I just wanted to put something out here.
Why has there been such a strong international effort to help the victims of the earthquake in Asia and such a relatively smaller effort to help those in Darfur, Sudan?
Please don't mis-interpret what I am asking here, one cause is NOT more just than the other - I feel terribly for victims of both. However, it is worth noticing that one tragedy rallies the world and one does not.
Any thoughts?
-Jen

I find it a shockingly European point of view that people want to help, but without the government to forcibly confiscate their money and spend it for them they just cant figure out how. It tells you how far down the socialist garden path much of Europe has gone when its citizens literally dont understand the concept of private charity anymore. Disturbing, but doubtless the statists are happy about it.

Jennifer, not to be too flip but I think the answer is pretty straight forward. The Tsunami fits comfortably into the UN worldview that SUVs and global warming have angered the mighty Posiedon and hence the slovenly West should rightly pay for their sins. Darfur forces the UN to face up to the incoherance of their worldview; they have no desire to dwell on the fact that until a peace is somehow imposed any aid will simply and inevitably fall into the hands of the oppresors, thereby enabling them. The UN types have no desire to sort out that mess of a dilemna.

Re: Egland's original comments.

I too wondered why Egland was assumed to be referring to the US in particular, when the quotes given in the AP story seemed to be general. However, the Washington Times (via Jeff Jarvis) has the following to say:

'Despite his claim of being "misinterpreted," a review of the transcript of Mr. Egeland's initial press briefing confirms that he asked reporters at the United Nations why Western countries are "so stingy" and specifically cited the United States as an example of a country whose citizens want to pay more taxes so that foreign aid can be increased.
"An unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity," Mr. Egeland said in his Monday briefing.
Mr. Egeland complained that the United States gives only 0.14 percent of its gross domestic product to foreign development aid, compared with 0.92 percent given by his native Norway. In this category, Norway ranks first and the United States ranks last on a list of 22 industrialized nations compiled by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"The foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income," Mr. Egeland said on Monday. "I think that is stingy really. I don't think that is very generous."
He pointed out that only Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as well as the Netherlands and Luxembourg, give at least 0.7 percent of their gross national income, a level suggested by the United Nations 25 years ago.
Mr. Egeland — a former journalist, deputy foreign minister of Norway and head of that nation's Amnesty International chapter — did not mention that the U.S. government gave $15.8 billion, more than any other nation, to development aid last year, compared to $2 billion by Norway.
The U.S. figure does not include massive infusions of cash to Iraq and Afghanistan. Nor does it include the category of food aid, where the United States is the largest donor in the world, or charitable contributions by private American individuals, churches and other organizations.'

This makes it sound like Eglund was specifically trying to point to the US as a main culprit in the stinginess stakes.

Hi Mark,
Thanks for your response. I just find it so sad the disproportionate response that certain tragedies get. I don't mean to sound coldly utilitarian here but more human lives lost should equal more out-pouring of support. But it doesn't. 9/11 victims were supported so much more than victims of other tragedies. And it seems that Asian victims are gaining more than the needy Sudanese. Also, no one (at least that I've read) is talking about this dirty little international aid secret - they should.
-Jen

Dr. Drezner, nice to hear from you, but you really should stay away and get the most out of your sabbatical!

This whole kerfuffle is a bit unseemly, isn't it? I think the remark by the U.N. official was a bit tin-eared, really, no matter whom the intended target. Catch more flies with honey than vinegar (or maybe not. Maybe public shaming is the best fly catcher of all? We all have our theories.)

I think the West has responded well so far, but only time will tell. Pledges are one thing, action is another. We have a physician at our hospital who is collecting many items and will take off on the first for Sri Lanka (I'm sure there are others going from this hospital, this is the only one I know about). I'm glad he's going and I'm glad most people are being so generous. Except for the stingy, cranky, crabby, vinegary old souls who can only see consipiracy, partisanship (or nationalism), and a chance to score points. Phuey to you!

Oh, and P.S. Why don't actual dollar amounts matter and only percentages of GDP? In practical terms, I mean. It takes something to make all that extra money that we generate so that we can give the most actual dollar amounts. And also, could this have to do with the scepticism that many in the US have with foreign aid being misused? Why throw good money after bad?

mark,
" find it a shockingly European point of view that people want to help, but without the government to forcibly confiscate their money and spend it for them they just cant figure out how."

Where did you get the idea that europeans don't know how to donate money ?

There are plenty of private charity appeals currently ongoing in Europe raising tens of millions of euros for relief.

Even the most cursory google would have relieved your shock........

Kenny, i wasnt addressing every European, i was adressing the views as expressed by this particular individual, who was assumedly sent to the UN to represent of his nation.

Specifically what he said:
"politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more." "

I dont see how you cant come to my conclusion. If a person wants to give more, but the government 'wont let them' because they wont tax them enough, what does that mean? Isnt that representative of a point of view where it never occured to him that there just might be other avenues to contribute besides taxation?

Mark,
You might be right but i read it slightly differently. He had been talking about how
""There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy", and then followed with the comment about the taxpayers.

I took it to mean that some countries had cut their aid budget even though their taxpayers didn't actually want the Aid budget to be cut, and that the donor governments should listen to their voters a bit more on the subject.

I've read somewhere that the statistics on "private foreign charity" includes foreign nationals in the United States sending money back to their families. I have absolutely no idea where I got that pseudo-factoid from, it could be totally wrong. But if it's true, then it's somewhat misleading. I would like to define our "private foreign charity" as being money donated by *Americans*, not just by people who happen to be in America. I'm also not sure I would want to define "giving money to your wife" as "charity," even if your wife happens to be in a foreign country at the time.

Does anybody know where to find this data with this particular question resolved?

Mark,
No - it's representative of a view that the BEST avenue of taxation is coordinated through government taxation - $13 billion of US foreign aid was governmental in 2002 as opposed to only $5 billion in private giving. Nobody is stopping further private charitable donations, but to increase public donations requires either diversion of existing spending or new spending (i.e. raising taxes), both of which require political leadership.

Clear enough?

If anyone's curious -- the key exchange occurs at 40:39 in the video.

Well done, sir, and thanks for the info.

Jennifer,

Some thoughts on your question about the tsunami and Darfur.
-There has been quite a bit of humanitarian effort in Darfur, by such organizations as the UN Food Programme and the High Commission on Refugees, and spending there is in the hundreds of millions. Spending on tsunami victims will in the end be greater, but Darfur has not exactly been overlooked by the humanitarian relief community.
-The core problem in Darfur is a political one, and throwing money at it won't solve it. Throwing money at tsunami victims, on the other hand (assuming it's well aimed) will solve many of the specific problems they face.
-There is a greater time constraint in Indonesia and Sri Lanka than in Darfur. The time horizon for the unfolding of the humanitarian disaster in Darfur is in months. In Indonesia and Sri Lanka it's in days - if massive aid doesn't get there in another couple of days, hundreds of thousands of people will die of hunger, thirst, and disease.
-And finally there's the psychological element. People just seem to respond more to large-scale, instantly unfolding drama than to dramas that unfold over time. An airplane crash that kills 50 people is national news. The thousands of car crashes on the same day that kill hundreds of people on the same day aren't. That's just the way people seem to be (I'd give citations here if I were in my office today.
-Lastly, in response to Mark, it's got nothing to do with a "UN worldview that SUVs and global warming have angered the mighty Posiedon and hence the slovenly West should rightly pay for their sins." I haven't seen anyone try to connect the tsunammi to climate change, because it so obviously isn't. In any case, it isn't the UN per se that's responding in a greater way to this crisis than to Darfur, it's donor nations and individuals.

I find it quite amusing that those who are taking issue with the characterization of the comments of the UN Undersecratary are playing all the word games they can to somehow demonstrate that those who rightly characterized the comments as insulting to the United States are the ones being ‘disingenuous’.

Perhaps a cursory google search would demonstrate just how laser-like their perception of what is inferred by public figures can be when they choose to use it on someone they deem as an adversary rather than an ally. One might want to see how they just knew, unquestionably, that a certain Senate leader was referring to the segregationist past of another when he was praising an old man at his 100th birthday though mention of any specifics could be found in the comments.

It seems that all commentators tend to be nationalist/Ameri-centric or partisan when it fits them. In this case it does work both ways, but the defense of the UN’s Undersecratary’s statements seem a bit much.

Jennifer does bring up a good point: While the aftermath of a natural disaster leaves little for those who would give aid to do save throw money at the region and help clean up, the situation in Sudan is much different and presents many opportunities for all countries (not just the rich ones) to affect a positive outcome by possibly doing little more than uttering a few words of criticism. It would appear that certain member governments of the UN have been rather “stingy” with their words in the face of equally appalling though eminently preventable deaths in Dafur.

Before long the death tolls will be roughly equivalent. The UN could have done nothing to save the victims of one tragedy but could present a litany of options for preventing the second. To its detriment and further humiliation the organization has chosen the familiar path of ignoring that which should have been its priority months ago.

Josh,
I agree that transfering money to a relative overseas should not be considered charity, but I do not agree that only money sent from americans should be counted.

I've donated some to this tragedy (through Amazon) and even though I am not american I consider this donation to be american. I earn my living here, pay my taxes here, and so on. I am not sure I would be able to help other people otherwise.

Samuel

I think you miss the point of Jennifer’s comment by linking them solely to humanitarian aid and time constraints.

1) There is no food product that I know of that can save a refugee from marauding militia and/or government forces.

2) The deaths that may occur in the coming days due to delays in shipping food and medicine to South East Asia are as equally urgent and preventable as those who will perish in Dafur through want of stern words and a united front by the organization.

The deaths in SEA were almost entirely unavoidable…those in Dafur, by contrast, were almost entirely preventable.

Maybe, in the wake of Rwanda, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the UN could act PRO-actively rather than RE-actively.

***To be cynical: Considering that the United States has been one of if not the most vocal proponent of action concerning Dafur would it not have made sense for the UN to capitalize on that for positive effect in Dafur. After all, as the world learned in Iraq, if this US Presidents gets behind something and promises to act, with force if necessary, wouldn’t that have given considerable weight to and threat of action that might have been issued should the situation not be improved?...thereby increasing substantially the likelihood that force need not be used and a humanitarian disaster be averted almost entirely.

I wonder how accurate these numbers on private donations really are. Does it count all private donations even the ones to institutions inside their own country? Does it take into consideration huge donations like Bill Gate's and others?

Edward: yes, I see your point - you're right. Money given by residents should count as money given by America.

"Nor does it include the category of food aid, where the United States is the largest donor in the world..."

This has been an oft used quote for the last two days. I would suggest alittle research, rather than a simple parroting. A great deal of our food donations are excess foodstuffs that the govt has bought up in a sort of subsidy to various sectors of the US agricultural community. The US govt would be buying it anyway and conceivably be throwing it into landfills if we did not ship it abroad. Yes, it is still a donation, but let's have some perspective. I'll hunt for some good links on our strange food donation system.

On the Jen question,

When the state is the source of starvation and displacement, providing the victims with food and shelter can be a form of subsidy, enabling the regime to direct its resources to whatever corrupt and inhumane activity motivates it (probably weapons). Such a state must either be persuaded, dismantled or accepted.

The Times editorial blithely states. "According to a poll..."

Does anyone have any idea which poll they may be referring to?

Gerard;

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2001/03/sh0103.html

I'm no economist but - I am under the impression that over there they have this thing called the European Union? It's like a US of Europe without the White House and stuff? And that that group acts as a whole in some circumstances, so that the EU has donated X-beaucoup-euros in addition to the somewhat less x-euros donated by the member nations themselves?
Is this not a true thing? I do believe it is.
So that France say, could be said to have donated twice. As opposed to once and then revising upward. Which it seems to be polite to pretend was just a preliminary thing, though it seems also polite to pretend that the officials involved were so lame-brained as concerns p.r. and world opinion that they couldn't manage to say something like - "We are sending right now as fast as possible $15 million dollars, and as soon as need becomes clear we will send more, and it looks, unfortunately, as though it will be much more."
Or even more thrilling to native-born citizens of the US, the President could have said "Whatever it takes - we will do whatever it takes to help."
Even though it's not an economically precise thing to say it would have been very exciting to hear.

Bucky -- the country calculations regarding aid include contributions to multilateral aid agencies, such as the World Bank and the European Commission.

In other words, the aid rankings include European contributions to the EU's aid budget.

"Out of the 21 major donors, we're ninth -- hardly stingy, though not the most generous."

So the world's richest nation is the ninth largest donor and that's "hardly stingy"?

I am sorry, Drezner, but your line of reasoning does not make sense to me.

And with regard to the tsunami catastrophe, if thus far Spain and the U.K have donated $68 million and $96 million, respectively, is it not stingy from the U.S. to be contributing with $35 million?

Another fumble by the vacation president. I was watching Fox earlier, and they listed the contributions of other countries, and the commentator was too embarrassed to mention America's "generous 35 million", and just said we are donating a lot of other resources (which is true).

Although, someone finally decided to wake up over there in DC. Sending Jeb seems like the first good idea I've heard from republicanms since the election.

I'm counting, and Americans have donated $127 million so far. We don't need our government to take our money and decide what to do with it. We're quite capable of deciding what to do all on our own.

As for the things that our government can do that no amount of money given to the Red Cross cannot, how about this?

Conway said the Lincoln carrier strike group has 12 helicopters embarked that he said could be "extremely valuable" in recovery missions.

An additional 25 helicopters are aboard USS Bonhomme Richard, headed to the Bay of Bengal. Conway said the expeditionary strike group was in Guam and is forgoing port visits in Guam and Singapore and expects to arrive in the Bay of Bengal by Jan. 7.

Conway said the strike group, with its seven ships, 2,100 Marines and 1,400 sailors aboard, also has four Cobra helicopters that will be instrumented in reconnaissance efforts.

Because fresh water is one of the greatest needs in the region, Fargo has ordered seven ships — each capable of producing 90,000 gallons of fresh water a day — to the region. Conway said five of these ships are pre-positioned in Guam and two will come from Diego Garcia.

A field hospital ship pre-positioned in Guam would also be ordered to the region, depending on findings of the disaster relief assessment teams and need, Conway said.

Just to add to the data, I asked around to my Navy friends (I'm in the intel community but a civilian) and all of our back-of-envelope estimates say that the Lincoln task force is costing between $2 million and $3 million a day. so add another $15 to $20 million to the US toal so far.

Do these numbers break out the UN bills?

http://diplomadic.blogspot.com/2004/12/quakes-and-tsunamis-and-leftist-babble.html

Also, I will be happy to spend more American money on aid...once we have French soldiers replacing ours in South Korea, Japan, etc.

I have seen it said elsewhere the $35 million is all the US aid agency has left in its contingency budget. For it to spend more would require an act of Congress. If this is true, then the US government is doing all it can legally until Congress acts. I don't know when Congress is supposed to get back into session (complicated by our recent election) but political theater dictates they will do something soon after. The sticking point probably will be how long they get to tell the world how generous and wonderful they are ;).

Isn't our contribution via Uncle Sam in the end going to be around $1 billion?

And how much is the UN going to skim off the top, bottom and inbetween?

Bruce Bartlett's article had this, link via Instapundit:

...In the area of international aid, the official data also exclude private transfers such as remittances by foreign workers in the U.S. According to the Inter-American Development Bank, remittances to Latin America alone amounted to $38 billion in 2003--more than all official assistance combined. And $31 billion of that came from the U.S. In some countries, foreign remittances came to more than 10 percent of GDP, thus having a significant impact on economic growth and poverty alleviation....

And via Instapudit, Chuck Simmins, private/corp donations so far:

By my count, that right there is $107,000,000 U.S. dollars. From private sources. Don't forget, the people of the United States are the most generous people in the world. We don't expect our Government to spend our money for us. We take care of that ourselves.

Per capita or percentage of GDP breakdowns are only useful in my mind if charity was all about patting oneself on the back. "My $50 donation means more to me than Bill Gates' $1 million." type statements. Sure it may make you feel morally superior, but at the end of the day, raw dollars are really what counts to the people ACTUALLY affected. The fact that Norway tops out at 21 cents per capita is really nice if you're a Norwegian looking to feel good about yourself, but in terms of absolute results, does it really matter how the giver feels? Is that what charity and relief efforts are all about? Crowing about how you "gave till it hurt"?

$107.000.000, that's like $0.36 for every American... The Swedes on the other hand have donated $0.33 for every Swede _just_ to the Red Cross, and they still believe that their goverment should give aid.

And if you want to play the "most amount donated wins" game, I'll play the EU card and they US still loses....

Still stingy i guess...

Norway is a tiny nation of 4.5 million people with an incredible oversupply of hydroelectric power and oil reserves. It's a fine country, but it has so much spare cash and oil it really doesn't know what to do with it. How many nations are in such a position to donate to those in need?

I am sorry, but the report you link to is a JOKE. For example they (and you) claim that they "factor in private giving@. If you read the details they CLEARLY DO NOT! What the do is to look at tax incentives and estimate how much of the private aid is due to the state. If Americans are generous due to cultural reasons they simply do not count it as aid. This is statism in absurdum.

Furthermore, their estimate of private givings is hopelessly limited. They only count money given through certain NGOs, coming to the figure 5,7 billion for the US (almost twice the NGO-fueled private aid given by all other countries). But of that money they ultimately only count 0.9 million to US contributions.

If we take into account direct private aid sent directly to poor people (often from their family or countrymen, ) and total state aid (for some ridiculous idea they only count ODA) the correct figure is more like 60 billion USD in total aid. Or 215 dollars/year for every American.

This is more than most Europeans nations, and even comparable to Sweden ODA of 190 dollars/capita (Sweden gives very little in private aid, so this should be roughly comparable.)

Correction, they count 0.9 Billion, not million.

Sir,
After reading the background paper and the website referred I find your findings to be subjective in the extreme.

You use subjective determinants to adjust the score...such as Japan collecting interest on loans made and the US tying aid to third world nations to trade with the US.

Perhaps it would be more intellectually honest to rank them sans your subjective constraints and then rank them after.

Perhaps a better way of looking at things is that a gift is only truly a gift if it is given freely. Passive-Aggressive moaning might make people give more, but it is no less coercive than pointing a gun at someone's head.

Generally most people are offended at such tactics and at being deceived. IMO your exercise would be more effective if you stated "here is where we are in raw numbers, and here is where we are when we adjust the numbers because of these social values we believe in."

But no, it is far easier to hide one's agenda. Which is perhaps the greatest failing of the modern progressive movement.

In reading this site, and the background papers I am reminded of a bit of Orwell:
"To…Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders."

Stop being so damn clever and try a little forthrightness, you might be surprised at how far it will go.

Cheers,
QM

Frank Warner, I thought the US was the last superpower, the mightiest nation on the earth, lots of superrich companies. I thought they would be in a position to match Norway?

Still stingy i guess...

Is it too much to suggest that some criticisms simply be ignored?

I don't blame Jan Egeland, faced as he is with Darfur and Congo and now this unprecedented disaster, for needling rich countries to give more. More is going to be given, more by every country in the OECD; the discussion on amounts pledged so far doesn't mean anything, because the response of every government involved is being improvised as I write this. This really is a new situation.

Now, technically, one could say this means statistical measures of development aid are misleading. Development aid and disaster aid are not the same thing, generous development aid can be wasted, private charity should count and so on. But is this a discussion that needs to take place now?

The campaign is over. Not every criticism needs to be responded to before the current news cycle ends, especially when the critic isn't even an American. In large parts of the world 2004 will be remembered primarily for the tsunami disaster -- not Iraq, not our election or outsourcing or any of the other topics we argue about from time to time. This does not seem like the best time for looking in the mirror and arguing about how generous we look to ourselves. I would rather President Bush and Secretary Powell had not responded to Egeland's goad at all than put on a display of ill-timed indignation.

I disagree, Zathras, are you Zathras or your brother Zathras, BTW?

Spend time in Euro chat rooms and you're bound to be hit by our stinginess. W didn't bite his lip, the press went bonkers.

We are giving aid as a country. Nice try, tho.

How many carriers is Sweden sending?

Troops?

These sorts of comparisons are always very aggrevating because they assume that all goverments are created equally. When comparing the amount of public aid money given by a country, it makes much more sense to generate statistics relative to a countries total budget, rather than its GDP. For instance, Sweeden's GDP (according to the CIA world factbook) is $238.3 billion with total goverment revenue at $177.7 billion. The United States, on the other hand, has revenues of $1.78 trillion, though its GDP is just a shade under eleven trillion dollars. That means Sweeden has *75%* of its country's wealth to work with when doling out aid, while the United States has only 16%. And the world's top doner, Norway? 76%. No suprise then that these goverments are more generous with the total wealth of their respective countries; they control five times as much of it as the United States. Given that, (and that Norway is a more prosperous country than the United States) the only suprise is that Scandanavia does not give more.

Diplomad's not happy:

Do I really need to say anything more? "Only really the UN can do the job?" We have US C-130s flying in and out here dropping off heaps of supplies; US choppers arrive today; USAID is doing a knock-out job of marshalling and coordinating US and local resources to deliver real assistance to real people. The Aussies have planes and troops delivering stuff; even the Indians have goods on the way. The UN? Nowhere to be seen. OK, I'm not being fair. Last night they played host to a big "coordination" meeting of donors to announce that the UNDP has another large "assessment and coordination team" team arriving. Our USAID guys, who've been working 18-20 hrs/day, came back furious from this meeting saying everybody would be dead if the delivery of aid waited for the UN to set up shop and begin "coordinating." The UN types are upset with the US, Ms. Short, dear, not because we're undermining them but because we're showing them up as totally inept.

Something stingy,

The United States certainly is not the last superpower. China will be the next one, as soon as it frees itself.

No American pretends the United States has more oil than it uses, and it doesn't take a mathematical wizard to figure out that the United States has to pay for the oil it imports -- even the Iraqi oil. Norway doesn't have that expense to concern itself with, so it has extra cash to make donations -- impressive for Norway's size, but still tiny compared to what the United States contributes to the world's needy.

America's principal gift to the world is in promoting the spread of freedom and democracy. Everywhere the United States protects a democracy or frees a nation from dictatorship, that nation benefits in life, liberty and prosperity.

And this may come as a surprise to you: As more of the world is freed, the United States' share of the world economy shrinks. The U.S. intentionally becomes less a super power. More money flows out of the U.S. than comes back in.

Americans accept that trade-off because we know the world is likely to be more peaceful and economies are more likely to expand in freedom. Americans are also convinced that, in freedom, all people will have more fun.

No other nation has freed as many other nations as the United States. Even on a per capita basis, no other nation comes close. Stingy?

Given that the Norwegians and the rest of the EU get a free ride on the US's defense budget, perhaps some percentage of the US defense budget should be added to the US charity total.

Don't forget prescription drugs.

Two other sets of figures that seem to be useful... Lets consider (1) The ratio of our relief to our personal GDP

. see: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=100&v=67

then I estimate that 11 other countries pay more relief per $ of personal GDP and thus the the US is 12-th not 9-th.

The other number is the yearly expense. our Relief is about $8.54/year/person, or about 0.02% of a persons income. (Note: Not 2%, BUT $2 out of $1,0000)

The ordering of the countries, by Relief/(Personal GDP) is:

01 Norway
02 Sweden
03 Denmark
04 Netherlands
05 Switzerland
06 Belgium
07 United_Kingdom
08 Finland
09 France
10 Canada
11 Australia
12 United_States
13 Ireland
14 New_Zealand
15 Austria
16 Spain
17 Germany
18 Italy
19 Greece
20 Japan
21 Portugal

Given that the Norwegians and the rest of the EU get a free ride on the US's defense budget, perhaps some percentage of the US defense budget should be added to the US charity total.
posted by: Tom Love on 12.31.04 at 01:50 AM [permalink]

Don't forget prescription drugs.
posted by: Sandy P on 12.31.04 at 02:32 AM [permalink

Tom-

Charity involves giving and not expecting anything in return. Our large military hardly fits under the defintion of charity. We get a lot back by defending Europe and keeping them relatively unarmed. I think a large military commitment is great, because my country gets substantial benefits. Oh, and Norway is NOT in the EU.

Sandy-

Wow. A nation with a powerful druge lobby which lets drug compaines get away with 18% profit margins ain't doing charity work.

Markets suck when it comes to perscription drugs, because people won't say no if they're sick or can't get an erection. However, markets are wonderful for consumer electronics! People are able to say no to an MP3 player.

Mark Buehner-

Please explain how an SUV causes an earthquake?

Not commenting re "stinginess" or otherwise. Just the heartwarming news that so far (11am local time UK Dec 31st) the British public (not the government) has donated some 32million GB Pounds (almost 62 million US Dollars) for SE Asia disaster relief, and that figure rises hourly.

Let's hope the aid it can buy reaches as far as possible as soon as possible.

John

It really annoys me to see money coerced from taxpayers described as "giving". It's not it's taking!

The only charity that counts is personal charity. The state should only be taking/spending money to help it's own citizens. So some state aid is nescessary for the states self interest, but private donations indicate the real level of compassion.

Also remember that unless the allficted are weened of Aid it destroys their self reliance, and also destroys markets, as all the food aid displaces local farmers causing more problems! I'd ask you NOT to give, but to INVEST in the tsunami affected areas. It will work out better for both parties.

Without the 18% profit margin on succesful drugs, there wouldn't be any drugs for your stiffy problem Drew.

Is this the official soft-left viewpoint?

There is no such thing as real altruism in charity. The left loves to try to thread that needle, of course it seems to fly right over their heads when they try to make that claim and beat their chests about how much they have given while accussing others of not giving their
"fair" share.

The New York Times should be wiped out from this earth. What a bunch of morons! And, by the way, my money is mine, nobody else's.

Somehting like 80 million in private aid has been raised thusfar... all without the prompting of the government. I've got the story links on my blog.

So, let's add that figure to what the government is doing both inside and outside of the UN, and re-calculate our arguments.

It's sorta funny how the free and somewhat-less-free Western nations fall all over themselves comparing who gives the most.

The real answer? The West gives the most, because it is able to do so. Why? Because their nations are in fact free, and have the robust economies of free nations. Not to mention a humanitarian ethic still prevalent across the West.

So how much has Osama given to his Muslim brothers? How much has been diverted from the Sauds and Arabist nations financing death and destruction against the West to help their co-believers?

Who gives the most? The West. Too bad Susan Sontag is dead. Maybe she might pen a polemic about how the West is responsible for the tsunami in the first place. Perhaps Chomsky can pinch hit for her.

I agree with Mr. Read.
I'm numb to the statistical arguments about who's more giving. Don't care.

Mr. Egeland's statements (and the analysis of) do nothing except irritate and marginalize loving and giving people in a moment of unbelievable devastation. Creating an instinctive balk toward giving to the indignant. Aid aid aid seems to = hate hate hate... The unbelievably political use the data pertaining to this horrendous event to skew to a policy end.

I saw the pictures of children stretched out. I could "see" my child in that disaster. I could see kids at Stinson Beach in California stretched out. Does it really matter how much $ was giving by who and when? I think it matters more how much water got to who and when.

I happened to catch a report on our local station last night talking about travel companies donating their services to get private citizens to the disaster area.

It occurred to me (I have a singular slow wit) there are dozens of industries that will be impacted by this disaster. Their vested interest in getting the area back up to running order could be used as a catalyst for helping the area with uncountable benefits for all parties.

These companies local presence make them the best long-term aid providers. Help get water and food now, but invest in those local and international companies that have direct impact like the travel industry.

I don't like the use of the State's cash for the simple fact that (for whatever initial prompting) it becomes a political statement that apparently does not help the US's geopolitical position no matter how much money we give somebody gets mad because we did not give more...

Kindest Regards

Uh, all you have to do is compare the $12 billion in aid Bush requested for Florida after the hurricanes...

Josh Yelon -- the reason for the confusion over including foreign remittentance and private donatation to foreign charities is that in the balance of payments data -- where one would go to find such info-- the 2 items are combined into one line item.
I'm sure one could call the dept of commerce and find the right expert to get the breakout of the data if you were reaqlly interested.

C.S.Froning-- you are right that we are the largest donor of food aid, but the young ladies' comments that we do this to get rid of surplus commodities is right. Moreover, this is an area where it is especially difficult to take the data at face value. Just as happens with regulators, programs developed for one reason end up being used for other reasons. In the early 1970s I worked as an international economist at the department of Ag.
One of my various responsibilites was setting the terms for PL480 -- food aid -- loans. What I found out that is that much of the food aid was really being used to support other US programs. For example,at that time the largest receipents of food aid were Vietnam and Israel. But one of my biggest suprises was when I found I had to do an a write up for Iceland. It seems that one of the ways we compensated Iceland for the US Air Force base there was by selling them food on the never-never.

All of you on the right should really pay attention to what is being done in your name.

The Ann Rand Association says that
the US govt should not be helping the
Tsunami victims. According to them
"private aid may be entirely proper, especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are
suffering through no fault of their own."

I wonder what the Rand people believe the less than 50% --not the most --of those poor people who are suffering because it is their own fault did to bring on this tragedy.

Spencer: Just FYI, I was quoting the Washington Times. Those were not my words.

While $35 million dollars is disproportionately small against the scale of the tragedy it was meant for, I think a generosity index should not be based on a GDP to aid ratio. A net income to aid ratio might be a truer indicator of a country's generosity. I am not sure how accurate a side-by-side comparison of national aids can be in determining generosity without at least a corresponding side-by-side comparison of national debts. I can easily imagine someone from rural Oklahoma having more money to spare than someone from metro NY even though a New Yorker earns more money than an Oklahoman on average.

I think the US should give more, and I think it will. The US always has. It has a great PR opportunity right now if it plays it right.

Nevertheless, it makes me uncomfortable when I hear "the US should take a leading role...". The US should not take a leading role in anything except its own affairs. The US does not have an inherent right in taking leadership in changing other peoples' lives. It's sometimes great when the US leads, especially in charity, but we should all stop thinking that America is our leader. And Americans should stop thinking that they must lead.

All this bullshit about "giving per GNP" is just that bullshit. If you want to attach a moral component to giving fine....ie the "widows mite" But the cold hard fact is this:

If I can only give a dollar because it is all I have, fine. I have given my hearts worth, but the fact remains my dollar doesn't buy shit. It is my dollar coupled with Bill Gates's dollars (substitute US, or whomever you feel like) that saves lives.

My single dollar won't buy a pot to piss in.

All this GNP bullshit is just to make countries like Denmark feel better about the level of their giving.

Those who can do.....those who can not bitch, whine, and I suspect write letters to the SMH about how the US is not stepping up to the plate.

For the past umpty-up years we have heard about how the US needs to stay out of other countries business. Until they need our cash that is...

We will step up to the plate and then some.....take what we have given freely to you, and try to find a modicum of gratitude.

The original rational for US aid was that it was to our self interest to provide aid as an instrument of the cold war competition with the Soviets. It was a significant weapon in the cold war battle. Moreover, it is also a major subsidy for US exports.

Maybe a prime example of this would be the Aswan dam in Egypt. The primary reason the US financed the construction of that dam was to counter Soviet influence in Egypt.

After the Cold War it was allowed to languish.

If the War on Terror is now suppose to take on a battle similiar to the Cold War a rational for
Aid similiar to that used in the cold war should be developed.

I am amazed that the right wing is opposed to Aid
when you look at it in this perspective.

Here are the numbers Drezner gives adjusted for % of GDP in a government's budget.

Here's what they mean: We're actually pretty generous in terms of government aid, given the scope of our government. In fact, Norway's the only country that has much room to criticize us. However, those making arguments like "Europe is socialist, they think the only way to give is through the government" are missing a pretty important angle, to wit: We're 3rd in aid adjusted for proportion of GDP controlled by government. We're 19th in aid adjusted to include private giving instead of adjusting for proportion of GDP controlled by government.

The market (that is, private giving) isn't keeping up because of folks like Luis Puig.

That isn't at all to detract from the heroism of the people helping with tsunami relief - you should all go to one of these sites and help out. But Mr. Drezner is contributing to a useful, informed, fact-based dialogue about the quality of the US' global citizenship. It's the sort of thing that people who care about living in a good society should do.

Sorry, one link was apparently broken. Here are the adjusted stats, derived from economic information on the CIA World Factbook (e.g., Norway has 76% of its GDP in government revenues, the United States 16, so Norway's giving number on Drezner's original list would be divided by 4.625 to get the giving index on this page).

US Govt up aid to $350M

/TJ
NIF

This is an another interesting but myopic worldwide bickering session. Aid is flowing in large amounts, and will continue to do so....good. The west is generous. The UN and Kofi will be at the fore, because it's a prime PR opportunity that will direct attention away from the scrutiny of itself, (and it will work, too, because it's a soundbite-driven world out there, with a nanosecond attention span). Meanwhile, the real (unasked) question, or problem, to me anyway, is China. Where the hell are they? Hiding, that's where. Like they do when it comes to Darfur, IP pirating, NK, or anything else. Yep, they are already a economic superpower. But they constantly play the "third world" card at times like these. They can throw a million people and billions of dollars to build a new stadium, highway or dam, in 6 months or less. But they won't even take the humanitarian lead in their own region, unless they get something profoundly strategic in return. The bickering over "superpower US does this wrong and does that wrong" is funny. When China hits it's stride in about 10 more years, the world is REALLY going to have something to complain about. It won't be pretty. There is no end to the depths of the dark, cynical ill-intent woven into the massive monster that is the Chinese government. Here we are seeing a small but ever-telling example. Bicker on.

Put away your statistics and bar-charts for Pete's sake. What stuck in the craw for many people was the fact that Bush carried on cycling around his farm while this disaster was unfolding and when aid was eventually promised it amounted to about what the US spends in about 5 hours in Iraq. The real point here was the complete political ineptitude of your president in the face of a huge international crisis (not that his muppet Blair faired much better) which was compounded by mentioning a figure for aid which was just twice what Amazon has raised in 48 hours. Stingy? Yes I think it was a justified response to events as they were then, even if the US ends up contributing a substantial portion of overall aid. You can only respond to events as they happen. If Powell et al didn't like the response perhaps they should have thought more carefully about what they said in the first place. I think it's called Statesmanship, a word clearly not in Bush's vocabulary.

So Mike, I get it. What you are saying is that appearances are far more important that the issue itself in debate, or the people in need, or the actions taken to deal with the problem, or the end result.

Right.

I think what all this basically boils down to is neither that the is stingy or that the US is an empire. It's that the US isn't an empire when it's critics want it it to be, an it's an empire when it doesn't want it to be.

It' New Year's eve and I don't have the time to look at the figures, but my gut instinct tells me that the US probably has the largest national debt among all the major donors. Shouldn't a generosity index take into account what the donors give after substracting national debt service from the GDP?

At any rate $35 million is as clearly insufficient as criticizing Bush is grandstanding. I feel confident that the $35 millions isn't going to be the last the Americans will give. In fact, it's up to $350 million now. Unfortunately, I can't say I have the same confidence in those who are desperately seeking an anti-Bush angle to all this. Any legitimate criticism left is either premature or will be eventually disproved by American action. Everything else seems insincere and pure political grandstanding.

Zuma -- you made a very interesting point that the US should not take a leading role in anything except its own interest.

Does this mean you are extremely opposed to the US war in Iraq?

Jennifer,

Regarding the Sudan vs. Tsunami thing, I think it's pretty self-evident.

Sudan is an ongoing problem, caused by humans, including the government. The tsunami is over and done with.

It's much more difficult to help people in an ongoing situation like Darfur. The government and the rebels are likely to interfere with any aid, and are likely to start the strife up all over again, essentially destroying whatever progress your aid has made possible.

Helping regions wiped out by a natural disaster is comparatively simple and more productive.

The people of Darfur are kind of like the internal organs of a homeless alcoholic junkie. You can try to help his liver by giving him money, but he might just spend it on booze which hurts the liver. You can put him in rehab, but maybe he'll just walk out and fall off the wagon.

The tsunami-damaged regions of South Asia are like the broken leg of a rational person who slipped on ice. It's much easier to help in that case.

The leadership of the factions involved in Sudan play the role of the alcoholic's brain. They're not necessarily on your side, and don't share your goals or values. They're as likely to stymie your efforts to provide aid as to support them.

That's not the case in South Asia, except perhaps in Burma.

Under the circumstances, it's entirely reasonable for more support to be going to South Asia. Unfortunate, but reasonable.

The original US pledge of $15 million (and even the later $35 million) looked rather bad in comparison to the $40+ million being spent on parties for the inaugural.

Even though the inaugural is largely privately funded, it still looks decadent, a capitalist orgy of access-buyers, especially in comparison to the loss and poverty after the tsunami.

Jon H. —
Google around for "tard guilt." There's no winning this one unless you wish us all to wear sackcloth and ashes or maybe just disappear as a nation off the earth. There's no appeasing those who will use the deaths of thousands in this tragedy for political gain.

Spencer,
The right wing is not "...opposed to aid." Your own posting said
"The Ann Rand Association [not the RIGHT] says that
the US govt should not be helping the
Tsunami victims."

Going from US govt aid to "... opposed to aid." is quite a jump. The ARA were against the government providing aid not aid en toto. And I think it is safe to say the ARA is the sole representative of the Right.

Please.

For spinning your own statement Left I give you a 10. For Credibility you get a 0.

Mike,

Where did you see this information on riding a bike?

Let's take a trip back to 9/11/2000 where the first reports (if I remember correctly) were that nearly 30K victims estimated. Some days later, this number was reduced, reduced and reduced finally landing somewhere near 3k. 1/10th the original ESTIMATE. The word is ESTIMATE.

Your the President, you hear 23k are ESTIMATED Dead... Your people come up with a financial number, militiary resources and actions and you go with them.

Your beating the guy up and making a politically charged set of statements without context.

How about, impossible to know the direction and magnitude accurately and making your best guess?

Factor in:
The number of ESTIMATED dead has increased 5X in 6 days and the amount the President has authorized is 10X the original.

These tactics of defame and malign do not help your credibility either.

Jon H,
Where do you get your numbers for the inagural parties?

What were those values for Clinton, Reagan and Carter?

Why is it important to associate decadence with this President, now?

Also on a good note: a representative of charitynavigator.org noted in a radio interview today that nearly $50M had been ponied up by American citizens.

Regards,

What's wrong with capitalist orgies? The world would be a safer, richer, more equal, self-policing, productive if all countries held them regularly, and espoused all that they symbolize. It's a great distraction from, and natural predator of, self-pity, religious fanaticsm/facism, racism, theoretical utopianism. Those focused on capitalistic pursuits generally have no time for or interest in such destructive ideas.

Darfur: It's pure crap to level that metaphor at the people themselves. The "alcoholic" is the government who systematically encourages/authorizes/funds their oppression and demise. You made an excuse for ignoring the problem on the basis of difficulty in confronting it, especially considering that there is no big PR win. Wait.... do you work for the UN? One thing I do agree about is that you can't give aid to a government like that who will misuse it against those who it was intended for.

Jennifer,
I suppose I would agree with most of the statements.

I like the analogy of the drunk that Jon H uses. But I would add that this drunk could turn on you and maim / kill you too.

I would also add that this is no broken leg. The Samaritan stopped and helped a chap, bloody, unconscious, near death. He did not stop for a guy with a sign "will work for food."

This event is literally 135k people bloody, dead, on the side of the road with more to come.

The analogy is Samaritan vs. Intervention. It is a lot easier for the population and the media to get behind the Samaritan.

Regards,

Please give a reference to your comments about private giving. As I understand it the roughly 34 billion dollars given by private charities for foreign aid from Americans dwarfs worldwide giving.

"Re: the command by: arctic fox "

I have not been able to track down a "Private Charity" link, except the confusing one pointed to by the original article, and would appriciate having one also, but...

If the $34b figure is correct, then this is 0.3% of our $11,000b GDP, or about $150.00/year/person,

How would you determine if this is High, About right, or too Low?

Jennifer,
I suppose I would agree with most of the statements regarding Darfur vs Tsunami victim nations.

I like the analogy of the drunk that Jon H uses. But I would add that this drunk could turn on you, maim & kill you too.

I would also add that this is no broken leg. The Samaritan stopped and helped a chap, bloody, unconscious, near death. He did not stop for a guy with a sign "will work for food."

This event is literally 135k people bloody, dead, on the side of the road with more to come.

The analogy is Samaritan vs. Intervention. It is a lot easier for the population and the media to get behind the Samaritan.

Regards,

Spencer:

The original rational for US aid was that it was to our self interest to provide aid as an instrument of the cold war competition with the Soviets.

You are, of course, refering to Hoover's cold war work in getting food aid to Europe after WWI and later to the USSR after the Civil War, no?

OK,
Sorry about the repeats. No excuses.

Artic Fox,
References for American Private Citizens giving:
www.kcpw.org
"Advice for Donating to Tsunami Relief Efforts
NPR's Madeleine Brand talks to Trent Stamp, executive director of Charity Navigator."

Audio file at approximately 4:10 minutes Mr. Stamp indicates American citizens have given $50 million. I listened to it twice.

Hope this helps.

Look, the simple fact is, the US will head the disaster relief (just as we always do) and front the most cash to get the job done (just like we always do). Old George did the right thing in establishing his own "coalition of the willing" to aid the affected regions because god knows what would happen if we let the UN take control. The US is still the light of the world even if those smelly europeans choose to close their eyes and feign ignorance. This anti-american garbage is well over-done and I would not be atall suprised to see a major backlash in 10-20 years... call it anti-anti-americanism.

############################
Shawn...By asking all those questions you make
it sound like your living in a cave. Pay attention
to what's going on...
----------------------------
Hahaha...JoeJoe you are so funny...
-----------------------------
Overall view:

Was the U.S. seen as stingy? Yes.
Is it being corrected? Yes.
Did Georgei boy do anything right immediately
after the diaster? No.
Is he learning what he should have done. Yes.

Actually, This is what georgie should have
done if he knew anything about leadership:

1) Make a public remark 24 hours after the
diaster.
2) Indicate that the U.S. is ready to use
it's economic and military might to the
degree necessary to help any victims of
the diaster.
3) That it is in contact with the UN.

Thats it. That would have stopped all
criticisms. Notice that not one dollar amount
is mentioned. At this point it's not really
required. BUT...If after 24 hours a country
had given a dollar amount, then the U.S. could
think about mentioning an amount far beyond
anything out there. This gives the impression
that the U.S. is on top of things, (even when
it may not be).

The reason georgie failed to do this, and there
by exposing himself and the U.S. to criticism,
is his lack of leadership ability. georgie simply
doesn't know what to do next or preceive that
he has an opportunity to do anything. He is
unable to 'take-the-bull-by-the-horn' at the
beginning of any event. He is alway behind
the curve; always playing catch up. That's just
the way he is. Nothing you can do about it.
But it produces an inferior leader.

At any rate the PR damage is done; The world
aid will slowly get there and the world will
move on.

Happy News Years folks!
#########################

I think the "coalition of the giving" is a little lopsided. Where is the "multilateral support" that my mother read to me about at bedtime?

"This event is easy for scientists to explain, but very hard for
theologians to explain," said a Jewish rabbi. "God has knowledge, and
God controls the universe, but the question is: 'To what extent?' "

The tsunami may be part of a huge divine plan humans are too frail to
understand, said an Islamic preacher. "We can't fathom the wisdom of
the creator," he said. "We have to bring out the positive humanity in
all of us and try to help instead of questioning the scheme of
things."

The world has been an imperfect place since Adam and Eve betrayed God
and were forced out of the Garden of Eden, said a Christian pastor.
So tsunamis happen, people get cancer, accidents occur. "The hardest
thing for all of us to live with is the suffering that goes on in the
world. These are forces of nature that happen, and we accept them in
our lives. The Christian reaction should be, 'How do I use this to
return to the Lord and rectify my life?' "

Hindu and Buddhist philosophies are more accepting of the potential of
natural disaster than are Jeiwsh, Christian or Moslem theologies.

"There are things that are going to happen that are not going to be so
pleasant, but that is just part of totality," said a Hindu teacher.
"We pray in these sad events to console the departed soul and the
families and hope that the next journey will be more pleasant than
this one."

The leader of a Buddhist Association said:
"We will pray and chant for the people who are suffering and for those
who have died." She said the disaster reinforces the Buddhist
philosophy that nothing is permanent.

"These are forces of nature that happen, and we accept them in our
lives," he said. "The Christian reaction should be, 'How do I use this
to return to rectify my life?' "

My 0.02 cents worth is the irony of it all.
The statistics, the numbers game and the arrogant attitude of those with either their hands out for aid, or those who stand on the wayside and judge.
Who cares about how much each entity or group gives.
The real message is, someone still cares!
The private sector of charity is still the most functional and effective in the long run.

Hello?

I could give a rat's batooty where it comes from,
just that it's there and helps.
These people or groups that live to do nothing but harp need to get a real life.

And that's my 2 cents worth.

The fact that the United States of America has been babysitting these EU countries for the past 50 years accounts for the fact these said countries have more to give in aid. As they do not have to invest heavily into military expenses because of 'big brother' doing the investing for them.
I would not say in doing such comparisons then, that you're dealing on a level playing field in this respect.
When the EU begins to draw their tax monies into accounts for military expenses, lets see then how the charity expenditures add up.
Once again, it is not the amount that is being sent but the intent behind it in helping those in need that is important.
Feeling good is a reward for doing the right thing for the right purpose, not for blowing ones own horn about it.

This was brought up a while ago but it bears repeating - WHERE IS THE RESPONSE FROM CHINA?!?!?!?

Why are they getting a bye on this issue in the worldwide media while everyone wants to obsess over where Bush spent the weekend? They should be kicking in $100M in aid due to the size of their economy.

BTW - does anyone know where Kofi "self righteous" Annan spent his week? Was he slaving away at the UN offices coordinating the response? I'll bet not!

The real problem is that $15 million isn't a donation, it's an insult. It's like saying, "Aw, your mom was dragged out to sea? Poor kid, here, have a nickel. Now quit bugging me."

This isn't about comparing percentage of GDP and private giving and gross national income and yada yada. This is about an offer that was so miserly that it would have been comical if it hadn't been so depressing.

Alliturken writes: " It's pure crap to level that metaphor at the people themselves. The "alcoholic" is the government who systematically encourages/authorizes/funds their oppression and demise."

That was exactly what I *was* saying. The government and other authorities in power in Sudan are the brain, or controlling faculties, of the "person". The people of Darfur who are suffering are like the liver and other organs being damaged by the person's self-abuse. An alcoholic's liver can't keep itself from being damaged. It's a hostage, like the people of Darfur are hostages.

It's not a perfect analogy, because alcoholics usually aren't drinking intentionally to kill *their liver*.

The point of the analogy was to show that the people of Darfur are hostage to controlling wills who are not acting in the nation's self-interest and can interfere with efforts to help Darfur, much as an alcoholic or addict will often behave in ways that interfere with efforts to save their life. No matter how hard you try to save the person before they drink themselves to death, the person is the one who determines whether you're wasting your time.

"Jon H,
Where do you get your numbers for the inagural parties?"

It's been in the news.

"The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs. "
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6717767/

"What were those values for Clinton, Reagan and Carter?"

Dunno about Reagan and Carter, but:

"Bush's first inauguration cost about $40 million. President Bill Clinton's second inauguration cost $29.6 million."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23280-2004Dec23.html

"Why is it important to associate decadence with this President, now?"

Because his just happens to be coming up a few weeks after a massive disaster.

I address the Old Media falshoods about the $35 million here.

I look at public aid to foreign countries and private charity in a response to one of my commenters here.

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