The NYT editorial page weighs in on the "Are We Stingy?" relief efforts debate and concludes that yes, we are. The paper contrasts the public perception that the U.S. gives 24% of its budget on aid to poor nations and the reality that we only spends a quarter of 1%. In 2003, America gave $16.2 billion in development aid, while the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, America offered $13.2 billion, while Europe contributed $29.9 billion. Also, very often, the U.S. does not actually deliver all the aid it
promises.
Still, all spending is an indication of priority. When a country, a people, or a politician (do you like how politician get her/his own category?) allocate money towards a cause, they acknowledge the importance of that cause. When not enough money is allocated, the cause is deemed less important than a higher spending priority. In this case, the message couldn't be clearer. Helping the poorest nations on earth overcome one of the largest natural disasters in history is less important than the Bush inauguration. The inauguration of Bush is more important than rebuilding the lives of millions.
Now, I wonder. If (God forbid) a natural disaster occurred in the Western hemisphere, or even in the United States, would we, as Americans, not expect all other nations to (1) send their condolences immediately and not wait almost a week [note to Bush: since you're president and all, you'll sometimes have to disrupt your vacation, especially when
80,000+ suddenly die in the poorest region on earth. If you were a true statesmen you would fly to India and Sri Lanka to survey the damage and extend your personal sympathies] (2) contribute all that they can to the relief efforts.
Is it all too much to ask for?
www.politicalthought.net.