India Says No to Outside Tsunami Relief

arcadegame2004

Is this not just neglgience bordering on criminality? I think it's outrageous and shows how much the Indian Government is concerned for the lives of its own people. Pride apparently is more important to it!

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1104&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041230%2F1735045477.htm&sc=1104

India Says No to Outside Tsunami Relief

NEW DELHI (AP) - As the United States and other nations pour in aid to tsunami-buffeted Asian nations, India takes its traditional stance, saying thanks, but no thanks.

India, a founder of the Nonaligned Movement, typically proclaims it is capable of handling its own problems, politely telling allies and rivals alike to butt out. That message was conveyed to President Bush when he called, India's prime minister said Thursday.

``If and when we need their help, we will inform them,'' Manmohan Singh said. ``Several countries have offered assistance to us. The president of the United States spoke to me; several other countries' statesmen have also spoken to me.

``I have told them that, as of now, we feel we have adequate resources to meet the challenge.''

India's refusal does not include U.N. agencies and nongovernment organizations already working in the region.

Other Asian nations - including neighboring Sri Lanka, Thailand and the worst-hit, Indonesia - are welcoming foreign troops and international relief agencies after Sunday's tsunami killed more than 117,000 people in 11 nations.

The World Bank pledged $250 million for victims in southern and southeastern Asia, bringing the total amount of relief money pledged by the international community to close to half a billion dollars, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Thursday.

``Governments have donated and they have indicated to me that they will do more,'' Annan said in New York. ``I am satisfied with the response so far. The only thing I want to stress is that we are in this for the long term.''

The disaster is ``so huge that not one country or agency can deal with it alone,'' he said.

In Sri Lanka, the island nation off the southern tip of India, Western health officials - including a 30-person team comprised of U.S. Army, Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy personnel - headed to devastated areas Thursday after officials warned about possible disease outbreaks among the 1 million people seeking shelter in crowded refugee centers.

``Our biggest battle and fear now is to prevent an epidemic from breaking out,'' Health Minister Nimal Siripala de Silva said. ``Clean water and sanitation is our main concern.''

Sunday's towering tsunami killed more than 27,000 people in Sri Lanka, according to official tolls, and thousands more people remain missing.

In Galle, where more than 4,000 people were killed, a German team helped set up water plants Thursday while a Finnish team helped set up mobile clinics.

A U.S. Air Force plane arrived in the capital of Colombo, bringing 26 medical specialists from the Army, Marines and Air Force, which form part of the Pacific Fleet Command.

``Our job is called disaster relief assessment and we'll do that in concert with the Embassy, to try to get a handle on the magnitude of the problem,'' Col. Thomas Collins said.

Even as India declined foreign aid, thousands went hungry in southern Tamil Nadu state as relief workers fled following a false warning that another tsunami was approaching.

In Nagappattinam, vehicles transporting supplies turned around after New Delhi relied on bad information from a little-known U.S. operation and caused a panic along the southern coast. Thousands of survivors took no chances, with more than half of the town's 110,000 people fleeing by late afternoon.

For those who stayed behind in relief camps, there was no food.

Bush spoke to Singh on Wednesday to discuss the establishment of a group in which the United States, Japan, Australia and India would coordinate relief assistance to affected countries, said David Kennedy, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi.

Singh welcomed the statement but did not commit to the proposal.

``If more countries want to join, that can also be considered,'' Singh said Thursday.

India may be pressured to accept outside help. It only took several days to let in foreign search and rescue teams after the January 2001 earthquake in western India, a 7.9 magnitude temblor that killed 13,000 people and caused an estimated $4.5 billion in damage.

In Thailand, an air base used by U.S. B-52 bombers during the Vietnam War is becoming a hub for a U.S. military-led relief effort that will stretch along the Indian Ocean.

American planes already have delivered 1,400 body bags to southern islands in Thailand, where Interior Minister Bhokin Balakula said more than 3,500 bodies have been found. Rescue and forensic teams from Australia, Japan, Germany, Israel and other nations fanned out across Thailand trying to find survivors and identify rapidly decomposing corpses.

``We have to have hope that we'll find somebody,'' said Ulf Langemeier, head of a German team that combed a wrecked resort with three body-detecting dogs under huge flood lamps early Thursday.

There likely will be up to 1,000 U.S. military personnel arriving in Thailand in the next week, Lt. Col. Scott Elder said.

In Indonesia, where nearly 80,000 people have been declared dead, pilots struggled to drop food into cliff-rimmed villages along the ravaged coast of Sumatra, where towns strewn with bloating corpses remained isolated for a fifth day.

Government institutions have ceased to function and basic supplies such as fuel have almost run out, forcing even ambulances to ration gasoline.

``Everything here has collapsed,'' said Brig. Gen. Achmad Hiayat, surgeon general of Indonesia's Armed Forces. ``Even the government has collapsed. The hospitals, medical services are in disarray.''

Frank Grimes

Just out of interest, what makes you think that they can't manage it themselves with the help of the UN and the NGOs?

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Is this not just neglgience bordering on criminality? I think it's outrageous and shows how much the Indian Government is concerned for the lives of its own people. Pride apparently is more important to it!

I wouldn't be so quick to jump to conclusions.

As Frank asks above, what makes you think they can't manage the situation with UN and NGO help? I'd have thought of all the countries affected, India would be better able to deal with the catastrophe, given it is a relatively developed nation in comparison to its neighbours.

If there's spare cash going around I'm sure Indonesia and Sri Lanka would be willing to take state assistance.

is_that_so

You also need to be careful how you are forming your judgments. Both here on boards and in the media at large there have been a lot of reactions to what is a terribly emotive event. But that said India is a very large country and we have to accept that they can deal with their problems if they say they can. It is not up to us to force aid on a country that doesn't want or need it.

A Dub in Glasgo

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Is this not just neglgience bordering on criminality? I think it's outrageous and shows how much the Indian Government is concerned for the lives of its own people. Pride apparently is more important to it!

Where does it say that India cannot cope with the disaster without the help of outside governements?

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

DadaKopf

I'd say India's reasoning is that they don't want to accept aid from countries, particularly the US, which would be likely to attach conditions to the aid and/or use the aid, if accepted, as away of extracting favours in the future. The same goes for the World Bank, which is universally understood to be dominated by the world's richest countries.

Seems in line with India's semi-independent political and economic policies, too.

As the article says, India is accepting UN and NGO donations, but clearly has the human and capital resources to take care of it themselves, too.

segadreamcast

DadaKopf wrote:

As the article says, India is accepting UN and NGO donations, but clearly has the human and capital resources to take care of it themselves, too.

Spot on. Not only that but India - rightly - believe that the assistance of the U.S. and other countries would be more useful in other countries which are far less developed than India and, thus, need it more.

A Dub in Glasgo

Which is a very praise worthy stance in my book

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

chewy

i think its ok... as was said the more immediate help from agencies like the red cross are being allowed in India does have the resources and the man power to deal with it... its as always a matter of distribution and hopefully the ngo's a re focusing on the poorest areas knowing the gov might ignore them a bit...

arcadegame2004

I am very surprised by the apparent support for this decision by the Indian government. I regard the decision as being reminiscent in motivation (if not in scale) to the Russian refusal to accept help from the West when the Kursk submarine sank.

India a "developed" country! Ludicrous in the extreme. Here are some statistics you might be interested in, regarding the Indian economy. Read these and tell me India, a country of 1 billion people, has the resources to rebuild the lives destroyed by the tsunami: http://www.abacci.com/atlas/economy3.asp?countryID=222

Budget: revenues: $35.8 billion expenditures: $66.3 billion, including capital expenditures of $15.9 billion (FY98/99 est.)...
market surveys indicate that fewer than 5% of all households had an annual income equivalent to $2,300 or more in 1995-96.

So India actually as a budget-deficit of $31 billion! Please some people here could you get real. This country is firmly in the "developing" category.

No. This is just another example of a government putting national-pride before the lives of its citizens. Shame on them.

Even more recent figures (2002) give a GDP per capita of just $2,670.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_124_1_1.html

segadreamcast

A $31 billion budget deficit. Why that sounds ghastly - what a good point you make arcadegame2004, with a budget deficit - surely India is not equipped to look after itself! Oh...wait...

"The [U.S.] year-end fiscal 2004 budget deficit was a record $412.28 billion"

*Ahem*(Reuters.com)

arcadegame2004

NoelRock wrote:

...Oh no, not a $31 billion budget deficit.

"The [U.S.] year-end fiscal 2004 budget deficit was a record $412.28 billion"

*Ahem*(Reuters.com)

Yes but a deficit of $31 billion is a hell of a lot more serious when your revenue is only $15 billion (unlike the US), with a population 300 times that of Ireland. Even Ireland has a bigger budget than that.

They clearly cannot afford to fix this problem on their own and should admit that and put the lives of their citizens before silly national-pride considerations.

A Dub in Glasgo

India has not said it does not need help. It has said that it does not need outside government help. there is a big difference.

arcadegame2004 - i am not doubting that India is a 'developing' nation but where is the evidence to support your stance that they do actually need outside government help?

Almost every commentator I have read in the newspapers and seen on the TV suggests that India is probably the one nation affected that does not need outside government help.

segadreamcast

" Budget: revenues: $35.8 billion expenditures: $66.3 billion, including capital expenditures of $15.9 billion (FY98/99 est."

Your own quote says revenue is $35.8 billion, not $15 billion as you say in the next post. Get your story straight.

A lot of that is of course due to the value of their currency also arcadegame2004... Ultimately, they are a developing country above all else.

"India is probably the one nation affected that does not need outside government help." Absolutely. It seems, to me, that the aid could be distributed elsewhere more effectively.

is_that_so

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I am very surprised by the apparent support for this decision by the Indian government. I regard the decision as being reminiscent in motivation (if not in scale) to the Russian refusal to accept help from the West when the Kursk submarine sank.

India a "developed" country! Ludicrous in the extreme. Here are some statistics you might be interested in, regarding the Indian economy. Read these and tell me India, a country of 1 billion people, has the resources to rebuild the lives destroyed by the tsunami: http://www.abacci.com/atlas/economy3.asp?countryID=222



So India actually as a budget-deficit of $31 billion! Please some people here could you get real. This country is firmly in the "developing" category.

No. This is just another example of a government putting national-pride before the lives of its citizens. Shame on them.

Even more recent figures (2002) give a GDP per capita of just $2,670.

http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_124_1_1.html

If you are inclined to use statistics use some up to date ones. It is also better to look at statistics produced by organisations that just measure statistics, rather than those produced by organisations who may have a specific agenda in mind.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041229/4/1tuwf.html

and

http://www.worldbank.org/cgi-bin/sendoff.cgi?page=%2Fdata%2Fcountrydata%2Faag%2Find_aag.pdf


I don't dispute that there is a hint of pride in the Indian action but for those who exclusively accept this as a given you should also acknowledge that India MAY be in a position to care for its own.

and lastly remember what Mark Twain is reputed to have said

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."

arcadegame2004

is_that_so wrote:

If you are inclined to use statistics use some up to date ones. It is also better to look at statistics produced by organisations that just measure statistics, rather than those produced by organisations who may have a specific agenda in mind.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041229/4/1tuwf.html

and

http://www.worldbank.org/cgi-bin/sendoff.cgi?page=%2Fdata%2Fcountrydata%2Faag%2Find_aag.pdf


I don't dispute that there is a hint of pride in the Indian action but for those who exclusively accept this as a given you should also acknowledge that India MAY be in a position to care for its own.

and lastly remember what Mark Twain is reputed to have said

"He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination."

Regarding your sources, the size of an economy does NOT equate to the wealth of its people. China is one of the largest economies in the world but with an average wage of $400 an annum.

Also, the size of the economy does NOT equate to the size of the budget and the taxation-revenues of the government.

You should realise this.

is_that_so

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Regarding your sources, the size of an economy does NOT equate to the wealth of its people. China is one of the largest economies in the world but with an average wage of $400 an annum.

Also, the size of the economy does NOT equate to the size of the budget and the taxation-revenues of the government.

You should realise this.

The point still stands . Data that is 2-5 years out of date brings nothing to this discussion. I still stand by my original comment on this. WE actually don't know whether India can cope on its own but as I've already stated there is quite possibly an element of pride to their decision as well.

Big Ears

What was the first government to send military troops to help in Sri Lanka ?..................India , considering they have had such a disaster themselves and still sent troops to Sri Lanka means that UN and NGO donations will probably be enough for India . also 95/96 , its now 2005 10 years on .

What was the difference in the Irish economy between 1991 and 2001.......im not sure , but id say its a hell of a lot .

bandraoi

Maybe India doesn't want to be indebted the US.
I wouldn't particularly like Ireland receiving government aid from the US right now, given US foreign policy.

DadaKopf

Arcadegame, you're thinking a bit short-term. All states make short-term and long-term decisions. In this case, it seems that the Indian government, for a variety of (possibly conflicting) reasons does not wish to find itself more vulnerable to developed countries' personal interests. It's regrettable to say, but many political actors, Indian or foreign, see this disaster as an opportunity to push various agendas.

I personally think it's worth rejecting US aid given its history and blatant use as a foreign policy tool if it means that India can pursue economic and political policies that reduce poverty in the long-run, which has been happening in terms of economic growth. Again, India is not rejecting all aid, just aid from sources that might affect them negatively.

Basically, aid should not be used for political ends, but it inevitably is. In the US, they're framing it in terms of how it'll improve their brand image. And you've also got to ask this: why is so much of the (military) aid going to Indonesia and nobody is mentioning Burmah/Myanmar? The US historically has a very 'cozy' relationship with murderous Indonesia - trade interests at work there. And nobody wants to deal with Myanmar because of policy toward the military Junta.

Although aid should be motivated solely by humanitarian concerns, it's impossible to bracket politics from the equation. In my opinion, India's decision is the lesser of two evils, not that India is free from criticism either.

therecklessone

arcadegame2004 wrote:

India a "developed" country! Ludicrous in the extreme.

:rolleyes:

Three people mentioned "developed" before you did.

I said:

therecklessone wrote:

India would be better able to deal with the catastrophe, given it is a relatively developed nation in comparison to its neighbours.

smiaras said:

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

and NoelRock said:

NoelRock wrote:

India - rightly - believe that the assistance of the U.S. and other countries would be more useful in other countries which are far less developed than India and, thus, need it more.

Thats one person who agrees with you, and two who believe that India is relatively developed, in comparison to her neighbours.

arcadegame2004 read all the posts in a thread? Ludicrous in the extreme...

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

segadreamcast

"Either way money is getting into India through charitable sources and they are in a better situation to cope than their neighbours, but I still don't agree that they're doing this with the best intentions in mind."

Then the 'intentions' don't really matter - do they? You've just agreed with what I said, namely that the help of the U.S. would be better aimed elsewhere...

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Which is exactly what the majority on this thread are saying

but I still don't agree that they're doing this with the best intentions in mind.

Does it really matter what their intentions are if they are not taking up aid they do not require?

A Dub in Glasgo

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

An acceptable criticism if they really needed the aid of outside governments

Can someone please tell me but are India refusing all government aid, i.e. not just that of the US? Wouldn't Britain be offering them cash?

From the link in the 1st post, they are not accepting outside government aid. they are accepting UN and charity aid. I have no more information and I suppose argadegame2004 will come back to us with more information.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Blackjack

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

This is indeed true, you can't take Rupees out of the country. I believe the same is the case in Malaysia and in several other Asian (Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Taiwan have similar set-ups) countries also. It's mainly a measure to protect their Economy from currency speculation, and to control the effect of Inward Investment.

monument

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

That kind of mentality is similar to the “there’s no poor people in Ireland, don’t be silly look at this figure blah blah blah” way of thinking, the only real difference is the massive scale of it in India.

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

monument

That's what I mean, by a massive scale in difference.