inside the glass house

Slurred by "stingy" remark, US reflects its people's generosity
NEW YORK - As the death toll in the tsunami tragedy tops 120,000, the United Nations is struggling to cope with what it calls the worst humanitarian disaster in history.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan cut short his vacation and returned to headquarters to preside over a meeting of the UN's relief agencies whose economic and human resources have already been strained over death and destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and eastern Congo.

"This is an unprecedented global catastrophe and it requires an unprecedented global response," he told reporters Thursday. A tragedy of this magnitude usually hits about two or three countries, but the tsunami has wreaked havoc across nine major coastlines in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Thailand.

But the worst affected so far are Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand -- and the number of deaths keeps rising. However, the international response -- primarily in terms of government contributions -- has been relatively poor.

When UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland criticised rich nations for being "stingy", the US reacted angrily. "The United States is not stingy. We are the greatest contributor to international relief efforts in the world," Secretary of State Colin Powell responded. "I wish that comment hadn't been made."

Both Egeland and Powell were right. While the US is high on the list of aid givers in terms of dollars and cents, it is at the bottom of the list in the proportion of aid it gives in the context of its national income. In the US national budget, international development aid accounts for well under a quarter of one percent.

The US government can afford to give more because it is the world's richest nation -- if only it could cut down on its prodigious military spending overseas.

In an editorial titled "Are We Stingy? Yes", the New York Times took Powell to task describing the initial US offer of $15 million to the tsunami disaster as "a measly offer". After Egeland's comment, the US more than doubled its offer to $35 million, which the Times said, was still a "miserly drop in the bucket."

Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, was equally hard hitting: "We spend $35 million before breakfast in Iraq (every day)," he said rather sarcastically. Leahy, of course, was comparing the $35 million to the over $100 billion (that's billion with a B) which the US has already spent in a losing war in Iraq.

The US government may be miserly but Americans in general are one of the world's most generous people. Whenever a global tragedy unfolds on TV screens in American households -- irrespective of whether it is a natural disaster in the Caribbean or a famine in Ethiopia or Sudan -- the average American responds magnanimously.

In 2000, US Foundations, corporations and individuals provided about $203 billion to charity in a single year: up from $100 billion in 1990. Last year, the estimated figure was over $220 billion.

Since last week's tragedy, American newspapers have been running a long list of relief agencies -- including the American Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Operation USA, Save the Children, Oxfam and Islamic Relief USA -- accepting aid dollars from individuals, corporations and Foundations.

The international aid agency Oxfam said in a press release last week that it has received an "overwhelming generous response", both from inside and outside the US, raising a record $16 million in just five days. In the US alone, Oxfam received over $3 million in unsolicited online donations, the total climbing by the minute.

At his press conference, Annan said that he has received pledges of over $500 million from international donors, of which $250 million came from the World Bank. But the trouble with pledges is that some donor countries fail to come up with the cash long after they make promises.

Iranian President Mohammed Khatami has said that although the international community pledged over $1 billion for victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, in December 2003, only $17 million has been disbursed so far. The victims of the earthquake are still living in tents because the aid has been so slow in materializing.

The United Nations, whose largest single request of $1.4 billion has been for Iraq, is expected to seek nearly $2.0 billion in emergency funds in its appeal next week. The world body is also hosting a pledging conference for the tsunami disaster on January 11.

So far, the list of major international donors include the US ($35 million), Canada ($30 million), the UK ($28 million), Japan ($26 million) and Germany ($25 million), among others. The aid efforts are being led by a core group of four countries: the US, Australia, India and Japan.

Although India is one of the nine countries affected by the disaster, the Indian government has refused to accept any international assistance in keeping with its proud nationalist streak. The government has turned down requests by relief agencies to visit the country to make assessments of the damage.

Traditionally, India has also shunned international assistance during emergencies because it has a very strong infrastructure to cope with humanitarian tragedies.

India is also conscious of the fact that some donor nations, international aid groups, religious organizations and relief agencies arrive in grief-stricken countries armed with their own hidden agendas and keep governments under obligation.

As a budding superpower in the region with immense human and economic resources, India can afford to shun international assistance. But unfortunately Sri Lanka cannot.

Following rising criticisms against the "stinginess" of international donors, the US has increased its aid to tsunami disaster victims by ten-fold: from $35 million to $350 million. The announcement came within the past 12 hours. The UK has also increased its aid to $96 million, rising from $28 million. Why didn't the two donors do this in the first place? Is international disaster relief being conditioned by needs or by world opinion?

Back to Columns