December 30, 2004

The Politics of Disaster

Greetings, Jawa Report Readers. I am Mike, otherwise known as The Maximum Leader from Nakedvillainy.com. The good Dr. Rusty invited me to guest blog during his vacation, and I am now going to take him up on his offer. First I would like to tip my hat to the other guest bloggers here who have really done a tremendous job in RustyÂ’s absence. (HummÂ… Perhaps doing a better job than Rusty himself? Do I smell a coup?)

I wanted to comment on the ongoing tsunami disaster. I, aside from the feelings of compassion for the victims and survivors of the Asian Tsunami that we all feel, have some other comments to make on this disaster.

And by the way, check out the Command Post for a comprehensive listing of charities to which you could donate.

Some of the science concerning what has happened is quite fascinating. The Earth's rotation itself may have been affected. And islands around the earthquake area may have actually moved. Some islands, rather than moving, appear to have been swallowed by the sea.

Scientists also are reporting that while there will be aftershocks, they do not anticipate more killer waves. One hopes this is a minor blessing.

And, outside the science of the tsunami there is, as always, the politics of disasters. Much hay has been made concerning the "stingy" comment from Jan Egeland of the United Nations. At the time the comment was made the US had contributed $15 million to disaster relief. At the time the comment was made, that $15 million represented the largest donation from a western nation to date. The US has now donated $35 million to relief. President Bush pledges more money and other aid.

I was stung by the "stingy" comment. As were many others. That comment showed a number of things. First off it showed the insularity of the world in which so many UN officals live. They don't understand anything outside their organization, and they only see the UN as an altruistic world-government-in-waiting that only needs more money from rich countries to solve the world's problems.

The second thing it showed was a stupendous ignorance of how the US appropriates money. In case you didn't know (and I donÂ’t suspect the informed readers of The Jawa Report wouldnÂ’t know this), the President or Secretary of State don't just take money out of the Treasury and spend it. It is appropriated by Congress. It can only be appropriated by Congress. Every year the Congress appropriates money for the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) for disaster relief. Money is also appropriated for other departments to be spend for disaster relief. It is this previously appropriated money that is being spent now. Additional funds will need to be voted on and approved by Congress. And in case commentators didn't know it, Congress is not in session right now. Our nations law-makers (and money appropriators) are on holiday and will not be back until around January 10. This limits the amount of money the United States has to allocate to relief at this point. Why isn't that little tidbit being reported?

Do not fear, we will donate more. We will be the leader in this effort. Just as we always are. In 2004 nearly a quarter of all money given in relief for natural disasters around the world came from the US. We are the largest donor in these situations. We may have been a little slow to act (and even that claim is debatable), but we are in it for the long haul.

And all this talk of relief by governments doesn't even begin to count the millions that will come from normal Americans donating their own money from their own pockets to help those people around the world they've never met, seen, or in some cases heard of before. We are the most generous people in the world, and we rarely get credit for it.

Now I mentioned that we may have been a little slow on the uptake. I believe that President Bush was too slow in making some sort of visible public statement of compassion. I do not feel that the President doesn't feel compassion for the suffering (as was implied by Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning – Lauer and his guests speculated that the President didn’t care because he didn’t know anything about the region). The President and his staff probably wanted to wait and get more information before speaking publicly about what the US response would be. While that may be a smart move tactically, it was not a smart move from the perspective of image-building. The President should have made some brief remarks sooner and said that details of the US response would be forthcoming.

I do not doubt that the role of the US will be great in this relief effort. I only hope that the full role of the US will be appreciated when all is said and done. That is very unlikely, but I can still hope.

Carry on.

This was cross posted on Nakedvillainy.com

Posted by: Maximum Leader at 10:33 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 857 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Sadly, now that it's apparent that the US isn't STINGY, the UN is complaining because we're not being generous THROUGH THEM. Are they going to take their ball and go home?

Posted by: Brian B at December 30, 2004 08:21 PM (CouWh)

2 Do you know that Julia Roberts makes $15 million for a movie she acts in? Sorry, she appropriates that much from her producer. President Bush most certainly is insensitive. First of all, none of these countries have any 'strategic' or financial importance to the United States, so why should he be bothered? Secondly, it is all second-class citizens and dogs choking away to death in third world countries, so why bother? Most importantly, a man who is moved would make a spontaneous gesture, not after being coached by his 'advisers'. I am from one of the affected countries. I dont want your dirty money, take your crumbs. It may be better used in killing off Iraqis in Iraq, so take it. The people who spend $200 billion to kill Iraqis can most ccertainly deliver lectures on generosity.

Posted by: dirtyangel at December 31, 2004 06:14 AM (9axDF)

3 Well dirtyangel, you need to be schooled a little on how things work. First off, your Julia Roberts analogy is just too far out. Contracting to do a film and appropriating money through a multi-layered political process are what the cliche comparing apples and oranges was invented for. Congress doesn't sit around and appropriate money and let it sit around in some departmental budget "just in case something horrible happens." But rest assured, when Congress reconvenes many more millions of dollars will be appropriated for relief. And while you are certainly under no obligation to take any relief money from the US, there are millions of others who will gladly take our money. I want to help them. I'll urge you to be wary of any American generosity that might come your way. (And you might choose to watch out for any Israeli aid too. You know you can't trust those Jooos either.) Keep your eyes peeled for the aid from Europe. I'm sure it is more to your liking. As for President Bush. First off, if you believe that the affected nations are not strategically important, you need to read a little more. All the countries in affected area are of strategic importance to the US. And secondly, when you are the President of the United States you shouldn't be prone to speaking extemporaneously about events. This doesn't excuse the President in my eyes for not speaking sooner. But I wouldn't intend for him to just get some reporters together and make a statement. While we are talking about leaders and statements, where the hell was Kofi Annan? By my estimation he waited until yesterday afternoon to say anything publically about the disaster. And no one seems to be taking him to task.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at December 31, 2004 10:55 AM (zHoql)

4 Yes, Maximum leader - the WHOLE world is of strategic importance to the US, isnt it? But I ask you, is that the only reason to aid anyone at all? Everyone knows how the US uses aid as a political lever. Even this blog says aid should be used for 'good pr', cut a neat image with Muslims etc etc, among others. The US now says it is willing to shell out $350 million. I wonder what 'sudden schooling' was inflicted on the US. I am hardly a fan of the American people, but I respect American ideals. I was enraged when the US was attacked on Sept. 11, at a personal level. I felt genuine support and empathy for the US. But what does the US do? It kills Iraqis everyday and sinks $200 million dollars into a lie of a war, and tosses $15 million dollars to 'Asia' as aid. You can take all your blood money and oil money and shove it. The world doesnt need US money, it needs the US to set an example. You are hardly able to throw any light on the appropriations issue. Let me do it: suppose a massive tsunami washes across the East Coast one day, a day when Congress is in holiday, will you guys wait it out eating apples and oranges till Congress reconvenes and opens the floodgates of relief funds and moneys? All that was needed was a gesture. It is only in times of unexpected calamity that the true nature of man is revealed, and who your true friends are.

Posted by: dirtyangel at December 31, 2004 12:50 PM (9axDF)

5 First of all, President Bush did not need the approval of Congress to raise the monetary funds up to $350 million dollars. We have places all over this globe where there are stockpiles of necessity that were immediately sent to the area hit hard by the Tsumani's. "Boats" were turned around and sent to the affected areas. We don't just give money, we have stockpiles of needed necessities including portaporties immediately went to that area of the world. Our troops and their hueys have been flying into areas that can't be reached with water, supplies, medicine and more for the victims. And it's getting there. They are using hueys to get to those needed places no one can reach. THE UNITED STATES NEVER LETS ANYONE DOWN - EVER and for those of you who are putting him down better take your head out of your asses and pay attention. We have been flying in not only supplies but doctors, nurses and other help. WE DO MORE THAN ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. Not only do we supply them from all our stockpiles and send money (350M) we have people in this country who have been working nonstop getting supplies, medicines, food, water and whatever else is needed to the affected areas, therefore we have a lot to be proud of when it comes to our country, our president and his humanity - the rebuilding will also be covered. TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND AND STAND UP FOR YOUR COUNTRY AND FOR YOUR PRESIDENT AND BE DAMN PROUD OF EVERY AMERICAN MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD TODAY. THose of you who put Bush down - do live someplace else; we don't need American haters in our midst. You people make me sick. Cindy

Posted by: firstbrokenangel at January 01, 2005 12:47 AM (D39Vm)

6 "Those of you who put Bush down - do live someplace else; we don't need American haters in our midst. You people make me sick." If I put Bush down, I hate America?? It is stupid thinking like this that is keeping a doofus like Bush in the seat of the American presidency. People have voted Bush back, because only then they love America... what a trap!?! I know Americans are not stingy or unwilling to help. It is the American government that is. And it is Bush that is. Think about this: The UN calls the wealthy nations of the world stingy, and Colin Powell comes around dancing and howling, defending the United States. Why?

Posted by: dirtyangel at January 01, 2005 02:30 AM (9axDF)

7 DIRTYANGEL: Question. Are you from one of those countries or are you still living in one of those countries? We support our duly elected president because he is elected by the majority of American voters. That is the American way. Saying he is different from the majority of Americans is simple not true. The majority elected him therefore he represents the majority of America. That is our way. If you cannot handle it, fine. Stay in your own country and be happy. I'm sure many in your country and looking forward to our crumbs. They always have. What if a major catastrophy comes to our east coast? It already did. It is called 9/11. How much did your country contribute? America doesn't beg. We take care of ourselves. Another jealous little dog?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 01, 2005 03:24 PM (VsBCt)

8 In my country, we do things like this: I will support my President. But if I disagree with him, I voice my opinion against him. That doesnt make me against my country. I don't tag along my President just because he's been voted in by a majority. If you think doing something like that is good, you need to think again. And what margin of majority does your president have? Two percent? Three percent? Does it mean that the rest of the Americans are against America itself? America doesnt beg? It takes care of itself? I sure do remember the time when the US went a-begging around the world cobbling together its murderous 'Coalition of the Willing'. The US was at my country's doorsteps too. A major catastrophe didnt occur along your coast, a catastrophic attack was directed at two buildings. It is a tribute to Bush's brainwashing propanganda if Americans think that entire coastlines were under attack on that account and have become jittery and paranoid. Dont ever assume that the rich nations (including the US) *have* to aid the poor nations and prop them up for their very survival. Aid, international debt also contribute in keeping the poor countries down. No one needs aid, and then be looked down upon, as is evident from your post(s). It is better to rot and die in seawater, than to touch American aid money then.

Posted by: dirtyangel at January 02, 2005 01:47 AM (9axDF)

9 Then feel free to rot and die in seawater. But please don't make us listen to your jealous whinning. Where is Somalia?? That statement tells how much you know. Frigging dummy can't read a map. Shut up. Take your crumbs and buy a world map.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 02, 2005 06:34 AM (eLjJa)

10 I am feeling sorry for the USA, it is now on autopilot. I read these "conservative" blogs and just wonder...jesus, what happened to you? An abundance of fear? A lack of books? I swear to god you are what Neitzsche meant by the "last man". ernie

Posted by: ernie at January 03, 2005 03:50 AM (ursvs)

11 GreyRooster, the fellow who posted about Somalia wrote "Somolia" in his post. Idiot. I wonder why I wasted my time posting here talking to fools.

Posted by: dirtyangel at January 03, 2005 06:57 AM (9axDF)

12 DIRTYANGEL: When you look into the mirror do you look dirty?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 03, 2005 09:11 PM (XioYD)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
32kb generated in CPU 0.0195, elapsed 0.1388 seconds.
119 queries taking 0.1277 seconds, 261 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.