3 Presidents with the hand out..

Swarfboy

Just wondering what the reaction is out there to the plea by Bush, Clinton and Bush looking for "the people of America" to help with the Asian Crisis...
Nobody in work can believe that a country that has the power to solve world hunger on its own or that would mobolise it's entire army if there was another 9/11 but take over a week to get the first aid to the country...

I also think it was Bush's best chance to redeem himself in the worlds view... i.e. he could have done very little and still have changed peoples opinions around the world... His personal loss that will prob cost more lives in the long run...

Hobbes

It also takes everyones attention away from Iraq which is an absolute mess. Voting officials have quit over threats to their lives and the Governer to Baghdad was assassinated this morning.

por

Swarfboy wrote:

Just wondering what the reaction is out there to the plea by Bush, Clinton and Bush looking for "the people of America" to help with the Asian Crisis...
Nobody in work can believe that a country that has the power to solve world hunger on its own or that would mobolise it's entire army if there was another 9/11 but take over a week to get the first aid to the country...

I also think it was Bush's best chance to redeem himself in the worlds view... i.e. he could have done very little and still have changed peoples opinions around the world... His personal loss that will prob cost more lives in the long run...

My reaction to it is that I see it as a plea by the current president of the US and 2 former presdients for "the people of America" to help with the Asian Crisis...

Wow, the USA can't do anything without some people picking holes in their actions.

Wow, the USA can't do anything without some people picking holes in their actions.

True, but they've earned that distrust.

Just wondering what the reaction is out there to the plea by Bush, Clinton and Bush looking for "the people of America" to help with the Asian Crisis...

Its no more than alot of nations leaders have asked of their own countrymen. Sure, I distrust Bush & his administration, but this is a crisis that needs help. Game on to him, if he manages to generate some relief.

And why are you so suspicious of Clinton?

mewso

Have to agree with por here. I 'aint no Bush fan but it smacks of :-

"I hate Bush so I want his reaction to be bad. Well it's not bad but it's not great I can work on that".

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Daveirl beat me to it. The US has really had the lead role in the relief effort, and being able to put an aircraft carrier strike group in the region in a matter of days is certainly not sluggish. Their helicopters have been particularly vital in distributing aid around the Aceh region from the airport. I'm not usually a fan of the Bush regime but on this occasion they've saved a lot of lives and I kinda think we should give credit where it is due.

mike65

I found an article yesterday when googling for details on the Tsunami warnings not being passed on, in which the author ended his piece by insinuating that the dispatch of the carrier group was part of some sort of invasion!

Nut job he.

They're easily the best ppl equiped to help - 'coms, 'copters, medicines, trained manpower.

Mike.

pete

But there were U.S. and regional security interests in providing aid to help countries recover from such disasters, he told a joint news conference with Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda in Jakarta.

"We hope that through these efforts people will see that the United States is committed to helping those who are in poverty, to those who are not able to educate their children, to those who are looking for jobs and need a country that is based on law and order," said Powell.

"We believe it is in the best interest of those countries and it's in our best interest and it dries up those pools of dissatisfaction which might give rise to terrorist activity," he said.

"Under such circumstances we think it's less likely that the terrorists will find fertile ground. That supports not only our national security interests, but the national security interests of the countries involved."

http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=970570&tw=wn_wire_story

The US government has so far pledged $350m to the victims of the tsunami, and the UK government £50m ($96m). The US has spent $148 billion on the Iraq war and the UK £6bn ($11.5bn). The war has been running for 656 days. This means that the money pledged for the tsunami disaster by the United States is the equivalent of one and a half day's spending in Iraq. The money the UK has given equates to five and a half days of our involvement in the war.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1382857,00.html

mike65

This is OT but it just goes to show paper dont refuse ink (so to speak)

from indymedia (where else?)

perhaps it wasnt a quake that caused the wave
by Truth seeker Monday, Jan 3 2005, 12:27am


besides the bizzare lack of warnings from people who knew the "quake" had happened and the resulting
waves that would occur there is another point that the media seems to be totally ignoring and has just accepted as fact
There might have been no earthquake

There is a possibility that it could have been a neuclear explosion under the water. I am assuming by the Americans which would make it a lot more logical that they didnt warn anyone. They might have been testing but also might have wanted to show what they can do in order to intimidate another state.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Mike.

DadaKopf

In terms of putting the region's aid needs in an economic context, this ODI briefing by Edward Clay is excellent:

The Overseas Development Institute wrote:

The Indian Ocean Tsunami: what are the economic consequences?

1. These notes are based on research by ODI staff on the economic and financial consequences of natural disasters.1

2. The geographical scale of the disaster is unprecedented, the loss of life immense and the level of physical damage very significant.

3. However, so far this is not the worst such disaster in modern times - the cyclone and storm surge that hit the coast of Bangladesh in 1970 killed at least 300,000 people. As that disaster showed, many of those killed are poor, and living in places with weak record systems: we will never know the full extent of the loss of life.

4. The immediate relief needs in the Indian Ocean are large and complex, and there will be a long term need for rehabilitation and reconstruction in the areas affected. The disaster is complicated because there are the effects of the earthquake near the epicentre (Aceh) and the widespread effects of the tsunami wave. In effect, there are two disasters, a very severe earthquake as well as the effect of the tsunami.

5. It is important to understand that natural disasters on this scale have less visible, but critically important, economy-wide (macro-economic) effects. This is because of the impact of damage to productive sectors (fishing, tourism) which generate jobs, tax revenue and foreign exchange, but also because government expenditure has to be diverted from other uses.

6. At the same time, the size of these secondary impacts depends very much on the structure of economies and on their resilience. The effects are greater when: other sectors depend very much on the affected sector (e.g. tourist hotels are one of the main markets for food or handicraft production); or the impact on government expenditure is large; or if government finances are poorly managed. In general, more developed economies are more resilient than those that are less developed.

7. As a general rule, the macro-economic effects of natural disasters tend to be relatively short-lived. The research evidence is that it is unusual to find significant decreases in national income or drops in the growth rate from sudden impact earthquakes, tsunamis or tropical storms. Indeed, in some cases, natural disasters have had a positive effect, because of increased spending on the rehabilitation of infrastructure.

8. In the case of the Indian Ocean tsunami, the countries affected cover a wide spectrum. The most vulnerable is probably Somalia, a very poor country, with few resources no effective government and many people dependent on the affected sectors. The Maldives will also be very badly affected, because of the dependence on tourism. Aceh is suffering all the effects of a major earthquake, with rescue and rehabilitation hampered by isolation and poor governance.

9. In other countries, the effect is likely to be more localised, though no less catastrophic for the individuals and communities concerned. Some countries are lower middle rather than low income countries (e.g. Thailand, Sri Lanka); most have well-diversified economies; most also have reasonably well-performing governments, with at least some response capacity, and also active civil societies. In all countries, it is important to emphasise that the main response will come from governments and people themselves.

10. The effects will be most severe where a large number of people, infrastructure (roads, railways, ports, electricity, telephones, water supply, sewage disposal) and economic activity (fishing, tourism) are concentrated along the coast. The effects are likely to be relatively most severe for small island economies and regions dependent on the sea and near the epicentre of the earthquake (Aceh, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Maldives).

11. In the longer term, those most seriously affected will be:

* Poor coastal communities especially fishing communities where families will have lost their breadwinners, homes, boats and equipment, and face debts for boats and equipment lost, also those on the margins of the tourist economy.
* Smaller, remoter economies especially
- Aceh (remote, poor and with severe governance problems because of the struggle for greater local autonomy and the wider near chaotic economic situation in Indonesia);
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands; and
- The Maldives because of its smallness and overwhelming dependence on disaster-affected tourism and the sea (economy and government finances could be very severely hit in short term).

12. Tourism is likely to recover quickly because: tourist operators and tourists are largely insured for loss and the bigger companies for disruption to business; multi-national tourism has the internal funding and can raise finance for rapid reconstruction; and demand will revive because a 1 in 1000 year event will be quickly forgotten.

13. The greatest challenge will be in ensuring that the poor, especially those in fishing, on the margins of the tourist economy and in remoter areas are helped to recover.

14. As far as aid is concerned, the research evidence is that the immediate response to natural disasters involves some new money, but that rehabilitation needs are often met by switching aid money between uses rather than increasing total aid to the countries affected. In this case, the level of need suggests that aid for both humanitarian and rehabilitation purposes should be additional. WHO has emphasised the importance of aid for health and sanitation in the immediate aftermath of the tsunami. The EU development and humanitarian commissioner, Louis Michel, has emphasised the need for a seamless link to longer term rehabilitation.

15. There are some important lessons for the future. The international community must
- invest much more in globally monitoring natural hazards that can cause disasters;
- help developing countries that under invest to provide warning systems2
- invest in protecting lives and livelihoods (Coastal embankments break the force of storm surges and tsunamis).
- The poor, who are most at risk and most vulnerable to the effects of disasters, need insurance. 2005 is the International Year for micro-credit. A major effort is needed to ensure that those successfully providing micro-credit to millions of poor people, such as the Grameen Bank BRAC and Proshika in Bangladesh, are able to include insurance in their loans and then have the funding in place and guarantees to withstand the effects of disasters.

16. The UN Kobe Conference in January on reducing the impacts of natural disasters offers an opportunity to look more carefully at these issues.

Notes:
Some facts about the countries:
Sri Lanka: population 20m; GNI per capita $930;
Thailand: population 62m; GNI per capita $2190;
Indonesia: population 212m; GNI per capita $710;
Maldives: population 300k; GNI per capita $2350;
Tamil Nadu: population 60m; GNI per capita (India) $540;
Somalia: population 9m; GNI per capita - not available but probably around $100

1. The author, Dr Edward Clay, Senior Research Associate, Overseas Development Institute, London [ e.j.clay@odi.org.uk ] and colleagues have been working on the economic and financial consequences of natural disasters for the last decade and results are summarised in a World Bank publication that can be accessed via the ODI web-site - or directly:

http://www.odi.org.uk/speeches/disasters_2004/natural_disasters_report.html

The full report on the study can be found on the World Bank's Publications web-site at:
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDS_IBank_Servlet?pcont=details&eid=000
012009_20040420135752

Charlotte Benson and Edward Clay, 'Beyond the Damage: Probing the Economic and Financial Consequences of Natural Disasters', Humanitarian Exchange, no. 27, July 2004. (see http://www.odihpn.org/)

Charlotte Benson and Edward Clay 'Understanding the Economic and Financial Impacts of Natural Disasters' just published by the World Bank (ISBN: 0-8213-5685-2 SKU: 15685)

2. Warning systems work: The numbers killed by the cyclone in Bangladesh - 300,000 plus in 1970 dropped to 138,000 in 1991 and since then fatalities caused by more recent storms have been few. The Mont Pelé eruption killed everyone (22,000) in St Pierre the capital of Martinique except a convict in the gaol, but the Soufrière Hills eruption going on since 1995 on Montserrat has killed only a handful who had been warned to evacuate

url=http://www.odi.org.uk/tsunami.html]Source[/url

America is definitely showing leadership in the relief effort. I got the sense during the presidential election that Kerry was trying to do an FDR and speak to Americans' yearning for the good ole post-WWII days. America has certainly jumped into this role now. And America deserves credit for saving lives in the short-term. It's the long-term that worries me. If history shows anything, relief is a very messy business at all levels.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Swarfboy

Thanks for all the responses... and contrary to popular belief I was not trying to have a go at the American people for the response to the disaster.
I probably jumped a little to quickly mainly due to the fact of USA giving 350million in aid on the same day as our company signed a $1.15 billion deal.
As our CEO said... "We look forward to playing a role in our nation’s return to flight activities and supporting President Bush’s new space exploration vision."