[EDITED] Humanitarian Bidding-War

Mr. Jan Egeland, the Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs got into hot water for his comment early last week that wealthy nations were stingy in their contributions for humanitarian work.  The US administration as well as conservative pundits have had a field day in dumping on Mr. Egeland - insisting that the US is the most charitable nation on the face of the earth.

It now appears that Mr. Egeland's comments have had a profound effect on the humanitarian response from the nations of the world.  Nations seem to be outbidding each other - the US was shamed from an initial $15m to $35m, and now to a "long-term" (?) $350m.  Japan has announced a very generous $500m contribution.

I had a look at the following of CNN's pages:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/02/world.relief.contribution.reut/index.html

- don't know if the info is totally up-to-date.

I then calculated the per-capita contribution of what seemed to be the 10 largest contibutors (per-capita) with the following result:

• Denmark - $54.88m/5.5m pop. - per cap contribution: $9.98
  
• Sweden  -  $80m/9m: $8.90/cap
  
• Japan   -  $500/125m: $4.00/cap
  
• Norway -  $16.53m/4.6m: $3.59/cap
  
• Australia -  $6.48/18m: $2.58/cap
  
• Netherlands  -  $34/16m: $2.13/cap
  
• Spain  -  $68/40m: $1.70/cap
  
• UK    -  $96/59m: $1.60/cap
  
• USA  -  $350m/295m: $1.19/cap
  
• Canada  -  $33m/30m: $1.10/cap

But just about an hour ago, I heard on CNN that the Norwegian government has decided to make an additional grant of NOK 1 billion (USD165 million) for a total grant of $181million [Update: corrected typo of $811 million which should read $181 million]- or a staggering $39.35 per capita.  
[I have no link yet, but saw corraborating stories in the Norwegian web-news of discussions between the govenment and the party leaders in the Storting (parliament).  Will update if and when I find a confirming link.]

Egeland's comments have thus seem to have resulted in a tremendous success in terms of resource mobilization and he should be credited for making the politically risky move he made.
However, the Bush-administration will never forget the embarassing situation Egeland put them in.  Will the US politically undermine Egeland and scheme for his ultimate removal?  
Will he survive and should he?

•  Thanks for the diary ...

  Appreciate this diary ... sadly did not have the time to work out the per capita numbers.

  This is true of overall U.S. aid programs.  USG likes to state that we are "largest" donor to many disasters / development programs but fails to emphasize that we are one of the smallest donors of industrialized nations on a per capita basis.
  

  by besieged by bush on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:22:09 PM PDT

  •  Private contributions surpass gov't pledges

    In UK the private donations passed the £70m mark and in the Netherlands, ahead of this week's Aid Drive on TV, donations were €26m, just about equal to gov't pledge.

    The world community really getting out in front of GWB. George who?

    In 2005 - Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

    by creve coeur on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:45:35 PM PDT

•  Sorry for the initial typo

  My take,

  is that at present he is untouchable.  The media interest that his comment generated as well as the current success in raising funds for the tsunami-victims will protect him.  Barring a major mess in the coordination of the humanitarian effort, Egeland should be safe for some time.

  However, the US-sponsored establishment of the "Core Group" with Japan and Australia does not bode well and may be an initial step to undermine Egeland and (further) undermine the UN in the role of Coordinator (with capital C) of humanitarian efforts.
  

  by ask on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:40:48 PM PDT

  •  Is bashing the UN by republicans

    A "John Birch Society" right-wing effect or just an honost opposition to bureacracy at the UN?

    The speech GWB gave in Sept. 2002 before the UN was so offending, I found it stunning. In front of the General Assembly of Nations, saying: "I am George W. Bush and I am going to war in Iraq. All you nations here gathered are ... IRRELEVANT".

    Nice calling card to the global community.

    I'm calimero and got the most nukes but you people keep beating up on me

    by creve coeur on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:08:02 PM PDT

•  Fine job on funds pledged by nations

  I relate in this diary to facts on the ground in Aceh, see latest news link to US aid effort.

  Also for those wanting to link to my diaries on breaking news of developing tsunami catastrophe and aftermath. Focused on major emergency aid and In Depth reading on new satellites for warning systems in the future.

  In 2005 - Be Liberal, Be Free Especially Amongst Family And Friends

  by creve coeur on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:39:12 PM PDT

•  Of course Jan Egeland should survive.

  The Bush Administration and right wing response to Egeland's comment was precisely the same as the conservative media's reaction to Bill Maher's (very sane) comments about 'surgical' bombing after 9/11.

  Folks on the Right cannot abide straight talk. They're thin-skinned, and they whine, whine, whine when any ray of light pierces the cloud of their vanity.

  Of course the rich nations were stingy...the US in particular. It took an honest comment by Egeland to set some to rights, and others to shame-based reaction.

  Would we always compete to see who might be most charitable.

  by Maxwell on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 05:12:35 PM PDT

•  The numbers for Canada

  Out of date. Government direct grants: 66 million. Canadian fundraising, 30 million with the government also adding one dollar for every dollar raised by Canadians. So, Canda's contribution likely in the 100 million dollar range.

  by Ottawa Guy on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:19:59 PM PDT