Yet another reason to tell the UN to fuck itself

[ZanypherCocoapuffs]

This thread is rife with partisan PMS.

[Chants Evensong]

Here are Jan Egeland's from the relevant press conference:

[40:40] Blond Woman Reporter: "When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy that were giving less are you prepared to name them?


JE: "No.. er... ah....I would say that ..er....I'd rather say that it is remarkable that we may, we have ...um...no country up to the 1%...um..line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three ....um...Scandinavians that have exceeded, and Holland, the 0.7% line of cross national income for assistance...em....We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why we are. Why are we [wealthy nations] so stingy really? When we are ...and even at Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least, how rich we have become and if actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2% [the US is one of these countries] of their gross national income. I think that is stingy really, I don't think that is very generous.... And I have an additional point. Politicians do not understand their own populations, because all the populations, in the United States, in the European Union, in Norway which is number one in the world, we want to give more as...as voters as taxpayers. People say we should give what we give now or more. Politicians [?? upon ??] their belief that they are really burdening the taxpayers to much and the taxpayer wants to give less, that's not true. They want to give more."

In short, Jan Egeland called countries who donate at the 1-2 % GDP mark stingy. The US government donates at this mark. Therefore, he called the US stingy.

A little history is in order. Back in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Brazil, the industrialized nations attending agreed to donate 7% of thier GDP to foriegn aid. This aid was to be funneled through the UN. Only a few of these nations have ever reached that mark. This has irked the UN. The US has usually been at the bottom. This has particularly irked the UN. Every year or so, UN criticism of US foriegn aid makes a headline. Jan Egeland's comments constitutes one of those times.

It is important to note that the UN includes donations only donations from governments, not private donation, when calculating thier percentages. Why they exclude private donations is unclear. The only explanation I have read argued that private donations are "a privilege," a "band-aid, quick-fix" measure because they are essentially too small. This explanation did not acknowledge any figures related to private donations.

This explanation is not logical. Private donations from Americans is, by any real measurement, huge. It is 40 billion dollars a year, four times more than what the US government donates. To add even more perspective, the US Government donate more money than any other nation in raw dollars. Obviously, 40 billion is not too small. American private donations are a massive chunk of all foriegn aid world wide.

For wahtever reason, the UN does not include food aid in calculating it's percentages. I do not know why this is. They should. The US provides 57% of food aid world wide.

So from Jan Egeland's perspective, the US is stingy. But his perspective is quite arbitrary because the numbers he uses to arrive at his conclusion are arbitrarily derived. That is why Jan Egeland's comments are out of line.

[Relbeek Einre]

Then Egeland was out of line.

That said, even with your corrected numbers, Chants, this is an extraordinary disaster - the worst in nearly a century - and it should be met with an extraordinary level of assistance. Though I think Egeland was out of line to say it, should wer prove to be as milquetoast in the long-term as we have in the short-term, "stingy" is not inaccurate.

Oh, and since the UN is the body most capable of helping bring relief to these disaster-ravaged nations, I think trying to cut them down now is at least as inappropriate, if not far worse.

If you want to beat the drum of trashing the UN, fine - do it when the crisis has passed. Even the most virulent Bush-haters amongst us shut up and got in line in the wake of 9/11, because it was the right thing to do. Even in the face of some Bushies politicizing it by blaming Clinton or accusing peace protesters of being terrorist sympathizers. This disaster is more than 20 times worse. And the righties, much to their disgrace, can't shut up with their drum-beating now.

[Eidolon Faer]

Actually, Chants, it may be cynical of me but it certainly fits with what I've seen of the UN in other venues:

The reason the UN doesn't count private charities doing direct foreign aid, but ONLY government foreign aid funneled through its' own agencies is simple. If the money never goes to the UN, the UN cannot skim off the top, and we can't be allowed to encourage a lack of corruption and kickbacks. That wouldn't be right.

Since we seem to have a consensus that Egeland was out of line, I'm forced to wonder if Egeland's agenda is less about charity than it is about power. After all, with what's been coming to light about Iraq's humanitarian efforts, no truly caring, well-meaning, charitable individual would tolerate the graft in that program for an instant. The Iraqis were eating cattle feed for cripes sake, while the Secretary General and his relatives were pocketing millions.

[Eidolon Faer]

Oh, and since the UN is the body most capable of helping bring relief to these disaster-ravaged nations, I think trying to cut them down now is at least as inappropriate, if not far worse.

If you want to beat the drum of trashing the UN, fine - do it when the crisis has passed. Even the most virulent Bush-haters amongst us shut up and got in line in the wake of 9/11, because it was the right thing to do. Even in the face of some Bushies politicizing it by blaming Clinton or accusing peace protesters of being terrorist sympathizers.

I just felt like quoting that part for no reason. Don't mind me, I've had a stressful day.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think Senator Kennedy has it right. We should all follow his lead. With his personal fortune backing his actions, Senator Kennedy actually stood in line... STOOD IN LINE... to sign a condolence book.

Wow.

[Relbeek Einre]

Interesting implications, Embar.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Interesting in that the Defender of the Defenseless can only sign a book... instead of signing a check?

[Relbeek Einre]

Interesting you presume that doing one precludes doing the other.

[Chants Evensong]

Though I think Egeland was out of line to say it, should we prove to be as milquetoast in the long-term as we have in the short-term, "stingy" is not inaccurate.

I think that the US response has been robust so far. Once Kofi returns from holiday tomorrow, I am sure the UN response will be robust as well.

[Relbeek Einre]

The UN response already has been, and I do not agree with you about the US's response.

[Hupe Likethisbig]

For once I totally agree with Cronic, et al!

we shouldn’t be giving away any more of our precious greenbacks to those ungrateful bastards whom, needless to say, brought that tsunami down onto themselves! We've got to withdraw our ambassadors and close our boarders! After all--the US doesn’t depend on any other countries for our prosperity; least of all Asian countries with low wage workers--so who cares what the world thinks!

And I agree with Relbeek that this is a great opportunity-- not to regain political capital (Bush already has lots since he got a mandate from all Americans: see election 2004)--but in fact a great opportunity to go on the offensive! Detonate a few nuclear bombs on the ocean floor and trigger some more tidal waves!!! I mean seriously folks, there's a lot of Muslims in Indonesia, this could mean a serious step forward in the war against terrorism.

Tsunami Relief: Where to Give

NPR.org, December 29, 2004 · Below is a list of aid agencies collecting donations for the victims of the deadly tsunami that struck southern Asia:

Network for Good

Donate to multiple organizations online.

* http://www.networkforgood.org




Action Against Hunger

247 West 37th Street, Suite 1201
New York, N.Y. 10018
212-967-7800 x108

* http://www.actionagainsthunger.org




AJJDC

American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
South Asia Tsunami Relief
Box 321
847A Second Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10017
212-687-6200 ext. 851

* http://www.jdc.org




AmeriCares

88 Hamilton Ave
Stamford, CT 06902
800-486-4357

* http://www.americares.org




American Jewish World Service

45 West 36th Street, 10th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10018
800-889-7146

* http://www.ajws.org




American Friends Service Commi

AFSC Crisis Fund
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19102
215-241-7000

* http://www.afsc.org




American Red Cross

International Response Fund
P.O. Box 37243
Washington, D.C. 20013
800-HELP NOW

* http://www.redcross.org




Catholic Relief Services

Tsunami Emergency
P.O. Box 17090
Baltimore, Md. 21203-7090
800-736-3467

* http://www.catholicrelief.org




Direct Relief International

27 South La Patera Lane
Santa Barbara, Calif. 93117
805-964-4767

* http://www.directrelief.org




Doctors Without Borders

P.O. Box 1856
Merrifield, Va. 22116-8056
888-392-0392

* http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org




Food for the Hungry, Inc.

Food for the Hungry
Asia Quake Relief
1224 E. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85034
800-2-HUNGERS

* http://www.fh.org




International Medical Corps

Earthquake/Tsunami Relief
1919 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 300
Santa Monica, Calif. 90404
800-481-4462

* http://www.imcworldwide.org




Islamic Relief USA

Southeast Asia Earthquake Emergency
P.O. Box 6098
Burbank, Calif. 91510
888-479-4968

* http://www.irw.org/asiaquak




Lutheran World Relief

South Asia Tsunami
PO Box 17061
Baltimore, MD 21298-9832
800-LWR-LWR-2 (800-597-5972)

* http://www.lwr.org




Mercy Corps

Southeast Asia Earthquake Response
Dept. W
P.O. Box 2669
Portland, Ore. 97208
800-852-2100

* http://www.mercycorps.org




Operation USA

8320 Melrose Avenue, Suite 200 Los Angles, Calif. 90069
800-678-7255

* http://www.opusa.org




Oxfam America

Asian Earthquake Fund
PO Box 1211
Albert Lea, MN 56007-1211
800-77-OXFAM

* http://www.oxfamamerica.org




Save The Children

Asia Earthquake/Tidal Wave Relief Fund
54 Wilton Road
Westport, Conn. 06880
800-728-3843

* http://www.savethechildren.org




US Fund for UNICEF

General Emergency Fund
333 E. 38th Street
New York, NY 10016
800-4-UNICEF

* http://www.unicefusa.org




Stop Hunger Now

SE Asia crisis
2501 Clark Ave, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27607
888-501-8440

* http://www.stophungernow.org




World Vision

P.O. Box 70288
Tacoma, WA 98481-0288
888-56-CHILD

* http://www.worldvision.org




World Concern

Asia Earthquake and Tsunami
19303 Fremont Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
800-755-5022

* http://www.worldconcern.org




World Emergency Relief

2270-D Camino Vida Roble
Carlsbad, CA 92009
760-930-8001

* http://www.worldemergencyrelief.org

[Embar Angylwrath]

Interesting you presume that doing one precludes doing the other.

Got any evidence that Kennedy has done any more than sign a condolence book? And who's gonna read that book anyway? Think the symbolism is gonna feed people... get them water... pay for medical supplies?

Are you presuming Kenndey has done more than make a public appearance?

[Relbeek Einre]

The Kennedys have by tradition started by Joseph donate to charity in silence and anonymously. This tradition has occasionally been broken, but rarely.

[Chants Evensong]

Relbeek opined:

The UN response already has been, and I do not agree with you about the US's response.

Actually, there is no real substantive difference that I can see between the UN response and the US response.

UN:

http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/south_asia/tsunamis.html

US

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/RWB.NSF/vID/ ... enDocument

Both are assessing immediate needs, both are deploying resources, and both note the immediate need for potable water, food, and body bags.

I see no slow, milquetoat US response here.

However, once Kofi returns Dec. 30th well rested from his relaxing and well deserved holiday, the UN will put all other nations to shame with thier alacrity in responding to this catastrophe.

[Relbeek Einre]

US response is two days behind the UN. The UN was in the area on the 29th, the same day the US was deploying troops.

What the US did was good. But it was slow, particularly in the crucial days following the disaster, as food and particularly water needs to be gotten to the disaster sites.

[Partha]

Well, whatever is donated, remember that the two Florida hurricanes cost the US government 4 billion dollars.

[Relbeek Einre]

To be fair, the property values in Florida are a lot higher, what with the construction being substantially more modern than thatch huts and such.

And we aren't going to be rebuilding the areas the same way. We can't, and it's not our country.

But I think that is a good way of noting the magnitude of the damage - easily in the hundreds of billions.

[Garrdor]

What the US did was good. But it was slow, particularly in the crucial days following the disaster, as food and particularly water needs to be gotten to the disaster sites.

Man, diddn't you think they got enough?

[Relbeek Einre]

The potable kind, gooberhead.

Yes, you're funny.