The Trouble with Tsunamis
So apparently a series of gian Tsunamis killed something like 33,000 people around the Indian Ocean area in the last few days. This is really quite shocking. And I know that I refused to let this blog just become another series of pissed-off left-wing rants, but you have to really wonder about the US officials that have basically refused to do anything about this. Colin Powell actually had to state publically today that we weren't being "stingy" with our aid. Preposterous. I find it absolutely repulsive and lacking in any kind of basic decency that the US should be worried about its international image rather than merely spending the resources required to assist these countries, desperately poor as they are in any event.
I could go on. But here's just another observation. This tsunami, mark my words, will trigger one of the worst famines we have ever seen. Here's why. This famine has destroyed the employment prospects of many of the survivng workers; many people worked in these areas that were destroyed, including construction sites, rice fields, farmland, etc. Without proper sources of income, and with the assuredly rising price of food in the coming weeks, these people will be unable to afford to feed themselves. Rich countries must be aware of this, if we are to prevent another Great Bengal Famine from striking the entire Indian Ocean region.
I could go on. But here's just another observation. This tsunami, mark my words, will trigger one of the worst famines we have ever seen. Here's why. This famine has destroyed the employment prospects of many of the survivng workers; many people worked in these areas that were destroyed, including construction sites, rice fields, farmland, etc. Without proper sources of income, and with the assuredly rising price of food in the coming weeks, these people will be unable to afford to feed themselves. Rich countries must be aware of this, if we are to prevent another Great Bengal Famine from striking the entire Indian Ocean region.
posted by dd0031 at 9:19 AM
8 Comments:
I hear you, for the most part. $15 million? A drop in the bucket in US terms. However, I think you may be jumping the gun. As Powell said, there will be a long (LONG) rebuilding period. Things are in the process of being assessed as they develop. I think throwing one large sum of money at the problem is not the way to go about it—the more helpful and efficient method would be to send people, resources, and money as necessary. Are you suggesting we pull out of Iraq and focus entirely on this? Really, you could make this same argument about the Darfur region of the Sudan—and you could have made it a long time ago—but I think things are more complex than you make them out to be. While I agree with many of your sentiments, your rant seems pretty idealistic.
Furthermore, I can't imagine that you'd actually think that $15 mil is all the US will be giving. I mean, are you aware that the US is FAR AND AWAY the most giving and helpful nation, in terms of humanitarian aid, in the _history of the world_? I'm sure the US will, as usual, be the most helpful and altruistic in this crisis. Your comments are laffable and Ludicris.
(I just wanted to SOUND mean and angry in that post--I'm neither mean nor angry--I'm just bored at work)
And I guess he spells it 'Ludacris', not 'Ludicris', which is luedekres.
Anyway I thought the US Gov decided to give $25 Million after the stingy comment on the $15 Million. ...which is still very weak in the grand scheme of things.
Well, Shelby, as per your comment on the US being the biggest humanitarian giver in the history of the world, first, that's irrelevant. If we should be giving more it matters little what others have given in comparison to us, little though it may have been. Second, it's false. In comparison to our GNP, we are actually the smallest (? 2nd smallest? it's one of those) donor of all aid-giving nations. If a country only gives half a million a year, but only has a GNP of a million, seems to me like they're a bigger donor, doing more for poverty than we are, considering we're giving only about 1/10 of 1% of our GNP.
Third, there are already international aid agencies in place that are sending the "time" and "resources" over there--what they need is MONEY. And they count on western, developed nations for that funding. For a disaster of this magnitude (the property and infrastructure damage alone is estimated to be in the billions, and that doesn't even count the lost food harvests), given the number of lives at stake (as I suggested, in the coming years it could be millions), if we refuse to act now, we, as a nation, will have blood on our hands.
--Natsios was quick to point out Tuesday that foreign assistance for development and emergency relief rose from $10 billion in President Clinton's last year to $24 billion under President Bush in 2003. Powell said U.S. assistance for this week's earthquake and tsunamis alone will eventually exceed $1 billion.
"The notion that the United States is not generous is simply not true, factually," Natsios said.
The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.
By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.
That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas, such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.
Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.--
So, you're right that as far as GNP goes the US is notoriously stingy. But that doesn't include humanitarian aid in the way of food and aids relief and other assistance. But we're kind of off topic now.
How much SHOULD we be giving, and what's your criteria, if we're not comparing the contributions from various countries? Are we speaking in terms of morality here?
Vis-a-vis "morality": that's what I assumed.
Vis-a-vis "what should we give": the US alone right now has the power to end poverty as we know it in the developing world. It would take, I think, 5% per year of our GNP. But if other countries chipped in, we could get that down to, say, 2.5%. That seems like a good start.
Vis-a-vis "AIDS relief": That's a joke. The Bush administration has funded AIDS relief but tied ridiculous riders to it like "no agency who promotes the use of condoms vs. strictly abstinence can have any funds". Or something like that. As far as I know, that money has gone nowhere.
Ditto, Dale.
R
Post a Comment
<< Home