Article Surfing Archive

Or maybe the right title question could be 'why is US stingy?' It could be a good debate point. And I have also my share of viewpoints why US is considered stingy by some ' a United Nations official, even.

On December 28, 2004, The Washington Times came up with reports that the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland suggested that the United States (US) and other Western nations were being 'stingy' with relief funds for the Asian nations hit by a tsunami. The Norwegian-born UN Official was quoted as saying, 'It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really. Christmastime should remind many Western countries at lease of how rich we have become.' It had seemed that the UN official's observation was addressed after the Bush Administration pledged $15 million as donation on December 27.

In the past days after the tsunami hit several Asian nations, offers of aid have poured in from around the world. The European Union's executive arm released $4 million in emergency aid and pledging an additional $27 million. Canada and several European nations, like Spain, Germany, Ireland and Belgium, pledged about $1 million. As for the US, Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell hinted that the $15 million was only the first installment of a larger aid package to the devastated countries.

On December 29, 2004, posted at http://moonagewebdream.blogs.com/moonage_political_webream/2004/12/ us_stinginess.html retaliations against Jan Egeland's 'US stinginess' declarations were given, fully loaded with data on all the other aids by different countries and comparing United States' total estimated aids. Egeland was challenged to the math on the various aids.

While I'm inclined to agree that from the long list of supports, US contributed an ample sum, I was struck by the idea of publicizing almost all the listings of the support made by the various countries. Even at radio and TV reports this happens. Aren't there good, 'anonymous' Samaritans, anymore? What's to be gained by constantly hollering the amount of contributions they are giving out to the devastated countries in the Asia Pacific regions? If there's an ulterior motive to gain something out of giving out aids, then that's not 'giving' ' that's 'taking advantage' of the situation.

Now, probably, that's what Egeland is talking about. Stinginess, not because of how much the amount of aids is but 'stinginess' because the true essence of 'giving' is lost. Too much publicity and too much precondition may have been done that it appears not an aid but a business transaction.

I'm not saying that's bad but I know it's not a good practice to take advantage of a disaster which victimized almost 20,000 people in several third-world countries.