Jan Egeland: The John Street of the UN - PhillyBlog

rlc · #1 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 01:34 PM

This guy should be immediately terminated for his comments from Monday calling the US and other western countries "stingy" and also saying what made it worse was that it was "christmastime" and these countries had not helped out in any meaningful way. This man should lose his job immediately for his anti-American rhetoric considering the amount of relief aid the US has given. I don't remember Mr. Egeland asking the UN to pony up cash for the US after 9/11. This man is a horrible excuse for a UN official and again illustrates how obsolete the UN has become with this on top of the Oil for Food scandal and Kofi's son raping and pillaging the world.

Stingy Americans? U.N. official's comment hits nerve
Wednesday, December 29, 2004 Posted: 11:48 AM EST (1648 GMT)

U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland says his comment wasn't aimed at a particular country.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush defended American generosity Wednesday, even as his administration figures out how to pay for more help beyond the $35 million it has already promised to tsunami victims in Asia.

In his first remarks since the weekend disaster that so far has killed more than 76,000, Bush -- like some in his administration previously -- took umbrage at a U.N. official's suggestion that the world's richest nations were "stingy," and indicated much more is expected to be spent to help the victims.

"Well, I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," Bush said from his Texas ranch. "We're a very generous, kindhearted nation, and, you know, what you're beginning to see is a typical response from America."

Bush noted that the United States provided $2.4 billion "in food, in cash, in humanitarian relief to cover the disasters for last year. ... That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year."

But the journey from the $35 million to potentially $1 billion or more in help for the tens of thousands of latest victims is fraught with bureaucratic twists.

First, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, will have to ask for more money, since the initial $35 million aid package drained its emergency relief fund, said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator.

"We just spent it," Natsios said. "We'll be talking to the (White House) budget office ... what to do at this point."

Natsios said the Pentagon also is spending tens of millions to mobilize an additional relief operation, with C-130 transport planes winging their way from Dubai to Indonesia with pre-stocked supplies of tents, blankets, food and water bags.

As of early Tuesday, dozens of countries and relief groups had pledged $81 million in help for South and East Asia, said the Geneva-based U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The United States uses the most common measure of the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 30 rich nations that counts development aid.

By that measure, the United States spent almost $15.8 billion for "official development assistance" to developing countries in 2003. Next closest was Japan, at $8.9 billion.

That doesn't include billions more the United States spends in other areas such as AIDS and HIV programs and other U.N. assistance.

Measured another way, as a percentage of gross national product, the OECD's figures on development aid show that as of April, none of the world's richest countries donated even 1 percent of its gross national product. Norway was highest, at 0.92 percent; the United States was last, at 0.14 percent.

Such figures were what prompted Jan Egeland -- the United Nations' emergency relief coordinator and former head of the Norwegian Red Cross -- to challenge the giving of rich nations.

"We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries," Egeland said. "And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really.... Even Christmas time should remind many Western countries at least how rich we have become." {Here is where Egeland takes the John Street approach by attacking and criticizing the hand that feeds you as in where Street bristled at having to spend police overtime money every time the President came to town. Hey John how much in police overtime did you have to spend for those HUGE Kerry visits? And he did not even win. What good did that money do for the city?}

Egeland told reporters Tuesday his complaint wasn't directed at any nation in particular.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell clearly took umbrage while making the rounds of the morning television news shows. He said he wished Egeland hadn't made the comment and reaffirmed that the Bush administration will follow up with assistance that could stretch into the billions of dollars.

The White House also defended the U.S. record of giving.

"We outmatch the contributions of other nations combined; we'll continue to do so," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy told reporters in Crawford, Texas, where the president is spending a post-Christmas vacation at his ranch.

Natsios said the Paris organization's figures overlook a key factor -- the billions more Americans give each year in private donations.

Americans last year gave an estimated $241 billion to charitable causes -- domestic and foreign -- according to a study by Giving USA Foundation. That's up from $234 billion in 2002. The foundation did not break down how much was for domestic causes and how much for foreign. {Oh those Stingy, stingy Americans, only $241 billion instead of $241 trillion!}

"That's a European standard, this percentage that's used," Natsios said. "The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent."

"The reason is that our gross national product is so enormous. And our growth rates are so much higher than the other wealthy nations."

wilreynolds · #2 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 02:17 PM

I was really pissed off too about this guy! Our PEOPLE are very generous, more so than many other countries. We are in a war and had 9/11. The UN / US rift is gettig worse, just because we exposed them for tehir corruption with the oil for food, now we're stingy? I was watching fox and France has given less tahn 200K, we've pledged / given 35 million. Lets take our stingy money and give it elsewhere!

skroah · #3 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 02:33 PM

I dunno. An alternative view of the incident as seen from a link off of Atrios's website.

http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200453#1326

Quote:

WSJ, Washington Times capitalize on tsunami tragedy.
Joshua Holland (2:48PM) link

As jaded as I am, it's still surprising to catch an American newspaper--even an ideological rag like the Washington Times--blatantly fabricating a story out of whole cloth.

But that's just what Bill Sammon did in today's edition.

His headline reads: 'U.N. official slams U.S. as 'stingy' over aid.' But if you think somewhere in the piece there'd be a comment criticizing the U.S. for being, I dunno, 'stingy over aid,' you'd be wrong. Sammon couldn't pull a quote because the 'slam' simply never occured.

Here's the jist of the Times story:

U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.

"It is beyond me why are we so stingy, really," the Norwegian-born U.N. official told reporters. "Christmastime should remind many Western countries at least, [of] how rich we have become."

Note how 'stingy' is in quotes in the first graph and 'the United States and other Western nations' is not. That's because Egeland referred to 'wealthy states' and 'donor states,' but at no time did he single out the United States. In fact, when a reporter asked Egeland to name the countries he believed to be "stingy," he pointedly declined to do so (you can stream the 48-minute press conference with RealPlayer and see for yourself).

As for Egeland's talk of taxes, that too was generic. He referred broadly to 'politicians,' specifying only a few sentences later that he had in mind leaders "in the United States, in Western Europe and even in Norway." That was the only time he mentioned the U.S.

Sammon finishes his fabrication by quoting White House spokesman Trent Duffy saying that the U.S. leads the world in humanitarian assistance, a statement which Sammon characterizes as a "response to Mr. Egeland's comments."

So how do you get from a Norwegian asking "why are we so stingy?" to a UN official 'slamming' the U.S.? You work for the Washington Times, the leading UN-basher and a publication that's not unduly burdened by those pesky facts. I've written elsewhere about the slant in their broad-brush reporting on the UN's oil-for-food scandal, and this is just more of the same.

Now, Bill Sammon is one of those hacks that churn out conspiracy theories for Regnery Publishing, the right-wing book mill that brought us such weighty tomes as the Swiftboaters' Unfit for Command.

But you can't dismiss him as some partisan nut who's just preaching to the choir because Sun Myung Moon's little newspaper infects the mainstream discourse disproportionately to its daily circulation of about 100,000.

Today's article is a good example. I read the story last night and then awoke this morning to C-Span's popular call-in show, "The Washington Journal," leading off with a generous excerpt from Sammon's libel. That prompted a good 45 minutes of xenophobic calls railing against the UN and the dirty foreigners who run it.

Then, liberal NPR's "Fresh Air" picked up on the theme and had a panel debating the adequacy of our international generosity.

So, too, did CNN's "Tonight with Lou Dobbs" later in the day, even going so far as to do a TV poll asking viewers if they "agree with the UN's criticism of the U.S."

What's even more amazing is that the Times wasn't alone in using the tragedy of Sunday's tsunami to grind some axes. The Wall Street Journal's editors didn't invent a story, but they had the chutzpah to use the disaster to take a swipe [needs free registration] at the "feverish assertions" of the "world of environmental zealotry."

The Journal's editorial quotes Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, and Friends of the Earth Director Tony Juniper making rather general comments on the rise of extreme weather events. Neither asserts a direct causal relationship between global warming and the weekend's tragedy; Juniper is quoted as saying only that we're seeing "events in the real world that are consistent with climate change predictions." But that doesn't stop the Journal from getting in a good smear:

People prone to hysteria often become further unhinged in the face of a great disaster, and that may explain these remarkable comments on the tsunami disaster. Still, these comments by the movement's leadership may serve as a case study of how such imaginings work their way into public discussion of the environment.

Then the editors--ever concerned with making the world safe for Republican economic policies- used some fancy footwork to link natural disasters with those wackos who support the Kyoto Protocols on climate change:

The wealthier countries around the Pacific Rim have an established early-warning system against tsunamis, while none currently exists in South Asia. Developing countries that have resisted the Kyoto climate-change protocols have done so from fear that it will suppress their economic growth. These countries deserve an answer from the proponents of those standards. How are they supposed to pay for such protection amid measures that are suppressing global economic growth?

Quite the reach. But, hey, a disaster of this scale only comes once in a generation-- you might as well make the most of it.

chrissayer · #4 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 03:37 PM

Thanks Skroah.

The right wing publicity mill (ie, great rightwing conspiracy) is alive and well. Post on story - misquote someone you don't like, let it get wound around in Drudge and the radio folks; pretty soon, it's on all the web logs and then on Fox. Next, the regular media goes with it because someone else is reporting it.

Voila. One manufactured story gets put out there.

And thanks Rob for exposing yourself :roll:

wally · #5 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 04:52 PM

Sitting back and listening to the left and right attack each other would be more amusing if it didn't indicate that there are deeper, more serious problems.

It is to the point now where issues and facts take a back seat to doing or saying whatever it takes to embarass the other "side." Right-wing nut, liberal-whacko - language like this (some a little more sly and back-handed) is littered throughout each side's arguments.

How about this?

Assertion: A Norwegian guy said some things that were percieved as being directed towards the U.S which were not kind and maybe not correct.

Response: The Norwegian man's statements were broad in scope and were probably not intended to single out the U.S. A quote from him stating so would be nice.

See, you can discuss an issue without using nasty, condecending language.

Winston · #6 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wally

Assertion: A Norwegian guy said some things that were percieved as being directed towards the U.S which were not kind and maybe not correct.

Response: The Norwegian man's statements were broad in scope and were probably not intended to single out the U.S. A quote from him stating so would be nice.

Here's one... but I had to go to the BBC to get it. The US media enjoys UN-bashing (which is usually richly deserved) too much to call off the dogs so soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The BBC

UN emergency relief co-ordinator Jan Egeland said on Tuesday that his comments had been misunderstood.

"I have been misinterpreted when I yesterday said that my belief that rich countries in general can be more generous," Mr Egeland said.

"This has nothing to do with any particular country or the response to this emergency. We're in early days and the response has so far been overwhelmingly positive."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4133005.stm

seand · #7 (**permalink**) 12-29-2004, 07:16 PM

I just don't understand the point of continually going after the UN. In many areas it functions, yes, as a bureaucratic-heavy talking club - but it in other fields - election monitoring, international humanitarian aid, developing world health care, and, yes, weapons program monitoring people working for the UN are some of the best and brightest and most experienced. I think continually attacking and denigrating it as many on the right love to do -- is often conter-productive to everyone's shared goal of global stability.

rlc · #8 (**permalink**) 12-30-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

And thanks Rob for exposing yourself

What do you intend to mean by this quote Chris???

I watched the guy speak at a news conference. He was bashing "Western Countries" and while he did not name names it was obvious that he was referring to the US.

The guy is a disgrace of an official. I would care if he bashed Russia or France by name as well as a UN humanitarian relief official should NEVER NEVER call out countries for not being generous enough in a PUBLIC setting. It is totally ridiculous. Imagine your local charity calling you up and saying "Hey Chris it looks like you've been stingy with your donations. Seeing that it is Christmastime and all don't you think you should fork over more cash?"

Meanwhile "stingy Americans" have already donated 3 million dollars to the relief effort on Amazon.com in one stingy day and I believe the Catholic Charities website crashed yesterday from the traffic.

seand · #9 (**permalink**) 12-30-2004, 12:19 PM

He said "many Western nations including Norway" (his native country) and he appologized for any misinterpretation the next day. This was a firestorm cooked up by the right leaning press to make a mountain out of a molehill.

chrissayer · #10 (**permalink**) 12-30-2004, 05:28 PM

Rob:
Just a wee bit of a gentle poke - for fun's sake.

Seand:
The Washington Times, where the story originated, has an editorial nearly every day (well, often) attacking the United Nations for one thing or another.

And remember, they all come from that great internationalist, Sun Myung Moon.

Like many of us here, I took time to go find the actual quote . . . and it was really an exhortation for the wealthy industrial nations to come forward in this time of incredible tragedy.

But, the simple fact is that had Mr. Egeland said what he is accused of saying, he would have been correct. Despite the protestations of many, we give practically nothing to other nations, especially when you factor out the military aid.

From today's Times:

Quote:

We beg to differ. Mr. Egeland was right on target. We hope Secretary of State Colin Powell was privately embarrassed when, two days into a catastrophic disaster that hit 12 of the world's poorer countries and will cost billions of dollars to meliorate, he held a press conference to say that America, the world's richest nation, would contribute $15 million. That's less than half of what Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The American aid figure for the current disaster is now $35 million, and we applaud Mr. Bush's turnaround. But $35 million remains a miserly drop in the bucket, and is in keeping with the pitiful amount of the United States budget that we allocate for nonmilitary foreign aid. According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

Mr. Bush said yesterday that the $35 million we've now pledged "is only the beginning" of the United States' recovery effort. Let's hope that is true, and that this time, our actions will match our promises.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/30/opinion/30thu2.html

This is an edit: I wanted to get this in before others jumped. I'm glad we are setting up the $35 million account and wish it were more. And I hope that it actually is spent.

And I wish that other countries, like the Saudi's and their oil money, would give more to help rather than continuing to pay to school islamic fundamentalists in the politics of hatred.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Abandoned Subways? (Rittenhouse)	#5446	Getting Around Philly	138	11-19-2006 03:03 PM
41 story tower on 24th & Walnut?	Boardslide	Center City	111	10-26-2005 10:41 PM
2003 LEAF COLLECTION AND RECYCLING PROGRAM	SteveJohnston	Events	1	11-01-2004 12:42 PM
Alleged payment to Street is probed	hr	Politics	0	09-19-2004 06:24 PM
Where in the world is John F. Street?	niksiz	Politics	42	10-29-2003 09:43 AM