President Bush's response to tsunami disaster criticised

[aldona]

Bush left looking like a bystander

Roy Eccleston, Comment

01jan05

GEORGE W. Bush has been hamfisted in his handling of the US response to the tsunami disaster, looking more like a bystander than leader of the free world.

Americans began learning of the catastrophe on Sunday morning, yet it was three more days before the US President publicly offered his condolences and vowed to help nations rebuild.

In the interim, Bush stayed on holiday at his Texas ranch, where aides say he monitored the growing catastrophe -- and spent time clearing scrub.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was appointed frontman for the crisis.

Bush's delay is perplexing, given his experience when disaster arrived unheralded on another sunny morning in 2001, leaving thousands dead.

On September 11, 2001, the world rallied to the US, and Americans appreciated the national leaders -- such as John Howard -- who immediately stood up to offer sympathy and support.

This tragedy is similarly shocking, and Bush ought to have been quickly in front of the cameras vowing to do "whatever it takes" -- a favourite line when it comes to the war on terror -- to help.

It would surely have made political sense. The US has bred widespread resentment with the Iraq war and its insistence that everyone sees the world through its "war on terror" eyes.

Here was a chance for Bush to demonstrate what he wants the world to see -- the goodness and compassion of the US -- in a mainly Muslim region that has been fertile ground for terrorist recruitment.

Making things worse was his totally inadequate initial aid offer of $US15 million ($19.4million) -- quickly bumped up to $US35million when other nations started putting in much more and the UN spoke of the "stingy" rich.

Only after the White House began to hear questions from reporters about Bush's absence from the world stage did he make a public appearance to address the biggest natural disaster in modern history.

But Bush's decision to send his brother Jeb, governor of hurricane state Florida, to the disaster-hit region is a sign the White House now realises that aircraft carriers and aid donations are not enough from the world's superpower.

At a time when the US is struggling to combat an image of unilateral bully rather than compassionate champion of freedom, it's crucial to get the symbolism right.

(Source: The Australian, 01/01/2005)

[Doug]

Did anyone hear his response to the question about if the US had an early warning system for tsunamis? In a nutshell, he said he would have to ask those who were in charge for a report. And we elected him for what reason??

[Nicodema]

I'm not part of the "we" that elected him. Having planned to be out of state that week, I made darn sure my ballot (on paper, thank you very much, not any of those dodgy rigged machines) was filled, sealed, and handed in before I left for my off-season vacation ($250 for the whole family at a time share for a week, weather was great 60% of the time, tourists were gone), and I can assure you there was not one single box marked for Bush on that piece of thick paper.

As for early warning systems, you might find this article to be of some interest. Naturally the USA media won't print this -- I had a hard enough time even finding the tsunami mentioned in US press (via internet) for the first 16 hours after its occurrence -- I think it's well worth a look.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3937047

[Nicodema]

OK let's play with numbers. Exactly how paltry IS this $35M? Are these criticisms warranted? Let's see what the MATH has to say.

There are over 200 million people in the USA. According to the 2000 census there are 281.4 million total. (See, http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/census2000/uspop/uspop.htm). The average household size is 2.59 and the average family household size is slightly higher at 3.14 (see, http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/census2000/unitedstates/state.htm). For purposes of sheer simplification, we will generously assume the average household has four (4) members and one wage earner (though we know the average is 3 members and in many cases there are two wage earners). We will round the population off LOWER, at 280 million even, to make the number play easier, since it is strictly for illustrative purposes.

Assuming these rough (and generously "leewayed") averages above, that makes roughly 70 million households. If each of those households donated just a mere, paltry $10 -- the price of three morning coffees from Starbuck's, or two junk-meals from McDonalds -- that would amount to $700 million dollars, or 20x Bush's donated amount. If we took Bush's cheesy cheap PR-op-oriented "tax cut" check -- which placed $600 in the average wage-earner's pockets (if I recall correctly) -- and assumed a ONETIME donation of that from each household, that would put us at roughly $42 billiion dollars or 1200x the Bush donation amount.

Yeah, I'd have to say all things considered, this is pretty lame. But why do we need to wait for our government to legitimize things? They aren't going to do anything that isn't in the narrow self-interests of their insular right-wing warmongering cult of mutually-backscratching aristocratic toadies. We don't need them. EACH ONE OF US can step up to the plate and give that $10 or that $600, whatever we can afford to give. The need is great and is not likely to vanish anytime soon. There is need for relief workers (who must be put up and fed) as well as food, supplies, medical care, etc. for those suffering, and some way of cleaning up all those corpses (sorry to be graphic but that's reality). Those who have lost homes and possessions will need their necessities (shelter, clothing, etc.) restored somehow and help to get their lives back on track.

We don't need to be embarrassed by our stingy richboy's club so-called "government" nor do we need them to legitimize or "endorse" our personal efforts. As a nation of individuals, we in the USA can step up to the plate ourselves and do what our government cannot or will not. We did it post-9/11 -- the bulk of the monies and relief raised then came from grass roots efforts -- and we can do it now to help our fellow citizens on this planet who are suffering.

[Nicodema]

The following is a partial list of organizations offering relief and aid to victims of the tsunami. The list is provided purely as information and not meant as any particular endorsement of any or all groups here (likewise this disclaimer is not meant as any sort of criticism of any or all groups listed here).

As with everything else, check things out yourselves and decide what groups are doing reputable work you feel you can trust to best handle your donation. I personally am partial to Oxfam and MSF, but there are plenty here to choose from. And of course, as you know, we have our own efforts (within the SDA church) through ADRA -- http://www.adra.org/Donation.html. The important thing is to Do Something.

• OXFAM: Oxfam - http://www.oxfam.org.uk - is providing emergency supplies, including water tanks, pumps, taps and temporary toilets for families left homeless by the floods. The charity raised £600,000 in the three days after

  the disaster, including £200,000 on Tuesday - the most it has raised in one day.

• The Guardian, UK:

  (click to donate to Asian Earthquake Emergency Fund)

  https://www.concern.net/christmasappeal.php

• Direct Relief International (DRI) - USA

  Website: http://www.directrelief.org

  SANTA BARBARA, December 26, 2004--Direct Relief International has offered

  medical assistance to aid victims of the massive Southeast Asian earthquake.

   Initial reports indicate that the resulting tsunami and tidal surges have

  killed thousands and destroyed property in throughout the coastal areas of

  Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka, India, and the Maldives.

  Direct Relief is coordinating with program partners in the affected

  countries and with U.S. government officials to develop a list of health and

  medical items that are needed

• The BBC has a big list of places to choose from-these are largely British,

  but you can probably donate online with no problem):

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4131881.stm

• The Disasters Emergency Committee - http://www.dec.org.uk - is an umbrella group of UK aid organizations - including ActionAid, British Red Cross, Oxfam - working to provide clean water, food and shelter to thousands.
• The United Nations World Food Programme - http://www.wfp.org - is seeking

  donations to feed victims of the earthquake.

• Medecins Sans Frontieres - http://www.msf.org - is sending aid workers to the region, focusing on medical care for survivors and displaced people after the rescue operations.
• The United Nations Children's Fund, Unicef - http://www.unicef.org - is working to meet the "urgent needs of hundreds of thousands of people" affected by the tsunami disaster.
• Save the Children - www.savethechildren.org.uk - has already flown a plane

  out to Sri Lanka carrying plastic sheeting for temporary shelter, tents to run children's services from, and essentials such as clothing and cooking utensils.

• Anti-poverty organisation Care International - http://www.care.org - has already provided food for thousands of affected people in Sri Lanka.
• Cafod, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development - http://www.cafod.org.uk - is working with partners across Asia to provide shelter, food aid and medical assistance, and assessing what further relief is needed.
• UK residents can donate via the British Red Cross - http://www.redcross.org.uk - which has launched an appeal to fund supplies including blankets and cooking utensils.
• Medair - http://www.medair.org - is providing emergency support to agencies with a long term presence in Sri Lanka and its medical experts are assessing the

  likelihood of malaria and diarrhoea.

• World Vision - http://www.worldvision.org.uk - has also launched an appeal and has already delivered relief goods to thousands.
• Christian Aid - http://www.christianaid.org.uk - has already allocated £250,000 from its emergency fund to help the victims of this disaster but says more money is needed.

[Dr. Shane]

Interesting that in the midst of such disaster some still find the time to fuel Bush-hate. The hatred out there for this man of faith is incredible. He is starting to look more and more like Daniel. I bet his enemies wouldn't hesitate to toss him in the lion's den if they were given the chance.

[Michelle]

Nico--your article about the pending tsunami from the Canary Islands island is very interesting. My husband was watching TV the other night and they were talking about volcanoes, tsunamis, etc, and they talked about that exact island. He said that the experts were so freaked out about what it would do that they didn't even want to think about it. The article says 20-60 meter waves, but the TV said 100+ meter waves (as opposed to the 10 meter waves this one in Asia generated)--we figured it would probably completely swamp Florida, DC, any coastal areas on the East Coast. All I can say is, I'm sure glad I don't live on the East Coast if that thing happens!!!!!

About donating--if I hadn't been partial to ADRA, I would donate to Oxfam--I hear a lot about them over here in HK.

M

[Dr. Shane]

Scienctists are not agreed on the threat of the volcanos on the Canary Islands. The program I watched actually showed both sides and one group of scienctists said that if it did happen the tsunami wouldn't make it all the way accross the Atlantic. This past tsunami flooded 2 miles inland so keep that in mind when you hear someone say all of Florida would be flooded.

My wife and I live 50 miles inland. The reason we didn't purchase property closer to the coast was so we would have a little more protection from huricanes. There is a reason Sister White warned us not to live on the coast.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Interesting that in the midst of such disaster some still find the time to fuel Bush-hate. The hatred out there for this man of faith is incredible. He is starting to look more and more like Daniel. I bet his enemies wouldn't hesitate to toss him in the lion's den if they were given the chance.

---

So Shane is this your new angle of spin and most recent thematic attempt at social engineering? That either people will start regarding Bush as a modern Daniel (since the Christ-comparison ploy clearly bombed) or they will be intimidated into Shutting Up lest they inadvertently fuel such a comparison? Well knock yourself out -- it's not going to work though. You're a very silly man sometimes, Shane.

[Nicodema]

Michelle,

Yeah I was pretty freaked out to read that. I live on the east coast, about 20-25 miles NW of Washington, DC. I told my mate it's time to move inland!! We want to get out of this area anyway. We'd really like to leave the country but it is extremely difficult these days to emigrate out once you hit our age (40). You lose a critical 5 points in their point system for being over 35. He might make it, having an associates' degree, but I never finished school.

[Dr. Shane]

No, Sister Nico, I don't expect anything I say to stop the hatred our dear President faces everyday. Only the Holy Spirit can change the heart.

Did anyone watch Meet The Press this morning? Secretary Colin Powell was on and was very informative.

[Nicodema]

I don't hate Bush. I hate what he has done and is doing, and I hate the lies of those who put him in power. I hate the peculiar marriage of ignorance and arrogance I see in him and his cabinet and cheerleaders. But I would rather see him and all his cronies changed than destroyed, and that's not hate. That's the best I can do in terms of loving my enemies (and I don't do that perfectly, and will freely admit as much).

Also Shane you have to understand that as prez he serves as a figurehead right now, so often when people or the media say "Bush" they are talking about the administration itself, the "guv'mint", not necessarily just the individual who is serving as prez. "Bush" becomes shorthand for the government active during his term.

[Ron Lambert]

In the past year, the U.S. (Bush administration, if you want to say it that way) contributed more to relief efforts worldwide than all other nations of the world combined. In the present crisis involving the earthquake and tsunami, the U.S. is spearheading relief efforts, using its military assets such as the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln and its helicopters and planes, and land-based C-130 cargo planes. The U.S. is also by far the largest contributor to the present relief effort financially, and was from the very beginning.

Still, we are criticized, and still some among us readily believe those criticisms.

Some are doing the Lord's work, and some are doing Satan's work. As always.

[Jeannieb43]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

But Bush's decision to send his brother Jeb, governor of hurricane state Florida, to the disaster-hit region is a sign the White House now realises that aircraft carriers and aid donations are not enough from the world's superpower.

(Source: The Australian, 01/01/2005)

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What strikes me as poetic justice -- or at least a bit ironic -- is that now Dubya has appointed Bill Clinton, of all people, along with George Bush I to go as representatives of the U.S. in dealing with this crisis.

When Dubya was first elected, and poor Colin Powell dared to announce that our U.S. foreign policy would not be changed from that which existed under Clinton, poor Powell was "cut down at the knees" [NEWSWEEK] in the Cabinet meetings, and he was censured for even mentioning Clinton's name. He was told that all mention of Clinton was forbidden, and all Clinton's policies were to be canceled.

Such an ignorant, shoot-from-the-hip type of management. It boggles the mind.

But he "learns fast" [it's only been four years!] to appreciate talent, intelligence and public relations ability -- even if it's found in his former archenemy, Bill Clinton.

*****************************************************************

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" /> OOPS! My mistake. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

Clinton and BushI were appointed to lead in a national fundraising effort here in the U.S.

NOT to go overseas.

My mistake.

Apologies....

[Bravus]

I'll accept differences of opinion, Ron, but you need to at least be straight with the facts. You wrote:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

The U.S. is also by far the largest contributor to the present relief effort financially, and was from the very beginning.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

At the very beginning, the US planned to contribute just $15 million. Australia, with a far smaller population and economy, more than doubled that. The US has come around, much to its credit, but please keep the claims factual.

[Ron Lambert]

Bravus, when Bush committed the first $15 million, he said more was coming. Your facts are not correct when you say "At the very beginning, the US planned to contribute just $15 million."

I mean, come on already. Are you trying to suggest that the U.S. is not generous? Has our history shown us to be ungenerous? Where do people get this presumption that somehow the U.S. is stingy? Political partisans looking for any way to bad-mouth President Bush also try to suggest the U.S. in the currect administration is less than generous. But the facts show otherwise. When confronted with the true facts, they just change the subject or nitpick about something to divert attention from the main point, where they were embarassed.

[Bravus]

Well, you'll probably call this a nitpick, but if you look at direct humanitarian aid, as opposed to military aid, and look at it on a per capita basis, rather than as absolute dollar amounts, the US is one of the smaller international aid donors, with a number of other countries well ahead of it. Even per capita is not a true measure - as a proportion of GDP (i.e. economy size), the US is quite a low donor.

This international report tries to provide a sort of 'real' measure - of course, that's kind of subjective and open to interpretation - of international aid:

[]http://www.cgdev.org/rankingtherich/graphics/aid.gif[/]

Here's their explanation of what the ranking means:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

All rich countries give development assistance to poorer countries. But the design of development assistance programs means that some dollars or euros are more effective than others are. So, the index development assistance component rewards countries not only for the quantity of their development assistance, but also for the quality. It subtracts development assistance that comes right back to donors as debt payments. It penalizes donors for "tying" development assistance-requiring that it be spent only on goods and services from the donor country-or funding many small projects that can overload the staff of poor-country governments. It rewards selectivity-giving development assistance to countries that are particularly poor and particularly well governed. New in 2004, the index rewards tax incentives for charitable donations.

Sweden ranks first with Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway following closely behind. Not only are these countries among the world's most generous for their size, but each also ties a very small proportion of their development assistance. Japan and the United States sit near the bottom. The Japanese development assistance score suffers because Japan takes in heavy interest payments on old loans. The United States gives little development assistance for its size, ties much of it to the purchase of U.S. goods and services, and allocates it to countries generally richer or more corrupt than recipients of development assistance from other donors. Small donors such as New Zealand, Greece and Ireland are pulled low for spreading their development assistance thinly across many small projects.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I realise this complicates the argument, but even in raw number terms, saying America is the most generous country in terms of international aid is a very dubious claim if military aid is taken out and the size of the economy is factored in. And that's common sense - the story of the widow's mite is about giving in proportional, not absolute, terms.

[Ron Lambert]

Give me a break! That is the most unbelievable, totally misleading chart I have ever seen! What are aid "RESULTS"?What is the real justification for leaving out this or that category, as if they did not matter and were not needed?

What is wrong with stating the simple fact that in actual, objective amount of financial aid given to international relief efforts, America is the role model, exceeding the entire rest of the world combined? What is the real agenda of you people who are trying to dispute this?

I honor the current expressions of self-criticism by the Kuwaitis, who lament that they have given far too little, especially since people from many of the countries affected served as domestic help in Kuwait over the years, helping to raise their children--and the price of oil has doubled recently. This has led to serious reconsideration by the Kuwaitis from the government on down, and they have already decided to double their previous commitment of financial aid.

The disaster in the Indian Ocean has provoked similar heart-searching among many nations, and has produced many spontaneous efforts to raise funds to aid the relief efforts. These at least are some good things that have come of this disaster.

I also have to remark on the chief weather forecaster for Thailand, who has been forced to resign in disgrace. He knew the earthquake was strong enough to produce a major tsunami, and occurred in a region that did produce a tsunami many years ago, and he could have given up to an hour's advance warning to tourists and residents on the beaches. But he did not give out the warning, lest it turn out to be a false alarm, like a previous false alarm given by a predecessor a few years ago which cost him his job. When asked why he did not give the warning, the just-resigned weather forecaster said he "did not want to hurt the tourism industry." So how much did it hurt the tourism industry to allow half the tourists to be killed? Think what a hero that man would be now, if he had given that warning.

[Bravus]

Erm, because it's a flat out lie to say that?! Try this chart, with no subjectivity involved at all:

[]http://www.ualberta.ca/~dgeelan/usgives.jpg[/]

[Ron Lambert]

"As a percentage of national income." But what about the actual objective, unadjusted, unrationalized, un-tampered with, unobfuscated dollar amounts given? What are you calling a lie, Bravus?

[Ron Lambert]

The United States provides the most humanitarian assistance by far

The major donors of bilateral humanitarian assistance, 2000 US$ million

United States 1165

Netherlands 366

United Kingdom 344

All other DAC donors 337

Sweden 265

Norway 204

Canada 201

Germany 178

France 159

Switzerland 146

Denmark 124

Japan 85

Source: Randel and German 2002.

[]http://www.usaid.gov/fani/ch05/5-3.gif[/]

[Dr. Shane]

It sounds like you need to get your facts straight, Brother Bravus. At the beginning the US anounced it would contribute an initial $15 million. The key word being "initial". The US, at no time ever, stated they were only going to contrubute $15 million. Moreover, the US had already spoken to the heads of state of those nations affected and assured them they would get whatever they needed. Another example of selective reporting - otherwise known as spin.

[Bravus]

Nope, I understood that. I was responding to Ron's statement that the US had given the most 'from the very beginning'. To me, that means much the same as 'initial', and clearly there they had *not* given the most at that point. Maybe it sounds like a quibble, but his statement was factually incorrect, and mine was factually correct, as I made it.

And Ron, are you having reading comprehension problems? Raw numbers mean nothing useful: The US has a population of 293 million and a GDP of US$11 trillion. The Netherlands, the next greatest donor in raw amounts, has a population of 16 million and a GDP of US$461 billion. (All figures CIA World Factbook.) That means that, to give the same on a per capita basis as the Netherlands, the US would have to be giving 18.3 times as much, rather than maybe 3.3 times as much. To give the same as the Netherlands on a per economy basis, it would have to give 24 times as much, again, not somewhere between 3 and 4 times as much.

It's not that complicated to understand that saying the raw number is the world's biggest is *hugely* different from saying that the US is the world's most generous. If a millionaire gives $350 to charity and a guy on $20,000 a year gives $100, yes, the millionaire has given more, but has been less generous.

[Dr. Shane]

But to be fair, Brother Bravus, we have to wait and combine both government and private sector donations to see how much each country actually gives. Many of the Europeans countries have higher taxes and as a result the governments give more and the private sector less than the US.

[Bravus]

Fair enough. I'll be astonished if the US public gives 6 times what the US government gives, which is what they'd need to do to make their contribution equivalent to that of the Netherlands (OK, we're slightly comparing apples and oranges here, tsunami aid specifically vs international aid more generally).

I think it would make your arguments more credible, Brothers Shane and Ron, if you were willing to say "The US does not give as much to international aid as some other countries because we have other priorities" than for you to just keep on claiming, in the face of all the clear facts, that the US is the most generous country in the world. It clearly is not.

That's completely fine - it's a decision for the leaders and people of each country to make. I'm not arguing at all with America's funding policies or priorities - that's a matter for Americans. I'm simply saying, make claims that are truthful and factual about it.