Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
While you have a point about social policy within our own countries, can we rely on our governments to have a policy for overseas disasters? Indeed would our electorates even want this?
After the tsunami charity was able to collect donations and target it into affected areas relatively quickly while governments made initially small pledges and then tries to outdo each other as the scale of the private donations was revealed. Pledges from governments as with all relief were slow in actually being realised if they were at all.
Governmental aid of all types is also so often tied to ridiculous and inefficient conditions such as insisting on donor country companies being used when they cost magnitudes more than local companies.
If we want to direct money abroad for any relief, health, social reasons we have little choice other than to do it through charity.
by observer393 on Fri Nov 24th, 2006 at 11:01:57 PM EST
A government might feel a moral mandate to help unfortunate countries -- or it might not. Constitutionally it's hard to imagine why it would.
But rich countries typically will help in humanitarian crises. It's good policitcs and it's the right thing to do. That said, I support organizations like Doctors without borders or Unicef or the Red Cross for all the obvious reasons.
I do not support Live-Aid and other aging celeb nonsense.
Starving African children were not put on earth to revive the fading careers of geriatric rock stars. Listening to Bono in Hyde Park probably hurts Africa more than it helps it. But that's a different thread.
by Bernard Chazelle (Bernard Chazelle) on Sat Nov 25th, 2006 at 01:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series