Political aid

Scenario 1: A massive tragedy strikes, centered on the world's most populous Muslim nation, but with effects felt in many other countries. The U.S. immediately and decisively pledges a substantial amount of assistance. The following day, as the full scope of the disaster is revealed, that pledge is increased tenfold and the American president publicly informs his counterparts in the afflicted countries that he is willing to offer "whatever we can."

Scenario 2: A massive tragedy strikes, centered on the world's most populous Muslim nation, but with effects felt in many other countries. The U.S. initially offers a token amount of assistance, which is increased only incrementally as the full scope of the disaster is revealed. The American president does not publicly address the disaster until after two days of bicycling and clearing brush. After a week, the U.S. pledge is increased tenfold. Comments from American officials seem to indicate that this is more a response to criticism of American "stinginess" than a response to the disaster itself.

The difference between these two scenarios is important. Pointing out this difference brings howls of protest from uncritical Bush-backers that you are "politicizing" this aid (see for example the Poor Man's discussion of John Podhoretz's feigned outrage).

But you can't "politicize" what is already political. And, yes, while this aid is the Right Thing To Do for basic human and humanitarian reasons, it is also politically significant.

We are in the midst of a global struggle against terrorists. Much of this struggle -- the part that we're not very good at -- is a battle for public opinion. It is as important in this struggle for America to be loved as it is to be feared. (If "loved" seems too strong a word, try "not despised.") America's response to tragedies like this -- particularly when they center on Muslim nations like Indonesia -- is therefore politically important. It provides an opportunity to demonstrate the reality of our ideals and our good will, and to refute the terrorists' message that America is simply a self-interested, imperialist, evil nation.

The Bush administration badly fumbled this opportunity. Apparently they wanted to avoid the appearance of Clintonian empathy, or perhaps to save some money, or maybe they were waiting for U.S. opinion polls to confirm that Americans wanted to see more aid, or ... well, it's hard to know why exactly they handled this so poorly.

Eventually and happily, they came around. The U.S. is now pledging $350 million in assistance and indicating that more may be provided down the road. But the way they arrived at this point managed to undermine any potential benefit such a pledge might have provided in the struggle for global opinion. The humanitarian result is the same -- $350 million in aid.* But the political result is very different.

As individuals, of course, we're all free to give as much as we can without the taint of any such political considerations. Here's a good list of aid agencies seeking donations.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* And let's hope this money represents something more real than, say, the $15 billion "pledged" to combat AIDS in Africa.

Comments

[Rebecca Allen, PhD]

Excuse me, but are you actually expecting the affected countries to see that $350 million?? The Bush administration has a lengthy track record of promising aid that never materializes (see aid to Africa for AIDS, to NYC after 9/11, etc.). Once again, they're getting credit for a promise, safe in the knowledge that their failure to deliver won't get nearly as much press. I'll be surprised if aid that's actually delivered is more than $100 million.

[ctate]

The initial Bush aid offer was a scant $15 million, not $30 million as widely misreported. I'm told that $15 million is roughly one-third the budget alloted for the upcoming auguration.

[steve duncan]

"We are in the midst of a global struggle against terrorists." Fred, terrorism is but a small part of the Bush agenda. Far more important is marginalizing the Democratic Party for as many election cycles as possible. If the War On Terrorism can be used to help accomplish this all the better. The 'K' Street project, state redistricting (gerrymandering), elimination of public schools (and consequently teacher unions), expansion of viable overseas oil exploration fields for U.S. companies and entrenching the judiciary with committed rightist judges rank well ahead of terrorism worries. These Fascists are fond of pointing fingers at dangerous outsiders. Behind the scenes they're working feverishly to do far more damage to our rights and liberties than Bin Laden in his wildest dreams.

[Reuben]

I'm with Steve on this one. I can't help this niggling suspicion that power, and the retention thereof into the foreseeable future, is a little more important to the current administration than the welfare of the people. I may not agree with those who say terrorism and national security must be the highest priorities in US politics, but at least most (many?) of those who say it, say it because they believe it is best for their fellow citizens.

I think it's the same with the appeals to faith/morality/baby Jesus/insert snarkiness here. It seems that large numbers of people really believe that there needs to be an intersection of Church and State, for the sake of the wellbeing of the nation. I disagree, with extreme prejudice, but at least there's an honesty of worldview for most of those espousing it.

The neocons don't share that honesty. They are probably laughing gleefully right now, in some little gloomy room lit with burning constitutional rights, at how they are getting to co-opt a culture war. Religious right gets angry about something, paint it as 'liberal' or some such, and therefore the fault falls at the feet of the 'liberal' party, the Democrats. Handed this, of course those on the far right are going to run with it. This is one (of many) cases where the two-party system screws you in a fairly unpleasant way. I think with a more diversified make up of representatives, it would be much harder to blame such a huge segment of the population for who chose to put a nekkid woman on the telly.

Back to aid... Here in NZ we're running a surplus at the moment. Naturally the right wing parties want tax cuts (ACT's been calling for a flat 20% for years), but one woman I know who works for family planning in SE Asia makes the heretical suggestion that maybe the money could go to people who (gosh!) need it. I politely ask those other NZers on the blog to get in touch with their MPs about passing a message along to Cullen along these lines. Cheers.

I really have the most horrific run-on sentences. Ugh.

[Liberal AND Proud]

Actually, I think the "waiting for the polls" remark was very insightful.

[Beth]

I think Fred's point was not that the administration's too busy fighting the WoT to worry about the tsunami, but that the WoT alone should have motivated them to react quickly and generously to the tragedy. We're spending millions, maybe hundreds of millions, already on propaganda efforts to try to convince Muslims that we're not really their enemies, that our involvement in their regions are not selfish and imperialistic, but generous and respectful, that we didn't 'invade' Iraq, we 'liberated' it. The tsunami, tragic as it was, should have been a gift for us. It was a perfect opportunity to 'walk the walk', to offer something besides pretty words. It was a chance to replace all those videos of American bombs falling on mosques and hospitals with American food and clothing going to needy Muslims. In Iraq we've proven that we're a dangerous enemy. The tsunami gave us the chance to prove that we're also a valuable friend. Hunanitarian concerns aside, a quick and generous response would have been a great use of our anti-terror dollars.

So why didn't we do it? I suspect part of it hearkens back to Fred's recent LB post, "Cursed are the peacemakers." Tsunami relief is a true international effort. There's no room for 'good guys' and 'bad guys' here. It's about joining with the rest of the world in a truly multinational action. Helping in a situation like this goes to the very core of Christianity, to Jesus' interpretation of the word 'neighbor' in 'love your neighbor' (c.f. the Good Samaritan), but it is also antithetical to many of the beliefs and policies of the Christian Right, who want to restrict the interpretation of 'neighbor' to those who share their nationality and their beliefs.

Digby recently referenced a WorkingForChange article that talked about the lack of response to the disaster from many Christian Right organizations. From the Family Research Council to he Christian Coalition, they all seem to have other priorities. I suspect it is simply that tsunami releif doesn't fit their black-and-white world view, their conception of a great war between the forces of good and the forces of evil. The conservatives who crowed after 9/11 over the fall of 'special interest liberals' and 'hyphanated minorities', who gloried in the new awareness that we were all just Americans, find nothing to cheer about in the idea that we are all just human beings. Unity is fine as long as it is confined within our Judeo-Christian borders, but when it threatens to leak out into the rest of the world and force us to embrace everyone as our brothers, then they want no part of it. Christian genorsity is fine when it stands alone, a testament to Christian uniqueness and superiority. If it will be thrown into a big pot, mixed in with Muslim generosity, Buddhist generosity, secular generosity, and all the rest, it threatens that sense of uniqueness and so is to be avoided at all cost.

[Anarch]

Any reliable sources on exactly what, of the promised AIDS aid, actually reached Africa? This has been something of a hobbyhorse of mine, and it's intensely irritating not to have actual facts available.

My take on it is that Bush and Co. were genuinely astonished that Americans took the disaster seriously. The Bush crowd isn't bothered by our soldiers dying in Iraq or Iraqis getting killed, much less the physical destruction caused by the war. Their failure to respond to the tsunami's death toll and destruction was in character.

Once it became clear that the American people were emotionally affected by the disaster, the Bushies saw their error and moved to correct it.

[lawguy]

Actually it's not 10 times -- the original offer was 15 mil -- so that makes it more than 20 times which shows not how great bush is but how stingy he was before he got the word.

[darms]

n' maybe the delay was to find a way for Halliburton to take a cut of the $$, eh?

[Marley]

The thing I'm waiting for is for bush to use the outpouring from private citizens against us. He's already made comments about the american people reaching out independent of our government, and how great that is. But he'll twist this, and soon we'll hear how in the same way we didn't rely on the government to help SE Asia, we don't need to rely on the government to guarantee social security. No good deed goes unpunished under this bozo.

[Deborah White]

They probably spent it all when they GIFTED billions in federal funds to faith (i.e. Christian, mianly fundamentalist)-based groups to support and/or supplement their social services programs.

Bush is extremely discerning when he gives out money. It is supposed to used to directly or indirectly evangelize the recipient to Christianity, and cause them to be more self-sufficient.

I have been researching and writing a series on this subject. Bush's lack of interest in or compassion for this tsumani tragedy, and reluctance in giving aid to the victims perfectly illustrates this thesis.

[bill]

be careful how you all compute the 350 million! word appears that the costs of the movement of ships and troops will be deducted from the 350! Bet ya all that by the time these pieces of scum get done-- our gov will be sending the victims a bill for services!

[sm]

I'm from Canada and visit the USA fairly frequently. The amount of foreign news that Americans get is very small and has a very narrow focus compared to what Canadians get. It could be in part the much higher % of immigrants in Canada, or the fact that Canada can never afford to ignore the rest of the world.

Back in 1998 (IIRC) there was a big earthquake in Turkey. There was a lot of reportage in Canada the first day. The second day I was driving listening to the CBC and the hourly news came on the radio. The hourly news is about 4 minutes long most hours. The very first sentence stated something about casualties or aid in connection with "yesterday's earthquake." Only in the second sentence was it felt necessary to remind people that the earthquake was in Turkey. It was taken for granted that Canadians who follow the news would know where the earthquake was and would care about it.

I really don't think this would happen very often in the USA.

I quite agree with the poster above who said that Bush and Co were surprised that Americans did care. A fair number don't, and a lot of them the selfish rich people who support them. Bush and Co had forgotten that there are other kinds of Americans.

[todd mosser]

you people are pathetically predictable. bunch of friggin nitwits. and you wonder why you cant win any elections..

[Jason]

My goodness, todd, I didn't even know I was running for anything!

Which election did you win? I know that I would not vote for anyone who did not use capital letters, not even for dogcatcher. Our fair burg's dogcatchers must be literate personages.

[Eli]

The other day at work I was reluctantly overhearing someone's TV. A news reporter with a note of sad "wouldn't you just know it" in her voice was telling the story of how the "the Arab world" had contributed the smallest amounts of disaster relief. Absolute amounts of course, no mention of per capita anything, who needs fancy concepts like division... and nothing about the nature and scale of the relief effort itself... just a lot of tut-tutting about the stingy "Arabs" (and I think they even included Iran in that category).

I'd like to believe this was Fox News, but I'm afraid it probably wasn't...

[Reid]

Oh boy, you leftists see events play out and then you work overtime to fit them into your pet theory.

Here are the actual facts. Why the $15 Million right off the bat? It was the MAXIMUM amount (by law!) the executive branch could pledge without congressional approval. They had always planned to increase that, believe me. (I'm being lazy now, but I can get facts to support that if I have to.)

So Bush sent every dollar he had at his disposal right off the bat, and then upped the ante at the soonest opportunity. But hey he must not REALLY be a compassionate Christian because all good Christians are leftists, right?

And tsk, what a shocking lack of PRESS CONFERENCES. What we want are WORDS, not ACTIONS. Sheesh.

[KelvinY]

Reid - $152bn returning Iraq to the stone-age. $350m (less expenses) for SE Asia.

Well, whoopee-freaking-doo!

They'll be singing out on the streets in Acheh, tonight! Well, no, because the US-backed Indonesian government and Exxon Mobil have sucked the province so dry the tsunami washed what little infrastructure they had away.

[Honest Abe]

You guys would be a lot more credible if you didn't avoid facts that weren't convenient. I'm sure you protested against nuclear carriers in the past. The America that saved so many lives would never have existed if you had it your way

December 28, 2004 Supercarrier USS Abraham Lincoln dispatched to tsunami-stricken area

1/10/2005 USS Bonhomme Richard, 15th MEU Deliver 75,000 Pounds of Aid Ashore

Saturday, January 15, 2005 Navy extends deployment of USS Lincoln Aircraft carrier is leading tsunami relief aid

You can read more here: http://www.navy.mil/local/tsunami/

More than two weeks later the UN still hadn't delivered a blanket, tourist refuges could not get a hotel room because the UN had booked them all, and the BBC never mentioned the US Navy operation