Why, Is Us Stingy?

Or maybe the right title question could be why is US stingy? It could be a good debate point. And I have also my share of viewpoints why US is considered stingy by some a United Nations official, even. On December , , The Washington Times came up with reports that the UN undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief coordinator, Jan Egeland suggested that the United States (US) and other Western nations were being stingy with relief funds for the Asian nations hit by a tsunami. The Norwegian-born UN Official was quoted as saying, It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really. Christmastime should remind many Western countries at lease of how rich we have become. It had seemed that the UN officials observation was addressed after the Bush Administration pledged $ million as donation on December . In the past days after the tsunami hit several Asian nations, offers of aid have poured in from around the world. The European Unions executive arm released $ million in emergency aid and pledging an additional $ million. Canada and several European nations, like Spain, Germany, Ireland and Belgium, pledged about $ million. As for the US, Secretary of State, Colin L. Powell hinted that the $ million was only the first installment of a larger aid package to the devastated countries. On December , , posted at http://moonagewebdream.blogs.com/moonage_political_webream/// us_stinginess.html retaliations against Jan Egelands US stinginess declarations were given, fully loaded with data on all the other aids by different countries and comparing United States total estimated aids. Egeland was challenged to the math on the various aids. While Im inclined to agree that from the long list of supports, US contributed an ample sum, I was struck by the idea of publicizing almost all the listings of the support made by the various countries. Even at radio and TV reports this happens. Arent there good, anonymous Samaritans, anymore? Whats to be gained by constantly hollering the amount of contributions they are giving out to the devastated countries in the Asia Pacific regions? If theres an ulterior motive to gain something out of giving out aids, then thats not giving thats taking advantage of the situation. Now, probably, thats what Egeland is talking about. Stinginess, not because of how much the amount of aids is but stinginess because the true essence of giving is lost. Too much publicity and too much precondition may have been done that it appears not an aid but a business transaction. Im not saying thats bad but I know its not a good practice to take advantage of a disaster which victimized almost , people in several third-world countries.