One of my colleagues over at The Daily Grail has written an "I wish" piece in which he imagines George Bush announcing "No more wars, we're spending our money on natural disasters."
As expected, he has garnered at least one comment of the "stop knocking the US, we're bigger, we're biggest, we're best" ilk -
I believe only a socialist would suggest an individual or country should give more of their money to charity based on per capita wealth. That's just plain dumb in my humble opinion and is inconsistent with capitalism.
No other country will ever give, on a whole, what the USA gives, ever. If they do, please list the countries who donate more than the US. I'm not talking per capita, I'm not talking minus church donations, etc. I'm talking in total.
I am not even going to argue with the first paragraph of this quote. I'm from a socialist background and hold "to each according to their needs, from each according to their means" to be a self-evident truth for civilised society. Yes, that means I dont regard much of the US as "civilised society". To me, having people seriously ill because they cannot afford healthcare is barbaric in the extreme.
On the second part, however:
The British government is donating 50million pounds (around US$90 million) with another $39million coming from record donations by the British public, making the UK the largest donator currently to the tsunami relief effort. France has promised $57 million. The World Bank has pledged $250 million.
Interestingly, the promised US governments aid is around the same as the price of a single f-16 fighter jet.
Foreign Policy in Focus has an excellent article on comparative spending. The US spends 0.09% of its GDP on foreign development assistance and foreign aid, as opposed to France (0.45%), the UK (0.26%) or Japan (0.22%). However, the official target agreed by ALL members of the UN is 0.7%.
By comparison, the US spends 4.1% of it's GDP on the defence budget, whereas the UK, France and Japan spend around 2 to 2.5% of their GDP on defence. The US now spends as much on weaponry as the rest of the world put together.
Hmmmm.
UPDATE "The United States is pledging $350 million to help tsunami victims, a tenfold increase over its first wave of aid, President Bush announced Friday." (Yahoo! News)
Good for the US! Bush should have done the big-heart thing right away, but then again so should France. I personally hope the one-upmanship amongst heads of state continues, as those poor people need all the help they can get.
5 comments:
The politics of charity. It's a shame it's come to this, isn't it?
Half a billion pledged so far and over half of it from the US? What have we here, a cool quarter billion from the World Bank? Excellent. I don't care who gives more, so long as people give if they can.
Let's bump the total to $50 billion and have all industrialized nations join in the one-upmanship game. Heck, we'll even invite the richest people in the world to play. Gates' foundation has given. It's Warren Buffett's turn. Let's not forget Wal-Mart. Has anyone been in contact J.K. Rowling yet?
Come one, come all. It's for a good cause after all.
Your "colleague" at TDG did indeed elicit a response to his article:
"Good one
The best chuckle I've had all morning.
Jeff...
...who's searching for a smarter internet
By piratecapt at Thu, 30/12/2004 - 8:32am"
My responses, except the one quoted above, the most recent regarding India's rejection of aid, and the one where I thanked you, have been related to the "us dont care" comment which followed the article you cite. In addition, I defended my position regarding charity vis a vis generosity versus stinginess. Wouldn't you defend your position?
I'm guilty as quoted...I'm as proud to be an American as others are proud of their heritage. If you're proud of who you are, aren't you going to stand up to a similar taunt or insult?
What happens when anyone suggests the French are "cheese-eating surrender puppets"? Didn't the French just angrily respond that their offer of aid for the victims of the earthquake and resulting tsunamis wasn't in the form of "loans"? They responded with righteous indignation. In my experience, the typical response to an insult is righteous indignation. And I'm guilty of that, so is the Government of France, same with the US Government too.
And get this, the offer of aid to India has been met with righteous indignation. Why would anyone view the offer of aid for a natural disaster an insult?
If the "us dont care" about disaster victims, why would the United States pledge $15 million? Increase it to $35 million, then to $350 million? Why would it offer aid of any kind? To anyone? Ever?
The "us dont care"? As a whole, I believe the people of America care a lot, but some people (Americans included) and some governments with their own agendas will never be satisfied with anything the US does.
Thanks again for the links in your article, they're informative and eye-opening.
PirateCapt...
...who's searching for a smarter internet
PS - please pardon any misspellings
PirateCapt. I haven't read any of the other blogs or posts mentioned, but I did have this same discussion recently. While I respect your point of view and don't argue with your logic, I disagree with it.
Of course we should be the largest donor of aid. We are the world's richest nation and the only true superpower. It only makes sense that we would be the largest donor. The first number reported was probably reported wrong. Like many "facts" it was accepted as truth before it could be explained. I am not upset over that.
What irritates me, and many others, is how our government is full of people who preach one thing then do another. (I don't mean just this current administration.) This current crisis is an excellent example of the history of "foreign aid" given from America. As the wealthiest nation why couldn't we be "good Christian neighbors" and give 0.5% (or even 0.25%) of our G.D.P. in aid to others who are in need? As a people who consider themselves to be morally superior to all non-Christians how come "we" don't act like it?
My faith is one that doesn't accept hypocrisy easily and when our president says he hears God talking to him, I find it odd that God doesn't ever tell him to do anything nice.
Kirkrrt
Two things. I don't think Jesus would ever think turning the other cheek would get old after a while. Personally I don't pay too much attention to criticisms from other countries. However, sometimes the things they say are valid. I'm not a good Christian. I want to get the people who planned and financed 9-11. Other cheek my ass.
Also, the amount of money that America gives to other countries in aid is so paltry as to be embarrassing. Sure in total dollars it is large. However, it is like Bill Gates giving 1 mil. and me giving 5K. Bill won't even miss his money. My tithe would be significant to my life. Which one of us would be giving more? Which one would be living the morality they profess?
Kirkrrt
The US is not a Christian nation....Oh, captain, that's an entire other issue, but a really important one. It is on the "articles to write" list.
Some thoughts on why everyone criticises the US...
You know I am a damn'd furriner, living in the US?
Well, my wife is American, her four kids from a previous marriage are now as much mine in my heart as the ones I gave the sperm for, I have met and spoken to many wonderful people here. I dont hate Americans. Like most other furriners, I simply don't.
However, I do hate this US administration. I lived through Thatcherism once and Karl Rove admits he is going to make you all live through it again. It will not be fun for you.
I do get frustrated by the insularity of many Americans, who seem unaware of opnions beyond their shores and thus allow their government to act in their names in such a way as to foster ill-will throughout the world.
I do loathe the "America bigger, biggest, best" mentality. Bigger is not always best. Richer is not always more moral. America has NO mandate to be the only superpower by divine right, nor to enforce a pax americana.
I do pity the short-sightedness of those who assume that the US is exempt from the patterns of history. No empire lasts forever, no nation spends forever in the sun. the USA will fade, in time - accept this for it is not opinion, it is the law of entropy.
In the late 1800s, everything now being said about the US was said about the British Empire, and everything that could be said about the British Empire could now be said equally justifiably about the USA. Back then, Britannia was hated in exactly the same ways for exactly the same excesses and exactly the same blind, misplaced pride on the part of the Brits. Why is that not obvious to everyone?
A quick other thought!
Your concpets of charity are informed by your upbringing in a christian-dominated culture.
Muslims are exorted by the Koran to give up a fixed percentage of their income as charitable gifts, around 2.5% I believe. Most moslems I have known keep to this holy stricture even when they may lapse in other areas of strict islamic observance. Were you from Iran, then you would see the US and most other Western nation's donation as stingy too.
Post a Comment