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. \nDuring 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." \nThe 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. \nThe 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?" \nThe criticism continued even after the US relief mission got underway. A New York Times \ncolumnist, 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." \nNot so. \nEven 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. \nThose 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. \nThis 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. \nWhat 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. \nOnce 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. \nCritics 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. \nMost 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. \nThe 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." \nBush 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. \nAustralia, 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. \nOther 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. \nRichard Halloran is a journalist based in Hawaii.
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a
Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) is to be Taiwan’s next representative to the US. Hsiao is well versed in international affairs and Taiwan-US relations. In her days as a student in the US, she was a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and served as chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party’s US mission. She is familiar with a broad spectrum of Taiwanese affairs in the US. FAPA hopes that Hsiao, after taking up her new post, would continue to deepen and normalize relations between Taiwan and the US, and that she would try to get a free-trade agreement