Tsunami Disaster
Well, I guess it is in the news so I need to talk about it, even though is saddens me.
I really don't know how to express my horror at the scenes coming out of Asia right now, The death toll is almost unfathomable and I fear will be much higher by the time that all of this is over. Like I said the magnitude of this disaster makes this years hurricanes, the Iraqi war, and even 9/11 pale into insignificance 77,000 and rising.
Putting aside the main issue ther are a few things on the fringe of all of this that have troubled me somewhat.
First off this whole 'stingy' thing and the repercussions in the media. Englund was an idiot for making the comment, from what I have heard he has distanced himself from his comment. We all should however remember that this guy is Norweigen, he has a different point of view on the importance of internationalism, as indicated by his own countries contributions (.94% of GDP) this is at least partly a product of the society that he has been raised in. We should also remember that English is not his first language, I would challenge you to explain yourself in Norweigen and not slip every now and again. However what really irritates me about this is the amount of media attention it has recieved. 77,000+ people are dead, meny more are dieing and we are concerning ourselves with money and the comments of a Norweigen? I have no doubt that more funds from the US and the rest of the world will be forthcomming, and rightly so. I hope no one else on either side of this arguement and for that matter the media makes more of it that it actually is.
Secondly, while it is sad that westerners were also killed in this disaster the vast majority of the casualties were Asians. I think the disproportionate amount of coverage being given to the western casualties is foul and the media should be ashamed of itself. I saw a 15 minute segment on CNN about some supermodel who survived clinging to a tree. Tragic in its own right but 15 minutes? Even the interviewer asked why are we talking about this one woman, to witch the 'fashion consultant' replied because it puts a face to the tragedy... are we so shallow that we can't apreciate the enormity of the situation unless we see a SI swimsuit model suffering? because that is the implication.
Thirdly, as mentioned above, I have no doubt that the world and the US specifically will provide whatever it takes in the way of aid and that is required by the victems of this tragedy, I do not critisize the administration for what they have done or will do, moniterily, however I find it difficult to fathom that Dubya didn't feel that it was necessary to issue a formal statement until today, 3 days after the event. He could have easily issued a statement or held an impromptu press conferance to express his and our condolences. Sure it wouldn't have been any material benifit to those directly effected, but that is not the point. It is yet another example of the obvious contempt the bushites have for the international community that reflects so poorly on the American people. Americans ask me frequently why do 'they' hate us so? is it envy? no it is not envy it is the general attitude Americans have towards others or at least appear to have. It would have taken nothing for Bush to interupt his Christmas break for 15 minutes, perhaps it could have run in place on the Petra Nemcova segment, but alas no brush cutting and bike riding seemed more important I guess
14 Comments:
If the left is so upset that Bush waited 3 days until after the incident, why didn't they complain the very next day after this tragedy? No, they had to wait until after he made a comment then find something wrong with it. As for the actual fact that he waited 3 days, we don't know why he did. Is it possible that he wanted to assess the situation first? We don't know and we shouldn't assume anything until we hear the other side of the story. Just my thoughts.
Jethro,
I did not wait until after the comment to get "upset" about Bush's lack of decourum, only to blog about it, mostly because I was too busy with visiting family. However my lack of alacrity in posting apparently only concerned one individual, where as Bush offended many millions, worse still I was not voted in to be the representative of 250,000,000.
There is no excuse for waiting 3 days to recognise the enormity of the situation, Bush has already shown that he doesn't need cast iron intelligence to go to war it is strange that he should get so picky before he expresses his grief.
RedFred - I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to the media. The storm of disgust rolled in after Bush made a speech. I didn't hear a peep out of them before it. Not only that, but are they too filled with hate for the president that they shift focus from the tragedy to him?
As for there not being a single good reason to wait 3 days, you don't know that. You can't automatically assume guilt without hearing both sides of a story in a court case would you? All I'm suggesting is that people need to be open minded enough to hear the other side of the story. There might actually be a really good reason, but if you don't open your ears and mind, you'll never hear it.
RedFred - One more thing...that drink you recommended for me was quite fun. Thanks man!
Jethro,
It is 8 days now since the disaster happened and I am still waiting for an explanation.... The only "excuse" I have heard is that the president wanted to wait until he had more information and didn't want to offer hollow words (I can't find the exact quote).
I had enough information to realize that this was a significant disaster within hours of it happening and I'm pretty sure that the President has more resources available to him than I. Like I said his words would be of minimal practical help but it is the sentiment that was important.
I don't think that anyone is trying to divert attention away from the disaster, but Bush once again showed me why he is not suitable for the role of President, I don't think he deserves a pass for an amazing lack of judgement just because there is other more important news out there. Just one more point, do you think this will not be used as a recruiting tool for our enemies? "America cares so little about our people they think gardening and bike riding is more important that 200,000 of us dying"
PS... Glad you liked the drink, some people call it an Elephant's Orgasm but I thought I'd let you try it before I revealed that!!!!
RedFred - Actually, I heard something about not wanting to go through the UN or something like that. I need to look up more on it since it's something that the administration would never admit to for international reasons. AS corrupt as that organization is, I don't blame him IF what I read was true. I'll let you know as soon as I find it. Not only that, but how come it is that the US, Australia, New Zealand are the only nations who are actually doing anything? Words are cheap. Actions speak louder. The UN was holding committees to find out what to do. Isn't it obvious what needs to be done? Send food, water, and shelter. European nations are just now starting to do things. The US, Australia, and New Zealand have been working their butts off compared to the rest of the world.
Oh...and Elephant Orgasm? That's unique. The name goes up there with a drink that a local bartender created. He calls it Smurf piss. It uses Blue Curacao.
Jethro, I am not talking about aid, I am talking about the simple act of expressing grief for what happened, and concern and compassion for the victims and survivors. What the hell would that have to do with the UN? Please post the explanation when you get it, I would love to hear it.
Seeing as you brought it up though I think you will find that Japan is the leading source of aid, not belittling what the US has given nor that of any other nation.
To suggest that the US (along with the Australia and New Zealand) are the only ones providing aid is asanine, I think if you check your facts you will find you are wrong. Coruption is everywhere, The UN, the US government, the charities , the church, local government, even in the disaster area where everyone should have figured out that personal gain should have been put aside for the good of the people. I don't see that the UN is any worse than than any of the others mentioned. The UN was originally organized to provide a dplomatic forum for world leaders to resolve issues without war, or at least to prevent it from escalating into an all encompassing world war. In that respect it has been fairly successful. It would be wrong for the US to abandon the UN because of coruption, the correct thing to do would be to eradicate the coruption, and that is easier to do in an organisation like the UN than it is in the Church or privately run charities.
I'd just like to aplaud German F1 driver Michael Schumacher's $10 Million donation to the relief efforts and Germany's $674M now the most from any country so kudos to the Germans all round.
RedFred - again, I must go back and recite, Actions speak louder than words. That's why I express aid over grief. What good is it to say, "Oh sorry it happened." If you were a victim, would you care whether or not someone is grieving? No. You're going to appreciate actions over words. Such a show of grievance is directed towards the rest of the world's opinion. Not to the victims. They don't care. This brings me back to my original point. Are you trying to appease the world or the victims?
As far as the UN is concerned (I'm still looking...what I read before has been expunged for some reason), what good is it to say let's clean up the corruption while people are suffering? Time is not on our side. Should we divert our resources into eliminating the corruption while these people starve, dehydrate, or fall victim to various illnesses? I say, aid is too important to waste on semantics.
Re-read my original post, I do not deny the enormity of the disaster, nor the importance of giving aid, my post addressed “a few things on the fringe of all of this that have troubled me somewhat.” There is no question (for me) that the US acted appropriately as far this matter is concerned, I also agree that that is far more important than the issue we are debating. However the job of being President of the United States of America is not one dimensional, subtleties such as a well timed expression of grief goes along way in the international community, and perhaps more importantly the lack of one goes even further. If it were not important why did he make a statement at all? Are you seriously suggesting that the President was so caught up personally overseeing the US aid package that he didn’t have time to make a statement? At best it was a alarming error of judgement not to make a statement, worse if shows a contempt for international relations that is becoming all to popular in the US for my liking. It may be OK for Jethro to say “what do I care about what the rest of the world thinks, it is another thing entirely for Dubya to start saying it.
As far as the UN is concerned, Time is not on our side? Well perhaps not for this particular event, but then I haven’t seen any evidence of corruption from the UN interfering with the efforts. I was however referring to the long term, the right thing to do when one encounters corruption is to work on eradicating it, not running away from it which is what the American people seem to think is appropriate.
RedFred - man, I knew I was going to like you. Someone who will argue the points without taking it personally. Okay, onto the discussion. I remember your original post, but the fact that we're still debating this still leaves me to wonder. Did you also know the the amount that countries pledge is not necessarily truly what is sent? I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it a publicity stunt, but I'm not going to deny the possibility. There's still only a number of countries who are actually doing something opposed to those who are merely promising to do something. In the past, countries have pledged, but not followed through. That's why I continue with the "What do I care what the rest of the world thinks..." attitude. As for the President, he doesn't say it, but he reacts to it. You see, by our debating this very subject, we're going to see how much each country pledges vs. how much each country actually contributes. So, again how much work is actually being done? Japan, US, Australia, New Zealand, etc.? Who else? Let's look at the humanitarian aid of the UN. What have they done? For this catastrophe, only a few countries have actually taken action.
The UN has done nothing. That brings me to the next point. You said that the corruption in the UN hasn't interfered with the efforts. But, if you recall the Oil for Food program, their efforts did in fact interfere with people not receiving proper aid. Can we afford to trust them before the corruption is rooted out. If time is not on our side, can we afford to go through them if the victims are not getting what they need to survive?
Jethro, Just because other countries didn't join America's coalition with Australia and New Zealand does not mean that other countries stood idle. The reporting on that, certainly here in the US, was misleading about that (not deliberate I think). Much of the money pledged has not yet been spent, much of that money will be spent rebuilding rather than on aid. The lack of material on the front line is more of a reflection of the operational logistics rather than the physical lack of material or aid, or money for that matter. In fact a senior American red cross official stated on an interview that I watched earlier in the week that they could not deliver material to the staging areas for fear of overwhelming the fragile infratructure. That infrastructure will be seriously bolstered by the arival of the US carrier group in the area and the additional hellicopters requested by Mr Powell yesterday. I have never denied America's role in the relief operations, I just think it is rather arrogant to think that America is the only country contributing. As for the UN, it's original charter did not include aid programs, I don't know when it took on those role, no doubt as part of its peace keeping efforts. However the international community needs to decide if it wants the UN to head up international relief opperations, there can be little doubt of the benifit of one agentcy co-ordinating the efforts, wether the UN is the right organization or not is debatable. Personally, and apparently unlike most Americans I have more faith in public organizations than private oganizations. Probably the best aproach would be to legitamize and centralize the various Red cross / cresent organizations and fund them properly with guarenteed money from world governments rather than individual charitable contributions.
Post a Comment
<< Home