Irish Times Report Nothing

US realises late that aid to Muslims enhances its image

The US response to the tsunami disaster is of strategic importance, writes Conor O'Clery.

The surprising thing is that the Bush administration did not see right from the start the public relations benefits of pictures of American helicopter crews distributing fresh water to Muslims in Indonesia rather than firing bullets at insurgents in Iraq.

But it was unquestionably tardy in its initial response to the biggest natural disaster for decades. US officials themselves admitted this and were quoted saying that the belated decision to send Colin Powell and Governor Jeb Bush to the region was partly to defuse hurt feelings.

During the first three days after the December 26th tsunami slammed into Indian Ocean coasts, Mr Bush had remained secluded in his ranch in Crawford, Texas, in contrast to the instantaneous response of many world leaders to the September 11th attacks on the US.


continued...

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2005
/0105/932779054OPCONOR.html





Dear Conor O'Clery,


After reading your latest opinion I was left confused as to what your opinion was on the subject. In fact I couldn't find one at all. From the facts you present, or the ones that stuck out in my mind, the US government are making a cynical, albeit potentially expensive attempt to gain some good publicity in the "Muslim world" by donating heavily to the crisis in east Asia. The only critisim (a debatable one at that) of this effort is your opening line "The surprising thing is that the Bush administration did not see right from the start the public relations benefits of pictures of American helicopter crews distributing fresh water to Muslims in Indonesia rather than firing bullets at insurgents in Iraq. But it was unquestionably tardy in its initial response to the biggest natural disaster for decades.". This however is not exactly going to make Mr.Bush blush. The original offer of $15m, then raised to $35m was not just tardy, but laughable. Only after continued critisim of their "generosity" over the last few days have prompted them to increase their pledge. And remember, it is only a pledge. The US pledged $200m in aid to Iran after the earthquake, they have only recieved $17m so far. Another question you failed to answer is, what is the consequence of their tardiness?

As you mention, Bush has indeed passed the buck to the American people, making it their responsibility to send money. Little critisim here either, "The "privatisation" of American aid donations had a practical purpose: the $350 million pledge basically emptied the federal disaster fund", even though the $350m cap is one imposed by Bush's government, not by economic fact. If they can find a trillion dollars to send a camera to Mars, perhaps they could have found a little extra to save a few lives in Asia.

The out break of cholera, the potential starvation of thousands, the inadaqucies of their warning systems, the shadow cast over Iraq (a wholely preventable disaster on an equivalent scale) all seem like more important stories worth covering.

"Across America people and businesses did dig deep. Microsoft committed $2 million in cash and its employees raised $700,000. Pfizer pledged $35 million in cash and medicines. Amazon.com raised $14 million in three days. Citigroup promised $3 million. The American Red Cross pulled in $80 million, mostly from individuals. Doctors Without Borders got $20 million from ordinary Americans."

All credit is due to those people, who already being taxed over the odds have dug deeper to find some support for those unfortunate victims. However aid from multi-national corporations doesn't look as impressive when put in perspective. For instance take Vodafone. Their donation was a mere one tenthousandth of its annual profit. This is one tenthousandth of its annual profit not its revenue. If you were doing a bit of mental arithmetic to work out what one tenthousandth of your salary is then stop. First deduct all your annual expenses then do the maths again. And not only do they brag about it. Newspapers report it without comment.

Now that we are seeing "American helicopter crews distributing fresh water to Muslims in Indonesia rather than firing bullets at insurgents in Iraq" on the news, it's important to note that "most of the 13 Carrier Battle Groups always operationally spread around the globe. The basic cost of these will pretty soon consume Bush promised aid. By using some reasonable assumptions especially by assigning all support ship and other support costs to the cost of the warships and applying this and other assumptions to the information published by the Office of Management and Budget in the recently proposed fiscal year 2004 budget, I estimated that it costs about $3-4 billion per year to operate an aircraft carrier battle group. And that is during peacetime operations. Payroll said to be upwards a billon a year."

One of the last independent newspapers should not be reporting government press releases.

Yours sincerely,

Dav