Worth Remembering
Kim du Toit
May 15, 2008
12:48 PM CDT
From our friends in Oz comes this fine article:
THERE is a certain familiarity to the concomitant series of actions and reactions when disaster strikes in the world. The US stands ready, willing and able to offer assistance. It is often the first country to send in millions of dollars, navy strike groups loaded with food and medical supplies, and transport planes, helicopters and floating hospitals to help those devastated by natural disaster.
Then, just as swift and with equal predictability, those wedded to the Great Satan view of the US begin to carp, drawing on a potent mixture of cynicism and conspiracy theories to criticise the last remaining superpower. When the US keeps doing so much of the heavy lifting to alleviate suffering, you’d figure that the anti-Americans might eventually revise their view of the US. But they never do.
...
The resentment that comes from needing the military and economic might of the US translated into the most absurd criticism. Jan Egeland, the former UN boss of humanitarian affairs, cavilled about the stinginess of certain Western nations. His eye was on the US. Former British minister Claire Short was equally miffed, describing the initiative by the US and other countries as “yet another attempt to undermine the UN”, which was, according to her, the “only body that has the moral authority” to help.
I love moral authority as much as the next guy, but the UN’s moral authority is a mighty hard sell given that the UN club includes the most odious regimes in the world, such as Burma. And notice how the UN’s moral authority did not quickly translate into helicopters laden with food and water?
When the UN finally does anything of use, it’s propelled in large part by US dollars, with the US contributing more than any other country. Those other giants, China and Russia, are not filling the coffers of the UN’s moral authority.
All good stuff, and I urge you all to read it.
But here’s the parts which stick with me:
And coming under constant attack even when helping others, you’d figure that Americans would eventually draw the curtains on world crises. But they haven’t. At least not yet.
...
The really unfortunate part about this adolescent love-hate relationship with the US is that, unlike most teenagers, many never seem to grow out of it. Within each new generation is a vicious strain of irrational anti-Americanism. But unlike a parent, the US could just get sick of it all and walk away.
The US has had isolationist periods in the past and it must be enormously tempted sometimes to have another one soon. The consequences of that possibility deserve some serious thought. If the neighbours worry about Russian bullying over oil and gas, just imagine a Russia unfettered by a US military presence in Europe. How long would South Korea, Israel or Taiwan last if the US decided it wanted to spend on itself the money it presently devotes to military spending in the Middle East and Asia?
Frankly, I like the idea that some of my tax dollars are helping the truly needy in far-off places.
What sticks in my craw, however, is that we continue to support those who do not need or deserve our aid or assistance: like the United Nations.
Here’s what we should do. Buy back Turtle Bay in Manhattan, and offer to move, at our expense, the U.N. to another location—to Geneva, perhaps, or Berlin (how’s that for symbolism?) or else to a representative city from the majority of the U.N.’s membership, such as Khartoum or even Singapore.
Then cut back our contribution to the United Nations to, say, 10% of the body’s current funding amount.
The amount freed up could be spent far more effectively in future disaster recovery efforts. And at the same time, we would [ahem] encourage other nations like China, Russia and Germany to make up the funding difference.
Sounds fair to me.