Countries Must Consider Where Aid is Going in Relief Funds
Alexandra Ferrara
Issue date: 11/3/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
South Asia was recently impacted by yet another devastating earthquake, this time taking its toll in Pakistan on Oct. 8, 2005. The 7.6-magnitude earthquake, as measured by the Richter scale, took over 53,000 lives and injured another 75,000 people. In response to the tragedy, United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has requested $311 million in compensation. Only $90 million has been donated, not nearly enough to cover all the victims, especially before the Himalayan winter settles in and makes conditions even more severe.
While a request for aid from the UN on behalf of the Pakistani victims is honorable, singling out "wealthier" countries and expecting their aid is preposterous. Annan has stated that the U.S., Italian, German and Japanese governments have all given less than one-fifth of their share, and Belgium, France, Austria, Finland, Greece, Spain and Portugal have contributed nothing so far. First and foremost, the richest countries HAVE donated. It has been confirmed that Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark have contributed a decent amount to the relief fund. Everyone assumes the United States, areas of Europe such as Italy, Germany and France, as well as wealthier parts of Asia are the richest countries just because they are the most powerful. Wrong. Luxembourg ranks number one on the top 20 richest countries list, with Denmark and the Netherlands following closely within the top 10 bracket. So why are the United States and parts of Europe and Asia in the spotlight? Did it occur to the UN that perhaps some of the wealthier nations in the surrounding region of the Middle East should contribute to their regional disaster? We have seen no economic contributions from the United Arab Emirates, the richest Middle-Eastern country.
Of course, a natural disaster is a tragedy which no country can avoid, considering it is a force of nature. What makes the issue of aiding Pakistan such a difficult one is the current political standing between Pakistan and countries such as the United States Post Sept. 11, Pakistan's military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, teamed up with President Bush in an agreement to join the U.S. War on Terrorism. First of all, it is important to point out the ulterior motive behind Musharraf's decision to join the U.S. War on Terrorism. Leon T. Hadar suggests in "Pakistan in America's War against Terrorism: Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client?" that Mousharraf's cooperation did not reflect a want or need for structural transformation in Pakistan's policy, but rather, it was a product of strategic considerations aimed at limiting the losses that Pakistan would suffer because of the collapse of the friendly Taliban regime in Kabul. Musharraf had no choice but to join the United States in the war on terrorism; otherwise, it would not only have faced dire consequences from the United States but also jeopardized Pakistan's economic interest in South Asia.
While a request for aid from the UN on behalf of the Pakistani victims is honorable, singling out "wealthier" countries and expecting their aid is preposterous. Annan has stated that the U.S., Italian, German and Japanese governments have all given less than one-fifth of their share, and Belgium, France, Austria, Finland, Greece, Spain and Portugal have contributed nothing so far. First and foremost, the richest countries HAVE donated. It has been confirmed that Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Denmark have contributed a decent amount to the relief fund. Everyone assumes the United States, areas of Europe such as Italy, Germany and France, as well as wealthier parts of Asia are the richest countries just because they are the most powerful. Wrong. Luxembourg ranks number one on the top 20 richest countries list, with Denmark and the Netherlands following closely within the top 10 bracket. So why are the United States and parts of Europe and Asia in the spotlight? Did it occur to the UN that perhaps some of the wealthier nations in the surrounding region of the Middle East should contribute to their regional disaster? We have seen no economic contributions from the United Arab Emirates, the richest Middle-Eastern country.
Of course, a natural disaster is a tragedy which no country can avoid, considering it is a force of nature. What makes the issue of aiding Pakistan such a difficult one is the current political standing between Pakistan and countries such as the United States Post Sept. 11, Pakistan's military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, teamed up with President Bush in an agreement to join the U.S. War on Terrorism. First of all, it is important to point out the ulterior motive behind Musharraf's decision to join the U.S. War on Terrorism. Leon T. Hadar suggests in "Pakistan in America's War against Terrorism: Strategic Ally or Unreliable Client?" that Mousharraf's cooperation did not reflect a want or need for structural transformation in Pakistan's policy, but rather, it was a product of strategic considerations aimed at limiting the losses that Pakistan would suffer because of the collapse of the friendly Taliban regime in Kabul. Musharraf had no choice but to join the United States in the war on terrorism; otherwise, it would not only have faced dire consequences from the United States but also jeopardized Pakistan's economic interest in South Asia.