Our Post-Tsunami World

With more than 115,000 dead, many thousands still missing, millions facing disease and starvation, entire regions in ruins, and several large and important economies teetering - can there be any doubt we've witnessed the catastrophic event of a generation? The inner rumblings of our unstable planet created havoc many times the scale of the man-created 9/11 attacks and the bloody Iraq stand-off. And while we all wasted millions of words on Kerry v. Bush, bloggers are pitifully limited in their post-tsunami roles - linking to online contribution sites, distributing ugly video, wringing our hands, discussing (while bodies still rot unburied) the "blogging response" ... and attacking the Europeans for daring to hint that Americans are cheap.

Ah yes, that American view on the world. This one's not about us, but because we're the world's only superpower, of course it is, in some degree. U.S. bloggers from Jeff Jarvis to Glenn Reynolds reacted with knee-jerk anger at the suggestion by Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief coordinator, that western nation's are generally "stingy" with their wealth. Damn those Europeans, again - those Frenchies. They're the cheap ones. Well, no. As the New York Times pointed out today, in terms of official overseas aid, the United States fits that description:

We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

And yet I must note that President Bush was entirely correct when - reacting to worldwide criticism over the tiny and tardy response to the tsunami disaster - he maintained that "we're a very generous and kind-hearted nation." As someone who works in the area of organized philanthropy, I can indeed corroborate that remark. The United States is the most philanthropic nation in the history of the world; Americans contribute more of their wealth to causes (nonprofits and religious organizations) than any other nation. American philanthropy was a whopping $241 billion in 2003 (the latest year for available figures), a whopping 2.2 percent of GDP. American giving has gone up every year for the last quarter century, save two - 1987 and 2002, two years in which philanthropy remained generally flat despite horrific economic circumstances.

We also give at every level of society; indeed, although the rich give the most, they generally do not give the largest percentage of their wealth - that distinction belongs to the lower middle class, which - in growing American philanthropic tradition - gives when it hurts. So it's indeed newsworthy when we talk about the American response to the tsunami in the actions of the common folk, who are pouring in millions in online donations to the Red Cross and other relief agencies.

Still. Context is everything. The increased $35 million that Bush has now pledged wouldn't make Scott Boras even take the offer to centerfielder Carlos Beltran, much less consider it - but it is roughly what Randy Johnson can expect in his upcoming contract extension with the Yankees. So our government aid to tsunami victims is about the value of a 41-year-old starter - or half the price of a GOP inaugural. And the $2.5 million raised through Amazon so far? You're talking middle reliever - at best ... in Kansas City.

We are, of course, spending $35 million every few hours in the bloody and endless Iraq slog, which is accomplishing nothing. Hunkered down in vacay mode in Texas, Bush might've recognized the chance for a master counterstroke with the seething Muslim world - by pouring resources into Indonesia, where the region of Aceh and its hard-core militant Islamists were particularly hard hit. (Where's George Marshall when you need him; massive U.S. aid tamped down remnants Nazism and Japanese nationalism in the post-war 1940s). Instead, it's yet another bad story for the rest of the world - another American black eye, another embarassment. I think the Washington Post had it right in its shocking story of the lack of concern in the Bush Administration:

Some foreign policy specialists said Bush's actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States. "When that many human beings die -- at the hands of terrorists or nature -- you've got to show that this matters to you, that you care," said Leslie H. Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Why is a former President forced to take the lead? Why doesn't this one care - or at least see the opportunity? Steve Gilliard (as always) takes it over the top:

And interrupt his vacation over dead wogs? Are you kidding? The Pollyanna President doesn't ruin his vacation because some brown people drowned. Just because Indonesians will remember our indifference, and they are the largest Muslim nation on earth, hey, shit happens.

But Steve's not wrong. The tsunami disaster is horrific; it numbs the senses and challenges our ability to comprehend the scope of the loss. The President's failure - and ours, after all - is merely sad.

UPDATE: Sensing his political gaffe at last, the President tabs his brother to head up disaster response for the U.S. Says the independent Thai newspaper, The Nation:

Washington is willing to pour money into any undertaking if it benefits US interests directly. If not, then it is a slow boat coming. The situation also brought back to mind the US attitude towards other problems of the recent past. When the Asian economies were brought to their knees in 1997, the US was once again reluctant to help. This kind of consistency will continue to hamper the US in the conduct of its foreign policy.

UPDATE II: Unfortunately, the reaction of Andrew Quinn to international criticism seems to represent a large, knee-jerk, fearful America right-or-wrong attitude among too many of our citizens:

We're helping your citizens because you CANNOT. Be grateful for anything we give you. And don't you DARE say that the U.S. isn't paying its dues while turning around and no doubt criticising our policy of homeland security.

Sad. Insensitive. Closeted. And proof of a permanent victim mentality taking hold in our formerly brave United States. As Jack Grant notes:

Unfortunately, it seems that human nature is inclined more towards the "drama" of the victim rather than the drudgery of thinking in search of a way to achieve at least part of the ultimate goal.

Comments

[Andrew Quinn]

How, exactly, am I insensitive or closeted?

I, in absolutely no way, put the U.S. above criticism. We are not the City On A Hill, or the World's Police, or anything like that.

But the fact that it's THIS GUY who's saying we're too stingy really bothers me, because they're very criticial of U.S. policies in other departments - specifically World Affairs. It's like a guy who's always making fun of you and being generally rude, once you loan him money, saying "C'mon! That's all your giving? Geez!"

Again, the U.S. is quite far from being infalliable, but I find it annoying that our biggest critics are so quick to run to us for money - MORE money.

[Tom W.]

Andrew - you view the United States as somehow "seperate from the world," when in reality, we're tied to the rest of it - in terms of economies, politics, societies, technology - everything. If you want to lead (Iraq buddy), then lead. "Homeland defense" is code for head-in-sand cowardice. We're not always right; but what we're based on is right - an important distinction to me.

[Andrew Quinn]

None of what you just said is true, but, regardless, how is any of it tied to the original topic?

[Matthew Keegan]

Shouldn't Theresa Heinz Kerry donate a couple of million to these victims? Or should these "peons" should just "shove it"?

Do you think Israel would have gotten millions in financial aid if it had suffered a calamity of this nature and magnitude? I didn't think so.

Carry on.

[Polunatic]

Let's hope that the post-tsunami world supercedes the post-9/11 world.

http://polunatic.blogspot.com/2004/12/post-tsunami-world.html

[bruce b.]

Some loudmouth says:

<< Shouldn't Theresa Heinz Kerry donate a couple of million to these victims? Or should these "peons" should just "shove it"?

Do you think Israel would have gotten millions in financial aid if it had suffered a calamity of this nature and magnitude? I didn't think so. >>

Wow!! What a jerk!!

Israel has for the longest time gotten more US aid than any other country in the world. And THK, as TW will vouch, is one of the leading philanthropists in the US. The causes she donates to are myriad.

I have to admit I am impressed by the jerkiness of your remarks. They go "above and beyond" what I thought possible.

Oh, and by the way, Egelan criticized ALL the developed countries, not just the US (or even the US by name). And guess what? His pointed remarks worked.

[Tonya]

When disaster struck the U.S. on 9/11, there weren't many countries that came to our aid without a little convincing. Perhaps that is because...believe it or not...the U.S. is not as deserving as people believe. Don't get me wrong, I love our country, but looking deeply into all of our "donations", you seem to find a pattern. "What ever we give you, you give us back more." The only reason America funds the underdeveloped countries is because when they finally get enough finances to support themselves, America is going to open their hands and ask, "What can you give me now."
The tsunami incident is no different. The poeple of America might be distraught over the thousands upon thousands of casualties, and so is our president, George W. Bush, I'm sure. But we're not going to hand over our precious money to countries who need help, just because we like to help. NO!! We weigh our options before hand, and wonder "Will they give us more money if we help them." The answer: Not likley. So what do we do? We still give them SOMETHING, just so we won't look like complete jerks. But too late. The jig is up. The rest of the world already knows what we so ignorantly choose to ignore: We are jerks. Greedy, vengeful, money hoarding jerks. We are too blinded by being the richest country in the world to realize those were actual PEOPLE who died from that tsunami. I'm sure if it wasnt a tourist spot, and many Americans werent involved, then we would have handed over less. Powell and Bush need to realize something...that could have easily been us. And who would have helped us? Ourselves and not many more. Thats what we get.

[Tom K]

Tonya:

Peoples overseas aren't going to help us much financially in the event of emergency (say, as in FL) for the same reason I don't write I check to Bill Gates when Microsoft has a bad day: they just don't see the US as a leading candidate for charitable giving. That wouldn't change under any circumstances (probably not even if we gave all our money away, stopped consuming 25% of the world's resources, and became an impoverished nation).

The US should, and apparently will, be a leading donor in the world-wide response to this situation. The administration's errors were principally in the arena of public relations: since we're almost certainly going to spend over a billion dollars, it was silly to start out at 15 or 35 million. But, while good spin is better than bad spin, it's still just spin: if we weren't so desperate for friends overseas, I would say it was almost refreshing to see a president spin something so badly.