Political opportunities
If James thought this worthy of a rant, then perhaps it is. He was somewhat shocked to hear what Democrat Senator Carl Levin had to say about the Tsunami aid effort:
"Political opportunity" exists for the United States in how the country lets the Muslim world know "that our humanitarian instincts are across the board, that the whole world is our concern, not just the non-Muslim world, and that we view the Muslim world as an essential part of the whole world community," Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said. ("Powell Defends Tsunami Response" by Anne Gearan, AP, 3rd Jan. See here.)
Well in a sense it is surprising, and there's no doubt that it is outrageous, but it is only to be expected, I think, and the sentiment is reasonably wide-spread. James Harding ("Bush Makes Pitch for National Unity as Congress Convenes" FT, 5th Jan) writes:
"The Bush administration, initially criticised for a tardy and paltry response to the disaster, has come to appreciate the opportunity the tsunamis present to restore political goodwill both at home and abroad. The elder Mr Bush said as much on Tuesday morning in an interview on ABC television: 'If we're generous, and we will be and are being, I think that sends another good signal to areas that have some questions about some policies of the United States.'"
British officials may not be quite crass enough to say it in public (and might be a little embarrassed that the £50m ($96m), which was originally one of the most generous pledges, has now been dwarfed by countries with far less cash to spare) but it is no doubt an important factor.
For Colin Powell, this is simply a matter of national security. For when it comes to dealing with other countries, what isn't an aspect of the "War" on terrorism?
"Powell, who's on a tour of the hardest-hit regions, said Tuesday that foreign assistance such as the $350 million U.S. government contribution for tsunami relief furthered America's national security. "It's in our best interest, and it dries up those pools of dissatisfaction, which might give rise to terrorist activity," he said." ("U.S. Officials hope relief effort will improve image abroad" by Warren P. Strobel, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Jan 5th, online here.)
Edit: Britain has pledged $96m in aid, while Norway has pledged $182m (see table). UK's GDP in 2002 was $3992 billion. Norway's GDP in 2002 was $191 billion. (see table at bottom of page)
We are hardly in any position to gloat, particularly as it was not Norway which prevented Indonesia's development in the last 4 decades, but us. Similarly, Australia, a country with a GDP about 1/4 the size of UK's ($503 bn vs. $1800 bn) is giving 8.5 times as much aid as the UK is ($816m vs. $96m)
"Political opportunity" exists for the United States in how the country lets the Muslim world know "that our humanitarian instincts are across the board, that the whole world is our concern, not just the non-Muslim world, and that we view the Muslim world as an essential part of the whole world community," Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said. ("Powell Defends Tsunami Response" by Anne Gearan, AP, 3rd Jan. See here.)
Well in a sense it is surprising, and there's no doubt that it is outrageous, but it is only to be expected, I think, and the sentiment is reasonably wide-spread. James Harding ("Bush Makes Pitch for National Unity as Congress Convenes" FT, 5th Jan) writes:
"The Bush administration, initially criticised for a tardy and paltry response to the disaster, has come to appreciate the opportunity the tsunamis present to restore political goodwill both at home and abroad. The elder Mr Bush said as much on Tuesday morning in an interview on ABC television: 'If we're generous, and we will be and are being, I think that sends another good signal to areas that have some questions about some policies of the United States.'"
British officials may not be quite crass enough to say it in public (and might be a little embarrassed that the £50m ($96m), which was originally one of the most generous pledges, has now been dwarfed by countries with far less cash to spare) but it is no doubt an important factor.
For Colin Powell, this is simply a matter of national security. For when it comes to dealing with other countries, what isn't an aspect of the "War" on terrorism?
"Powell, who's on a tour of the hardest-hit regions, said Tuesday that foreign assistance such as the $350 million U.S. government contribution for tsunami relief furthered America's national security. "It's in our best interest, and it dries up those pools of dissatisfaction, which might give rise to terrorist activity," he said." ("U.S. Officials hope relief effort will improve image abroad" by Warren P. Strobel, Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Jan 5th, online here.)
Edit: Britain has pledged $96m in aid, while Norway has pledged $182m (see table). UK's GDP in 2002 was $3992 billion. Norway's GDP in 2002 was $191 billion. (see table at bottom of page)
We are hardly in any position to gloat, particularly as it was not Norway which prevented Indonesia's development in the last 4 decades, but us. Similarly, Australia, a country with a GDP about 1/4 the size of UK's ($503 bn vs. $1800 bn) is giving 8.5 times as much aid as the UK is ($816m vs. $96m)
posted by UK plc at 11:51 AM
1 Comments:
Si: a further point. You contribution vs GDP analysis has a significant flaw. Since the tax burden varies massively from country to country, and in a country where the burden is higher the state can be expected to give more relative to private donations than in one where it is lighter, you must either lokk at these figures relative to the tax burden, or compare the sum of state and private donations from each country. This may not make a difference to the point you are making, but it highlights, for example the (now) massive contribution of the combined German contribution. Better late than never.
Post a Comment
<< Home