aid as % gnp. THe U.S. spent in 2003 about .14% of gnp on development aid. In 2000, the figure was .1 -- the increase was primarily due, as I understand it, to shifts after 9-11. At any rate, very few nations meet the UN agreed-upon target of (I think) .7: only Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. And, the targets have dropped over the past 40 years. (If every country met the .7 target, aid would be a bit over 100 billion more). And at least from what I'm reading, these aid as a % of gnp peaked around '92, declined steadily through the 90s, reached an all time low (on average, across countries) in the early '00s. And this whole idea of richer, but stingier, seems to be almost a mantra among people in the relief area.

There's also an issue about pledges not being realized -- for instance, I'm skeptical that pledges by a variet of nations for Iraq will be realized.

The top 10 countries that get U.S. aid are Egypt, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, Serbia & Montenegro, Colombia, Ukraine, Jordan, Peru, and Afghanistan.
By region, it looks like we give about 15-20% to Africa. A small percentage of our aid is given to emergency relief -- I'm not sure how they categorize disaster relief, though. I *think*, though, we spend more on emergency relief, proportionally, than other nations do -- emergency relief doesn't seem to make up a large % of aid spending anywhere (which makes sense, emergencies are by definition not everyday events.)

Americans are VERY generous in terms of private giving, though, giving (as far as I could tell) at least $34 billion annually, 3X as much as government. I would take the specific numbers with a grain of salt, since they really depend on what one counts (i.e., does one count scholarships for foreign students?), but by any measure, I think, the numbers are high. I'd be curious to compare per capita figures across nations.

Aid is inherently political. Our aid to Latin American countries ends up being political, because it taps into debates over how to solve the drug problem. Our aid to the Middle East is obviously political. The conditions that are attached to aid are a matter of political debate. ANd a lot of it just comes down to how much money one thinks countries and individuals *should* give -- and how much one believes that resources are flowing from poor countries to rich countries, and vice versa. It's tremendously difficult to come to uniform clear-cut conclusions.

Anyway, it's just information. I think the bottom line, for me, is still that (1) Americans are really, really generous and (2) there are a tremendous amount of needs out there, and genuine disagreement about how to spend what resources exist. And enormous challenges in just getting the resources out. My hope, actually, is that not only does this disaster get enough funding, but that it at worst doesn't *hurt* efforts in other areas.

In 2003, the US paid out $15.8 billion in foreign development aid. Japan paid out $8.9 billion. Japan has not been #1 since 2000. $650 million of the US total was for emergency disaster relief. International foreign development aid has increased 65% under the Bush administration.

That's official foreign development assistance, and does not include private giving by the American people, which has been conservatively estimated at $34 billion a year.

The government figure for the United States also does not include assistance provided by the US through the UN. The US provides 22% of the UN budget, and another $2 billion for other programs such as UNICEF, UNDP, UNWFP, etc. 50% of all UN food aid is provided by the United States. Nor does it include Pentagon spending for military support of disaster relief, as exemplified by the aircraft carrier and 11 other Naval ships and thousands of personnel and aircraft headed into the Indian Ocean right now. They're not cheap--and they're not in the "aid" figures.

There is also the fact that the full scope of American aid will not be known for some time, as the expenses of direct non-cash assistance bubble up through the books and get tallied. Throwing cash at the problem past a certain point doesn't help, what is needed is resources, like the 500,000 gallons of fresh water a day produced by an on-board Naval desalination facility, or the helos needed to move tons of food, medical material, and relief personnel into cut-off and otherwise inaccessible areas.

The Left's instantly reflexive scapegoating of Bush in all things is starting to remind me of the Church Lady routine on SNL. "Could it be...SATAN?!?!?!?" Except SNL was usually funny.

What to say of those who've latched on to the tragedy to promote their political agendas, from the U.N. official who raced to call the U.S. "stingy," to the global-warming crowd, to administration critics who jumped at the chance to call the president insensitive because he was vacationing in Texas and didn't voice his sympathy quickly enough? Such people are slyly asserting their own, higher sensitivity and getting credit for it, which is odd because what they're actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points. --Peggy Noonan

YMMV

Amazon ARC fund is at $6.8 million and rising. Through one web link.

"In 2003, the US paid out $15.8 billion in foreign development aid. Japan paid out $8.9 billion. Japan has not been #1 since 2000. $650 million of the US total was for emergency disaster relief. "

You're right, I was looking at 2000 figures. After 9/11, our aid shot up quite a bit, going to a variety of places. It's low as % of gnp, relative to other countries, though some other countries are pretty close. (Japan's has dropped significantly, if I'm reading the figures correctly, and ours has gone up pretty substantially, from about .1% of gnp to .14% of gnp.). As I noted, very few countries reach the .7 target. But -- before people get all defensive of George Bush, who really has VERY LITTLE to do with the relative numbers, or defensive of America, which is really very generous -- what we do that I suspect is different than others is that we give a *lot* privately. A lot. A lot, lot, lot. Emphatic enough? :) And, frankly, one could argue that countries that give a lot in absolute terms should be granted some leeway in these discussions about percentages.

****

"That's official foreign development assistance, and does not include private giving by the American people, which has been conservatively estimated at $34 billion a year."

Yes. Just for the record, I'm not disagreeing -- I stated that myself. In fact, I think that's the one thing that a lot of people agree on. The numbers -- regardless of how one calculates them, and for a lot of reasons, I prefer conservative estimates -- suggests that the American people are very, very generous. And whether it's enough is a decision each individual has to make for himself, in my opinion.

***********

"The Left's instantly reflexive scapegoating of Bush in all things is starting to remind me of the Church Lady routine on SNL"

I consider myself pretty liberal, and I'm *on record* as saying this debate has nothing to do with Bush -- and that declines in aid by governments overall started in the 1990s. Bush increased aid, and even if I agree with some of the priorities and disagree with others, I wouldn't say *he* was particularly stingy. Which I have said, actually. So I don't know if you meant me or not, but if so, I really would object to being cateorized as "reflexively scapegoating" Bush. Or anyone else, for that matter. I have *no complaints* about George Bush, relative to any other president, regarding foreign aid. (And I have lots of complaints about George Bush, but this just ain't one of them).

Bush isn't responsible, in my opinion, for drops in aid worldwide that took place in the 1990s. I mean, you don't need to be genius to figure out that the main complaint about aid seems to be focused on the trends *across nations* of the 1990s -- when George Bush was governor of *Texas*

But somehow the discussion becomes about George Bush, when Egeland didn't even mention George Bush, and 120,000 people are dead. I'm pretty liberal -- at least on some social issues, and on the issue of international aid -- and I am NOT even thinking of George Bush as being near the top of list of problems. Or victims.

I *do* believe that the needs far outstrip what's given by countries OVERALL. Even if countries were doing all they could, the needs would probably be more than what's given. :( And I do believe that as countries have gotten richer, government aid has dropped (as a % of wealth) across wealthy nations OVERALL in the 1990s. And I do worry that there will be -- through no one's fault -- less resources for people in Africa and Iran now. Those are perfectly reasonable (and debateable) opinions, as far as I'm concerned, that having nothing to do with George Bush. He didn't cause the drops in aid over the 1990s, he didn't cause the earthquake in Iran or the tsunami this week. He didn't cause Japan to drop their aid contributions. For me, not everything *has* to be about George Bush, in either direction.

Personally, I'm less caught up in the whole George Bush thing than in wondering whether needs are met, and wondering *how* we as a community can more effectively meet the needs. The whole issue of foreign aid -- and international needs -- is tremendously challenging and has been so for decades.

And re Peggy Noonan's quotes that Egeland "raced to call the U.S. stingy" -- I could be mistaken, but I don't think Egeland specifically mentioned the United States. And he answered a specific question at a press conference, so I have no idea what she meant by "raced" (though I'm sure both he *and* the reporter knew what the answer was going to be). To say that he called the U.S. ignores the trends in aid *across nations* throughout the 1990s, and that's an important point for aid officials. Whether he meant to single out *only* the United States -- and George Bush in particular -- by implication is a matter of debate, but given Japan's serious drop in aid, the trends over the 90s, and the fact that something like 17 countries fail to meet UN targets, I'm skeptical. Surely Peggy Noonan doesn't think that aid officials in general have been happy about trends over countries during the 1990s?

Kate, I agree. We give. A lot, as befits our long heritage of doing it for ourselves, not shuffling all the responsibility onto government. I don't see anything wrong with the American people making their own choices, with their own wallets, as to where their aid money goes. I think it's right and proper. But I am tired of America being slammed because our government isn't falling all over itself (by Euro-socialist standards that eve the Euro-socialists mostly fail to meet) to make those decisions for us on the scale that some would like it to.

We give. A lot. Over and over and over again. US private aid is routinely 3 to 4 times as much as even the recently-boosted government amount. But the only guage the critics look at is the ODA figures from OECD, which is a very misleading scale in light of our generosity as a nation of individuals.

My remarks were not aimed at you, except for clearing up some of those figures. In particular, I wanted to note that US foreign aid has increased dramatically under the Bush administration--as Bush promised in the 2000 campaign, as begun before 9/11. And that the amount we as individuals give is enormous.

I agree, aid has increased dramatically under Bush.

I'm sure I would disagree with Egeland about a lot of things -- whether aid should be public and/or private, where it should go, what (if any) strings should be attached, what developing nations can do in their own interest. But in terms of this statement that he made, my own preference is to not take it as only or even mostly refering to the U.S., particularly given that he didn't mention the United States.

To apply it only to the United States, in my view, is to adopt the misconception that all these other countries are giving substantial percentages, and that they've increased their giving throughout recent decades, and that's just not true. I doubt Egeland is happy about what Japan is doing, or what most of the European countries are doing.

Whether we're doing *enough* -- either as a group of nations, or just the U.S. -- just depends on personal opinion of what the needs are, and how best to address them.

George Bush has a lot of company. It's becoming apparent as that criticism is flying everywhere. There are apparently papers in Sweden and Norway criticizing *their* governments for reacting too slowly, the British are criticizing Tony Blair.
And people are criticizing Annan as well. It's probably just human nature -- it's so hard for people to accept that horrible things happen, and for all the 20-20 hindsight in the world, not everything can be predicted and prevented. (And this really is a national disaster for Sweden).

And of course we managed to get a dig in on France -- from what I've read, in a Fox interview, the adminsitrator of USAID called France not particularly "dominant" in the area of aid. Which would make sense, except that he then apparently went on to praise Japan, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and the EU. France does just fine relative to the four individual countries, at least in terms of development aid -- the government gives more, in absolute terms and as a percentage of gnp, than UK, Canada, and Australia. It's actually pretty close in absolute terms to Japan, despite the smaller economy. Maybe he meant private giving, but I'd be curious to know whether private charities in, say, France are less active than those in these other countries. Or maybe he just meant in terms of coordinating responses, but again, I don't see those other countries as being powerhouses either. Anyway, I didn't see the show itself, and I can't find a transcript on Fox's website, so maybe he actually had some evidence for saying that. I'd be curious to know what he meant. France certainly isn't dominant, but neither are some of those other countries he singled out.

Personally, I don't really think anyone reacted too slowly. It took awhile for a *lot* of people to wrap their minds around the disaster. And the horrid reality is that *nothing* anyone was going to do was going to make a difference -- this was a quick occurrence. The most important thing now is to coordinate relief supplies, and everyone seems pretty committed to doing the best that they can.

Kudos to the people in the region who had the foresight to call others and give them 5 minutes warning, or whatever -- I don't know if I'd be that cool-headed under the cirucmstances.

And kudos to Colin Powell for pointing out that maybe the goal should be to get aid to the area, and meet the needs, and not engage in all this one-upmanship.

And good for Japan for pledging a lot, too. If one thinks that governments don't give enough -- I'm pretty undecided about the whole "what should countries do?" question, but *if* one believes that governments should and could do more -- Japan is surely a such a country.

It takes a while to ramp up for the scale of relief efforts needed. I'm certainly not going to knock France (or anyone else) as I don't know yet what they have or haven't done. They chip in their shares for development aid--though of course not enough to suit the aid bureaucrats. But no one does....

In the meantime, the only real "boots on the ground" so far in terms of foreign government aid efforts appear to be the Aussies and the U.S. The Abraham Lincoln carrier group is on station off the coast of Sumatra and ferrying in supplies to villages by Seahawk helicopter throughout the Aceh region. Aussie and American supply planes are shuttling in supplies through Thailand at a rapid rate. The Bonhomme Richard deployment group is on the way, but will take a few more days. In terms of domestic aid efforts, the Indian government is hitting full swing and making progress in their areas. Sri Lanka and others are sputtering, just plain overwhelmed.

Red Cross is once again showing that it's earned its good rep, as are many other NGO relief groups, but the scale is just too large for them to handle without governmental help.

The bad news is that the casualty count predictably continues to rise as assessments come in. Officially about 150,000 right now.

"They chip in their shares for development aid--though of course not enough to suit the aid bureaucrats. But no one does...."

Well, that's exactly it. Aid officials are alwasy complaining, they complain about everyone save possibly countries that do meet the .7 target -- but I'd guess they'd want even higher targets. It's the nature of the occupation to be dissatisfied with giving. (That said, I'm sure they are relatively happy about this particular effort -- Egeland is on record as saying that this response is unprecedented). Obviously, the UN and the U.S. administration have issues, but Egeland could have easily have made the same exact expression of dissatisfaction in 1999.

(My impression was that Natsios was talking in general about aid over time. But I also have some vague recollection of hearing that someone from France took a few gratuitous swipes at the U.S. And I don't really know much about Natsios.)

Just as a general comment, I'm pretty liberal about aid in general in many ways. I do think government aid is an important part of the equation, and governments can do things for developing countries that private organizations can't. But I personally think the desire of many aid officials to see a higher proportion of relief given by governments rather than by private organizations and individuals is misguided. The reality is that a lot of governments are not going to allocate aid the way I personally would want it to be allocated (or they are going to count aid that I personally wouldn't count as development aid), and it makes more sense to me to have a variety of sources of aid, government and otherwise, in different countries. Then people can find their own opportunities for giving, in addition to whatever government does. One can find things that actually meet one's interests.

Of course, we all know that you have to be super careful when looking at the private aid organizations. I think the Red Cross is great, and there are a handful of others that I would trust. But not all ostensibly charitable organizations are ethical and / or competent. And some organizations do have particular straetgies for giving -- it's helpful to be really well informed about what you're giving to. But there are a lot of good organizations out there that would fit almost anyone's preferences. And giving *time* is one way to give, privately.

Anyway, I (and I'd guess most people) agree that the U.S. is clearly uniquely capable of responding in terms of getting aid to a place like Sri Lanka. And that's what's needed now, according to everybody: coordination and sheer power to deliver. Between that sheer power, plus the American people's generosity (and whatever the government does), we can really make a difference. The sad thing is that there's just limits -- no one can turn the clock back to nine days ago, when those people still had their children.

Does anyone know if George Bush has personally donated any money?

hi
I'm from australia - I do not belive that the comments were directet towards the people of the usa but rather the "leaders" I do belive that the usa people generous and rather donate to such a disaster than to a war - but were do the leaders of the usa spend most of the money ?????????-

I don't think the USA nor anyone else should have donated as much as they did! There is nothing that was or ever will be worth the billion or so dollars that we will ultimately send the people of this great tragedy...it will undoubtedly be misused and underutilized. We should send relief in the form of volunteers, heavy equipment, building supplies, water filtration systems, and perishable items, etc.. to help them rebuild their respective countries themselves. We as Americans are so obsessed with the "lottery" style donations that we are forgetting the point of helping them to rebuild. How in the world can we expect impoverished people to spend this ungodly amount of money wisely. In fact, of this "$$billion" donation, we can figure on half of that coming back to the USA secondary to contractors who have traveled to reap the rewards of these huge donations, which will in turn, be paid (40%) in income taxes here in the USA. George Bush shouldn't, in my opinion, donate any of his personal assets....he could however, volunteer as a Bulldozer operator and acquire much greater respect from these traumatized people as well as from the American people. Craziness!!!!! Lets get over the craze of "Give them more Money" and lets instead give those folks a hand.....which is what they really and truly need.....my 2 cents.

Where can I find data that shows Tsunami contributions by % of countries' GNP?
Are our gov't and media deliberately showing only dollar amounts?

I fully agree, US should provide more US Products as donations and money to support, man, maintain and otherwise make sure that corruption does not eat that up... Medical Emergency equipment for example... In general, when we give ONLY money, our US Image and PR gets nowhere, while some 'friendly' channels overseas project the US as the cause for the Tsunami... what a mess!

id just like to say (this is your opportunity to stop reading, and feel free to criticize me, im highly unlikely to visit this board ever again during my lifetime, so go ahead, knock yourselves out) that although i do not believe that it is the american public that are being stingy over the money donation situation and that it is definately george bush's fault (in the long run at least, and besides its easier and much more enjoyable to blame him), im very surprised that america has even heard about the tsunami. i have been there numerous times, once for about a period of 5-6 years. during this time i heard absolutely JACK ALL about the rest of the world (excluding john howards grovelling now-and-then comments to george bush about the september 11 incident). now i realise this has absolutely nothing to do with the tsunami, so hold back your insults for just one second. has america, or rather, george bush, become so absorbed in the contents of his belly button that it actually takes outrage and pressure from everyone else to force him into making a less-than-stingy donation to people who are ridden with disease, starving and basically condemned to as horrible and unfair death as september 11 proved to be? i also have to agree with a few on you about the matter of donating equipment, vounteers etc instead of money. it takes time for money to be traded for such things, and as america has such a plentiful supply of both things, why not take the shortcut and send the same moneys worth of equipment? it would save time, energy, and lives. george bush needs to realise that its not about being a cool guy with a cool hat who blasts the bejeesus out of innocent people in order to kill someone he thinks is behind september 11. he needs to realise that america is one of the most pivotal nations in the world, with the most valuable resources and money. it has the greatest power to prevent, aid and protect the people in this world. and yet it does nothing but sit around, plotting revenge, pointing the finger and polishing its big shiny guns (in order to use them after making up some total bollocks about the weapons of mass destruction that have since turned out to not even exsist). if iraq DID have weapons of mass destruction, dont you think the war was the perfect opportunity to use them? obviously not. what are they like, the best china? "oh theres a war going on, should we get out the weapons of mass destruction?" 'oh no, save them for a special occasion'. however, this is not an insult to the american public, but its leader and the way the country is being directed. i apologise if you are a supporter of george bush, and wish you great luck in your quest to find a hat as cool as he has. its just a shame that it takes all this just to get him to donate some money to people who need it more than the american public. i also apologise to any i may have offended re the september 11 incident, i am in no way meaning to be disrespectful to the memories of anyone you may have lost. you may now insult me as much as you like. it was your choice to continue reading to the end.

Quote:
I fully agree, US should provide more US Products as donations and money to support, man, maintain and otherwise make sure that corruption does not eat that up... Medical Emergency equipment for example... In general, when we give ONLY money, our US Image and PR gets nowhere, while some 'friendly' channels overseas project the US as the cause for the Tsunami... what a mess!
Quote end.

But if you choose to send the money through The Red Cross for instance, you would get a lot more for the money. Its a lot cheaper to buy the food and materials in the local area. AND you would give work to a local that might have lost everything in the Tsunami and needs to earn money to build up his own life again.. If the countries shall get back on their own feet again after the disaster, its important to build up everything in the country.

Quote:I predict that Americans will demonstrate forcefully, through private donations, that we are not "stingy." Quote end.

I found this post on another forum, posted by an American so I guess the numbers are correct:

FYI...Norwegians spent $39.95 US dollars per person to help tsunami victims. On a list of nations that came to the rescue, Norway was #1 most generous on a per capita basis. By contrast, the #26 nation on the same list was the USA, which only spent $1.19 USD per capita to aid countries hardest hit by the tsunami.

Quote: Incidentally..the response of the American people is, as always, hugely generous. We Americans tend to be that way. Fortunately we're much better than our government. Quote end.

I agree. I have lately gotten to know quite a numbers of Americans through a forum I am member of, and I must say that they have given me a reason to believe in Americans again. My view at Americans has always been affected by your politicians foreign policy...