The Washington Times reports that U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised:
"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."
"There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy," he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."
The Associated Press reports that Secretary of State Colin Powell bristled at the suggestion the United States has been "stingy:"
"The United States has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world," Powell said when asked about the comments Monday by Jan Egeland, the U.N. humanitarian aid chief.
In an interview on NBC"s "Today" show Tuesday, Powell said that "clearly, the United States will be a major contributor to this international effort. And, yes, it will run into the billions of dollars."
The U.N.'s Mr. Egeland needs to learn to be more diplomatic. All Mr. Egeland's comment will achieve is to make the U.N. even more unpopular in the U.S. Fortunately, the American people, who always give so much, will still donate a lot to help with this disater. I hope that the aid that the U.S. government provides does not go through any U.N. organizations until Mr. England at least apologizes. I would prefer his resignation, but an apology will do.
UPDATE: At Wizbang, Kevin Aylward posts that Mr. Egeland claims that his comments were misinterpreted . Kevin provides links to video of Mr. Egeland's comments and notes it would be pretty hard to misinterpret Egeland's words.
At Legal XXX, Chris refutes Mr. Egeland's stingy comments by linking to this fact sheet on US Foreign Assistance
.
The Jawa Report agrees that this is not the way to rekindle an American fondness for the UN.
At Knight Of The Mind, Steve wonders inlight of the Oil for Food scandle, if we gave more to the U.N. where would it go.
Cranky Neocon asks, "What good is aid money, if the U.N. doesn't get the service charges?"
Ace Of Spades posts that Egeland is "whining about the "stinginess" of the US aid package and the need for us to pay more in taxes while the UN is covering up the greatest theft/embezzlement in human history."
Secure Liberty posts that Mr. Egeland has classic socialist view of the world - good things only come from government coercion, not from individual acts of kindness.
For Ladylaw:
This article contains some worthwhile statistic collection which includes the aid given by private individuals in the US. The picture does not get much prettier, though.
As for 9/11, the whole world seemed to rush to aid. Much was not needed though, in terms of immediate catastrophy help. There wasn't a wide population in Manhattan in dire need of food, clothing etc.
After 9/11 there was also an unseen wave of sympathy towards the US, including mine. Somebody in your administration went and messed that up quite badly. I'm not very envious of Colin Powell, who strikes me as a very intelligent person, and seems to find himself in situations where he has to fix and explain something he does not seem to approve concerning the foreign policy of the current administration.
As for the "go to someplace with much higher taxes and socialized health care and see how long you really end up loving it there". I'm there. I love it. Check out some international surveys (International Ranking) at the end of this article. Very interesting are for instance the competitive indexes. High taxes and socialized health care do not seem to stand for stagnating economy. May I also point out that the privatized health care in US eats 14 % of your GPD as our socialized version manages only 6.5 %. Sooo strange.
I also love the placing of the prime self-appointed defender of freedom on the Reporters without borders list. I'm sorry I'm being cynical here, but I think that we should stick to facts and not throw around generalized assumptions based on nothing but FoxTV propaganda.
And yes, Egeland was also referring to my home country. We are being stingy compared to the Norwegians, all the time, and I am ashamed of it.
Posted by: jl | Sunday, January 09, 2005 at 09:39 AM
For Ladylaw:
This article contains some worthwhile statistic collection which includes the aid given by private individuals in the US. The picture does not get much prettier, though.
As for 9/11, the whole world seemed to rush to aid. Much was not needed though, in terms of immediate catastrophy help. There wasn't a wide population in Manhattan in dire need of food, clothing etc.
After 9/11 there was also an unseen wave of sympathy towards the US, including mine. Somebody in your administration went and messed that up quite badly. I'm not very envious of Colin Powell, who strikes me as a very intelligent person, and seems to find himself in situations where he has to fix and explain something he does not seem to approve concerning the foreign policy of the current administration.
As for the "go to someplace with much higher taxes and socialized health care and see how long you really end up loving it there". I'm there. I love it. Check out some international surveys (International Ranking) at the end of this article. Very interesting are for instance the competitive indexes. High taxes and socialized health care do not seem to stand for stagnating economy. May I also point out that the privatized health care in US eats 14 % of your GPD as our socialized version manages only 6.5 %. Sooo strange.
I also love the placing of the prime self-appointed defender of freedom on the Reporters without borders list. I'm sorry I'm being cynical here, but I think that we should stick to facts and not throw around generalized assumptions based on nothing but FoxTV propaganda.
And yes, Egeland was also referring to my home country. We are being stingy compared to the Norwegians, all the time, and I am ashamed of it.
Posted by: jl | Sunday, January 09, 2005 at 09:25 AM
Give me a break self centered americans. Have you forgotten that you are all European migrants?? You are not special or blessed, you just happen to have a big population and good economi. Do I need to tell you that you guys spend a lot more on your wars than you contribute to world hunger and economical growth..? And I am sure Mr. Egeland also includes scandinavian countries when he is talking about stingy western countries. His comment have made the norwegian gouvernment pledge another 170 million $. (and norway has 4 million inhabitants)
Take care
Posted by: Kristian Jensen | Monday, January 03, 2005 at 12:35 PM
question: what are the statistics on how much individuals donate in each nation? our government is currently trying to figure out where it's going to get the money it promised (but it will be giving every cent it has promised) because our FEDERAL resources are tapped - it doesn't matter how or why, the point is, they're tapped, and yet we're still giving. and each american citizen who pays taxes and yet still chooses to donate their hard earned dollars is also giving. how dare anyone overlook the contributions given by americans in general, that are NOT pledged or mandated by the government. i'm not familiar with the system used to calculate how stingy the governments of the west are, but just like any set of statistics, people are using it to justify conclusions that aren't quite kosher. just because the number of our GNI is low does not mean that we don't give and we don't open our hearts and wallets anytime something happens in the world. whenever the world needs help, we're the first to be called. and then we're yelled at for "interfering" - gotta love the double standards.
ps - who was helping us out after 9/11? if you're really that ashamed of our country, go to someplace with much higher taxes and socialized health care and see how long you really end up loving it there. you'll be missing the US pretty quickly.
Posted by: ladylaw | Monday, January 03, 2005 at 02:21 AM
From the CIA factbook :
Economic Aid - Donor (US) ODA, $6.9 billion (1997)
Economic Aid - Donor (Norway) ODA, $1.4 billion (1998)
And Norways population is approx. 4 million.
Draw your own conclusions.
Tor
Posted by: Tor Gisvold | Saturday, January 01, 2005 at 05:55 AM
News in that US has put it's pledge 10-fold, now 350 millions USD. That's more on the mark, and I'll stop bashing this individual country. Thank you. More is still needed, though.
Posted by: joe | Friday, December 31, 2004 at 04:24 PM
The Washington Times story--and those that picked up on it subsequently--is bogus. Egeland never singled out the U.S. as stingy, and he never criticized the tsunami relief effort.
During a December 27th press conference, Egeland was asked if the enormity of the affected countries’ needs might “undercut, both in terms of money and personnel, U.N. relief efforts elsewhere in the world, such as Sudan, for example?”
According to a transcript by the Federal Document Clearing House, he responded:
"It is really a problem that for too many rich countries the pie is finite. You take out a slice and there is less for the rest. And I think an unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity from countries…. I'm afraid for the coming year, because there are several donors who are actually less generous than before in a growing world economy."
The press conference continued with questions of logistics and planning until, maybe twenty minutes later, a reporter asked: “When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy were giving less, are you prepared to name them?”
Egeland responded with a pointed “no,” which makes the story a lie rather than an inaccuracy. The reporters had fished for a scandalous quote and Egeland hadn’t bitten. So the Washington Times' Bill Sammon just made one up.
The “stingy” remark came when Egeland added:
"I would rather say that it is remarkable that we have no country up to the 1 percent line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three Scandinavians that have exceeded--and Holland-- the 0.7 line of gross national income for assistance. We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why are we so stingy, really, when we are -- and even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become. And 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."
No mention of the United States. Egeland, a Norwegian, said ‘we’ are stingy, speaking broadly of all “rich countries” except for Holland and the “three Scandinavians.”
He also wasn’t referring to aid for the current disaster, but to the failure of donor nations to reach their longstanding goal of routinely giving .07 percent of their GDP in development assistance. This is a thoroughly non-scandalous view shared and expressed frequently by just about everyone in the international humanitarian community.
Sammon’s article is not subtle in its distortion of Egeland’s comments. The Headline, “U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid” primes the reader. That’s followed by the lead:
"U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised."
Sammon replaced Egeland’s “many of the rich countries” with “the United States and other Western nations.”
It's kind of funny watching the right get itself into a lather about a comment that never was. Or, it would be funny if it wasn't so damn typical.
Posted by: Joshua | Friday, December 31, 2004 at 02:47 PM
The Washington Times story--and those that picked up on it subsequently--is bogus. Egeland never singled out the U.S. as stingy, and he never criticized the tsunami relief effort.
During a December 27th press conference, Egeland was asked if the enormity of the affected countries’ needs might “undercut, both in terms of money and personnel, U.N. relief efforts elsewhere in the world, such as Sudan, for example?”
According to a transcript by the Federal Document Clearing House, he responded:
"It is really a problem that for too many rich countries the pie is finite. You take out a slice and there is less for the rest. And I think an unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity from countries…. I'm afraid for the coming year, because there are several donors who are actually less generous than before in a growing world economy."
The press conference continued with questions of logistics and planning until, maybe twenty minutes later, a reporter asked: “When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy were giving less, are you prepared to name them?”
Egeland responded with a pointed “no,” which makes the story a lie rather than an inaccuracy. The reporters had fished for a scandalous quote and Egeland hadn’t bitten. So the Washington Times' Bill Sammon just made one up.
The “stingy” remark came when Egeland added:
"I would rather say that it is remarkable that we have no country up to the 1 percent line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three Scandinavians that have exceeded--and Holland-- the 0.7 line of gross national income for assistance. We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why are we so stingy, really, when we are -- and even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become. And 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."
No mention of the United States. Egeland, a Norwegian, said ‘we’ are stingy, speaking broadly of all “rich countries” except for Holland and the “three Scandinavians.”
He also wasn’t referring to aid for the current disaster, but to the failure of donor nations to reach their longstanding goal of routinely giving .07 percent of their GDP in development assistance. This is a thoroughly non-scandalous view shared and expressed frequently by just about everyone in the international humanitarian community.
Sammon’s article is not subtle in its distortion of Egeland’s comments. The Headline, “U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid” primes the reader. That’s followed by the lead:
"U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised."
Sammon replaced Egeland’s “many of the rich countries” with “the United States and other Western nations.”
It's kind of funny watching the right get itself into a lather about a comment that never was. Or, it would be funny if it wasn't so damn typical.
Posted by: Joshua | Friday, December 31, 2004 at 02:46 PM
The Washington Times story--and those that picked up on it subsequently--is bogus. Egeland never singled out the U.S. as stingy, and he never criticized the tsunami relief effort.
During a December 27th press conference, Egeland was asked if the enormity of the affected countries’ needs might “undercut, both in terms of money and personnel, U.N. relief efforts elsewhere in the world, such as Sudan, for example?”
According to a transcript by the Federal Document Clearing House, he responded:
"It is really a problem that for too many rich countries the pie is finite. You take out a slice and there is less for the rest. And I think an unprecedented disaster like this one should lead to unprecedented generosity from countries…. I'm afraid for the coming year, because there are several donors who are actually less generous than before in a growing world economy."
The press conference continued with questions of logistics and planning until, maybe twenty minutes later, a reporter asked: “When you were talking about donor countries that in a growing economy were giving less, are you prepared to name them?”
Egeland responded with a pointed “no,” which makes the story a lie rather than an inaccuracy. The reporters had fished for a scandalous quote and Egeland hadn’t bitten. So the Washington Times' Bill Sammon just made one up.
The “stingy” remark came when Egeland added:
"I would rather say that it is remarkable that we have no country up to the 1 percent line of foreign assistance in general and we have, I think, three Scandinavians that have exceeded--and Holland-- the 0.7 line of gross national income for assistance. We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me why are we so stingy, really, when we are -- and even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become. And 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."
No mention of the United States. Egeland, a Norwegian, said ‘we’ are stingy, speaking broadly of all “rich countries” except for Holland and the “three Scandinavians.”
He also wasn’t referring to aid for the current disaster, but to the failure of donor nations to reach their longstanding goal of routinely giving .07 percent of their GDP in development assistance. This is a thoroughly non-scandalous view shared and expressed frequently by just about everyone in the international humanitarian community.
Sammon’s article is not subtle in its distortion of Egeland’s comments. The Headline, “U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid” primes the reader. That’s followed by the lead:
"U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised."
Sammon replaced Egeland’s “many of the rich countries” with “the United States and other Western nations.”
It's kind of funny watching the right get itself into a lather about a comment that never was. Or, it would be funny if it wasn't so damn typical.
Posted by: Joshua | Friday, December 31, 2004 at 02:45 PM
Stingy is stingy, there is no helping it.
With the aid given by US Government to tsunami victims (35 million USD) the Iraq war can be fought whole 6 hours. Talk about stinginess.
The money given by individual donors in UK alone is bigger than the money given by US government.
Let's stick to the facts.
Posted by: joe | Friday, December 31, 2004 at 04:26 AM
The Us. are not what they used to be.
They lost their capacity of self analysis.
But what else would you expect, they say people only get the president they deserve, Bush completely reflects the american people at the present. When it comes to them, their tragedies are "an Attack against human race" (9/11). But if asians aren't sitting on an oil well then why would they "give away" more money for "nothing". Of course, americans are less and less welcomed everywhere however their leader would only say "they envy us.." and worst of all his people would believe him. Then the world would have the richest country of people who can't play with a full deck.
Posted by: ricardo | Thursday, December 30, 2004 at 08:56 PM
When a country (Australia) with only 22 million people (compared to more then 240 million in the US) can give $35 million in initial funds plus military and medical help etc - what else can you call the US contrib - but stingy ????
I bet the Tsunami victims wish they were sitting on oil or terrorists could be blamed - then the money would roll in !!!!
The world cried for the US on 9/11 - but the US does not seem to care about anyone else. In most cases the average person in a US street could not even tell anyone where the Indian Ocean was -let alone the countries affected.
Also, I would like someone to explain why it was not OK to show bodies of 9/11 victims on US TV - but OK to show third world victims bodies ?
Posted by: Ozzie | Thursday, December 30, 2004 at 08:51 AM
I have sent a letter to Mr. Jan Egeland.
---------
30 December 2004
Mr. Jan Egeland,
Under-Secretary General
c/o The United Nations
760 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017
Dear Mr. Egeland:
Let it be known when America is insulted, Americans are insulted.
I am an American, by birth, and had I been born anywhere else on this planet I would do everything possible to be an American.
You recently implied that America is stingy. In making that statement you called me stingy at the same time, because I am the fiber of America: I AM AN AMERICAN! I am not stingy, nor is my country which I fund through my taxes, nor are the international charities that I fund through voluntary donations.
I am not stingy when you come to my country as a visitor, or when you attended my country’s educational systems in Berkeley, California. Nor am I stingy with my donations from which you have been gainfully employed through charitable organizations for the vast majority of your professional life. I was not stingy when the United Nation’s headquarters was moved onto my country’s soil.
I do not complain when my government sends money, goods and services around the world to assist others. I do not complain when American volunteers travel worldwide to assist others. I do not complain when America has a crisis and very few other countries offer to help us, sometimes no one offers to help us at all.
The California county in which I live has a total population of 96,000. We are a very small county, yet each year I take pride when one of our doctors, Dr. Kellerman, gathers others from our community and treks across the globe with the goal of providing medical help to people. He and his troupe have repaired buildings on foreign soil, provided medicine, provided medical treatments, and given vast amounts of goodwill. Dr. Kellerman and his friends are Americans. I also say many good-byes to Mrs. Erma Ford on an annual basis as she is sent around the world to provide her volunteered nursing skills through the Red Cross. Mrs. Ford is in her late seventies and she has no plan on retiring from her volunteer work. Need I emphasize that Mrs. Ford is also an American?
When you compare America’s donations to other countries you are using the Gross National Income as the basis. That standard is one of many that can be used to manipulate the end results. The actual dollars that America donates is staggering. I did notice that you might have overlooked one very, very rich nation: Kuwait. Could that be that because none of them work because they are a welfare nation (from their nation's oil income)therefore, their GNI is very low, yet their wealth far exceeds any other nation on earth? Do you see the blatant manipulative result now?
We Americans are just plain not stingy at all. I am, however, unacceptably forgiving and I am eternally optimistic. Those two negative traits will cease as of today. As of this day I will never donate to another international charity. As of this day I will work endlessly to have the United Nation’s headquarters removed from America’s soil. Mr. Egeland, as of this day, I, and millions just like me, have become your worst nightmare.
Without best regards,
Chris Dabis
Posted by: Chris Dabis | Wednesday, December 29, 2004 at 10:38 PM
I sent the following email to OCHA (http://ochaonline.un.org/contactus.asp) "Hello,
I, as an American citizen, am very upset at the arrogant and false statement that Jan Egeland made calling "rich countries stingy" which included the USA. If his intention was to manipulate us to give more he missed the target. As Americans we give because of the need and not because an arrogant man makes a false statement about us.
I suggest he get better educated about how to encourage people to give rather than attacking those of a generous heart.
I am going to contact as many American people as I can to share Mr. Egeland's false statement as I believe he owes the people of the United States of America a heartfelt apology which I wonder if his own arrogance will allow him to make.
I personally wish Mr. Egeland no illwill, but I do hope he will be called into account by his peers for the offensive statement he made.
Sincerely,
Charles Cordero
USA"
Posted by: Charles Cordero | Wednesday, December 29, 2004 at 01:50 PM
The U.S. is typically stingy. They give alot but they also have a bigger economy. U.S. $32million Canada $4million austrailia $4million. Canada has 1/10 population of the U.S. austrailia even less. Where does powell get his info???? More hype.
USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically in the last three years, their dollar amount has been the highest.
Since 1992, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw dollars. That was until 2001 when the United States reclaimed that position, a year that also saw Japan's amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars (as tables and charts below will also show).
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp this web site does the analysis. Findings
Average Giving for All Canadian Households
Over the past three decades, the average annual value
of gifts and contributions per Canadian household rose
steadily from $986 in 1969 to $1,700 in 1996. This
amount includes gifts in money and in goods both to
persons living outside the household and to charities.1
Considered as a proportion of disposable income, this
total giving represented an increase from 3.3% of the
average disposable household income in 1969 ($29,724)
to 4.5% in 1996. (Average disposable household income
stood at about $37,000 in 1978 and remained at this
level right up to 1997.)
Posted by: Jeff Guarino | Wednesday, December 29, 2004 at 12:12 PM