Ever since the tsunami ravaged the shores of a dozen nations washed by the Indian Ocean, Americans have been accused of being "stingy" in response -- an allegation that does not stand up in the glare of hard fact.
During a visit to the stricken region, Secretary of State Colin Powell noted that a majority of the victims were in Islamic nations and hoped the American relief effort would "give the Muslim world and the rest of the world ... an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action."
The criticism started with a senior UN official, Jan Egeland, who suggested that the US and other economically advanced nations had been "stingy" in their initial relief efforts. That assessment reverberated across Europe and Asia and the US itself.
The New York Times editorial-ized that US President George W. Bush's initial response was stingy, which generated an outpouring of letters agreeing and disagreeing. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution seemed to reflect other regional papers with a headline: "Do we give enough?"
The criticism continued even after the US relief mission got underway. A New York Times
columnist, Nicholas Kristof, wrote: "When grieving victims intrude onto our TV screens, we dig into our pockets and provide the massive, heartwarming response that we're now displaying in Asia; the rest of the time, we're tightwads who turn away as people die in far greater numbers."
Not so.
Even before the tsunami, US individuals, foundations, and corporations gave US$238 billion in 2001 to churches, hospitals, medical research and other charities at home and abroad. That sum was up to US$241 billion in 2002 and 2003, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.
Those annual donations were larger that the GDPs of Norway, Denmark, Poland, or Saudi Arabia. Indeed, US private charitable donations would constitute the world's 21st largest economy.
This giving is encouraged as public policy, in contrast to many other nations, by laws that permit taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions from the income on which they pay taxes. That applies to aid for tsunami relief.
What makes the shock of the tsunami more devastating than other natural or manmade horrors is that rolled from the eastern to the western edge of the vast Indian Ocean. The death toll of 155,000 and rising and the displacement of 3 million to 5 million survivors ex-ceeds the 100,000 who perished in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in 1945 and the 139,000 who died in a 1991 typhoon in Bangladesh.
Once the extent of the tsunami's destruction had become evident, the US pledged US$350 million in relief assistance and deployed 20 warships and a Coast Guard ship across the Indian Ocean with 13,000 people aboard and ashore.
Critics wondered aloud why the armed forces were employed but were quickly silenced when Marines landed to erect temporary shelters, engineers got water systems working, and medical specialists started treating the injured and starved. No one else could have done this.
Most important, 46 US helicopters, the world's most versatile vehicles, started ferrying supplies from ship to shore and inland to survivors and carrying the injured and homeless to medical aid stations and shelters. The number of choppers is expected to rise to 90.
The cost to US taxpayers is hard to measure. The commander of US forces in the affected region, Admiral Thomas Fargo, could not give reporters in Washington an estimate but asserted: "The American taxpayers made an investment in a very solid and robust military capability that has a wide range of uses. And we're demonstrating the value of that investment today."
Bush has asked his father, former president George H.W. Bush, a Republican, and former president Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to lead private fundraising. That may have been politically astute but probably not necessary, as non-governmental relief organizations have reported an unmeasured flood of donations.
Australia, Japan, and Germany have pledged sizable sums, but China, which has been seeking to expand its influence in Asia, has promised only US$60 million and a medical team of 35 to Indonesia.
Other Asian nations pledged lesser amounts. Islamic nations have not done much despite the suffering of Muslims. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia, believed to be funding Muslim terrorists, has pledged only US$10 million, while other Islamic nations have either put up lesser sums or have not been heard from.
Richard Halloran is a journalist based in Hawaii.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under