Cali. Floods Bring Out Inconsistencies in Foreign Aid

Published on January 14, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Politics

As California continues to suffer from flood and mudslides, domestic attention is definitely drawn to it.

But the international community will not be reaching out to our citizens for aid, nor will they criticize the lack of spending of other countries on our crisis.

Nor should they.

The California crisis is ours to deal with, and we can and should be grateful for any aid that comes from outside sources as a "gift". While we are indeed a wealthy country, it is our innovative nature and fiscal management that made it so. Many are quick to forget that some 229 years ago, we were an upstart rebel faction with only the economy we could glean from those colonists loyal to our cause. And yet we built (often with questionable tactics, admittedly) a strong country that is in many ways the envy of other nations. And, as such, we can and should, deal with domestic crisis.

At the same time, however, we should not be expected to be the saviors of the rest of the world. Many of their countries' policies have come about because of various reasons that are well within their control. That people starve and live in cardboard huts in India is in no small part due to the caste system that many of its citizens are loathe to displace, even as they criticize us for not providing enough aid that is unlikely to filter down to the "untouchables", those who REALLY need it, in significant quantities. Similar statements can be made of other nations who mismanaged their resources and yet come to us for aid while detesting our suggestions for longterm solutions.

We can and should contribute to the international community (although I remain firm in my contention that such contributions should be VOLUNTARILY made); it is the moral responsibility of the haves to assist the have nots. But if we are so heavily financially invested in these foreign countries, perhaps they should listen a little more to some of the long term solutions we propose.

After all, a climate of continued dependence only hurts them in the long term.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish

Comments

ParaTed2k

on Jan 14, 2005

When it comes to disaster relief, whether international or domestic aid, one rule is always true...

Press = Participaton

In high profile disasters, there is so much aid that coordination and distribution becomes a bigger job than recovery and rehabilitation. Where there is no press, well, I've been on wildland fires where we didn't even have the funding to use water to put it out or "mop up"; and one relief mission where we had to provide our own food.

It's not wonder that many disaster orgs and outfits have taken to holding back a portion of the relief money and supplies they get from high profile ops, so they can use it on low profile ops where no aid is expected.

Moderateman

on Jan 14, 2005

Well thought out gid and well typed too

iamheather

on Jan 14, 2005

Outstanding article, Gideon. You earned my insightful of the day.

One added note to the above quote...We can and should contribute to the international community, but no the UN.

zergimmi

on Jan 14, 2005

In regard to the UN, while the public face we see of the UN is a political one, and is not a good on, Just as its predcessor, League of nations, however there are many parts of the UN that do a lot of good work and we never or rarely hear of it. Personally I believe the security council is not worth "2 lumps of rocking horse shit', why? because of the beauracy that runs it, and the fact that it is generally deadlocked along political line. So yes get rid of or at least have a major restructue of the whole thing, but don't forget the hard working people from such parts as UNICEF or the WHO, who do a great deal of good.

I regard to the question raised above, I do not see a double standard at all, Most Asian countries are quite poor and still developing, and most of these people would not even understand what is going on in the world on an international level, this is not to say they are stupid, merely that they are at a developmental stage in the main, and do not have the resources or the infrasturcture we have, we should help and should not even debate the above, mainly because in most cases we have the resources to help ourselves. This is not t say that we should ignor them, and if neccessary then we should help. We also need to understand that we have such services in our countries as INSURANCE, in most of these countries this is confined to the rich only, something we take for granted.

We do as civilised people have duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves, whether because of disasters or just in general aid. However we should also look at ways to help raise the bar so these people no longer need the degree of hep in the future. Of course we also have a duty to help without intrusion into the politics of these countries, otherwise these people will soon forget the good as they become cycinicalmabout our intentions, which then only serves to help the like of extremists.

I have to say that along with certain parts of the UN, I think another usless abomination in the world today is/are the World BAnk and IMF, which I was heartened to see were kept out of the loop in the aid process this time around, and I am glad to see that there is in most cases a Government to government aproach to the distribution of AID and Help, and in the main the exclusion of the UN, WB and IMF. Score one for sanity. Examples being, the analysis of, and the assessing of individule needs on a cases by cases basis, as opposed to the UN , WOrld BAnk and IMF getting involved. It heartens me to see the likes of Colin Powell going country to country to assess the needs of each and adjusting aid for each countries need, instead of just handing over millions, possibly millions to the above mentioned orginisations, the effect being more aid to those who need it, instead of lining the pockets of the employees of the above three orginisations. Finally the aid goes to those in need.

cactoblasta

on Jan 15, 2005

Many are quick to forget that some 229 years ago, we were an upstart rebel faction with only the economy we could glean from those colonists loyal to our cause. And yet we built (often with questionable tactics, admittedly) a strong country that is in many ways the envy of other nations. And, as such, we can and should, deal with domestic crisis.

Don't forget the US is also large enough to have ready access to plentiful natural resources; the amount of resource imports it has to have are extremely small compared to, say, Japan or Finland. It really helps to control nearly an entire continent.

The problem with conditional aid is that it does exist, not that it doesn't. The simple fact is though that using aid to force a nation to liberalise its trade laws and become minimalist has the immediate short-term + effect of crippling its growth and development. Perhaps over time aid conditionality will foster the development of a nation, but so far it's been a dismal failure, mainly fostering working conditions bordering on slavery and the pollution and destruction of countless natural wonders.

I imagine those in the third world can't wait for the wonders of aid conditionality to appear. But sometimes the only way you can give is with skin.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 15, 2005

cacto,

You ARE from Australia, aren't ya? (said with a HUGE grin). Seriously, though, the problems in underdeveloped countries doesn't seem to be with those reliant on imports of natural resources (your examples of Japan and Finland, both well developed countries, points this out). The worst problems seem to occur in countries such as India, and China, which both have ABUNDANT natural resources.

As for your statements about "conditional" relief, you're right, there is that danger. Again, this is why I feel that private charities are better equipped to address the needs. They can balance economic recovery programs with the cultural needs and values of the countries receiving aid.

Meanwhile, you nor any other critic has yet to address one of the key problems I see in the aid programs as they are: that is, the displacement of the "untouchables", those who need help the most, from shelters and refugee camps by higher caste citizens who will not share the resources. They seem content to let their fellow country men and women die based on a caste system that could be dismissed simply as "culture", but which is, primarily, inhumane. If we have no right to question their values in this area, that is fine. But I would equally question our RESPONSIBILITY to provide aid that is not equitably distributed.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 15, 2005

We also need to understand that we have such services in our countries as INSURANCE

Said one who is quick to forget that most policies have "act of God" exclusions, and would be reluctant to pay on a disaster such as the tsunami disaster.

cactoblasta

on Jan 16, 2005

I have no knowledge of India and very little of China, but last time I checked the Chinese didn't particularly care about underdevelopment and actively worked to prevent targeted foreign aid from reaching those who really needed it, so i think you get what you pay for on those accounts.

The caste system is a big stopping block, and I think you're probably right in your assessment. But for a country like the Maldives, a lack of resources save money from tourism leaves them almost incapable of recovering. After all there's tons of studies on how people simply refuse to put money away in case of natural disaster; if we can't do it, chances are reality's going to mean they won't either. So aid in those cases is always going to be necessary.

Indonesia is much the same - it has massive resources, but they're almost wholly controlled by either western groups or Suharto's henchman, so the chances of those resources going to the needy are negligable. Sure it's their own fault, but I don't think the US would tolerate a peasant-based revolution to take it back, do you?

But yes you're right. There is a responsibility to ensure the aid is distributed properly. But in an imperfect world the chances of this happening anywhere, at any time, are nearly always nil; think of the Red Cross with the 9/11 payments for one failure of private aid. Sometimes it's just not going to work properly anyway, and the best you can do is just get the money there the fastest way possible. And at the moment that means using the huge charities like Worldvision (mired in internal politics and petty corruption that would surprise most who aren't in the know) and the government agencies like the military and AusAID clones.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 18, 2005

think of the Red Cross with the 9/11 payments for one failure of private aid.

Yes, and no. The Red Cross is an INTERNATIONAL organization,which is endorsed by many different governments. They are "private" in name only, and their failings are well documented. There are also examples of aid groups who distribute money far more efficiently (the Salvation Army being one example).

cactoblasta

on Jan 18, 2005

The Salvation Army, however, tends to be locally based, and so would be useless for international crises like the tsunami. It also has the natural advantage of being a religious order.

The Red Cross/Crescent may be affiliated with many governments, but so are most large private businesses. Its affiliations don't remove its essentially private nature. The nature of dealing with incompetent and corrupt foreign governments means that some aid is almost certainly going to be lost; the Salvation Army, with its local approach has no such concerns.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!