Tsunami Pundits Forget Big Picture
Relief efforts don't relieve some naysayers
 

January 19 2005
Counterbias.com
Robert Furs

"We've done much to be proud of in tsunami relief", wrote Lorne Gunter in November 17th's National Post, "but we could have done so much more".

Canada has given enormous amounts of money and sent out the DART team. What more could we have done given our resources?

Our government was even matching contributions (until January 11) - which  seemed a little odd, given those were our tax dollars in the first place. (If we wanted to give twice as much, we'd do it ourselves. It's akin to a buy-one-get-one-free sale where the 'free' item has been taken from your home and given back to you.)

Many are proud of Canada's world-class contribution. Yet there are always those Canadians who will step in to defend the United States whenever Canada just may have a rare advantage over our great neighbors to the south.

Someone on Gunter's cable box had the nerve to state that Canada's relief  contributions were larger than the U.S.'s - surely that couldn't be true?

"It's not true", he writes. Their financial aid, "plus the cost of the aircraft carrier, relief ships, transport planes, squadrons of helicopters", etcetera, means "the Americans' contribution is unsurpassed in the world".

Sure, that's great and all, but Gunter forgets one thing: Canada has one-tenth the population of the United States, we have no military (while the United States has so many ships, planes and personnel that they might as well be doing something peaceful) - not to mention the U.S. is many times richer than Canada.

According to The World Factbook, the United States' GDP is an estimated $10.99 trillion in 2004, while Canada's is $958.7 billion. (That's $37 800  per capita in the U.S., and $29 800 in Canada.) Given this, and ignoring the military aid for a minute, shouldn't the U.S. be contributing ten times the amount of financial aid as Canada? I certainly wouldn't say that the U.S. had responded weakly - I'd just say that Canada has given an extremely generous, monumental amount of cash, and it wouldn't be fair to judge America's contribution with Canada's. Comparing cash contribution is unfair - so why do pundits like Gunter invoke comparisons on military-based aid efforts?

If you're going to factor in their military contributions, the United States will of course dominate on that front. Could you imagine it any other way?

The latest numbers from Globalissues.org has America's military spending at $420.7 billion per year. The next closest are the United Kingdom, Japan, Russia and China, ranging from 41 to 51 billion per year, respectively.

What would be the reaction if the United States, global leaders when it comes to war and military intervention around the world, neglected to use aircraft carriers, relief ships and other military implements to help do
some good in tsunami-ravaged areas? This is where Gunter's points are laughable: the United States should not be commended for their military-based contributions. It should be expected, and it's the least they can do, considering their military spending and presence around the world.

One thing this tsunami disaster has done is allowed 'evil' George W. Bush and the U.S. government to show that, when push comes to shove, they will do what is necessary. While right-wingers whine about Paul Martin vacationing in Morocco for too long or for taking too long to contribute significant amounts, leftists whine that Bush isn't giving enough. Both sides could quit whining.

Realistically, none of this really matters. The US has given a huge amount of money and assistance, as has Canada. Comparing contributions is an  academic exercise when the big picture comes into play. (As Gunter writes, compassion is not "a competition determined by monetary yardsticks and calculators anyway"). The whole world has contributed, and will continue to do so, at least for as long as the tsunamic media coverage continues to fuel waves of ratings successes.

For now, the world can be proud of its response. The media has won because, while it is doing its duty in covering a historic disaster and helped induce private financial donation, ratings and readership levels are up as people strive to learn more. Bush and his government have won because not only has a Greater Disaster taken the world's eyes off the Great Disaster of Iraq, but they have had a fantastic opportunity to showcase the 'compassionate conservatism' they've not yet had a chance to utilize in over four years. And now, a tsunami warning system is about to come into effect, providing hope for the future.

Heck, even anti-Liberal pundits have had a chance to advance their cause for more Canadian military spending, tying it to how much more we could've given  if we had more aircraft carriers, ships, planes, helicopters and soldiers.

If the biggest problem in all the aftermath and political fist throwing is that "Canada has become...a cheque writer in international affairs, not a sleeve-roller", as Gunter wrote, then all is well. We have the capability
and the compassion to write such checks - huge ones at that - and whining about what we didn't do with the additional resources we don't have won't save any lives.

After all, money talks, but so do pundits; and which would a victim of the tsunami prefer right now?

---