There is probably no coincidence in the observation that genuine humanitarians lead by example and by addressing the "better angles of our nature," rather than by perpetual harangue. A Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer, or Dali Lama might on occasion chide the rest of us by appealing to our conscience. However, they would rarely resort to the sort of whining and shameless exploitation of the tragedy of thousands (over a 100,000 now and growing) of tsunami deaths in southern Asia as did United Nations Undersecretary Jan Egeland.
According to news reports, Egeland said, "It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really." He went on to criticize western politicians who "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." I guess Mr. Egeland needs to learn the difference between the verbs "give" and "take."
Egeland's argument carries with it the seeds of its own refutation. Anyone eager to ``give'' more to the government or any relief organization can. Moreover, in democratic societies people control the level of taxation. Egeland's not so hidden conviction is that governments ought "take" more and "give" it to people like himself to dispense according to the judgment of his finely-tune humanitarian discretion.
Egeland later had to back track on his statement, but not before damage was done. While US military planes were dispatched for search and rescue operations and US Navy ships diverted to affected areas to provide fresh water and helicopters to deliver supplies to victims of the tsunami, Egeland managed to divide rather than unite the world's humanitarian efforts. His complaint was a classic example of the difference between doing something constructive and incessant complaining.
This critique is especially misplaced coming from a UN official. The UN's bumbling efforts in managing the Iraq sanctions squandered $20 billion in humanitarian aid. This amount is several times the amount necessary to deal with the tsunami tragedy.
What about the merits of the assertion that the West and the US in particular is stingy? Ever anxious to criticize the United States, especially if it rebounds on Bush Administration, the NY Times concluded that the US is indeed "stingy" with foreign aid. The damage to the US's reputation for generosity from this critique was magnified as it was cited by the foreign press, particularly in affected areas. For example, The Express India headline ran, "Tsuanmi disaster: NY Times say US is 'stingy.'"
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Frank Monaldo's Conservative Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.