The NYT editorial page weighs in on the “Are We Stingy?” relief efforts debate and concludes that yes, we are. The paper contrasts the public perception that the U.S. gives 24% of its budget on aid to poor nations and the reality that we only spends a quarter of 1%. In 2003, America gave $16.2 billion in development aid, while the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, America offered $13.2 billion, while Europe contributed $29.9 billion. Also, very often, the U.S. does not actually deliver all the aid it promises.
Still, all spending is an indication of priority. When a country, a people, or a politician (do you like how politician get her/his own category?) allocate money towards a cause, they acknowledge the importance of that cause. When not enough money is allocated, the cause is deemed less important than a higher spending priority. In this case, the message couldn’t be clearer. Helping the poorest nations on earth overcome one of the largest natural disasters in history is less important than the Bush inauguration. The inauguration of Bush is more important than rebuilding the lives of millions.
Now, I wonder. If (God forbid) a natural disaster occurred in the Western hemisphere, or even in the United States, would we, as Americans, not expect all other nations to (1) send their condolences immediately and not wait almost a week [note to Bush: since you’re president and all, you’ll sometimes have to disrupt your vacation, especially when 80,000+ suddenly die in the poorest region on earth. If you were a true statesmen you would fly to India and Sri Lanka to survey the damage and extend your personal sympathies] (2) contribute all that they can to the relief efforts.
Is it all too much to ask for?
No, its not too much to ask for. Bush is obviously already planning his retirement. All he has left to do on his agenda is take care of the mess he made in Iraq, and maybe throw some homeland security stuff into his profile. Other than that, its obvious he doesn’t give a damn about whatever else happens. Whether that be the deaths of more than 80, 000 people, or even domestic issues, he just doesn’t want to be bothered by any of it.
Why the need for immediate emotional reaction?
Why the addiction to the Clinton tears and the bitting of the lower lip?
Give me a President with an MBA instead of a law degree.
Give me decision makers that process information (right or wrong at the time)and act on that information.
Give me a President that can recognise the difference between right and wrong.
“The paper contrasts the public perception that the U.S. gives 24% of its budget on aid to poor nations and the reality that we only spend a quarter of 1%. In 2003, America gave $16.2 billion in development aid, while the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, America offered $13.2 billion, while Europe contributed $29.9 billion.”
I believe your readers should note that you are comparing an entire continent, consisting of 44 nations, to one nation. If we take this into consideration, the gap in aid lessens. Compared to some European countries, however, it might appear that the United States gives less. It would be unfair, if not even erroneous, however, to assume that this makes the United States “stingy.” We are quite the opposite. We invest more into poverty stricken countries, supply technology, and trade with poverty stricken countries then some prominent European countries. According to a report by the Center for Global Development and Foreign Policy, the average of aid from the United States is on par with France, Germany, and Norway. On a final note, your figures, as well as mine, do not include the enormous amount of private donations of Americans. Reality is that we are only 6% of the world’s population but we give 40% of the world’s aid and 60% of the world’s food. I think a fine example of the United States giving aid is in the tsunami disaster. We immediately gave $50 million dollars, right away, before an assessment of how many people died and how much damage resulted. Once assessed, the United States increased funding to $350 million dollars in addition to whatever it costs for the United States to use its carrier groups and military to assist in delivering aid. Recently, President Bush asked former presidents George H. Bush and Bill Clinton to lead a private fundraising to help alleviate the suffering of the victims.
“[A] natural disaster occurred in the Western hemisphere, or even in the United States, would we, as Americans, not expect all other nations to (1) send their condolences immediately and not wait almost a week [note to Bush: since you’re president and all, you’ll sometimes have to disrupt your vacation, especially when 80,000+ suddenly die in the poorest region on earth. If you were a true statesmen you would fly to India and Sri Lanka to survey the damage and extend your personal sympathies] (2) contribute all that they can to the relief efforts.”
With Mt. St. Helens, earthquakes in California and Alaska, hurricanes, tornadoes- when have we ever received or expected “relief” efforts from foreign countries?
With all that the United States does in foreign aid, in addition to the people we have helped and never asked credit for (Muslims in Balkans and people of Kuwait), because of our genuine want to assist with humanitarian efforts without any selfish interests. With all that the United States does, it cannot be considered “stingy.”