Tsunami In Asia

Firstly, let me set a few things straight. I fully agree that the tsunamis caused by the earthquake in the Indian Ocean that affeced many countries and led to the immediate death of about 150,000+ people is horrific. I haven't been, but from reading the news and watching the tv, it is beyond belief how terrible it is.

But, (and so begins my probably controversial blog), aren't things like this happening all over the world everyday? I vaguely remembering a comparison between the tsunami and hunger and starvation in Africa. It went along the lines that the same number of people are dying through lacking basic food in Africa on a regular basis, as that died in the tsunami.

It seems to me that the main reason why the entire world has come to the aid of the countries in Asia is because of the large number of foriegners who have died. I think at last count, there are 450 British people confirmed dead, and probably up to 2000 (thankfully, only Ireland's second death was confirmed today). Western countries have an interest in this tragedy because their own citizens were directly affected. When countries are out helping to look for their own citizens, it would be rude not to help out the locals a bit!

You see, the way I see it, not many foriegners travel to Africa, so even if such a tragedy happened there, chances are, the reaction to it would largely be lip service, with token gestures of aid been sent. What made this so real and in your face is the fact that it was one single (well, you know what I mean) event that occurred without notice and one that was caught on tape for the world's media to show 24/7. It has been said many times, that 9/11 may have not even happened if the terrorists knew that the attacks wouldnt get shown on live tv because it wouldnt have such a big impact.

Anyway, back to the tsunami. This whole blog was prompted by my flatmate Paul just a while ago. He said that its amazing that everyone is giving this massive amount of money (with Irish people donating up to €40million. €40million, thats a HUGE amount of money) when there are many things that this money could be spent on in Ireland, but even Africa or other terribly hit places. Companies seem to be falling over each other in dontating money to the diaster fund (and taking some nice publicity on the way). After talking with Paul, I had a shower and was thinking about what he said, which prompted me to write this.

I've been meaning to donate myself. My initial reaction, was that even though I dont usually donate large amounts of money to charity, this seems to be the perfect opportunity to change that. But I think I'm not going to donate to the tsunami diaster fund. And here's why. Billions of dollars (on a side note, why use US dollars as the denomination for the total amount of money donated. The US aren't even the largest contributors) has been pledged already, so my couple of euros wont make much of a difference. My main reason for not contributing directly to the diaster fund if because I want it to be part of a political gesture acknowledging that there are many diasters occuring all around the world, that because the West doesnt have any direct connection with, gets ignored.

Before you all slate me for not donating to the fund, I will actually be donating to it. You see, as part of my company's "Corporate Citizenship" and them trying to give the impression they actually care about things other than money, they are offering to match the contributions of their employees, up to a measly $500,000 on a global scale. Thats only $5 per employee. Put in context, the company that I work for had annual profits of $690million last year. I can simply fill in an online form on the intranet saying I've donated €X and they'll match it. However, I can imagine that by now, other employees have donated up over $500,000 and my donation, that actually isnt going to the diaster fund, will not actually be matched by the company.

Having recently finished Globalisation and its discontents by Joseph Stiglitz, I think my reaction to the actions of the Western governments has been tainted and treated with a degree of suspicion. The World Trade Organisation have donated $250million towards the diaster fund and kindly frozen the repayments on the loans with huge interest, which they shouldnt have given to these countries, but did anyway because they seem to know whats best, even though they know little about how their country reall works. It was this interfering by the WTO that led to these countries melting down a few years ago and prevented them from recovering. I wonder why the WTO doesnt freeze the loans of poor African nations who are crippled by loan repayments of up to 50% of GDP, when these countries suffer from massive droughts? It goes back to the fact that African countries are basically used by the West and raped for all they're worth. To give a quick example, the WTO wants to improve poor countries opening up their markets to western imports, but prevents these countries from exporting into the western markets. Why? Because their products are much cheaper and wouldnt be good "nice". Trying to rectify is basically whats being "talked" about, but not acted upon in the latest WTO round of trade talks in Doha.

I havent yet decided who I'm going to donate for, but I will soon. This diaster might actually be a good thing because it will give the aid agencies a chance to highlight the ongoing diasters occuring in the world this very second. I heard some head of an aid agency on the tv the other night say how this outpouring of generosity should be harnessed into political power which can be used to pressure national governments. However, I reckon once the next big tv item happens (which will allow Sky News butcher it to death and have 24/7 coverage), the world will have forgotten about the ..... "whats the japanese sounding word for a big wave again?!"