![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So Bush hears about a disaster of unprecedented size, with over a hundred thousand dead, infrastructure broken and swept to sea.
What does he do? Help?
Helping would be to put resources at the command of the UN, which has agencies specifically formed for humanitarian aid, experience, trained people, connections . . . helping would be dispatching a bunch of the military to serve under the UN . . . helping would be giving money now and later to the agencies already in existence, already working on the ground.
So what's the agenda for the US?
The creation of a brand-new structure ("core group"), headed by the United States, with brand-new people running it, brand-new bureaucracy, brand-new startup costs, brand-new opportunities for Halliburton to overcharge.
This is an insult to the members of the United Nations, an offense to the affected nations, and an injury to their people.
It's stupid, and par for the course, and I bet most Americans don't get what's wrong with it.
Kofi Annan is graciously making the best of it, but Andi Mallarangang, the Indonesian presidential spokesman I heard on the radio, was clearly critical, and he's right.
I'm making my little donation to UNICEF. I recommend that anybody who's sending anything send it to an established agency which has a track record of helping out in crisis and dealing with displacement and epidemic:
Red Cross/Red Crescent
UNICEF
Doctors Without Borders
Oxfam
Catholic Charities
And one more thing. Colin Powell, who's lame ducking about now, and who has mumbled something to the effect that "of course the UN is in charge," is making a damned celebrity appearance down there with Jeb expletive deleted Bush "who has experience with helping out in disasters." Meanwhile, Kofi Annan explains to the reporter who challenges him as to why he didn't go there already that he can do his job where he is, and if he personally went to the scene now he would not be able to do his job and he would be in the way.
What does he do? Help?
Helping would be to put resources at the command of the UN, which has agencies specifically formed for humanitarian aid, experience, trained people, connections . . . helping would be dispatching a bunch of the military to serve under the UN . . . helping would be giving money now and later to the agencies already in existence, already working on the ground.
So what's the agenda for the US?
The creation of a brand-new structure ("core group"), headed by the United States, with brand-new people running it, brand-new bureaucracy, brand-new startup costs, brand-new opportunities for Halliburton to overcharge.
This is an insult to the members of the United Nations, an offense to the affected nations, and an injury to their people.
It's stupid, and par for the course, and I bet most Americans don't get what's wrong with it.
Kofi Annan is graciously making the best of it, but Andi Mallarangang, the Indonesian presidential spokesman I heard on the radio, was clearly critical, and he's right.
I'm making my little donation to UNICEF. I recommend that anybody who's sending anything send it to an established agency which has a track record of helping out in crisis and dealing with displacement and epidemic:
Red Cross/Red Crescent
UNICEF
Doctors Without Borders
Oxfam
Catholic Charities
And one more thing. Colin Powell, who's lame ducking about now, and who has mumbled something to the effect that "of course the UN is in charge," is making a damned celebrity appearance down there with Jeb expletive deleted Bush "who has experience with helping out in disasters." Meanwhile, Kofi Annan explains to the reporter who challenges him as to why he didn't go there already that he can do his job where he is, and if he personally went to the scene now he would not be able to do his job and he would be in the way.