Generosity of Rich Nations Questioned as Tsunami Aid Flood Begins

UN emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland got himself in hot water with the Bush administration over something that he didn’t actually say. President Bush and his people took umbrage at Mr. Egeland’s characterization of foreign aid programs of the wealthy nations as “stingy,” saying Mr. Egeland’s statement was “very misguided and ill-informed." As usual in this sort of argument, the figures can lie and liars can figure.

First off, here’s what Mr. Egeland actually said: “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.” That’s it. No griping about America, no accusations of miserliness aimed directly at Washington. The fact is that US foreign aid amounts to 0.14% of GDP. No government gives a full percentage, though Mr. Egeland’s Norway is close with 0.92%.

America, however, views the matter differently. USAID chief Andrew Natsios told the AP, “The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent. The reason is that our gross national product is so enormous. And our growth rates are so much higher than the other wealthy nations." And the data behind that were provided by Mr. Bush when he said, “In the year 2004, our government provided $2.4 billion in food and cash and humanitarian relief. That’s $2.4 billion. That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year.” The US is offering an initial package of $35 million to those hit by the tsunami and more will follow. And it is important to remember that only so much aid can be absorbed at once.

A further fact that somehow didn’t register on either side is the very large private charity sector in America. A study by the Giving USA Foundation showed Americans gave $241 billion to charitable causes last year (in an economy the CIA estimates at just under $11 trillion this year) – unfortunately, that isn’t broken between foreign and domestic charity. Nonetheless, one would be very surprised if a couple of percentage points, a few billion dollars at least, failed to find their way out of the 50 states.

Some Americans will say that the US is overly generous to unappreciative foreigners and that Mr. Egeland and the UN should just shut up. But others must consider whether appearances are not deceiving. The US Air Force will spend a $250 million or so for each F-22 Raptor it buys to stay ahead of the world’s second biggest air power – which happens to be the US Navy. And NASA blows $1.5 billion a year on the international space station, which doesn’t produce much meaningful science, and can’t be re-supplied as planned because the shuttle doesn’t work. And ceremonies for Mr. Bush’s inauguration will come to $40 million (though not all of it taxpayers’ money). Heck, baketball player Kevin Garnett gets $28 million a year as a member of the Minnesota Timberwolves.

Meanwhile, as many as 500 million people contract malaria each year, and up to 3 million of them die. It is likely to be the biggest infectious disease before the decade is out. Currently, the most effective treatment is Coartem® (artemether/lumefantrine), a one-pill co-formulation, costing $2.40 per adult dose according to Medicins Sans Frontieres. This price is likely to drop as production economies are realized, but even at this level, $1.2 billion per year could save 3 million lives. Of course, stingy is in the eye of the beholder. To put this in perspective, Starbucks Corp., of coffee fame, reported global revenues in the quarter ending October 3, 2004 of $1.4 billion.

© Copyright 2004 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.

Home