Funferal

Following the tsunami, observations on ODA and global solidarity

Zephoria has criticised what she sees as the ‘stingy’ response of America to the tsunami disaster – both as a government and a people. On the other side we have Carol Adelman in the New York Times touting the ‘high quality of mercy’ of the Americans in general. So where does the truth lie?
First, Adelman’s argument is, to put it politely, full of holes. She claims that America gives the greatest absolute amount, that Americans give primarily through private channels (to the tune of 3 times the government donation) and that America’s ‘global military presence… helps provide the stability needed for economic growth.’ To emphasise all this she points to Norway’s 0.92% of GNP given in aid and notes that this is $2bn, or less than the donations of US corporations. But as Earl Ofari Hutchinson notes this ignores the GNP of donors, and the commitment to give 0.7% of GNP in aid as discussed here on funferal previously.
The GNP of the United States exceeds that of any other nation, and of the EMU members and the UK combined. Ignoring GNP – which is essentially a measure of national income – you could just look at population. Norway, with 4.5 million people give 1/8 the amount given by the United States, with 293 million. On what reasonable metric does that make Americans more generous?
Second, however, it is true that philanthropy is very important in the United States – and it is something that has struck me deeply since arriving there. How large it is substantively may be debateable but the cultural commitment to personal generosity is something I have found impressive.
But there is a major problem with individual-led responses. The factors that lead to large amounts of individual donations do not necessarily correlate with actual need. Take, for instance, 9-11, where large numbers of people came forward to make blood donations – while the need for blood, arising from the disaster, was quite limited. Or, particularly since 9-11, the tendency of donors to specify what their donation can be used for. This, readers will recall, caused great difficulties for the American Red Cross, which ended up with large surpluses for 9-11 relief, while other programmes and needs were underfunded.
This, then, is an obvious benefit of an institutional response – the ability to co-ordinate, to plan, and to make allocations on a basis other than which issues gain wide media attention. The tsunami disaster is a disaster, a catastrophe – whatever adjectives one chooses will still fall short – but other ongoing crises (Sudan etc.) or persistent tragedies (lack of clean drinking water, grinding poverty) continue to exist, and continue to kill, to hurt and to eviscerate the life-prospects of large portions of the world’s population. We need extra levels of support in the face of events such as the tsunami, but we equally need ongoing structural commitments to combat these ongoing issues. As George Monbiot asks:

Why must the relief of suffering, in this unprecedentedly prosperous world, rely on the whims of citizens and the appeals of pop stars and comedians? Why, when extreme poverty could be made history with a minor redeployment of public finances, must the poor world still wait for homeless people in the rich world to empty their pockets?

There are some signs that this latest disaster may provide some impetus for a greater commitment to structural support. The United States has, somewhat quietly, dropped its plan to run co-ordination separately from the United Nations. There are reports that the EU is considering forming the sort of standing crisis force many have called for for some time, or at least a management corps to provide executive support (though what exactly the role of such a force might be is not exactly clear, and the suggestion that each country will nominate a set number of experts suggests that efficacy may not be the primary concern). The Guardian and other publications, meanwhile, are featuring articles which outline the areas in which structural support might be focused – including housing, health and education. Here’s hoping that – just as Kofi Annan finds himself having to ask that countries actually provide the aid they have pledged – this new-found interest in creating long-term solutions will translate itself to actual results and action.