The world has been horrified at the US' response to Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in New Orleans. Four years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, and with billions of dollars allegedly spent on "preparedness" for emergencies, the US has shown the world that it was not prepared -- even for an event that came with ample warning.
The difference between the Asian tsunami last December and what is coming to be called the Black Tsunami in America -- because it brought so much devastation to the poor, mostly black, people of Louisiana -- is striking. The Asian disaster showed the ability of those affected to overcome long-standing rifts, as Aceh rebels put down their arms in common cause with the rest of Indonesia. By contrast, the disaster in New Orleans -- and elsewhere along the US' Gulf Coast -- exposed and aggravated such rifts.
The response of US President George W. Bush's administration to the hurricane confirmed the suspicion among blacks that, while they might send their boys to fight the US' wars, they had not only been left behind in the US' prosperity, but that there was neither understanding nor concern when they needed it. An evacuation was ordered, but no help was provided for the poor. When help came, it was, as the New York Times noted, like the Titanic: the rich and powerful got out first.
I was in Thailand right after the tsunami, and I saw that country's impressive response. The Thais flew consular and embassy officials to the affected areas, aware of the sense of helplessness among those stranded far from home. The US kept foreign officials from coming to the aid of their nationals in New Orleans -- embarrassed, perhaps, at what they would see.
Even the richest country in the world has limited resources. If it gives tax cuts to the rich, it will have less to spend on repairing levees; if it deploys the National Guard to fight a hopeless war in Iraq, there will be fewer resources at home to cope with a domestic crisis.
Choices must be made, and choices matter. Shortsighted politicians like Bush often skimp on long-term investments in favor of short-term advantage. He recently signed a lavish infrastructure bill that included, among other payoffs to supporters, a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Money that could have saved thousands of lives was used to win votes.
Seldom do the "chickens come home to roost" as quickly as they have in recent years -- an ill-conceived war, attempted on the cheap, has not brought peace to the Middle East. Now the US has paid the price for ignoring loud warnings about the weakened levees of New Orleans. Clearly, nothing could have spared New Orleans completely from Katrina's impact, but the devastation could certainly have been lessened.
Markets, for all their virtues, often do not work well in a crisis. Indeed, the market mechanism is often revolting to behold in emergencies. The market did not respond to the need for evacuation by sending in huge convoys of buses to get people out; it did respond by tripling hotel prices in neighboring areas, which, while reflecting the marked change in supply and demand, is reviled as price gouging.
Such behavior is so odious because it brings little allocative benefit -- no significant increase in supply in the short run -- and carries a huge distributive cost, as those with resources take advantage of those without.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has emphasized that most famines are associated not with a shortage of food, but the failure to get food to the people who need it, largely because they lack purchasing power. The US, the richest country in the world, clearly had the resources to evacuate New Orleans. Bush simply forgot the poor -- the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who simply could not pay for their own evacuation.
When you're poor, you don't have a credit card, and most were especially strapped for funds because it was the end of the month. But even if they had had the money, it is not obvious that markets would have responded quickly enough to provide the needed supply; in times of crisis, they often simply don't. That's one of the reasons why the military does not use a price system to allocate resources.
In January, after the tsunami, in response to widespread calls for an early warning system, I observed that the world had had an early warning on global warming. The rest of the world has begun to take heed, but Bush, having ignored warnings about al-Qaeda's plans prior to Sept.11, and having ignored the warnings about New Orleans levees, has not led the US to do likewise.
Scientists increasingly believe that global warming will be accompanied by larger climatic disturbances. Recent evidence is at least consistent with that hypothesis. Perhaps Bush had hoped that the consequences of global warming would be felt long after he left office -- and would be felt more by poor, low-lying, tropical countries like Bangladesh than by a rich country astride the temperate zones.
Yet there is perhaps a silver lining in the clouds over New Orleans. Perhaps the US, and especially Bush, will be persuaded to join the rest of the world in the fight against poverty and to protect our planet's environment. In facing and planning for disasters, whether natural or man-made, we must do more than hope and pray for the best.
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and was chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath