Job Discussion Forums

[moonraven]

Keeping this issue off the first thread in response to the disaster in Asia, here a few comments from the US press:

1. Published on Thursday, December 30, 2004 by the Star-Tribune / Minneapolis
The Stingy US: An Appalling Performance
Editorial

"The United States is not stingy," Secretary of State Colin Powell bristled in response to criticism of a paltry $15 million initial U.S. contribution to tsunami-relief efforts. Bulletin for Powell: That's not the way many Americans and most the rest of the world see it.

As the Bush administration is wont to say, actions speak louder than words, and America's actions in recent days have painted the United States as a rich, self-absorbed and uncaring nation that had to be shamed into anything approaching appropriate concern about this catastrophe. The Bush administration's handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief.

There's a broader context here that bears consideration. Two days before Christmas, the media reported that unprecedented U.S. deficits -- caused substantially by the Iraq war, which most of the world hates, and by Bush's tax cuts for wealthy Americans -- had led the Bush administration to cut substantially its previously agreed contributions to world food programs. By going back on its commitments, the Bush administration forced numerous aid agencies to suspend ongoing programs in many impoverished nations -- including, ironically as it would turn out, Indonesia.

Then a day after Christmas came the undersea earthquake and resulting tsunami waves that very likely will end up taking well more than 100,000 lives while putting millions at risk of disease and destroying both their livelihoods and homes. From the very first hours it was apparent this was going to be an almost unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Yet Bush remained at his Texas ranch where, aides said, he spent time cutting brush and bicycle riding. He uttered not a single public word about what had happened in Asia.

On Monday, the United States announced an initial $5 million in aid, mostly through the Red Cross, to which it said it most likely would add an additional $10 million at some point. Bush still was nowhere to be seen.

The criticism began almost immediately, and it did not come only from a U.N. official. Comparisons were drawn, for example, to the additional $80 billion that Bush has requested for the war in Iraq and the $30 million to $40 million that his January inauguration will cost.

The criticism had an effect. While responding angrily to accusations of stinginess, the administration on Tuesday added an additional $20 million to the $15 million it had announced on Monday. The appearance was clearly that Washington had been shamed into the larger contribution. Bush was still in Texas with his brush piles and mountain bike.

But his absence had been noticed, and numerous reporters in Crawford were pressing Bush aides on why he was invisible in this crisis. Late Tuesday, in response to the questions, it was announced that he would have a public statement Wednesday. Again, the appearance was that he was shamed into it.

Contrast Bush's behavior to that of the world on Sept. 11, 2001, when the United States lost 3,000 people to terrorist attacks. The expressions of grief, support and solidarity from world leaders -- including Asian leaders -- were both abundant and public.

At every step of the way, however, the official U.S. response to this disaster has been seen as grudging. That's not good, especially at a time when much of the world reviles the United States for its unilateral actions in Iraq that have taken such a horrific toll on civilians.

As Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, told the Washington Post, "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care." By its niggling contributions and by Bush's silence, the United States has strongly suggested to the world that it doesn't care all that much.

In the initial days after such a disaster, there are practical limits to the amount of aid the relief pipeline can handle. Managing the release of U.S. funds into that pipeline is important, to ensure the money isn't wasted. But that concern did not stand in the way of what should have happened immediately:

Dressed in a somber black suit and subdued tie, President Bush should have called an impromptu news conference in Crawford Sunday afternoon. He should have reported to the American people and to the world that the United States stood with the suffering people of Asia and would do everything in its power to help them. To that end, he should have said, he has directed that $1 billion be pledged to the relief effort, to be released as needs are identified. Further, he should have said he has been in touch with leaders of the affected countries and offered whatever U.S. military capabilities might be helpful in meeting both the short-term relief needs and the longer-term reconstruction challenges.

This pledge of $1 billion, he should have said, is but the first American assistance in what will be a very long and difficult recovery for the affected region. He should have ended by saying that the American people send their heartfelt condolences to all those who lost loved ones -- and especially to the thousands of parents whose children were lost. We embrace you in your loss, he should have said, and while we cannot make that loss disappear, we will be with you every step of the way as you recover from this disaster.

That's what the leader of the United States should have said, because only he, of all the world's leaders, can say it to such good effect. By example, the United States should have led from the start, because it is the right thing to do and because it so clearly would demonstrate the generosity of spirit and dedication to doing good in the world that Americans feel in their hearts.

Bush's Wednesday statement helped, but it was short and defensive. Today he should say something like the statement outlined above. It's late, but there's still time to lead the world through a very dark day.

� Copyright 2004 Star Tribune

And 2. Published on Thursday, December 30, 2004 by The Nation
Bush Fails a Global Test
by John Nichols

George Bush ended 2004 on a sour note.

But at least he maintained his record as the most disingenuous president since Richard Nixon.

When other world leaders rushed to respond to the crisis caused by last Sunday's tsunamis in southern Asia, George Bush decamped to his ranch in Texas for another vacation. For three days after the disaster, the only formal response from the White House was issued by a deputy press secretary. Finally, after a United Nations official made comments that seemed to highlight the disengaged nature of the official U.S. reaction to one of the worst catastrophes in human history, the president appeared at a hastily-scheduled press conference to grumble about how critics of his embarrassing performance were "misguided and ill-informed."

Bush bragged about the U.S. commitment of $35 million to help respond to a tragedy that has cost more than 100,000 lives and displaced millions of people in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Somalia and other countries.

What the president did not say is that this initial commitment is less than the planned expenditure for his Jan. 20 inauguration: $40 million.

It was, as well, less than the immediate commitment by smaller and less wealthy nations such as Spain, which has already promised to provide $68 billion.

The president's missteps have been noted by the rest of the world, and by diplomatic observers at home. Leslie Gelb, the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Bush had missed an opportunity to display humanitarian, moral and diplomatic leadership in the world. Reflecting on the administration's response, Derek Mitchell, an expert on Asian affairs at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, "I think politically they've done poorly."

At a time when the U.S. image abroad has been battered by the president's unilateral decision to order the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Bush administration should have been sensitive to the need to respond quickly and effectively to a disaster of this magnitude. But that did not happen. Bush failed to engage at the critical point and then peddled the lie that the U.S. is in the forefront of providing humanitarian aid.

Thirty other developed nations commit greater proportions of their gross domestic products to humanitarian projects than does the U.S. In fact, the entire U.S. commitment for humanitarian aid in 2004 -- $2.4 billion -- was about the same amount as the U.S. spends every ten days to maintain the occupation of Iraq. The contrast between the Bush administration's spare-no-expense approach to Iraq and its penny-pinching response to the crisis in southern Asia is devastating for America's image abroad.

But it is not too late to respond in a more appropriate manner.

U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, a longtime advocate for a more responsible U.S. policy regarding humanitarian aid, has suggested that the U.S. should rescind a portion of the reconstruction aid that has been budgeted for use in Iraq. Of an estimated $18.4 billion allocated for that purpose through December, only about $2 billion has been spent.

Leahy has already attracted some interest in his proposal from Congressional Republicans. Hopefully, this will influence the administration to dramatically increase its commitment to emergency relief and redevelopment aid.

What is the appropriate commitment? Over the critical period of the next several months, the U.S. should provide at least as much money to rebuilding southern Asia as it does to maintain the occupation of Iraq � a figure Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last year put at roughly $3.9 billion a month but that is, in reality, much higher. Committing as much to aiding southern Asia as is now being spent to occupy Iraq would signal that the U.S. wants to rejoin the world community.

Committing dramatically less � as appears to be the president's intent -- will confirm the impression that the U.S. is more interested in spending money on a military misadventure than on a necessary reconstruction.

Copyright � 2004 The Nation

[moonraven]

And even The New York Times says:

Published on Thursday, December 30, 2004 by the New York Times
Are We Stingy? Yes
Editorial

President Bush finally roused himself yesterday from his vacation in Crawford, Tex., to telephone his sympathy to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia, and to speak publicly about the devastation of Sunday's tsunamis in Asia. He also hurried to put as much distance as possible between himself and America's initial measly aid offer of $15 million, and he took issue with an earlier statement by the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland, who had called the overall aid efforts by rich Western nations "stingy." "The person who made that statement was very misguided and ill informed," the president said.

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.

Copyright � 2004 The New York Times Company

[juststeven]

It makes me sick inside to know that the rest of the world think Americans are of the same mind-set as Bush! I get nauseous every time he says, "Our prayers go out to"...... ! If he was/were a TRUE christian, he would give all the money being raised for his gawdam re-election party to those poor souls in Asia! If he was a good American, he would care about the homeless, unemployed people without health care in our country. I must stop now, I have to go to the toilet and vomit!

[Twisting in the Wind]

Hahahahah, Good one, JustSteven. I would add that he seemingly has money enough also to pursue war. What happened to "beat your swords into plowshares?" I guess Bush hasn't gotten to that verse yet. Oh well. Maybe Paulie will appear to explain it to me. Lettem keep hiding out in Crawford. Just shows him to be the internationally-disconnnected national embarrassment he is.

[Twisting in the Wind]

[Guy Courchesne]

This is a FIRST but I'm going to defend the US administration here.

We should wait and see what happens. I think straight dollar figures on aid are a little misleading. Apparently, the US has dispatched a number of ships to the region...plus 15,000 troops. That kind of committment doesn't easily get a price tag put to it, and there isn't another country on the planet that could do such a thing on short notice. Let's see what effect it has when they get there.

If anyone ever catches me defending the Bush administration again, you have permission to come and slap me some

[Atlas]

Sorry, I only read part of the long article.

I guess it was inevitable that this tragedy would come around to be about politics, anti-Bush vitriol in particular, Tell me, what is the response to Britain's or France's or Canada's leadership? Does anybody give a *?

Bush is the debil !

When I was a child in Sunday school, I was taught a lesson: if someone gives all your friends $100 and gives you $10, did they cheat you?

No. They didn't. They gave you a gift.

I'm not defending anyone here or arguing politics. I have zero interest in arguing politics. Besides, you want to argue injustice, how about the complete lack of communication from one country to the next which could have PREVENTED thousands of losses of lives?

BUSH BUSH BUSH, why does it surprise me he is the scapegoat for this natural disaster?

[ChinaMovieMagic]

Keep in mind that the Apocalyptic Christians in the Bush Inner Circle may see the Tsunami as Good News, indicating that End Times are approaching, w/Global War taking out 1/3 of the earth's population, preceded by Rapture beaming up the "believers'" body-and-soul to Heaven. After the War, comes the (post-feudal)King.

Here-in-China, in the spirit of TV news surrealism (but possibly intentional), adjacent to the Tsunami tragedy sequences were pieces on folks in USA innocently enjoying themselves:
(1)a hot dog eating contest i
(2)a ski jump vaulting contest, using motorcycles dropping into a lake

I fear that "a hard rain's a'gonna fall..."

[ChinaMovieMagic]

Dear MoveOn member,
The tsunami in southern Asia and Africa may be the worst natural disaster of our time. More than 116,000 lives were wiped out within hours. The toll in death and suffering from smashed cities, broken families, rampant disease, and crippled economies cannot even be calculated. In the face of this horror, MoveOn members have poured in requests to help, asking how we can push through our sadness and lend a hand.

Rising to this challenge is at the heart of global leadership, and the world is depending on us. The U.S. government can lead billions of dollars of aid into this relief effort, if it chooses. Americans are generous and ready to step forward, but the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration have made a weak initial contribution to the effort -- first offering $15 million and then $35 million when they came under pressure. Clearly, we can do more.

Let Congress and the President know that Americans are supporting strong leadership in this relief effort -- that millions of lives are at stake and we have to help. In this hour of need, if America chooses to embrace our role as a world leader, we can have an unparalleled impact. Send a message to our leaders at:

http://www.moveon.org/tsunamirelief/

But we can't just wait for this Congress to move. We can help directly, as individuals, and save lives today. Our friends at Oxfam are already scrambling on the front lines to fight off starvation and disease -- and beginning to rebuild. Because Oxfam has worked for years with grassroots groups in the hardest hit areas, they were able to mobilize local leadership to help survivors immediately after the tsunami hit. And Oxfam will be there for the long-term, helping communities recover and regain their ability to meet basic needs. Oxfam needs to raise $5 million immediately to provide safe water, sanitation, food, shelter, and clothing to 36,000 families in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and India. Your contribution can make this possible.

Please give what you can, at:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=631

Of course, Oxfam is only one of dozens of great organizations, like UNICEF, CARE, and the Red Cross/Red Crescent, rushing to help with the immediate need. Their efforts give the victims a head start, but it won't be enough unless the great nations of the world step forward in a big way for the long-term challenges.

Indonesia, by far the hardest hit country, is also the world's largest Muslim nation. Their estimated death toll stands at 85,000 -- in some areas, 1 out of 4 people have already been killed. Now it's time for America to show its true colors. We want to be known as a nation that leads the world with compassion, generosity, and community -- not with disastrous foreign military adventures. We are a nation that values human life, family, and extending freedom and opportunity to where it is most needed. We must now reach out in a serious way to do just that.

The $35 million offered by the Bush administration seems like a lot of money, but it's insignificant compared to what's needed in a disaster relief effort than spans continents and is expected to be the most expensive in history. To put it in perspective, we're spending $35 million in Iraq every 7 hours. (The Bush administration is about to ask for another $80 billion to cover the next installment of this tragic occupation.)1

We can and will do better. Thanks for doing your part to show the true generosity of the American spirit.

Sincerely,

--Adam, Ben, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Justin, Laura, Mari, Noah, Rosalyn, and Wes
The MoveOn.org Team
December 30th, 2004

[ChinaMovieMagic]

www.wsws.org

Bush�s response to South Asia disaster: indifference compounded by political incompetence
By Patrick Martin
30 December 2004
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

President Bush briefly interrupted his vacation on Wednesday to issue a public statement, after three days of silence as the greatest natural disaster of the last half-century unfolded on the television screens of the world. He made a perfunctory and semi-coherent statement to the press corps assembled at his Crawford, Texas ranch, shortly after the administration had announced a doubling of the US government�s contribution to disaster relief efforts in South Asia.

The initial US pledge of $15 million was widely derided in the international media�one commentary noted that this was less than the cost of a single F-16 fighter jet. It brought a pointed response by the emergency relief director for the United Nations, Jan Egeland, who criticized the �stingy� response of unnamed Western countries. The Scandinavian diplomat later denied he was referring to the United States, after the US Agency for International Development added another $20 million to the aid package.

Outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell was trundled out to rebut the charge that the US was ignoring the disaster. �The US is not stingy,� Powell declared. �We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world.� (He was silent on the fact that the two largest US-financed �relief� efforts, in Iraq and Afghanistan, are in support of stooge regimes established through the US conquest of sovereign countries).

Even the increased $35 million contribution represents a minimal gesture, given the monumental scale of the tragedy and the enormous resources of the United States. The donation amounts to half a day�s spending on the war in Iraq. It is less money than will be expended on the parties and official festivities surrounding Bush�s January 20 inauguration.

The US government relief effort can be measured by another yardstick�its response to the hurricanes that hit Florida this year. The Federal Emergency Management Agency alone has pumped $3.17 billion into the state, nearly 100 times more than the proposed US contribution for the South Asian tsunami. The four Florida hurricanes combined killed 116 people, compared to over 100,000 dead in the South Asian disaster. According to the brutal calculus of American imperialism, a human life in the United States�especially in a battleground state in the months before a presidential election�is worth infinitely more than a human life in Sri Lanka or Indonesia.

Media criticism of the White House reached its peak in a front-page article published by the Washington Post December 29, only a few hours before Bush made his appearance in Crawford. The Post commented: �Skeptics said the initial aid sums�as well as Bush�s decision at first to remain cloistered on his Texas ranch for the Christmas holiday rather than speak in person about the tragedy�showed scant appreciation for the magnitude of suffering and for the rescue and rebuilding work facing such nations as Sri Lanka, India, Thailand and Indonesia.�

Noting the �international outpouring of support after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,� the Post reported that �even some administration officials familiar with relief efforts said they were surprised that Bush had not appeared personally to comment on the tsunami tragedy. �It�s kind of freaky,� a senior career official said.�

Here the Post gave expression to concerns within the state apparatus itself, not so much with Bush�s indifference to the loss of life, but with his inability to conceal this attitude behind the humanitarian posturing typical of more skilled spokesmen for imperialism, like British Prime Minister Blair or former President Bill Clinton.

Bush hardly dispelled this concern with his comments to the press corps. His remarks were delivered in a fashion that suggested the president could hardly wait to get back to more pressing tasks�such as bicycling and �clearing brush,� two of his major activities at the Crawford ranch.

Bush declared his support for the construction of a worldwide warning system against natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunami, modeled on the one already built by the United States, Japan and other wealthy countries to cover the Pacific basin. He was not asked why no such network yet exists, although the total cost of a worldwide alert system is estimated at only $150 million�a comparative pittance, less than the cost of four days of war in Iraq.

There is already evidence that the US government had ample warning of the earthquake-driven tsunami, but did not communicate the information to the countries involved. US press reports indicate that the Pacific Warning Center in Hawaii, a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, detected the earthquake when it occurred and immediately warned of the likelihood of tidal waves generated by one of largest temblors ever recorded.

Charles McCreery, director of the center, confirmed that his team had transmitted warnings to the US Navy, the US State Department and the government of Australia. The State Department claimed to have notified India, but the Indian government said it received no such warning in the two hours that elapsed between the quake off Sumatra and the tidal wave that hit the Indian coastline in the southern province of Tamil Nadu. Nor did the Sri Lankan government receive a warning.

But one Indian Ocean island was promptly warned�the US military base on the British-controlled island of Diego Garcia, the site from which US bombing raids have been staged on both Afghanistan and Iraq. The US base, about 1,000 miles south of India, directly in the path of the tsunami, reportedly suffered no damage.

Bush�s press statement in Crawford did contain one indisputable truth. �This has been a terrible disaster,� Bush said. �It is beyond our comprehension.�

The speechwriter who crafted those words revealed more about Bush than he perhaps intended. This failure to grasp the dimensions of the south Asian disaster�and anticipate the public reaction to a display of indifference�is a measure of the moral and intellectual cretinism of Bush and his cohorts.

The administration�s callous and barely concealed indifference to the suffering of millions of people says a great deal about the corrupt oligarchy whose interests it serves. The Bush administration, and the occupant of the White House himself, are body and soul the creatures of a ruling elite that has descended into criminality and unbridled greed.

The New York Times, for example, found nothing untoward in publishing on the front page of its December 28 edition articles and photographs on the death and devastation in South Asia alongside a lighthearted report on the multi-million-dollar Christmas bonuses awarded by Wall Street firms to their top executives (�That Line at the Ferrari Dealer? It�s Bonus Season on Wall Street�).

If great events take the true measure of men, the enormous tragedy on the shores of the Indian Ocean has provided another yardstick of the vicious and small-minded man who occupies the White House. Bush personifies the ignorant and reactionary character of American imperialism.

[James_T_Kirk]

U.S. contributes less per capita

Charles M. Sennott, Boston Globe
December 31, 2004

LONDON -- The U.S. government is contributing $35 million of the half-billion dollars that the world's developed nations are donating to the tsunami relief effort, and many Americans believe -- as President Bush said this week -- that their country is being its typical "generous, kindhearted" self.

By total money, the United States donates more than any other country. But both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation's wealth, America's emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries ranks at the bottom of developed nations, economists and analysts said Thursday.

The amount the United States has pledged to Asia is eclipsed by the $96 million promised by Britain, a country with one-fifth the population, and by the $75 million vowed by Sweden, which amounts to $8.40 for each of its 9 million people. Denmark's pledge of $15.6 million amounts to roughly $2.90 per capita.

The U.S. donation is 12 cents per capita.

Amid criticism of the U.S. government's response, the White House announced that Secretary of State Colin Powell and the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, would travel to Asia Sunday "to assess what additional aid can be provided by the United States."

Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and a specialist on aid to developing countries, said, "There is a very big difference between American attitudes, which are generous; beliefs, which is that we do a lot; and the reality. ... The reality is we actually do very little by comparative measures.

"There is going to be even more shock when the U.S. government asks for an additional $80 billion in Iraq and the American public juxtaposes that with what was given in one of the worst natural disasters the world has ever seen," Sachs said.

After World War II, the U.S. government gave as much as 2 percent of its total gross national product to help countries rebuild. That dropped to about 0.5 percent of GNP during the 1960s and 1970s, and it fell precipitously during the Reagan administration to its current level, according to Sachs and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

In 2003, the United States ranked last on OECD's list, spending only 0.15 percent of its national income. Norway spent 0.9 percent, France 0.4 percent and Britain 0.3 percent.

Bush and Clinton officials have argued that the OECD statistics are misleading because they do not measure assistance other than formal foreign aid.

[homersimpson]

[peabody]

...

[poro]

[Cardinal Synn]

May I make a suggestion?
Instead of pasting long articles into your post, use the URL feature and paste the link in instead. Just a suggestion.
Other than that, where is this thread going? Oh yes, down that boring old path again...sigh