US Aid Followup
In a briefing on 12/27, the US State Department announced that just 1 day after the tsunami, monies had been released, negotiations were underway with relief organizations, embassies were working with local officials and the military had been deployed to provide support. Clearly, American officials had been working on assessment and coordination from the start. Could US officials have been more proactive and communicative? Probably.
The Japanese ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on 12/26, the day of the disaster, that medical and financial support were being dispatched.
This article, posted in the UK, calls out President Bush for not speaking out sooner in support of the victims. Fair enough. He probably should have said something on the 26th. I'm just not convinced that Bush speaking out against the evils of tsunami's as the water is receeding back into the ocean would win the hearts and minds of a "hostile world". Nobody seems to be calling out the Germans for their $26 million or France's $57 million contributions. I guess speaking out early is going to make a world of difference to those poor schmucks digging their families out of the mud, if they can find them. I guess they'll take solice that Germany and France are putting a moritorium on national debt when they're trying to rebuild their homes and businesses.
The largest contributions to date are
- Japan: $500 million
- United States: $350 million
- World Bank: $250 million (The United States and Japan fund most of the World Bank)
And these numbers don't include private and corporate monies. No other government has pledge more than $100mm.
The hostile world seems to have already made up it's mind.
3 comments:
To be fair, the French contribution represents a larger percent of their GDP than the $350m promised by the US does of theirs. The increase from $35m to $350m did make the US pledge fairly competitive with what others are giving in terms of GDP, and I've heard few complaints since then. But the initial bid of $35m, again calculated as a percent of GDP, was the lowest of any of the contributors (and less, by way of comparison, than the residents of Lansing, MI alone have had to contribute in tax dollars to the Iraq war). I happen to think it's in the US's best interest, especially in places like Indonesia which are already becoming training grounds for anti-American terrorists, to be as generous as possible during this crisis: The humanitarian assistance that Greece provided to Turkish quake sufferers, for example, did more to avert aggression between the two peoples than any military campaign could ever have quelled, and similarly, the US could use this as an occasion to make friends where there are now potential enemies. Aid to the South Asia quake victims shouldn't be seen as a burden, but an opportunity to further American security in the long term.
Brian - thanks for the comment. I won't argue that providing aid is both morally and politically correct. We can debate on what an appropriate amount of aid is. I don't know the full reason for the initial $35M and subsequent adjustment to $350M. Some will say that the US was embarassed or pressured into making the adjustment. Others might argue that it took a couple of days to get an idea of the amount of destruction done in the area.
I checked your claim regarding GDP ratios. The $350M pledge makes the US pledge virtually equal as a percentage of GDP to the French pledge of $57M considering that the US has a GDP of $10.99T versus $1.66T in France. Germany's pledge however, is about 1/3 the ratio of the US and France as they have a GDP of $2.271T. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia's pledge is about the same percentage of GDP as the US and France's.
I'm not sure what influences the amounts when diplomats or politicians decide to appropriate funds for emergency relief. Maybe more significant to the US is that the total budget for the State Department is a little more than $10B, which may make a $350M pledge more significant. I think it may be too early to tell what the total amount will be. The damage is still being assessed. Several officials from the US are and will be assessing the needs on site. Plus, so far India and Thailand are refusing foreign funds, as they are wealthy enough nations to handle this themselves.
Let's hope that something good can come out of this tragedy. Let's hope that those in need get the aid they require.
My figures basically agree with yours depending on how where you round the digits. France's is slightly higher, but admittedly it's a negligible difference. And yes, I do feel that Germany was quite stingy, and rather slow in announcing their aid commitment. Predictably, the Scandinavian countries all come out on near top of the list, Sweden's contribution being more than ten times that of the US. Surprisingly, though, Qatar came on top, contributing some $25m out of a GDP of $17,540m, about 0.14%. I've compiled a complete listing here. I was rather enjoying the competition between the donor nations. Even if their chief motive was one-upmanship, I'd rather they compete at helping others than at amassing arms or any of the other things nation-states typical compete at ...
Post a Comment