Heavy Earthquake in Asia

[EiZei 0]

why are some soldiers wearing guns while they removing the dead bodies of the street?

Problems with looting?

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

It depends where you mean but there are tensions and rebel/government conflicts in many of the regions hit (Sri Lanka and Indonesia for instance, although in Sri Lanka it seems like the disaster might possibly bring the sides together) so it may be SOP to take their weapons everywhere with them in these regions. It seems a bit much, but cant blame them for being careful i suppose (if it was foreign troops it would be another story).

[Akira 0]

Also heard a few stories of the children being taken in the confusion and being sold into slavery or for cheap labor. Brings out the best and the worst...

[Billabong81 0]

Also heard a few stories of the children being taken in the confusion and being sold into slavery or for cheap labor. Brings out the best and the worst...

That is terrible IMO. It just strikes me how people can be so cold-hearted sometimes .

[ozanzac 0]

Quote[/b] ]Howard promises $1 billion aid

By Sandra O'Malley in Jakarta

January 6, 2005

PRIME Minister John Howard today announced a $1 billion aid package - the largest single donation ever by Australia - to help Indonesia rebuild from the devastating Boxing Day tsunami.

The Indonesian province of Aceh - closest to the epicentre of an undersea earthquake which triggered the killer waves - bore the brunt of the destructive natural force, which killed up to 100,000 people in Indonesia alone.

Ahead of a high-level international summit to discuss relief efforts, Mr Howard unveiled a five-year aid program split equally between grants and long-term interest free loans.

The Prime Minister met Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono late last night (AEDT) but had been consulting him over the significant Australian donation over the last few days.

Mr Howard said Australia and Indonesia would work in partnership on the reconstruction and redevelopment of Aceh.

"(It) is a historic step in relations between Australia and Indonesia," he said.

"It will place relations between our two countries on an even firmer footing.

"In every way we will be working together as partners and friends."

Mr Howard stressed the ultimate responsibility for how the money was spent lay with Indonesia, and Australia would not dictate the terms of the donation.

"We see Indonesia's need, we respond to that need, but we respond in a way that respects the sovereignty of Indonesia," he said.

The $1 billion is in addition to existing Australian aid to Indonesia, taking the total contribution to $1.8 billion.

Mr Yudhoyono was said to be overwhelmed by the gesture from Australia.

"(He said) he would never forget it," Mr Howard said.

The $500 million in grants will be directed towards areas of high priority in Indonesia and used mainly on small-scale reconstruction, while the concessional finance - interest free loans for up to 40 years - will go towards the reconstruction and rehabilitation of major infrastructure.

$1.8 billion. At first I thought it was an awful lot of money, but then I did the math and it comes down to approx $90au from every Australian man, woman and child. And I'm sure many others will agree...if it helps ease the burden of those less fortunate as a result of this disaster, it's money well spent.

The donation will hopefully, also ease any tensions leftover from our forces intervention over in East Timor... Politicians are always at play.

[cozza 24]

$90 dollars. I dont even have $20

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Here is something to take pride in and I DO

Germany is leading the world by providing 500 Mio Euro to the countries that have suffered from the Tsunami.

Japan, in contrast, is spending 300 Mio and the US 250 Mio.

If you want to play that game Australia (760+M) is actually the largest donor  

Japan has actually pledged 500M (third), and the US is at 350M (fourth...plus there are already US ships and deliveries in the area).

EDIT: All numbers in $, but as someone pointed out...this isn't a pissing contest.

Since yesterday that is. However if you want to take Wednesday as a benchmark then Tony Blair is leading (with several hundred million "pound" ) and Australia with 580.000.000 Euro just a little bit ahead of Germany. Japan is stagnating at 375 Mio Euro.

Who cares if it is a pissing contest or not, fact is money helps! Better a pissing contest about donations than about "the worlds best military".

THe only tiny difference is. Neither Tony Blair nor Australia have approved and guarantee that this money is going to be paid. That my friend, has shown to be a big difference in the past.

[der bastler 0]

A group I hold in high esteem clarifies the problem I have with this pumping-money-to-one-region...

http://www.aerzte-ohne-grenzen.de/Organis....den.php

http://www.doctorswithoutborders-usa.org/donate/

Quote[/b] ]MSF estimates that we have received sufficient funds for our currently foreseen emergency response in South Asia.

Quote[/b] ]We kindly request that you contribute to our general Emergency Relief Fund, which is enabling our quick response to the current disaster in South Asia as well as humanitarian needs in war-torn Darfur, Sudan, and elsewhere in the over 70 countries where MSF is working around the world. The Emergency Relief Fund provides a resource for MSF to draw upon immediately when a crisis occurs, allowing a quick response to events where the speed of our response is crucial to saving lives.

There's another group, rather unknown, but it matches my profession:

http://www.ewb-international.org/

Look at http://www.ewb-international.org/solutionofmonth.htm

* Silver Ceramics Water Purifier: http://www.purifier.com.np/

* Emergency Relief Shelter: http://www.ewb-international.org/pdf/Emergency%20Relief%20Shelter.pdf

[denoir 0]

$1.8 billion. At first I thought it was an awful lot of money, but then I did the math and it comes down to approx $90au from every Australian man, woman and child.

That is a _lot_ per capita.

$90 au = €52   / capita

Compare that to for instance:

Norway: €30.3 / capita

EU: €3 / capita

 of which

 Denmark: €10 / capita

 Sweden:  €9 / capita

 Germany: €6 / capita

 Holland: €1.5 / capita

 Spain, Italy, UK, France: ~€1.2 / capita

 

Japan: €3 / capita

US: €0.91 / capita

There are a few things to be considered though. First of all, the Jakrata conference has not been held yet - where a lot more money will collected. So we're not seeing the final numbers here. Second, theere's the question of time frame. And third, there's the question of form - Australia for instance has said that a big part of the money will be in form of conditional loans.

[denoir 0]

Well, it was silly of me to write down those things in the post above, as the situation changes so rapidly.

The EU has donated another €350 million today, bringing the total sum donated by the EU states to about $2 billion (€1.5 billion).

BBC: Who's giving what?

Summit approves tsunami warning [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

World leaders have pledged to set up an Indian Ocean early warning system which could save lives in the event of a repeat of December's tsunami.

A declaration signed at the end of the aid conference in Indonesia also calls on the UN to mobilise the international community for the relief effort.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan urged donors at the conference to convert aid pledges into $1bn cash for urgent use.

Global pledges exceed $3bn but promises have not always come good in the past.

...

[Akira 0]

Who cares if it is a pissing contest or not, fact is money helps! Better a pissing contest about donations than about "the worlds best military".

THe only tiny difference is. Neither Tony Blair nor Australia have approved and guarantee that this money is going to be paid. That my friend, has shown to be a big difference in the past.

Becuase if it degenerates into a "my country gave more" the very thing that I (or heard on NPR) warned about will happen. Over-funding the immediate crisis and severely under-funding the long-term rebuilding. In that case money does not help. I'm all for countries to give what they can, in the billions if necessary, but to just throw money at the region with out targeted and designated relief and rebuilding programs, would just be pissing money away for international prestige.

In my opinion there should be multiple funds set up, one for the immediate health and rescue crisis, and another for the long term rebuilding for Indonesia and other hard hit areas, and one more for a warning system to be implemented. If you are rebuilding a region, now is the perfect time to set that system up, and giving countries this system may actually show them that we do care about them, and never want this to happen again. Aside from the earthquake, Indonesia had about 45 minutes warning. Survivability is shown in the fact that less "advanced" tribes survived based on their knowledge of folklore, while other areas with no warning or folklore were completely wiped out.

[brgnorway 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Becuase if it degenerates into a "my country gave more" the very thing that I (or heard on NPR) warned about will happen. Over-funding the immediate crisis and severely under-funding the long-term rebuilding. In that case money does not help. I'm all for countries to give what they can, in the billions if necessary, but to just throw money at the region with out targeted and designated relief and rebuilding programs, would just be pissing money away for international prestige.

I agree, but considering the grave situation I bet at least some of the usual suspects when it comes to promising relief and aid cannot bail out without getting noticed. It's not going to work this time as it was forgotten last time with the aids help to africa and relief to Bam.

[denoir 0]

Yes, apparently grand pledges that never materialize arn't that uncommon. Kofi Annan pointed that out and said that he really hopes that the donors will honor their promises this time.

Furthermore, right now most of the money exists only as promises. Only the US and the EU have actually sent down larger sums (tens of millions, not hundreds though). Most of the money seems to be intended for rebuilding rather than immidiate relief. That's why the UN asked that around billion of euros be delivered as soon as possible - that there's currently not enough for the immediate requirements.

The problem seems to be in organization. For instance the Médecins Sans FrontiÄres (Doctors Without Borders) have requested that people stop sending money for now (money earmarked for the tsunami victims that is) - as they've got more than they need. Logistics is (unsurprisingly) a bitch.

[der bastler 0]

The problem seems to be in organization. For instance the Médecins Sans FrontiÄres (Doctors Without Borders) have requested that people stop sending money for now (money earmarked for the tsunami victims that is) - as they've got more than they need. Logistics is (unsurprisingly) a bitch.

I mentioned that a few posts above:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders-usa.org/donate/

Quote[/b] ]We kindly request that you contribute to our general Emergency Relief Fund, which is enabling our quick response to the current disaster in South Asia as well as humanitarian needs in war-torn Darfur, Sudan, and elsewhere in the over 70 countries where MSF is working around the world.

They remind that there are many more hot spots around the globe which need money as well. Imo Germany's 500 Mio EUR donation will be taken from the budget of the development aid department, so that financial aid for other projects and parts of the world gets cut. I hope not, but that's exactly the kind of politics I observed in the last years...

[denoir 0]

Yes, that is probably to be expected.

How much should you give? [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

The massive amount of cash contributed by ordinary people to the tsunami appeal is unprecedented. Does this herald a new era of altruism? And how much should one give? The tales of stubborn goodwill are overshadowed only by the pitiful stories of those on the receiving end of this generosity.

The elderly Welsh woman who withdrew her Å120 weekly pension, before giving Å100 to the disaster appeal; the prisoners in Kent who gave up smoking for the New Year if their governor would make a donation; the American donor who called up to offer the money he had been saving towards a new hearing aid. At the other end of the scale, the rich and famous have been reaching for their chequebooks too. Actress Sandra Bullock has given $1m while Michael Schumacher has multiplied that sum by 10.

Appeals for cash are everywhere and the British public have surpassed expectations, donating Å76m in less than a fortnight. The final sum is set to far outstrip the Live Aid appeal of the mid-1980s when Å80m was raised over 12 months. All of which has set the charity sector abuzz with questions and speculation about the future.

[*]What's stimulated the British public into such generous action?

[*]Could this remarkable grassroots response signal a step change in charitable donations?

[*]Could this, in turn, auger an end to world poverty?

[*]Or is this merely a blip? When the story tails off in the media, will our interest and generosity wane?

Talk of alleviating world poverty on the back of the tsunami appeal, at least, is seen as a prediction too far.

"While it's relatively easy for most of us to give Å50," Greenpeace's executive director Stephen Tindale told the Independent this week, "it would be much harder for us to make the changes in our modern lifestyles that are needed if we are to move to a fairer world."

But Cathy Pharoah of the Charities Aid Foundation is waiting to see whether people's willingness to donate to the tsunami appeal, and public pressure on Western governments to make big contributions, suggests a minor breakthrough in charitable giving trends.

Currently, individual donations to charity total Å7.1bn a year in the UK - that's about Å148 per adult. A report last year found two in five of us could afford to give an extra Å20 a week, but we just aren't minded to. Massive appeals in the past, such as the Live Aid appeal for Ethiopia, have failed to make a long-term impact on our giving habits. It was similar with the 9/11 appeal in America, which raised $2bn from the public. Year-end figures revealed overall donations in the US did not rise significantly, says Ms Pharoah. Instead people simply diverted cash earmarked for one charity to the 11 September families.

"The message from the past is things tend to settle down," she says. But that's not necessarily the case this time, says Ms Pharoah, who feels the overwhelming public response to the tsunami has "been waiting to happen".

"Over the past 20 years giving to international charities has outstripped that of other causes such as cancer charities, domestic children's charities, animal welfare etc."

Austere time of year

A number of other issues about the tsunami appeal tempt her to ask whether we have elevated ourselves on to a new platform of generosity.

The high profile of the Disasters Emergency Committee, an umbrella organisation which acts for several large charities, has "been very good in showing that aid agencies work together", she says. The internet too has smoothed the way, allowing people to donate quickly and efficiently, and many who can afford to give have holidayed in the blighted areas.

"Much of it," says Ms Pharoah, "is a middle-class playground."

Such largesse from the public coming immediately after Christmas, traditionally a time of belt-tightening in many households, is also encouraging. But if the tsunami really has instilled a new spirit of philanthropy, how much is enough?

One percent of annual income. That's the suggested amount we should give to charity every year, according to the Giving Campaign, a group set up by the government and voluntary sector in 2001. This would be almost double the 0.6% average, leading to an extra Å11bn a year.

How much is enough?

However, the Church of England recommends a more hefty "tithe" of 5% of one's income. Other religions have different markers - Muslims, for example, are expected to pay a "zakat" of 2.5% on income. Those in the charity sector are less willing to issue a definite figure. Jai Mukherjee whose company New Philanthropy Capital advises individuals donating to good causes, says there is no rule.

"It all depends on individual circumstances," says Mr Mukherjee. "All you can do is think 'what can I afford' not just as a one-off, but on a sustained basis. "

At the other end of the scale, some don't believe at all in donating to charity. But if the tsunami is to lead to more sustained giving to charity, Cathy Pharoah says the aid agencies must first show how they have used the public's hard-earned cash.

[gandalf the white 0]

"Radio 555" that was a combined operation of seven radiostations in the netherlands has collected over five million euro today, YAY!

If every dutch guy would donate $10 , we would have 160 million... just imagine... *sets off to hack Giro 555*

[FW200 0]

On "Giro 555" here in the Netherlands there has been donated 112 Million Euro's, thanks to TV shows and a lot of people and companies who decided to donate, this is the largest sum ever donated, I don't think that the Dutch people ever felt so involved with a disaster, this amount is extraordinary, this is just what the people here donated.

This figure WILL go up since there are still actions going on, still.. at a day like this, I'm proud to be Dutch

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

For me personally the best way to spend money was to use the hotels in Thailand and their newly created funds. What they do is simple. They collect money to support their employees whose houses have been destroyed.. or they use the money to support the children who now live without parents.

I know that the hotels down there feel a strong committment to the community and I know the money is going to spend without bureaucracy, without corruption and without errors.

Thats where my money went!

[ralphwiggum 6]

and as always,

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....6051159

Quote[/b] ]HONG KONG (AFP) - Just 11 days after Asia's tsunami catastrophe, conspiracy theorists are out in force, accusing governments of a cover-up, blaming the military for testing top-secret eco-weapons or aliens trying to correct the Earth's "wobbly" rotation.

and then I also hear that some claimed earthquake was triggered by nuclear testing done in copperation between India, Israel, and US.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm....deast_2

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO, Egypt - Even when America is doing something for Muslims — in this case, helping mostly Muslim Indonesia and other tsunami-battered nations — it comes in for criticism in the Middle East, where resentment and suspicion color thinking about the United States.

On the streets of Tehran, technician Dariush Darabian accused Americans of "talking more than they actually do." Jordanian columnist Aida al-Najjar wrote in the daily Ad-Dustour that America's was exploiting "the suffering of people" to try to improve its image.

In the pages of leading pro-government Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, prominent columnist Salah Montasser scoffed that America's initial allocation of $15 million "is less than what America spends every minute in its war in Iraq

of course, there are level headed people.

Quote[/b] ]U.S. generosity has been noted by some Muslims, even in unexpected quarters.

"I give them (Americans) credit for helping the tsunami victims," said Hassan al-Aali of Bahrain's National Committee for the Support of Iraqi People, who has organized several protests against the American occupation of Iraq.

"I believe their help is genuinely for humanitarian reasons," al-Aali said, adding that the U.S. has no vested interest in the disaster-struck areas because "there is no oil there."

But Bahraini political analyst Mohammed Almezel said the aid "can take hold in the minds of Muslims and Arabs only if it was part of a wider move by Washington to insert some balance in its policies that concern the region."

and another point that Al Zazeera is just like Fox news.

Quote[/b] ]Influential satellite stations like Al-Jazeera have reported on the Dec. 26 south Asia disaster that killed at least 140,000 people and left millions in need and America's and the world's response, but the main focus of coverage remains on Iraq and other regional issues.

focus only on what you want to say....

Quote[/b] ]Others, including some clerics, have said that tsunami was God's revenge on Westerners who engaged in vice and prostitution while vacationing in southeast Asia.

In case some of people can't think becuase their pledge is small compared to others....

Quote[/b] ]The immensity of the disaster, though, also sparked introspection, with some commentators calling on Arab government and citizens to do more to help the tsunami victims.

Saudi Arabia stepped up its response to the disaster on Wednesday, tripling its official aid pledge to $30 million and planning a telethon so Saudi citizens can contribute.

Oil-rich Gulf states have been increasing their pledges for tsunami victims as the scope of the disaster becomes clearer, and amid accusations that they are doing too little, especially when one of the worst hit regions is mostly Muslim Indonesia.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]CAIRO, Egypt - Even when America is doing something for Muslims — in this case, helping mostly Muslim Indonesia and other tsunami-battered nations — it comes in for criticism in the Middle East, where resentment and suspicion color thinking about the United States.

On the streets of Tehran, technician Dariush Darabian accused Americans of "talking more than they actually do." Jordanian columnist Aida al-Najjar wrote in the daily Ad-Dustour that America's was exploiting "the suffering of people" to try to improve its image.

Is that so hard to understand? You have Powell running around loudly saying "Look, we like Muslims. Look we are helping them in Indonesia. Loook how nice the US is to Muslims!". Two years ago he was running around loudly saying "Look Iraqi WMD!".

America is making political statements while providing the aid. It's not Arab paranoia, it's a simple fact.

Colin Powell:

Quote[/b] ]

"What it does in the Muslim world, the rest of the world is giving an opportunity to see American generosity, American values in action," US Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday in Jakata after meeting with Hassan Wirayuda, his Indonesian counterpart. "America is not an anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim nation," Powell said. "America is a diverse society. We respect all religions"

Personally I think that Washington should take a cue from Europe, Japan and Australia - shut the fuck up, give more and drop the political agenda.

Yeah, "American values in action" indeed - one of the smallest per capita contributions to the relief effort and lots of rhetoric. Business as usual that is.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Is that so hard to understand? You have Powell running around loudly saying "Look, we like Muslims. Look we are helping them in Indonesia. Loook how nice the US is to Muslims!". Two years ago he was running around loudly saying "Look Iraqi WMD!".

America is making political statements while providing the aid. It's not Arab paranoia, it's a simple fact.

i.e. damned if you do, damned if you don't

and for some joke,

make up your mind Europe. Should US engage in world politics or stay in seclusion? Rememeber that ripping US off and telling us to shutup is not an option. Either you accept the fact that US is going to do something or shutup.

Quote[/b] ]Yeah, "American values in action" indeed - one of the smallest per capita contributions to the relief effort and lots of rhetoric. Business as usual that is.

yeah, but looking at past 200 years, at least US didn't colonize the region and exploit raw materials.

[denoir 0]

i.e. damned if you do, damned if you don't

and for some joke,

make up your mind Europe. Should US engage in world politics or stay in seclusion? Rememeber that ripping US off and telling us to shutup is not an option. Either you accept the fact that US is going to do something or shutup.        

Just follow the lead of everybody else - give and don't try to exploit the situation for political reasons. I havn't seen the Japanese PM or foreign minister proclaiming "Look how much Japan loves Muslims". I havn't seen EU ministers (and mind you, currently EU is providing nearly 2/3 of all aid to the region) bragging how this was a display of "European values in action".

America is helping, and that's good, but it's in bad taste to try to exploit it for political reasons. If anything it will just backlash and people will be suspicious of the motives.

Quote[/b] ]yeah, but looking at past 200 years, at least US didn't colonize the region and exploit raw materials.

LOL, you sure are setting high standards for yourself, arn't you  

Really, TBA should drop the rhetoric. I have no doubt that the motivation behind the help is primarily humanitarian. However, trying to cash in on politically it after the fact only serves to cast doubts on the original intent. Besides, it's not a big deal compared to how much - both in absolute numbers and per capita - others are giving. So it only looks silly.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Just follow the lead of everybody else - give and don't try to exploit the situation for political reasons. I havn't seen the Japanese PM or foreign minister proclaiming "Look how much Japan loves Muslims". I havn't seen EU ministers (and mind you, currently EU is providing nearly 2/3 of all aid to the region) bragging how this was a display of "European values in action".

America is helping, and that's good, but it's in bad taste to try to exploit it for political reasons. If anything it will just backlash and people will be suspicious of the motives.

if everybody is leading, then who is leading. leading means there is someone in the front...but if all are following other, who is leading?(ok got a bit nitpicky )

the problem is that there is sentiment on both US and Muslim regions that current situation is another war between US and muslim regions. so WHATEVER US DOES is scrutinized, and is viewed with suspicion. If US just gives money, there are muslims who will say 'US's silence is proof that they are trying to covertly run some operation'.

Yesterday, John Howard came out to say something about how tragic the situation is. This is the same guy who is anti-immigration, turned back a ship full of refugees(?). How come I don't hear people complaining about it? but when US does something, it becomes a good point of complaint. just look at the conspircy theories i mentioned, 2 out of 3 mentions US in the context.

[denoir 0]

the problem is that there is sentiment on both US and Muslim regions that current situation is another war between US and muslim regions. so WHATEVER US DOES is scrutinized, and is viewed with suspicion. If US just gives money, there are muslims who will say 'US's silence is proof that they are trying to covertly run some operation'.

You can be sure that they'll trust much less what you have to say. The speeches coming from TBA have about as much credibility as Comical Ali had during the Iraq invasion.

Yes, they'll be distrustful even if you don't say anything - trust is something you have to earn over time. This is done through action, and not words.

I don't know, perhaps it's more of a domestic thing than anything else. The neocons are trying very hard to tie this to their more global agenda - to show that it's a consistent American policy in action - i.e that the 'liberation' of Iraq and providing aid here are part of the same policy. That however probably works better locally in America than internationally.

Quote[/b] ]Yesterday, John Howard came out to say something about how tragic the situation is. This is the same guy who is anti-immigration, turned back a ship full of refugees(?). How come I don't hear people complaining about it? but when US does something, it becomes a good point of complaint. just look at the conspircy theories i mentioned, 2 out of 3 mentions US in the context.

Howard never tried to harvest any political points from it. I have no problem with Bush's original speech or most statements in regards to the disaster. Saying that it's a disaster and that we're going to help isn't bad.

It's the Powell's "I love Muslims" rhetoric that makes people want to puke. It is opportunistic and it's exploiting a humanitarian disaster to solve your own problems. Second is the silly American Valuesâ„¢ speeches and bragging about how generous America is. Australia is giving 35 times as much per capita! And they're not bragging about Australian Valuesâ„¢ etc It's just in bad taste. It's like giving somebody a Christmas present and then over and over pointing out how expensive it was. It's simply not proper behavior.

In situations like this one, there's no place for alterior motives. There's simply the question of helping other human beings and it should be a basic requirement, not something you brag about, and certainly nothing you exploit for political reasons.

To give you a positive example - yesterday I saw an interview with a Red Cross official. He said that they had received a shitload of money in Europe from corporations and that in the absolute majority of the cases, the donors wanted to be anonymous? Why? Because they did not want people even thinking for a second that they're doing it for PR reasons.

[der bastler 0]

America is helping, and that's good, but it's in bad taste to try to exploit it for political reasons.

Schröder is exploiting it for political reasons, too. Period.