Public Diplomacy and the Tsunami-Part I

Compiled by Molly Claflin and Millicent Jefferson

A two part summary of press reports on public diplomacy issues and the December 2004 Tsunami Crisis.  A supplement to John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press Review.

On December 26, 2004 an earthquake on the Indian Ocean triggered a deadly tsunami that claimed the lives of over 220,000 people.  The tsunami ravaged 11 countries, leaving coastal cities and communities utterly devastated and millions of natives homeless.  Due to the severity of the disaster, countries around the globe immediately pledged their support to provide much-needed humanitarian aid.  Millions of US dollars in monetary assistance, food, supplies, and other necessities poured into the regions affected by the tsunami.  This prompt and generous response from the international community was and continues to be a major factor in the recovery of the destroyed areas.  Moreover, the significant role of humanitarian efforts has stimulated plenty of debate on the public diplomacy implications for the nations involved in the endeavor to rebuild Southeast Asia.  The tsunami has raised questions about how a country’s response affects its image and whether humanitarian efforts should be part of a nation’s public diplomacy at all. 

The United States is one of the countries that dominated headlines when it came to offering aid and support to tsunami victims.  After an initial pledge of $35 million, the U.S. was bombarded with criticism.  Jan Egeland, the U.N. emergency relief coordinator, called the American government “stingy.”  In response to this criticism and the worsening conditions of the disaster, President George W. Bush increased the U.S.’s commitment to $350 million. Still, international critics cited the fact that the U.S. gave one of the lowest contributions (less than 1% of its gross national income) while countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, contributed over 2% of theirs.  However, journalists and government officials defended the U.S. by discussing the amount of “unofficial” aid that went unaccounted for.  This included all of the private donations, volunteering, trade and investment made by ordinary citizens, private companies, and various NGOs throughout the United States. 

By supporting relief efforts, Americans hoped that their donations would improve the United States’s predominantly negative image abroad.  The Christian Science Monitor quoted Chicago donor, Julie Putterman, as saying “I feel like our country has been such a bad citizen of the world in the recent past. […] I just felt like it was important for everyone to rally.”  The belief was that by being “compassionate,” especially to Indonesia – the country with the largest Muslim population in the world – other nations would see a more favorable side of the U.S.  Furthermore, by having the American military involved in on-site support, the U.S. aspired to present its military forces as an instrument of goodwill, rather than of fear and destruction.  Nonetheless, scholars such as political scientist John Mearsheimer claimed that it would take more than helping a few countries to fix the U.S.’s tarnished reputation in the Muslim world. 

Another topic that received a lot of press was the impact of the Internet on the amount and speed that donations came in.  The Internet revolutionized the way in which people responded to the tsunami.  Strong emotional reactions to the disaster were created, in large part, due to the immediate posting of images and reports of the disaster online.  This rapidly spread a sense of crisis that pushed people to donate.  People saw the tsunami as a “universal tragedy” and wanted to do anything they could to help.  In addition, the ease with which people could make donations further contributed to the success of the international response. 

Click here to read “Public Diplomacy and the Tsunami-Part II.”

We are the World: By Sending Help to Tsunami Victims, America Takes Advantage of a Public Diplomacy Opportunity
(Brendan Miniter, Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, January 4, 2005)
What the people of Southeast Asia are seeing is that in a region al Qaeda has been actively targeting, it is America that is standing up when it counts. It’s hard to see how that Bush policy will alienate the very people al Qaeda seeks to dominate. Quite to the contrary, it is the American system—free people governing themselves—that is now standing shoulder to shoulder with those who have lost nearly everything.

Tsunami Aid Alone Unlikely to Repair Tattered U.S. Image
(Carol Giacomo, Reuters Alertnet UK, January 4 ,2005)
The Sept 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington underscored deep anti-American feelings in the Arab and Muslim world. Since then many experts have called for a new public diplomacy strategy to highlight America’s positive attributes and undercut its enemies. Experts say focusing on the small initial U.S. donation for tsunami victims was misplaced and what matters is that America continue to show leadership and foster coordination on a relief effort that is likely to last two years or more.

Powell Says Tsunami Aid May Help U.S. Image
(Associated Press, New York Times, January 4, 2005)
U.S. money and military assistance to countries where tens of thousands died in the tsunami may lessen anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world and help in the fight against terrorism, Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

The Triumph of Humanitarianism - Review & Outlook
(Wall Street Journal, January 4, 2005)
Already there are signs that America’s quick action to fill the vacuum left by U.N. lethargy is winning Indonesian hearts and minds. “U.S. aid is so helpful,” survivor Zainul Arifin, who lost his sister in the tsunami, told the Los Angeles Times. “Who else can help us deliver it?” Such gratitude stands in marked contrast to the resentment that Indonesian clerics and political leaders have often succeeded in whipping up against the U.S. in the past, over issues such as Iraq.(Paid subscription)

A “Stingy” Us? Hardly
(Bruce Bartlett, Christian Science Monitor, January 5, 2005)
The charge of U.S. stinginess is unfounded. The United States carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid, and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of UN bureaucrats.

A High Quality of Mercy
(Carol Adelman, New York Times, January 5, 2005)
Americans generally help people abroad the same way they help people at home: through private charities, religious organizations, foundations, corporations, universities and money sent to relatives. In 2000, all this came to more than $35 billion, more than three times what the government gave. And this does did not include giving by local churches or by overseas affiliates of American corporations.

Profound Shift in U.S. Culture of Giving: Deluge of Private Donations Hits $163 Million. Media Coverage, Web Fuel Unprecedented Aid
(Peter Grier, Faye Bowers, and Amanda Paulson, Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 2005)
The unprecedented level of individual donations in response to the South Asian tsunami may reflect fundamental changes in the culture of giving, both in the US and worldwide. Some donors say they want the United States to be seen as compassionate, not just well-armed. And underlying it all is video and the Internet—an electronic grid, which, for all its pop-culture excess, may prove to be a transformative tool for organizing compassion. Experts say it is almost certain that the US charitable response will set a national record for donations in the wake of an international disaster.

Tsunami of Giving: American Donations Flood Relief Agencies - Editorial
(Manchester Union Leader, January 4, 2005)
Americans are giving generously to relieve the suffering of people they have never met in lands many of us cannot even pronounce. And we are not asking that the donations go only to people who agree with us or to governments that support us. In fact, many recipients of American aid will no doubt be rabidly anti-American. Sri Lanka, where much aid is headed, is a hotbed of radical Islamism and anti-Americanism. Americans are not the only generous givers, to be sure. People the world over are doing what they can to help. Britons in particular have donated liberally. We only point out American contributions because some people are using this disaster as an excuse to bash the United States. Those people usually fail to comprehend the American system, in which charity remains a mostly private—not a governmental—concern.

On Tsunami’s Shore
(Mark Steyn, Washington Times, January 4, 2005)
Whatever happens anywhere on the planet all goes to prove the same central point—the iniquity of America. Even so, you would think an unprecedented tsunami in a region that has never been a U.S. sphere of influence would be hard to pin on the Great Satan.

The Tsunami as Downsizing Propaganda
(Doug Ireland, Ilca Online, Washington D.C., January 4, 2005)
The White House’s hasty recruitment of Bubba and Poppy Bush to front the Tsunami fund appeal was, of course, a p.r. ploy designed to distract attention from the iniquitous inadequacy of the U.S. response to a natural disaster that has primarily affected peoples with a high melanin content. Americans are not ungenerous as a people when aroused, and have responded as they should without waiting for Dubya’s prompting.

Is America Stingy?
(Jefferson Morley,Washingtonpost.com, January 4, 2005)
Nothing stings an American like being called “stingy.” It is true that Bush’s initial offer of $15 million did elicit some scorn in Europe. But the sentiment was not widespread. In the South Asian online press there was virtually no criticism of the U.S. aid plans. The reality that both the Bush administration and its critics skirt around is that Americans are neither collectively stingy nor individually generous when it comes to helping the world’s poor. The real story may be that Americans are neither Samaritans nor misers. When it comes to generosity, Americans are merely ordinary. But who in the world wants to hear that?

Tsunami Bloggers Forge Tribal News Network
(James Borton, Asia Times, January 4, 2005)
The efforts of these tribal digital networks are now part of a tidal wave of integrated disaster links and information flooding the World Wide Web since the tsunami washed away family and social moorings. Their blogs appear to be renewing faith in the efficacy of technological transformation embedded in the principle of “doing the right thing.” These diarists and many non-profit Asian news sites are even becoming accepted and recognized by mainstream media professionals.

Muslim Nations Stingy: American & Hollywood Doing More
(Steve Yuhas, January 4, 2005)
The picture of a Muslim man standing over a stretcher wearing a t-shirt with Osama bin Ladin’s picture on it. His t-shirt may not have been the intended subject for the photographer, but it speaks louder than words. The author argues that many Muslim nations are standing by and not doing their part while wealthy celebrities are donating more than they are. America is sending a strong diplomacy message to the world by deploying thousands of Americans throughout the region. The U.S. has given more supplies than any other nation, and celebrities are shelling out their own wealth for the cause. Wealthy Muslim nations that preach to the world about caring for Muslims, though, seem not to be in the giving mood. Muslim nations need to do their part.

A High Quality of Mercy
(Carol Adelman, New York Times, January 4, 2005)
Despite $350 million pledged in aid, claims of America’s “stingyness” still persist. While the U.S. ranks last in foreign aid among wealthy nations as percentage of gross national income, the U.S. ranks first in highest actual amount of money given. Plus in 2000, Americans gave more than $35 billion through private charities. The international community needs to look at the role of private donors to see who is really being generous.

“I’d Much Rather Be Doing This Than Fighting a War.”
(New York Times, January 3, 2005)
Lt. Cmdr. William Whitsitt of Great Falls, Mont., taking part in U.S. assistance for tsunami victims; cited in Associated Press, “U.S. Relief Effort for Tsunami Builds.”

Seoul Steps Up Rescue Efforts in South Asia
(Ryu Jin, Korea Times, January 3, 2005)
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ban Ki-moon stressed the need for the ministry officials to change their mind in dealing with the public, which he described as “consumers” of the government’s foreign policies. “Diplomacy of a democratic nation should be based on the people’s support and encouragement,” Ban told officials at a ceremony, reopening office business after the New Year’s holidays. “We should expand ‘Public Diplomacy’ with better service.”

World’s Eyes Are On U.S. Tsunami Aid - Letter to the Editor
(Los Angeles Times, January 3 ,2005)

Europe is Giving More than Us - Letter to the Editor
(Boston Globe, January 3 ,2005)

Why They View Us as “Stingy” - Letters to the Editor
(Cathyann Swindlehurst, Marblehead, Boston Globe, January 3, 2005)
For anyone confused about why the rest of the world might infer America is stingy, don’t think of the enormity of US aid as $35 million—think of it as the wealthiest country on earth giving 65 percent of one baseball player’s salary over four years (Pedro Martinez) to help mitigate the worst disaster in recorded world history.

U.S. Intensifies its Role in Relief: Its Aid is Proving Crucial—And May Lift America’s Image
(Liz Marlantes and Faye Bowers, Christian Science Monitor, January 3, 2005)
After a much-criticized initial response to the tsunami disaster in southeast Asia, the US is now assuming a more prominent role in the humanitarian relief effort—applying its monetary and military resources in ways that not only are bringing critical aid to victims but could also, proponents hope, bolster America’s reputation around the world. Certainly, most analysts agree, it’s unlikely that the US will be able to erase, or even really diminish, opposition to the occupation in Iraq, regardless of how generous a relief effort it mounts in southeast Asia in days and weeks to come.

Analysis: The Money and Politics of Global Aid
(Roland Flamini, Washington Times, January 3, 2005)
The Bush administration was slow to see both the size of the tragedy, and its potential in countering worldwide anti-Americanism. But by Monday, the U.S. relief effort was in full gear. Washington’s aid commitment burgeoned from its initial $15 million to $350 million.

Chain of Aid ...
(Bruce Bartlett, Washington Times, January 3, 2005)
The charge of stinginess is unfounded. The United States carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations security, aid and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats.

Bush Adapts, But Won’t Call it That: Despite a Stick-To-His-Guns Self-Image, the President’s Response to the Asian Catastrophe is Not the First Time He Has Bent to the Public Will
(Edwin Chen, Los Angeles Times, January 3, 2005)
“The pattern we tend to see is an administration that quite often ends up doing the right thing, even though their initial judgments and first reactions are often wrong and short-sighted,” said Charles Cook, a Washington-based political analyst and publisher of the Cook Political Report. Slow to speak out, Bush first offered $15 million in financial aid, then $35 million. But now, having upped the aid package to $350 million and dispatched both Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Bush’s brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, to survey relief efforts, the president may capitalize on an opportunity to provide world leadership and improve his image among Muslims opposed to the Iraq war. Many of the tsunami victims are Muslim.

Beijing’s Role: Size of China’s Aid Marks a Policy Shift, But is Still Dwarfed by That of Richer Countries
(Jim Yardley, New York Times, January 3, 2005)
China’s response to the tsunami disaster is showing the nation’s limitations as an aspiring superpower, despite its new and growing influence in Asia. China’s offer of aid, if slightly belated, is sizable, given its often inward-looking history. But it is also a reminder that the world’s most populous country is still far from being the dominant power in Asia. But China’s gain in economic clout has not yet translated into broader power or influence, according to Robert Sutter, a former American government official who has written extensively about United States-China relations. Mr. Sutter said China’s “soft power” is growing in the region but should not be overstated.

A Marshall Plan for South Asia - Editorial
(Los Angeles Times, January 2, 2005)
There is no disputing that the first response of the American president and government, seen as omnipotent in much of the world, was lackadaisical and stingy. All of this conveyed the impression that Americans don’t value the lives of people in poor countries as much as they value their own, or European, lives. If conservatives in the president’s own party balk at a multibillion-dollar Marshall Plan for South Asia, Bush shouldn’t hesitate to employ his favorite marketing ploy: Peg the effort to the war on terror by pointing out the strategic importance of the region.

South Asian Tsunami: Expert: Disaster Gives Bush Chance to Foster Democracy
(David E. Sanger,Chicago Tribune, January 2, 2005)
Now, as the United States joins the rush to deliver aid to the region, some officials inside the administration and many outside experts say Bush has a chance, particularly in Indonesia, to advance the cause he talked about so often in the presidential campaign: supporting the spread of democracy. In Indonesia in particular, anti-Americanism has increased since the battle against Islamic militancy began. Further, the negative view of Washington’s intentions toward the Islamic world worsened with the Iraq invasion and its aftermath.

Geopolitical Tectonic Shift
(Tom Plate, Korea Times, January 2, 2005)
Unless Washington handles the crisis of the South Asian tsunami—and is seen to handle it—in an exemplary manner, a tectonic shift in the direction of anti-Americanism in decades to come may very well merit the designation of nothing less than a geopolitical tsunami.

We’re Generous Today, But Will We Keep it Up?
(Eric Schwartz, Washington Post, January 2, 2005)
Colin Powell was right. When it comes to providing relief to millions afflicted by natural and man-made disasters, the United States is anything but stingy. Each year, our government provides well over $2 billion for lifesaving relief activities throughout the world. Our contribution to the World Food Program represents more than half of the organization’s resources, and we provide the office of the U.N. high commissioner for refugees with nearly one-third of its annual budget. The disaster assistance response teams of the U.S. Agency for International Development, already assessing conditions and providing relief in India, Indonesia, Thailand and Sri Lanka following last week’s undersea earthquake, are among our most dedicated and effective public servants. Their efforts are supported by a network of U.S. private voluntary organizations providing food, shelter, sanitation and emergency health assistance.

Disaster Relief: Is America Doing Enough? (13 Letters) - Letters to the Editor
(New York Times, January 1, 2005)

Tsunami of Controversy - Letters to the Editor
(Washington Post, January 1, 2005)

Stingy Americans: Giving the World Relief - Letters to the Editor
(New York Post, January 1, 2005)

U.S. Vows Big Increase in Aid for Victims of Asian Disaster
(David E. Sanger, Warren Hoge, New York Times, January 1, 2005)
President Bush announced Friday that he would increase emergency aid to stricken areas of Asia to $350 million from $35 million, and said the United States would probably add more resources as the scope of what he called an “epic disaster” became clearer. Mr. Bush’s ninefold increase in the amount of aid was the second time this week that the United States had committed more money to the effort, and it came after criticism that the president, who has stayed on his 1,600-acre ranch all week and spoken publicly about the disaster once, had reacted too slowly.

Bush Responds to Criticism on Tsunami
(Juan Cole, Informed Comment: Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion, January 1, 2005)
“The administration raised the aid now promised to an initial pledge of $350 million, and Bush arranged to send his brother Jeb with Secretary of State Colin Powell on a visit to the region. In Asia I think this gesture will be well received, since the brother of the president, himself a governor, will be seen as an important envoy. I suspect Colin Powell was the architect of this about-face, and it makes you wonder whether future gaffes will be as swiftly or easily corrected by Condi Rice, Powell’s successor who is known to be much less independent of the president.”

U.S. Promises Big Boost in Disaster Relief Funds Caution is Urged on Public Donation
(Stephen Smith, Jenna Russell, Boston Globe, January 1, 2005)
Americans came out in droves to donate to the tsunami relief effort. According to the Boston Globe, ten major U.S. charities had already collected a combined $97 million just five days after the tsunami hit. However, officials are warning people to “know the charity they are giving to” and make sure the money is going where you want it to go. According to a spokesman for the American Institute of Philanthropy, ‘‘It’s too easy for people to take advantage of other people’s generosity.”

European Observer: Missed Chances in Asia
(Fred Kempe, Wall Street Journal, December 31, 2004)
Mr. Bush and his adviser Karl Rove showed their keen instincts for domestic politics with the president’s re-election, but they have yet to match those with similar knack for the world stage and shaping global opinion. The tsunami presents “a grand strategic opportunity” that can either be squandered or seized, says Craig Kennedy, president of the German Marshall Fund of the United States, which has tracked the declining European trust in American leadership with concern. “There is both a moral and strategic argument here. If you want to lead the world, you have to lead it in all respects.”

Is the U.S. Too “Stingy”? Experts Say Response to Tsunami Could Hurt or Help U.S. Image in S.E. Asia
(Tom Regan, CSMonitor.com, December 31, 2004)

Stingy? Not with WMD and War
(Heather Wokusch, Common Dreams, December 31, 2004)
As the body count from the tsunami rises, America’s international reputation plummets to new depths, thanks to the Bush administration’s smugly incompetent response. But it’s unfair to say the Bush administration is stingy—it just has different priorities. The White House has so far requested roughly $100 billion for the occupation of Iraq in FY 2005, which translates to about $8.3 billion per month, or over $270 million per day (eighteen times more than the administration’s first offer of help to tsunami victims). And that’s only Iraq. The US military budget request for FY 2005 was 420.7 billion dollars—double that of China, Russia, the UK, France and Germany combined.

Bush Bumbles Disaster Relief
(Matthew Rothschild, Common Dreams/Progressive)
It took Bush four days to rouse himself from languor and address one of the greatest disasters of the last 100 years. And when he did so, he was his usual truculent self, labeling the U.N. relief official who called Western countries stingy as “very misguided and ill-informed.”

In Death, Imperialism Lives on for the Western Media: It is Clear that a Tourist’s Tragedy is More Important than That of the “Locals.”
(Jeremy Seabrook Guardian, Common Dreams, December 31, 2004)
While the tsunami death toll rises in anonymous thousands, in Iraq disdainful American authorities don’t do body counts.

Digital Soft Power: U.S. Government Criticized for Slow Aid, But Tsunami Relief Attracts Record Private Donations Online
(Adam Powell, Washington Journal, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, December 30, 2004)
Many in Washington believe disaster relief could be a major opportunity for public diplomacy, for the U.S. to show leadership in the global disaster relief effort. But on line, thousands of Americans have moved more quickly than government—digital soft power, as it were—pooling small donations across the country and directing them to the other side of the world.

Bush Needs to Lead on Tsunami: There’s Still Time for the U.S. Government to Make Up For Its Lackluster Early Response to One of the Worst Human Disasters of Modern Times
(Eleanor Clift, Newsweek, December 31, 2004)
Rebuilding the stricken areas and caring for a million displaced people will cost many billions of dollars. The hardest hit country is Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Taking the lead role in the relief effort is an opportunity for President Bush to improve the perception of America and his administration. “Imagine the public diplomacy impact of having Indonesians see U.S. military forces rescue their fallen countrymen. I don’t know why the administration is so pigheaded about this,” said a Democratic staffer. The administration disdains the soft, touchy-feely stuff of diplomacy and foreign aid.

Powell to Lead U.S. Delegation to Asian Tsunami Region
(Reuters, New York Times, December 31, 2004)
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher rejected criticism that the United States had been slow or stingy in aiding tsunami-struck areas. “Any implications that the United States is not being generous, is not forthcoming, is not active, is not, in fact, leading the way, is just plain wrong,” he told a news briefing.

Responding to Asia’s Tragedy: The U.S. Has Made a Good Start, But Long-Term Reconstruction is the Key Challenge
(Andrew S. Natsios, December 31, 2004)
“After the most powerful earthquake in 40 years triggered tidal waves Sunday that killed more than 119,000 people, USAID moved into action even before I had left church. … Our job is to support, not supplant or take over, local efforts by the first responders of the countries affected. The United States gave $2.4 billion in humanitarian relief in 2004—about 40 percent of all emergency aid given by all donors combined—and we knew that Americans would want to extend help in this latest and most horrible crisis.” The writer is administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Odious Tsunami Politics - Editorials
(Washington Times, December 31, 2004)
“What they’re actually doing is using dead people to make cheap points.” That’s how the Wall Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan described some partisans’ use of this week’s deadly Indian Ocean tsunami to promote various and sundry political agendas. We think it about describes the exploitation of the tragedy by the United Nations’ Jan Egeland with his “stingy” remark and the New York Times’ criticism of the United States.

The Stingy Giant
(Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Chronicle, December 30, 2004)
Beltway pundits are more interested in the fact that Bush didn’t hold a press conference on the tsunami until Wednesday than in the fact that the United States is talking about spending $1 billion to help tsunami victims.

Bush Fails a Global Test
(John Nichols,Nation/Common Dreams, December 31, 2004)
When other world leaders rushed to respond to the crisis caused by last Sunday’s tsunamis in southern Asia, George Bush decamped to his ranch in Texas for another vacation. For three days after the disaster, the only formal response from the White House was issued by a deputy press secretary.

Global Analysts Dispute Perceived U.S. Generosity
(Charles M. Sennott, Boston Globe, December 31, 2004)
The US government is contributing $35 million of the half-billion dollars that the world’s developed nations are donating to the tsunami relief effort, and many Americans believe—as President Bush put it earlier this week—that their country is being its typical “generous, kindhearted” self. But both on a per capita basis and as a percentage of the nation’s wealth, America’s emergency relief in Asia and development aid to poor countries actually ranks at the bottom of the list of developed nations, some of the world’s top economists and analysts of international development aid said yesterday. The “discrepancy between what we think our country does and what it actually does is hurting America’s image in the world, especially in the poorest corners of the world”: Jeffrey Sachs, an economist at Columbia University and a specialist on aid to developing countries.

A Time for Generosity - Opinion
(Newsday, December 31, 2004)
The U.S. really is ‘stingy’ in giving development aid to poor nations: We expect that the $35 million will be just the start. Our nation must respond, out of simple humanity. Beyond that, this is a chance to project the soft power of generosity, not the hard and hated power of military muscle; a chance for our flag to remind the world of the underlying compassion of our citizens, not the overbearing unilateralism of our current government. America must seize the moment and strive to be No. 1 in generosity and effective help.

U.S. Can Aid Itself and Tsunami Victims - Letter to the Editor
(Doug Sheldon, Valencia, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2004)
When desperate people see tangible proof of U.S. support, perhaps they will soften their tacit support for terrorists.

“Stingy” Is the Right Word - Letter to the Editor
(Robert M. Coquillette, Lexington, Boston Globe, December 31, 2004)
The Bush administration is about to ask for another $90 billion to carry on the occupation of Iraq. Do you know how many $35 million increments there are in $90 billion? The answer is 2,571. Put another way, $35 million is roughly 0.04 percent of $90 billion.

Grimacing Our Way
(Arnaud De Borchgrave, Washington Times, December 31, 2004)
The Bush administration’s initial allocation of $35 million for what now looks like humanity’s greatest ever natural disaster vs. the $200 billion budgeted for two wars in three years, and $430 billion on defense in a single year, scuttles attempts to improve the U.S. image. Foreign media—not only Arab media—have opted for Michael Moore’s version of the Bush administration. His half-true-half-lies version of the Bush administration is now the American gospel for most of the world. Sex, violence and drugs are portrayed abroad as hallmarks of American culture. The growing abyss between rich and poor in America is another favorite theme of foreign media.

U.S. Rides Alone On Disaster Relief
(Jeff Horwitz, Salon, December 31, 2004)
As with the United States’ last coalition of the willing, the Bush administration has made it clear that it expects the rest of the world to play an assisting role in assisting tsunami victims. U.S. Undersecretary of State Mark Grossman told reporters yesterday, “Our expectation is that the European Union, the United Nations and other countries will also join in this … Although … we make a substantial contribution, more than anyone else in these emergencies, this is certainly not for us to do alone.” That sort of sentiment would be justified if Grossman’s assertion that the U.S. gives “more than anyone else in these emergencies” were true of its contributions to the tsunami relief. But it’s difficult to understand how the U.S. is leading the relief effort while Spain, a country with only a sixth of the United States’ population, has already pledged twice the amount promised by the U.S. to date.

Catastrophe in Southern Asia: U.S. Aid Generous and Stingy; It Depends on How the Numbers are Crunched—Total Dollars or a Slice of the Overall Economy
(Sonni Efron,Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2004)
By total money, the United States by far donates more than any other country in the world. This is the gauge preferred by most U.S. officials. But when aid is calculated per U.S. citizen or as a percentage of the economy, the United States ranks among the least generous in the industrialized world. As U.S. officials and foreign aid experts debate which measure is more apt, the issue is another example of how Americans’ views of themselves differ from those from around the world. Some critics compared Bush’s $35-million pledge for the tsunami victims with the roughly $1 billion a week the U.S. was spending in Iraq.

Our Planet, and Our Duty
(Bob Herbert, New York Times, December 31, 2004)
The tsunami catastrophe would at least have a silver lining if it moved the people of the United States and other nations toward a wiser, more genuinely cooperative international posture.

It’s About Aid, and an Image
(David E. Sanger, New York Times, December 30, 2004)
It took 72 hours after the tsunamis washed away countless villages and tens of thousands of lives before Mr. Bush appeared in public to declare that the United States had the rudiments of a plan for addressing “loss and grief to the world that is beyond our comprehension.” The aid effort that has now begun presents Mr. Bush with an opportunity to battle, with action rather than just words, the perception that took root in his first four years in office that he is all about America first.

Are We Stingy? Yes - Editorial
(New York Times, December 30, 2004)
We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world’s poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world’s richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That’s less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities. The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush’s turnaround.

Double Standard on Body Photos - Letter to the Editor
(Arthur Barlas, Chelmsford, Boston Globe, December 30, 2004)
“Can somebody explain why it’s OK for us readers to see the body bags of those killed in the Asian earthquake/tsunami on the front page of the Globe (Dec. 29), but we’re not allowed to see the body bags of American soldiers killed in Iraq?”

Egeland’s Stingy Remark
(Bjorn Steark, December 30, 2004)
Many were offended by the Norwegian Humanitarian Chief at the UN, Jan Egeland, who after the tsunami hit Asia and East Africa criticized rich countries for being stingy with their relief efforts. This piece talks about how as tends to happen, this quote has taken a life of its own, and strayed a bit from what Egeland actually said.

Aid Grows Amid Remarks About President’s Absence
(John F. Harris, Robin Wright, Washington, December 29, 2004)
The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions. Some foreign policy specialists said Bush’s actions and words both communicated a lack of urgency about an event that will loom as large in the collective memories of several countries as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks do in the United States.
LINK
LINK

Assymetrical Information
(Janet Galt, December 29, 2004)
The author says none of his money will be going to tsunami relief. Stingy as it may sound, there are just too many people in the U.S. that need help. No matter how much we help, we still get called stingy by the United Nations and the rest of the world.

The Stingy Slur
(NY Post, December 29, 2004)
Already, U.S. disaster specialists - joining those from other nations - have headed to the region. Navy P-3 surveillance planes from the Pacific Fleet flew to Thailand to aid in search-and rescue operations. And Air Force C-130 cargo planes are rushing in emergency medical supplies.  The quick response of the United States has made the difference in the relief efforts.  The Bush administration feels that it proves that the U.S. aid effort is anything but “stingy”

U.N. Official Backs Down: Rich Nations Not ‘Stingy’
(Irwin Arieff, Reuters, December 28, 2004)
United Nations officials have reversed their earlier statements about wealthy nations being ‘stingy’ with aid relief to tsunami victims in South East Asia. A U.N. official stated the previous day that “If actually the foreign assistance of many countries now is 0.1 or 0.2 percent of their gross national income, I think that is stingy really. I don’t think that is very generous.” Many countries pledged tens of millions of dollars in the first days following the disaster.

The Stingy U.S.: An Appalling Performance
(The Star-Tribune/Minneapolis, December 30, 2004)
As the Bush administration is wont to say, actions speak louder than words, and America’s actions in recent days have painted the United States as a rich, self-absorbed and uncaring nation that had to be shamed into anything approaching appropriate concern about this catastrophe. The Bush administration’s handling of this crisis has been inept beyond belief.

‘Stingy’ Comment Rankles U.S. Officials
(USA Today, December 29, 2004)
Provoked by a depiction of Americans and other Westerners as “stingy,” President Bush countered that image Wednesday, pledging more U.S. help well beyond the $35 million promised to tsunami victims in Asia.  President Bush said that America is a very generous nation and the world has seen that.  He was also upset with members of his administration that struck back at the UN’s comments.