3
   

Is France "stingy"?

 
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 08:09 am
I haven't noticed the "chest-thumping" or "gloating" regarding anyone's donations/efforts regarding this tragedy.

What I have seen, seems to be quite a bit of bitterness aimed at the US for trying to help. Could be perspective I guess.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 08:23 am
I have a different understanding to you, after reading this thread, McGentrix. There seems to be a defensiveness amongst some US posters at any suggestion (real or perceived) of criticism of the US contribution to disaster relief. And a tendency to attack & belittle the size of the donations of European countries, particularly the French. I could find many examples of this for you, but frankly, we have been over & over the same territory so many times that I see no point ... We just go round & round in circles & end up right back where we started.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 10:55 am
msolga wrote:
we have been over & over the same territory so many times [..] ... We just go round & round in circles & end up right back where we started.

Welcome to Able2Know.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 11:31 am
Re: Is France "stingy"?
IronLionZion wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
U.N. muckety-muck Jan Egeland recently claimed that the US and other "rich" Western nations are "stingy" when it comes to providing money for humanitarian crises. He has now claimed his comment has been "misinterpreted."

Just looking at the pending tsunami disaster in Asia, the US has already pledged $35,000,000 in "preliminary aid" to the region. UK, Japan ($30 mil), Australia ($27 mil), Saudi Arabia ($10 mil), Germany ($2.7 mil), and Canada, have all pledged large sums. France has pledged $135,000.

Isn't France missing a couple of zeros in that sum? Not that it much matters, but they have lost 14 countrymen to this disaster, which is more than the 12 US citizens confirmed dead. Of course many are still missing, and the death toll is at 80,000 now and rising.

Are there any Francophiles out there who can explain this?


Your post is deep, dude. Deep like the Great Wall of China is unimpressive and Spanish. The answer is yes, France is stingy.

This, however, doesn't make America any less stingy, which begs the question: what is the point of this thread?

Incidentally, France is one of the less magnanimous nations in the world. They still come up far, far ahead of the United States in most aid-related areas.

Which is sad.


Good, er, dude ... because I was going for shallow. Glad to hear your validation.

I assume the question you felt to be "begged" was rhetorical. My "point" of this thread is clearly stated in the initial post. I can't speak for most of the subsequent 45 pages.

Regarding your comment that "France ... (comes) up far, far ahead of the United States in most aid-related areas," I'm heartened ... but still surprised to hear it. I assume you have some form of substantiation for that remark? If so, would you care to provide same?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 12:04 pm
Re: Is France "stingy"?
IronLionZion wrote:
Incidentally, France is one of the less magnanimous nations in the world. They still come up far, far ahead of the United States in most aid-related areas.


You will find that in terms of dollar amount of overall foreign aid and relief, The US is well ahead of the pack, and historically has been. While France does mount a respectable showing in dollar figures - though but a fraction of US or Japanese contributions, a closer look reveals the bulk of French aid and relief is in the form of loans and loan guarantees as opposed to outright grants, categories in which The US, Japan, GB, and several others absolutely blow France away. You will find also that France often is late to the party. None of this is to say France is "stingy", but in no way can France be regarded a paragon of foreign aid and relief.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 12:16 pm
You'll find a lot info about that HERE
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 12:52 pm
Re: Is France "stingy"?
timberlandko wrote:
You will find that in terms of dollar amount of overall foreign aid and relief, The US is well ahead of the pack, and historically has been.

You must be talking about absolute numbers? Because per capita, I dont believe that for a second. That would be counter to any numbers I've ever seen. And as percentage of national income it works even less.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 01:04 pm
Re: Is France "stingy"?
nimh wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
You will find that in terms of dollar amount of overall foreign aid and relief, The US is well ahead of the pack, and historically has been.

You must be talking about absolute numbers? Because per capita, I dont believe that for a second. That would be counter to any numbers I've ever seen. And as percentage of national income it works even less.


That's what he said, .... "...in terms of dollar amount...." What's wrong with nice big round numbers?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 01:05 pm
If you do it by percentage of women with hairy armpits and bars of soap used per annum it doesn't work either.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 01:33 pm
Re: Is France "stingy"?
Ticomaya wrote:
nimh wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
You will find that in terms of dollar amount of overall foreign aid and relief, The US is well ahead of the pack, and historically has been.

You must be talking about absolute numbers? Because per capita, I dont believe that for a second. That would be counter to any numbers I've ever seen. And as percentage of national income it works even less.

That's what he said, .... "...in terms of dollar amount...." What's wrong with nice big round numbers?

OK, fair enough, you're right.

That makes Timbers response a bit of a non sequitor tho, doesnt it?

I mean, what ILZ was saying was, literally: "France is one of the less magnanimous nations in the world. They still come up far, far ahead of the United States in most aid-related areas".

Magnanimity is about how much of your wealth you're willing to give, right?

If you each give a cent, for example, but you're with 1 billion people, that may well put you "ahead of the pack" in "terms of dollar amount" - but it dont say f***-all about your magnanimity.

So you were right on correcting me on what Timber was saying - except what he was saying was irrelevant to the point he was responding to.

Awright.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 03:09 pm
McGentrix wrote:
If you do it by percentage of women with hairy armpits and bars of soap used per annum it doesn't work either.


You are just wallowing in it, aren't you. Surely there must be some derogatory stereotype you missed.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 03:17 pm
Lol - and we shall enjoy his amusement and chuckles when the next gross anti-American stuff is posted, no?

After all - I am sure McG is consistent in his logic and beliefs...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 03:23 pm
hamburger wrote:
my comment should really have related to "the royal house of saudi" contribution.


They must have read this:

Prince Sultan donates SR5 million for Asia quake victims

Crown Prince Abdullah donates SR10 million for Asia quake victims

King Fahd donates SR10 million for Asia quake victims

1.00 SAR (Saudi Arabia Riyals) = 0.266660 USD Sad

These donations were, it seems, "a kick off of a live telethon to arrange a fund-raising campaign on the Saudi state-run Television today".
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 03:37 pm
dlowan wrote:
Lol - and we shall enjoy his amusement and chuckles when the next gross anti-American stuff is posted, no?

After all - I am sure McG is consistent in his logic and beliefs...


I'm sure I will take it in the same manner you demonstrate here.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 05:22 pm
It's always good to sometimes review what our conservative peers are actually reading or viewing about all of this - to get a grip on what the input is that is shaping their frame of reference. It might explain things.

Here's one attempt, cut off from the point onwards where it turns all ideological. (It segues into a plea against conservative isolationism and for "winning over global hearts and minds" through sincere selflessness - click the title to get the full text.)

Quote:
TRB FROM WASHINGTON
Distant Shores
by Peter Beinart
TNR Online

Post date 01.06.05 | Issue date 01.17.05

Give the Bush administration a B. Its initial reaction to the tsunami was awful: A pathetic $15 million in aid and four days of presidential silence while the death toll mounted. But, when the pressure grew strong enough, the Bushies--as they sometimes do [..] reversed course and did the right thing. And, since then, America's humanitarian and symbolic response has been good.

More disturbing, and more revealing, has been the response of the conservative intelligentsia. On December 28, in its first editorial on the catastrophe, The Wall Street Journal attacked liberals for politicizing the event. "One might think that a disaster of this scale would transcend normal national or political considerations," its editors wrote. "But in the world of environmental zealotry, even an event such as this is seen as an opportunity to press the agenda." The next day, the Journal, never one to use tragedy to "press the agenda," published an editorial titled "death by environmentalist," which blamed environmentalists for exacerbating the threat of malaria in tsunami-stricken areas. Two days later, the Journal used the tsunami to attack the United Nations, Western Europe, and taxes, (and, in its web edition, to defend America's military presence in Asia).

The Journal was symptomatic. In general, the right has been fairly quiet about the tsunami. (As of this writing, The Weekly Standard's website had yet to devote a single article to the topic. A Nexis search of "tsunami" as The New Republic went to press revealed 417 discussions on CNN and a mere 116 on Fox.) But, even when they have written about it, conservatives have focused (with notable exceptions, such as Michael Fumento's article on National Review Online) on the U.S. response. On January 3 alone, National Review Online devoted three articles to rebutting charges that the Bush administration had been "stingy." On Fox's flagship Sunday show, the panel discussion focused on--you guessed it--whether President Bush had done enough.

Almost entirely absent from conservative commentary has been any discussion of how the tsunami will affect South and Southeast Asia. Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world, is emerging from decades of military rule. Now its military is overseeing disaster relief in the very region where, a month ago, it was putting down an armed rebellion. In the months before the tsunami, Muslim-Buddhist violence in Thailand had been threatening to spiral out of control. Sri Lanka has a religiously and ethnically based civil war as well. For all three fragile democracies, the tsunami's social and political consequences will likely prove profound. The newspapers have devoted considerable space to those consequences. Why don't conservatives seem to care?

Because the tsunami has uncovered a dirty little secret about the right today: Conservatives are fascinated by American power, but they are not all that interested in the world. [..]
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 06:11 pm
Peter Beinart has angst.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Jan, 2005 07:29 pm
nimh wrote:
msolga wrote:
we have been over & over the same territory so many times [..] ... We just go round & round in circles & end up right back where we started.

Welcome to Able2Know.



It makes me wonder where folk like you find the stamina for the long haul, nimh. Without going nuts. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jan, 2005 04:24 am
It IS so like a bleedin' contest, I guess ... Shocked

Well, I s'pose it's for a good cause ... but for some proper chest-thumping, dont look no further than the front pages of the Dutch newspapers today ... we had our big "Support the Tsunami Victims" TV-night yesterday ...

The "Algemeen Dagblad" one says, "Wat een geweldig bedrag!", which means "What an amazing amount!" and as you can see, the Telegraaf just suffices with splashing the amount in coloured bold front across the front page.

Note also the subheadlines ... the AD one says, "Holland in the flush of charity", the Telegraaf one even, "Holland outdoes itself" ... oh yeah ... and this be the same newspaper that railes against the excess of development aid every year ... (sorry if I'm sounding bitter).

<Tells himself: as long as it helps the Asians ... its for a good cause ..>

Mind you, these two newspapers are, besides the two best selling newspapers, also the two least ... high-brow newspapers.

Anyway, 112 million Euro it is, now. Well, that is some 7 Euro per head of the population, from babies to pensioners.

<impressed>


http://www.multicultural.net/images/temp/voorpagina_AD.jpg

http://telegraaf-i.telegraaf.nl/daily/2005/1/7/TE/TE_2S_20050107_1/TE_2S_20050107_1.jpg
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 05:23 am
Today in Holland's (Christian) newspaper Trouw, this (my translation & emphasis):

Ten percent of Asia money now paid
2005-01-12

AMSTERDAM - Barely ten percent of the promised sums of money for the support of the victims of the Asian tsunami has actually been transferred. According to UN aid coordinator Jan Egeland money will need to be transferred fast in order to keep the aid operation up.

Egeland made his appeal yesterday during a donor conference in Geneva in which 30 ministers from rich countries [..] participated. The UN say they are impressed by the promises. "Humanity on a high level", noted Egeland, but he also warned for a possibly decreasing interest for other humanitarian disasters elsewhere in the world. Now that every day 1000 people are dying in the Congo from curable diseases and as a consequence of the struggle in the region, there is basically "a disaster in the area with the scope of the tsunami every five months", Egelund calculated.

As of yesterday, the counter of promised money was at about 3,4 billion dollar, about 300 million of which has by now been coupled directly to projects in the afflicted area. It was still unclear last night how much new money the donor conference yielded. [..] For certain is that the Netherlands will contribute another 260 million dollar to the reconstruction of the region.

At the UN, the fear is that the beautiful promises will not be followed up by actual transfers. The fear that moneys are coupled to condition, such as the hiring of consultants or constructors from the donor countries is justified as well.

Prior disasters followed a comparable scenario to that of the one in Asia now. After the hurricane Mitch that devastated Central America in 1998, 9 billion dollar was promised. In between 30 and 50 percent has actually been spent.

The same happened with the earthquake that flattened the Iranian city Bam late 2003. Back then promises were made worth a billion dollar, while research has shown that between 17 and 112 million has really been spent.
Egeland has promised that this time a system will be devides by the large institutions like the UN and the World Bank to account in detail for what has been spent on aid.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 06:11 am
See HERE as well.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Islamic Terrorists Strike France - Discussion by hawkeye10
France Launches Airstrikes in Mali - Discussion by H2O MAN
ALLONS ENFANTS . . . - Discussion by Setanta
What is Christmas like in France? - Discussion by DrewDad
Carla Bruni Blasts Berlusconi's Obama Remark - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Riots in France - Discussion by Finn dAbuzz
A surprise? French Socialists pro EU-constitution - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is France "stingy"?
  3. » Page 23
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2019 at 04:14:35