Tsunami Relief: America Takes The Blame

[tinybear]

America is criticized for being slow, stingy, heartless...etc. But is this really so? Look at some statistics: http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4356

So why are we being blamed? Views anyone?

[Kaiser]

In my own opinion, the United States should not be providing any aid at all, save for sending a small force to search for any United States citizens and safely evacuate them.

As for your question, I haven't an answer save for the obvious "people hate the U.S. because of the Iraqi war." At least that seems the simplest answer.

[Pooeypants]

You can at least provide an article citing the criticisms so we can compare.

[G. Adams]

Agreed with Pooey, I havn't seen any criticism of the US reaction to the tsunami at all, and I look through a lot of sites none to friendly to the US. I think the tsunami relief effort was a fine demonstration of what can be achieved if first world nations really want to help the world. You'd probably stop a lot more terrorism (towards yourself) across the world by capturing hearts and minds rather than converting them to the fundamentalist cause.

[Evil Baby]

I don't care how much or how little the U.S. gives, that is none of business, and I am just happy that they give at all but that being said.

For the sake of argument lets look at this article:


Whopdy freaken do, so they pay about a quarter of the U.N. total budget. Do we know why the U.S. does that?

They do that because it is a direct reflection of how much of the worlds GDP the U.S. owns. That is how the U.N. was set up. The U.S. makes up about 25% of the worlds GDP, therefore, they pay about 25% of the U.N.'s total bills(that is when they actually pay up).


As for the the donation money the site doesn't break down where that 2.4 billion goes to. Does that include "aid" money they send to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan and so on?

Also, the U.S. being the richest country in the world, you would think that it would have the most money to give, yet a few much smaller, or not so rich Nations have donated just as much or more than the U.S.


It is obvious this arcticle has a huge bias, worse than normal. It's almost as bad as some of the crazy left wing websites out there. You could easily find another site that demostrates just how little the U.S. gives in comparison to its GDP to actual development funds compared to other Nations.

[Matt W]

Zigactly. There's always going to be some nuts going for the US & anything the West do (often with some justification). However, in this case I haven't seen anything apart from the initial slow response - and that was a storm in a teacup.

[tinybear]

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...mericans.ap%2F

[rmnunez]

Evil, the apportionment of contributions to the UN budget was made when the US was a much larger player in the global economy. Other economies (Germany, Japan, China, Russia...) have grown at faster rates, now the global economic pie is sliced differently. The US GDP comes to almost $11 trillion, about as much as China, Japan and Spain, which together don't add up to a quarter of the UN's dues.

Comparing foreign policies I would note the US is among the few who have any development policy for overseas (most governments put domestic projects under this rubric) so the governments involved in this are basically just a few industrialized westerners. Aid or emergency relief for disasters, famines is also provided almost exclusively by western governments and the US has a great advantage because it is so extensively deployed they can easily get huge volumes of wheat to wherever faster than anyone.

The US also has a much larger non-governmental relief and development effort. Churches and charitable organizations are constantly trying to preserve habitats, save orphans, dig wells, open clinics and schools. The Europeans do this too but they are late on the scene and minuscule by comparison.

The ruckus is over what portion of the government's budget gets spent on development and aid for the third world. A group mischaracterizing Nobel economics laureate Tobin's tax work as advocacy for some sort of international transaction tax for 3rd world development spearheaded a movement (ATTAC) for a mandatory minimum 1% of their government's budget for relief and development in the 3rd world. That was about a decade ago, the EU governments have never achieved the mandatory minimum but they have all generally exceded the US governmental proportion. I think the problem has a bit to do with the size of the US government's budget which is many times greater than any of the EU governments'.

[RickSp]

Quote by: tinybear America is criticized for being slow, stingy, heartless...etc. But is this really so? Look at some statistics: http://www.omegaletter.com/articles.asp?ArticleID=4356 So why are we being blamed? Views anyone?

What unmitigated garbage. Bizarre that these Bible thumpers want to make America the victim and the folks who get hit by a tsunami the villians. This particular bible thumping end-time lunatic implies that all Indonesians support OBL. Yah right. His attack on Jan Egeland is a lazy writer's slur and fundamentally a lie. He claims the whole world is "blaming the US" but does no better than this to support his stupid assertion? Like Ann Coulter with half the wit and hairy legs. Scary.

And yes, America is a generous nation. (As are, to be fair, most of the Western European nations, as well.) American private donations will probably exceed government pledges, which is a good thing. I don't hear anyone blaming us, notwithstanding a few fundamentalist nutjobs at home and abroad on either end of the spectrum.

[Evil Baby]

Quote by: rmnunez Evil, the apportionment of contributions to the UN budget was made when the US was a much larger player in the global economy. Other economies (Germany, Japan, China, Russia...) have grown at faster rates, now the global economic pie is sliced differently. The US GDP comes to almost $11 trillion, about as much as China, Japan and Spain, which together don't add up to a quarter of the UN's dues. Comparing foreign policies I would note the US is among the few who have any development policy for overseas (most governments put domestic projects under this rubric) so the governments involved in this are basically just a few industrialized westerners. Aid or emergency relief for disasters, famines is also provided almost exclusively by western governments and the US has a great advantage because it is so extensively deployed they can easily get huge volumes of wheat to wherever faster than anyone. The US also has a much larger non-governmental relief and development effort. Churches and charitable organizations are constantly trying to preserve habitats, save orphans, dig wells, open clinics and schools. The Europeans do this too but they are late on the scene and minuscule by comparison. The ruckus is over what portion of the government's budget gets spent on development and aid for the third world. A group mischaracterizing Nobel economics laureate Tobin's tax work as advocacy for some sort of international transaction tax for 3rd world development spearheaded a movement (ATTAC) for a mandatory minimum 1% of their government's budget for relief and development in the 3rd world. That was about a decade ago, the EU governments have never achieved the mandatory minimum but they have all generally exceded the US governmental proportion. I think the problem has a bit to do with the size of the US government's budget which is many times greater than any of the EU governments'.

I was under the impression that the U.N.'s income comes directly in proportion of World GDP. I could be horribly wrong, so I'll look for the info later, when I have more sleep.

I know that developing countries are considered differing by the U.N. than already developed countries, which China and India would still fall under I believe. You don't by chance actually have a breakedown of world GDP? if not, no big whoop, I'll google it tomorrow sometimes.

[rmnunez]

Newsweek's "Special Issues 2005", at p.22 includes the top 5 in GDP (in billions); first the US with $10,871, second is China at $6,436, next comes Japan with $3,583, then India's $3,096 and fifth is Germany with $2,279.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: tinybear http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomfr...mericans.ap%2F

Eww netscape, anyway, that article is from 29th Dec, when the US only pledged a teenie weenie 35 million dollars to the cause. Can you show me articles more recently or of a time when they pledged the ten fold amount?

[Chris the Chees]

I found a flaw ion your article; there are not 2 billion Muslims. The Islamic faith actually only contributes to around 20% of world faith (around 1.2 billion), unlike Christianity which contributes around 2 billion people.

As for the rest of the article, it was just a heap of tripe about nasty "liberals", making America pay more than its dues. It totally ignored the fact that the USA pays bugger all in regard to its huge economy, and capabilities. Then went on to say that it was the "liberals" were falsely claiming that America was a nation of Islam haters. The great irony of this is that the author of the article then went on a large tirade against the Islamic cultures around the world.

The author also dishonestly neglected to point out that the 350 million dollar pledge is in fact little over a dollar per person in the USA, incidentally only 35 million of which has actually materialised. So much for the generosity of the US empire, it is a myth, the reality is that the USA, like every other nation is greedy and selfish, and to suggest other wise is a lie.

That article is a joke, riddled with statistical inaccuracy and downright lies. But what does one expect from a site entitled "Bible Prophecy - The Omega Letter - Christian Intelligence"? This is, in my experience, something of an oxymoron, when regarding Christian articles.

[Evil Baby]

Quote by: rmnunez Newsweek's "Special Issues 2005", at p.22 includes the top 5 in GDP (in billions); first the US with $10,871, second is China at $6,436, next comes Japan with $3,583, then India's $3,096 and fifth is Germany with $2,279.

Fair enough, but isn't China and India still considered "developing" Nations? If they are, I'm pretty sure the U.N. treats the country in a different way and they are not expected to pay for the U.N.(however I could be very wrong on that). IF you take out China and India, than the U.S. could very easily still have 20 -25% of the world GDP.



Here is another link I found, which paints a very differnt story(not to say Newsweek is wrong)

www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GDP.pdf

The data used in this .pdf is from 2003 but China only has 1, 409(also in billions). I know the Chinese economy grew, but by 5 trillion? I find that difficult to believe.


Also, using the FBI world factbook the GWP(gross world product) is 51.48 trillion.

Using Newsweeks numbers, that gives the U.S. a 21.15% stake of the GWP, which would match the U.N.'s request.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/xx.html


edit: add links

[Evil Baby]

This is the only link I could find about how the U.N. is funded.

http://www.eda.admin.ch/sub_uno/e/un...em/financ.html


I didn't look for very long, well because I'm lazy but I'm pretty sure this is how the U.N. is funded.

[voyager]

I am sure that the U.S contribution to tsunami relif if the need was for arms. the US has always the leading arms proliferation in the world. We can't do the food and shelter bit but we really shine in munititions.

[Comrade]

Why do you people think America is being blamed?
That's what foreigners do. Canadians and Europeans tend to be really bad about it. Probably makes them feel better about the impotence of their own countries.

We shouldn't feel compelled at all, we just need to help what we can, ignore the whining, and stop trying to be everyone's mother.


--
My favorite story was translated by MEMRI from an Egyptian newspaper, some obviously well learned professor was debating whether it was an American, Israeli, or Indian nuke that caused the tsunami. Arab press is good entertainment.
www.memri.org I think the link is.

[Evil Baby]

Quote by: Comrade Why do you people think America is being blamed? That's what foreigners do. Canadians and Europeans tend to be really bad about it. Probably makes them feel better about the impotence of their own countries. We shouldn't feel compelled at all, we just need to help what we can, ignore the whining, and stop trying to be everyone's mother. -- My favorite story was translated by MEMRI from an Egyptian newspaper, some obviously well learned professor was debating whether it was an American, Israeli, or Indian nuke that caused the tsunami. Arab press is good entertainment. www.memri.org I think the link is.

That's a mighty statement you made there. You have any proof of is it just your 'higher' judgement that you can assume that Canadians and Europeans feel impotence towards their own country?

[Comrade]

I don't really care much what they think about their countries, it didn't have anything to do with my post anyways. Just to clarify, I was saying that Canada and most of the old Allied powers are pretty impotent compared to America.

I was just thinking what I would feel like if I lived in a country (and shared that nationality and the pride that goes with it, of course) that used to be one of the great Western powers, and was now completely dwarfed by a bunch of cowboy colonials with a (Christian!! :o) chimpanzee for a President.

No need to be snotty, my "higher" judgement is my own opinion. Its been a while since I've been here, are those still banned, or do I need sources?

[G. Adams]

What do we former imperialist bigots think about ourselves? That we have grown to a point where our pride isn't based on childish "my empires bigger than yours" name calling, and have instead based our pride in the knowledge that each and every person in our states can depend upon his fellow countrymen to look after them when times demand it. We take pride in knowing we have created civilised nations out of our barborous selves. Long may we continue to do so, rather than descend into rampant abuse of power we once epitomised, and the US does today.