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