Foreign Aid to the US
 

I was wondering about this:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/kat...aid/index.html

It seems like there has been an outpouring of foreign aid offered to the US by over 50 countries. I think Qatar came up with $100 million. India, Thailand, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka - the four hardest hit by the tsunamis are also prominent.

So far though, the US hasn't accepted. But it's still nice to see that others were so willing to offer us help you know? Especially poor countries and countries like Qatar too. Even our "old friend" Venezuela was one of the first to offer us help.

I think that's cool and nice (sorry cynics). It reminds me of 9/11 - when the Masai of Kenya "donated" 1000 head of cattle to the US to help us. I thought it was quite touching.

Ok, Cuba, CUBA has offered help (doctors, medical supplies), and good ol Mexico has pledged alot of aid (and we all know they could probably use it themselves.

That's pretty good, especially we bash or are harsh on some of these countries.

China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and France!

I dunno, I guess it's nice to see people helping each other out for a change instead of the usual bickering.

Yes I enjoyed reading the letters of complaint that no countries were offering help to the USA in yesterday mornings weekend paper knowing that many countries had already offered to help. (to be fair it may not have been in Friday's newspaper, I just found it funny as there was a news article on it a few pages before the letters to the editor).

...
 

I just don't understand why Bush is declining the offers. They haven't excepted any of them? I've discussed this with my sister who attends a high school located directly accross the street from Stanford University. If you know anything about those who attend school here and the surrounding area in general, you know that 90% of these people are hardcore democrats. My sister came home today completely ripping Bush. When I asked her why she was so worked up, she told me that her (teacher) basically gave a whole lesson about how the delayed relief effort was due to Bush's decision to decline help. Okay, I don't agree with that. But, I'm still curious as to why the help is being denied.

I would think Bush declines the aid for political reasons.....I only wish I knew what they were. It seems as if everything in this disaster revolves around the politics....rather than the needs, a true pity. I am disgusted with what I see happening (or not happening), but hopefully lessons will be learned from the failings.

It is a delicate balance when it comes to offering or declining aid to a country - I only hope that the decline will not mar our relations when our government decides we DO need it, but there is no longer anyone interested based on our refusal in the past.

I am absolutely STUNNED that Cuba is offering aid.....I saw the article on CNN before I saw it here and had to reread that line 6 times before I realized I wasnt reading it wrong

I think it is a mixture of pride and nationalism. "America is strong! America need no help, especially not from those godless commie heathens"
Some People seem to be occupied by the thought that the rest of the world hates Anmerica and wishes for the death of all Americans. Those people seem not to like the though that this is wrong.

There was an outpouring of sympathy for the US after 9/11. There is an outpouring of sympathy now.

Yet there will always be those who cry that no one cares about the US and it people or have short memories.

I think its great that Cuba and Venezuala have offered help - it won't be accepted, but at least they offered.

I don't think it's odd that Cuba offered aid - Castro offered election observers last time round didn't he? And Venezuela too - Chavez has previously suggested selling cheap oil to poor areas of the US. Both men surely like to show they're above the lies and the petty squabbles the US enjoys starting over their countries, but they also have histories of helping (or at least wanting to help) those who get no benefit from the societies they live in. The people who had nowhere to evacuate to when the storm came certainly fit this profile.

I can't imagine either man kickback funding a $200million kickback bridge to an uninhabited kickback island in Alaska while cutting the flood defence budget for 650,000 people in New Orleans. (did you spot the subliminimal message in there?)

For the record, India declined offers of help after the Tsunami.

But a lot of those aid offers were *also* for political reasons. Do you honestly believe that Cuba and Venezuela offered help because they're so nice and friendly? Hell no... it's purely political: "look at us helping the evil enemy, aren't we great?".

And if Bush declines the aid, he might have a pretty good reason. But of course, politically it looks bad: "they're only declining it because they're enemies".

You can't blame the US for political games, and ignore the other side. They're just as bad, if not worse.

Hmm...

I thought at first that maybe the US declined the money because the countries offering aid would do better using it for their countries...

But I'm known to be optimistic.

BINGO

you hit the nail on the head dragonlich. the purpose of aid-giving (by national governments) is rarely practical, but just another component of the international geo-political dance. by extending his hand, castro is in a win-win situation. if the US accepts, then cuba will get a nice PR boost and the accomanying political pressure to warm relations. if the US declines, it can easily be construed as arrogance and/or an unwillingness to work "for the good of humanity" or some such slogan. both goverments know this (witness our community-relations dollars being spent on iranian earthquake victims), and use this tool to further their own agendas.

it may be sad, but that's the way the game is played. personally, i rely on NGOs and church-funds to do the bulk of real good-will efforts, the political realm is just a side-show to real compassion.

I agree, purely political for bush to refuse. later on, he can tout how we did it all without th help of foreign aid bc we're a strong country, etc.

and CUBA offering ...wow.

but yeah, i'd say a lot of the offers are political, but still.

Hmm...perhaps the good old USA has already enough help? The world most powerful ecomony, strong enough to fund several wars at the same time...needs help?

Naw, you guys got enough help coming from homefront. Even major corporations are pitching in, heck, even Fedex is donating several cargo planes to ship aids to the disaster area for free and at the same time, dontating several millions to agencies, surely other companies can do the same in their respective industries?

India refused helped for The Tsunami. As it should.

Don't want to be in anyone's back pocket, these Hyperpowers.

It looks bad given the incredibly poor response of the government to the hurricane, but we do have more than enough resources in this country to take care of these people.

It's just a matter of having the leadership in place to mobilize those resources in a timely and efficient manner. Maybe some of these countries can offer us their leaders instead of the aid. We could sure use one.

It's good to know that the world can seperate their distain for our government with their mutual humanity with our people. I choose to see this as pure help, not political strategizing. I thank each of those countries sincerly for their generous offers.

I agree with you, willravel. Even though some of these countries are already getting aid from us and can hardly afford it, the fact that they offered help is a wonderful gesture.

I hope our leaders can figure out a way to accept some of the aid offered (not just money). Only good things can come from this.

I agree with both of these .........

Some of the countries offering need it moreso, but it is great they offered. I think it is interesting how we complain about sending aid to others (which I am not a fan of in some cases) and yet here they are wanting to help us. And not for political reasons.

I also find it interesting to see who hasn't offered.

I think Condi had it right when she said that all offers of assistance would be welcomed. Had not Bush intruded, she would have achieved a huge political coup of softening our "go it alone" image that has distanced many of the world's leaders.

It seemed as if a few people didn't notice this, so I felt it beared repeating. All these offers of aid aren't the loving, caring gestures of humanity some people are making them out to be. They are PR stunts and ways of gaining political capital, and not much else.

And another thing to be considered after what has been seen in many previous disasters is that offering ais and delivering on said offers are two different things.

I don't see much downside if they get some good PR out of their offers. It might just promote some good will between their and our people in spite of the polititian's motives.

It may be political, sure but I still think it's cool that other countries did offer off help in our time of need.

I also think that perhaps (on a relative scale), we actually don't need the help simply cause we really do have lots of resources. I mean, just look at our pro sports and entertainment. Our pro athletes and entertainers have done a great job (in my opinion) of raising funds for the relief effort. And, big business too. I believe Best Buy and some others have joined in the effort. Our private sector has answered the call (in my opinion) in aiding ourselves and aren't finished yet I have a feeling.

So refusing the aid is ok, especially with a polite thank you. Many of those countries could use the money themselves or resources. I still think (political or not) that the gesture was nice.

Nothing wrong with that.

Well stated.

I think that is entirely besides the point. The US doesn't give money to those in need out of the generousness of its heart nor should be expect any other nation to do the same.

The point is, that they made the effort (regardless of their motives).

However, much like India after the Tsunami there is no reason why the US would have to accept anything offered.

Well Said...

It's relevant because many people here were trying to attribute these offers as pure altruism. This thread isn't about why or why not US gives aid. I'm sure that many of the people who now are trying to say how kind and generous foreign countries are being by offering to help the US would turn around and attempt to disparage similar efforts by the US toward the rest of the world. I don't expect the rest of the world to offer aid from pure generousness, I just expect that people know that aid offered isn't string free and purely altruistic. And also, that the effort is hollow and meaningless.

With the highest deficit in history! I really think we need to stop funding wars and take care of our own country. The billions that have gone to the middle east would easily have covered funding for three storms. It makes me crazy. :crazy:

I'm one who's disgusted with the 2 main political parties exsisting here. It seems lying, greed, and corruption have become acceptable as long as it has a sweet coating of potical correctness to it. Your probalby right alansmithee, and although sugar coating shallow BS doesnt go anywhere, I personally have found neither does being cynical about global intentions. (not saying you are) Perhaps just condolences are appropriate, whether or not there was a hidden agenda- the difference between opinion and fact will have to suffice.

I have a lot to say about the comments in these threads but I'll boil it down to a few concepts I think are most relevant:

1) other country's citizens have always been known to make a distinction between our common citizens and our nation's foreign policies.

2) it shouldn't be surprising to many people closely following geopolitics and under-developed nation's real or imagined affinity with the impoverished of our nation--and especially so when global capitalism trumps humanitarian issues as was the case with the precursors and aftermath of this disaster. Once one understands how these issues relate to the ideologies of the leaders and societies of the most "surprising" offers of aid (Cuba and Venezuela, most specifically) then these kinds of offers begin to make more sense--and not purely for political grandstanding. Besides the fact that on the face of it they don't stand to gain anything for their offers from a political perspective--the people who are most opposed to their policies and ideologies aren't even aware that they made offers and the "left" is already politically sympathetic to their autonomy in global affairs. now I've regressed....

3) bunching our "aid" with the aid that venezueal and cuba have extended seems to be ignorance at best or willful mischaracterization of global aid at worst...our "aid" and the aid countries become agitated about comes in the form of Breton Woods institutions imposed loans and SAP's, but the large bulk by far is in the form of military weapons. What would they do? Give us back our old technology...tanks and planes? instead, cuba offers doctors and food, venezuela offers to assist us in one of the most critical limited resources we need to run our economy--a need exacerbated by the region this disaster occurred within. In my mind, at least, I can distinguish which types of aid are more conducive to alleviating human suffering and are more likely to stem from altruistic motives....

You took the words (and added some better ones) right out of my mouth. Those who see Cuba's offer of aid as being a purely political move are not seeing the most important and relevant part of the picture. One of the main tenets of socialism is the alleviation of human suffering. This should not be ignored.

Besides... do you think that the White House will see the offer of aid and all of a sudden change their mind about Cuba? Do you think Castro expects this?

Well I don't think he expects so much, but it still looks good for Cuba to be offering aid to a country that has imposed sanctions on it. You cannot be certain wether it's for purely political reasons, alturistic or a mixture of political and alturistic reasons.

Thank you and indeed your point can not be ignored.

From a US-capitalist/individualist perspective, such offers of aid make no sense without attempting to decipher what the offering nation-state has to gain by making them. That is, one owns an asset and will utilize it (or invest it, in capitalist terms; in fact, one person even referred to it as "political capital") to purchase something else. Without its purchasing power, aid offers make no sense to the capitalist. To the capitliast, human nature is fundamentally evil (before arguing that point read back through the numerous threads regarding the fact that communism looks good on paper but doesn't take into account human nature. If those people don't believe human nature is evil, then substitute whatever term they use to conceive of human nature in its place) and only an objective hand, the free market, can keep human interactions in check. Relinquishment of limited resources without compensation doesn't make sense within this paradigm.

To the communist, however, assets are not owned by individuals. To the extent that they are owned by anyone, ownership rests in the collective and must be utilized for the benefit of the community. There is no concept of just compensation for the expenditure of an asset since the beneficiary already possesses a right to the asset. To a communist, it wouldn't be right to withhold aid from a suffering person perceived to be within the community. To such a person, human behavior is fundamentally good but the market corrrupts human interactions rather than regulating them.

I argue it doesn't make much sense to apply capitalist concepts and motivations to a communist nation-state or its leader. One could, however, argue that Castro is simply using communism as a tool to maintain control over a population. People have argued that in the past so I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't implicit in some of these statements. But that's really the only way one can logically argue that aid offers from communist nation-states are motivated by a capitalist rationale. So if you want to state the assumptions you make about human interaction at the offset, we could then see where you are coming from. But simply stating as a truism that people don't as a general rule offer something for nothing doesn't even begin to support your contention in this context, because that only violates the tenets of capitalism except these people aren't operating within your paradigm.

In order to ascertain one's motives for actions you have to understand where they come from--what they fundamentally believe in. So far these comments that aid offers are Machiavellian are presented from within a capitalist frame of reference so I have to question how closely you've approximated a communist's motive for making an offer of human aid.

As a peptic towards those who would think a government gives money entirely for altruistic reasons it is relevant to mention that there are political motives behind and government giving support.

I don't recall all that many people here disparaging the US for the aid it provided after the Tsunami. I think you are confusing providing aid with waging a war and using "aiding the people of Iraq" to put happy spin on things (I could be wrong but I don't think so given your take on things in general :) ).

Regardless of the reason for offering the aid, I think it is rather disingenuous of you to call it, "hollow and meaningless". I am sure the money and support offered by Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia are just as meaningful as the money and support offered by other nations on that list. It is only "hollow and meaningless" if the gift is accepted and they do not follow through.

I don't know about you but "it's the thought that counts" does mean something. I'd like to think that eventhough there are political points to be won or lost, somewhere in the mix there is one group of people wanting to help another group of people in need.

As for aid/support in the Iraq war, I was not talking about that. I remember comments around the tsunami that the US wasn't giving enough, and was only giving because they were expected. And other foreign aid is often refered to as buying influence around here.

And I think all the countries involved are making just as hollow and meaningless gestures, not just the ones that you mentioned above. I believe that many of those nations had no real expectation of the US actually accepting their aid.

And you are right, it is the thought that counts. It's just the thought behind these offers is mainly "lets get in the good graces of the US" or "lets show up the US by offering the richest country in the world aid" and not "lets help people who are seriously in need of aid". I might be cynical, but I've found that cynicism is generally the way to the truth.

That is somewhat incorrect: Singapore's aid was a direct response to a US request for help.

Additionally, alot of the aid was accepted: the aid was channeled through the Red Cross, a non-governmental entity. It's in the article.

I will post it again here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/03/ka....aid/index.html

I tend to try and find the mid ground between cynicism and hope... My experience leads me to believe that things are rarely as black and white as you've painted them... they are various shades of grey.

I don't recall, the calls for more aid from the US (not that it didn't happen just wasn't loud enough to catch my attention). And foreign aid is for buying influence. That and helping to spread goodwill towards the nation spreading the foreign aid around. I don't think anyone would really dispute this.

Also, Condoleeza Rice has said that the US would accept all offers of aid.

Of course it's buying influence. It the same way with charity - the sports worls and entertainment world is doing it to improve their image. Best Buy isn't being generous out of the goodness of their heart. It's to buy "influence" - marketing, image etc.with the American people.

Same with the tsunamis - we weren't trying to help them out of the goodness of our hearts - we couldn't let Japan or Australia one-up us in the aid department. It was a pissing contest. A pissing contest that theoretically the vicitms benefited from cause of all the aid raised.

So what? They're still helping and that's what counts -

Well, it looks like we accepted all offers of assistance, even Venezuela's. Except for Cuba, which the US said it is waiting for an official extension of aid offered through proper channels. Further, the State Dept. insists:

"A State Department official said there were "absolutely no political
considerations" being taken into account, and that the U.S. government "is
not turning anything down."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/int...ows/index.html

For a complete list of who gave what: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/06/int...id/index.html/