> Actually, *you* were the one that singled out the United States. > The undersecretary's statements referred to the United States and other > Developed Industrial countries of the world, including > Britain.
Strange, all the reports I can find on the web specifically say "the United States and others" no mention of who those others are. I've looked at Reuters and CNN and others, Google only turns up "and others" in regards to the undersecretary's comments. > "In a news conference at U.N. headquarters in New York, Egeland called for a > major international response -- and went so far as to > call the U.S. government and others "stingy" on foreign aid in general. Even your quote here doesn't specify who the "others" are. If you have a link to the original text of his comments I'd like to see it (I would, I'm not being sarcastic :-) > "If, actually, the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 > percent of the gross national income, I think that is > stingy, really," he said. "I don't think that is very generous." " He's right, that isn't very generous, but at the same time, is an appeal for aid the right time to slap "many countries" for not being "very generous"? Oh and this just in, Egeland said he was "misinterpreted": "It has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We are in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive," he said. "The international assistance that has come and been pledged from the United States, from Europe and from countries in the region has also been very generous," Egeland added. > ""The 0.2 percent of U.S. gross national product represented by foreign aid > obligations the past two years, however, is among the > smallest amounts in the last half-century. The United States is the largest > international economic aid donor in dollar terms but is > the smallest contributor among the major donor governments when calculated as > a percent of gross national income," said the report, > which is posted on the U.S. State Department's Web site." that .2% doesn't include food donations of which the US is the largest donor worldwide. It also doesn't include private donations (individuals, non-profita and corporations)of which the US is responsible for ~$30 Billion per year in targeted foreign aid. the statistics aren't entirely fresh but: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#Sidenoteonprivatecontributions > "Egeland, at the U.N. news conference, said the cost of the devastation will > "probably be many billions of dollars. However, we > cannot fathom the cost of these poor societies and the nameless fishermen and > fishing villages that have just been wiped out." And when we have assessed the total situation I for one am confident that the US will step up, it has done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future... Unless we grant your wish and close up shop... > "The important thing is that we give and that we as citizens also demand that > our countries give generously to those who have been > so hard hit."" I agree, and we should, additionally, lead by example and donate to the causes we feel will do the most good. Which I will be doing tonight after I talk it over with my wife. > Feel free to refute those facts and thus debunk the notion that the initial > offers by developed industrial countries, INCLUDING the > United States was 'stingy' given the scale of the disaster. Okay, but I'll just have to go from the US government numbers, given that they are largely the only ones being reported. The US Government pledge of $15M was a starting point, not a cap, so I think that the above 'stingy' comment is unwarranted. That the $15M has been increased to $35M is a good sign. Is that a result of pressure? I don't know, maybe it is. But so what? Would the world prefer the US say, "that's it, we're not giving any more than this." Would that make you more right? Would it make you feel better or vindicated in some way? > This thread is turning into a poster child for Americans working overtime to > push some Postive PR to counteract those that claim the > US is Arrogant, Imperialistic and Elitist by complaining that the US isn't > getting enough good PR by providing aid in the world's > most horrible natural disaster in recent memory. Interesting that many times, those that claim the US is "Arrogant, Imperialistic and Elitist" would prefer to make that statement without considering that their may be an opposing viewpoint that isn't necessarily from a gun-toting, flag waiving right wing nut POV. They would prefer, most times it seems, to not have to discuss the possiblity that they may be too harsh or too general in their judgement. I for one am not disagreeing that the US can be Arrogant and Elitist, indeed I can make a damn fine argument that the US has been at times Imperialist, I may even go so far as to say that one of those times may be right now, but as an American and as a thinking individual I will reserve the right to argue with you about it. > Keep up the good work. Why? Sometimes it doesn't seem to matter if we do. But we probably will just in case. > Yup. Yup -- will "If my life weren't funny, it would just be true; and that would just be unacceptable." - Carrie Fisher ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141104 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
