Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sweden donates more than the US


Immortal Norway

Recommended Posts

The Swedish donation to the survivors of the devastating disaster in South East Asia is more than twice the amount donated by the United States, the world’s richest nation.

Sweden is donating SEK 500 million (USD 75.6 million) in relief aid, reported the Swedish paper Aftonbladet. The US is donating USD 35 million. Norway has decided to increase its donations by doubling the original amount and has now allocated NOK 100 million (USD 16.5 million) to the survivors of the disaster.

The amount the US decided to donate has created reactions. The Norwegian UN Undersecretary Jan Egeland, who is in charge of UN’s emergency relief coordination, stated Monday that rich countries are too stingy when it comes to emergency aid.

«I don’t understand why they are so stingy. If a country donates 0.1 or 0.2 percent of GDP in foreign aid, I don’t think that is particularly generous,» Egeland said at the press conference Monday.

Egeland was forced to modify his statement when President George Bush became furious. Bush claimed Egeland was «very misguided and ill informed» and claimed that the amount allocated was only the beginning. However the American institution, the New York Times, completely agrees with Egeland’s statements. In an editorial under the headline «Are We Stingy? Yes» printed Thursday, the New York Times states that «Mr. Egeland was right on target.»

The paper continues by pointing out that USD 15 million first allocated was less than half of what the Republicans plan to spend on the Bush inaugural festivities.

The US has now increased the amount to USD 35 million, but the paper states that it «remains a miserly drop in the bucket.» The editorial concludes by stating that it hopes Bush will keep his promise of USD 35 million only being the beginning. Only time will tell.

Nettavisen - English

What can I say? It`s a shame...

Edited by Immortal Norway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BrucePrime

    8

  • Aztec Warrior

    6

  • Lt_Ripley

    6

  • Immortal Norway

    5

it isn't just the Sweds . plenty of other countries are more giving in relationship to the amount of people and GDP, we are led to believe falsely we are the most giving. very sad. Some aid we have promised has never arrived.

it's just another thread of dishonesty . like cutting taxes makes the economy more stable (which would work if you spent less but cons haven't). or that dems spend more than republicans or that cons are more finacially responsible . it's just not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is right, sort of...

It only factors in government, non-military, aid. It does not factor in private donations, or military aid?

How much did it cost for the US to station an aircraft carrier off the coast of Indonesia, to run relief missions and generate clean-water? Those costs aren't factored in.

And there's a reason for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article is right, sort of...

It only factors in government, non-military, aid. It does not factor in private donations, or military aid?

How much did it cost for the US to station an aircraft carrier off the coast of Indonesia, to run relief missions and generate clean-water? Those costs aren't factored in.

And there's a reason for that.

What is that supposed to be like an excuse?

It's like you give someone a ride somewhere, and then say "you owe me gas money now" Pretty pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is that supposed to be like an excuse?

It's like you give someone a ride somewhere, and then say "you owe me gas money now" Pretty pathetic.

Your comparison is nonsensical; America is donating both the money and resources -- that is nothing like asking for "gas-money."

According to the Giving Institute, Americans privately gave $260.68 billion to charity in 2005.

According to the CAF International, Americans gave, again privately, 1.69% of America's GDP to charity. That was far beyond any other country in their study; the closest was the UK with .73%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comparison is nonsensical; America is donating both the money and resources -- that is nothing like asking for "gas-money."

According to the Giving Institute, Americans privately gave $260.68 billion to charity in 2005.

According to the CAF International, Americans gave, again privately, 1.69% of America's GDP to charity. That was far beyond any other country in their study; the closest was the UK with .73%.

:huh: Can you give a link to prove that last one?, that`s not what I have heard...

Edited by Immortal Norway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is only one area in the world. The US spreads it around more than any other nation, so to simple isolate the net amount in one diasaster area is very misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Country Aid amount by GNP

Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Saturday, April 07, 2007

Net ODA in 2006 as percent of GNI Country Aid amount by GNP

Source: OECD Development Statistics Online last accessed Saturday, April 07, 2007

Sweden 1.03

Luxembourg 0.89

Norway 0.89

Netherlands 0.81

Denmark 0.8

Ireland 0.53

UK 0.52

Belgium 0.5

Austria 0.48

France 0.47

Finland 0.39

Switzerland 0.39

Germany 0.36

Spain 0.32

Australia 0.3

Canada 0.3

New Zealand 0.27

Japan 0.25

Portugal 0.21

Italy 0.2

USA 0.17

Greece 0.16

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/D...opoliticsoramix

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris, in 2003, the world’s major countries gave $108.5 billion in combined foreign aid. Of this, the U.S. contributed $37.8 billion, or 35 percent, of the total. The next largest foreign-aid contributor was the Netherlands, which gave $12.2 billion, following two years in which it was actually a net recipient of foreign aid.

Former U.S. Agency for International Development official Carol Adelman attempted to calculate a total of all private foreign aid in 2000 in a 2003 Foreign Affairs magazine article. She found that private foreign aid greatly exceeded that provided by the U.S. government. Official aid came to $22.6 billion that year, but private aid came to $35.1 billion, including $18 billion in remittances, $6.6 billion from private voluntary organizations, $3.4 billion in aid from churches, $3 billion from foundations, $2.8 from corporations, and $1.3 billion from universities.

In short, the charge of stinginess is unfounded. The U.S. carries much of the world on its back, providing other nations with security, aid, and much of their investment and income. It also pays for a fourth of all the salaries of U.N. bureaucrats.

For the total amont of donations.... 14 June, 2007

Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom)

#1 United Kingdom: $10,700,000,000.00

#2 France: $10,100,000,000.00

#3 Japan: $8,900,000,000.00

#4 United States: $6,900,000,000.00

#5 Germany: $5,600,000,000.00

#6 Netherlands: $4,000,000,000.00

#7 Canada: $2,600,000,000.00

#8 Denmark: $2,130,000,000.00

#9 Sweden: $1,700,000,000.00

#10 Norway: $1,400,000,000.00

#11 Spain: $1,330,000,000.00

#12 Switzerland: $1,100,000,000.00

#13 Belgium: $1,072,000,000.00

#14 Italy: $1,000,000,000.00

#15 Australia: $894,000,000.00

#16 Finland: $850,536,746.49

Source

Edited by Aztec Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, that seems more belivebal, yet it`s a bit sad that nr. 1 only gives 1%...

Edit: Yes, Aztec, the US is one of the biggest givers in the world, still you don`t find it a little wierd that you are 50 times larger, but still only gives 5 times more than e.g Norway?

Edited by Immortal Norway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some Euro nations are like Hollywood celebs that prance out and make a one time public donation while the cameras click and they pose to look self righteous or modest, depending on how their handlers advise them.

How much they have contributed to the safety and well being of the planet decade after decade for the last two hundred years however has left much to be desired to say the very least.

I have no specific comment to make however about the Brave Battling Swedes, Heroes of the Universe. :sleepy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:huh: Can you give a link to prove that last one?, that`s not what I have heard...

Giving Institute

CAF International

I question why you posted an article almost 3 years old, one which was outdated the moment it was published. On December 31, 2004 (just 6 days after the tsunami), the American government pledged $350 million to relief aid. As of Jan 10, 2005 (16 days after the tsunami), Americans had donated, privately, $515 million. Some 12,600 Defense Deparment personnel were deployed to the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, some 24 ships, which produced 90,000 gallons of clean-water, a day, provided in safe transport of refugees and performed relief missions. (SOURCE)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is that supposed to be like an excuse?

It's like you give someone a ride somewhere, and then say "you owe me gas money now" Pretty pathetic.

I do not believe he was suggesting anyone owes anything...the idea appeared to be that the amount of money it cost to have those resources there available for use by victims should have been included in the tallying of who spent what.

Honestly why is there a p***ing contest over this at all? So the Swedes gave more money (although I think that leaving out some costs that we incurred trying to assist is pretty weird) big harry deal.

Why do we seem to think that giving money is the most important thing in these situations? That carrier helped a lot but it can't be counted? why not? it provided a service that helped. Next time maybe we should just throw a bunch of money at the disaster plagued area even if we could do something that would help people more immediately cause you know we are in this contest apparently and we don't want to look bad.

I see he has pulled up newer statistics hmmm interesting. But I still don't see why we are having this contest it is ridiculous

(Edited due to additional information)

Edited by laughing tanuki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Yes, Aztec, the US is one of the biggest givers in the world, still you don`t find it a little wierd that you are 50 times larger, but still only gives 5 times more than e.g Norway?

Again, this is only budgeted foriegn aid, not including private donations or military aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Giving Institute

CAF International

I question why you posted an article almost 3 years old, one which was outdated the moment it was published. On December 31, 2004 (just 6 days after the tsunami), the American government pledged $350 million to relief aid. As of Jan 10, 2005 (16 days after the tsunami), Americans had donated, privately, $515 million. Some 12,600 Defense Deparment personnel were deployed to the region, including two aircraft carrier groups, some 24 ships, which produced 90,000 gallons of clean-water, a day, provided in safe transport of refugees and performed relief missions. (SOURCE)

First, that study also bases on inland charity (e.g someone in America giving money to someone else in America) which doesn`t have anything to do with this at all... and secondly, this article is about raising the devasted areas financially, not about the emergency help that US (and other countries) gave ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The USA is the world's biggest giver

“When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion. Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others.”

By Stacy A. Teicher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor newsfeed, 2003 June 23

2. ... and the stingiest

The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share"

numbers look good until you really look at them

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

% of USA aid 1988-1989

Israel 12.5

Egypt 9.5

Pakistan 3.9

El Salvador 3.3

India 1.9

Philippines 1.8

“US aid, which acquired an increasingly military flavour during the Regan years, is now concentrated on a relatively small number of countries of special political importance.”

"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge, p80

According to Heater & Berridge, Israel has been receiving 12/13% of all American charitable foreign aid since 1979, the chart shows numbers from 1988-1989.

Tied Aid:

"The most generous countries are also the ones that do not tend to tie aid to their own products and services. The stingiest countries also, almost spitefully and nastily, force countries to buy their own services and products with the aid they give; which reduces free trade and commerce and harms the countries economy, as well as being simply selfish and conceited. Thankfully, many countries do not tie their aid. Countries that tie less than 10% of aid include Ireland, Norway and the UK, then Belgium, Finland, Switzerland and Sweden. The USA is the worst, and ties nearly 90% of its aid to developing countries. Italy is the second worst with 70%. The two worst countries for this obnoxious practice in aid-giving are also the two countries out of the most developed countries, who give least generously!"

"Which Countries Set the Best Examples? A Comparison of Global Aid", by Vexen Crabtree, 2005

3. Conclusions

Firstly, I will briefly highlight how this causes hatred of the USA, then I will make sure that no reasonable reader can automatically blame the average USA American personally for the state of affairs as given.

Cause of hatred: The hypocrisy that the USA claims moral high but fails when the details of this claim are examined lead many to believe that the USA is ('as normal...') merely using its wealth to buy the moral high ground rather than being it. USA economic interests seem to be the only priority of the ethics of the USA. People are led to hate Americans: For not giving more to the people who genuinely need it, for economic bullying and aggression, and finally for not being critical of their own government and believing its propaganda. People are also driven to hate the USA as a whole for its wholesale economic aggression, hypocrisy, lies and power mongering even when it comes to charity

But, the statistics are not enough to warrant a justifiable hatred of USA Americans. For starters, the vast majority of giving is done by individuals, not by corporations, and we need to be able to differentiate between the two. If corporations are particularly poor givers in the USA, then it is simply commercialism that is to blame for the USAs tight pockets, but USA individuals may well be the same as individuals in other developed countries. From these stats, we can't tell, so any conclusion would be wrong

USA citizens are not given world news in the same way as most the other developed nations, and may well be genuinely unaware that much of the world is as poor as it is. European news is highly world-centric, whereas due to its size most USA news does not have enough time to cover news in all neighbouring states, let alone news from around the world. Therefore again it may be corporate greed that betrays American, not its relatively innocent ordinary citizens

The rest of the world

It is likely true that all countries are biased towards giving to countries where they have economic or political interest. This is inevitable, and will probably never change. The difference with the USA appears to be that it is the single loudest self-congratulator. When it comes to war and aggression and other USA foreign policy issues, the USA is always heard to be boasting of how it is a beneficiary to much of the world. Yet, proportionally, all 21 of the other developed nations give more, and none of them used the "we are good because we are generous" argument that their policy was correct. Such emotional blackmail would produce a lot of internal criticism in any European country where the government claimed such a thing. In Europe where worldly communications are highly developed, every country can see the internal workings of the rest of the world and governmental criticism is heard of all governments.

However, despite the USAs dominance of mass media, it is frequently only the pro-USA, self-congratulatory messages that seem to arrive in Europe, the USA citizens criticism and disbelief of their own government is not apparent, which gives the overall impression that Americans are either gullible, ignorant or honestly uncaring. It appears to many Europeans that the USA government and its citizens believe two things:

That USA is a generous nation of people

That this also give the USA a right to enforce aggressive foreign policies and aggressively pursue economic interests in all other countries

This can be explained if we dismiss it purely as a symptom of USA style overpowering commercialism, but it leaves many people in the modern world to seriously doubt the honesty or sincerity of any USA aid that does go to non-American companies in foreign countries. (Also, we need to look at what percent of foreign aid of other countries goes to own-companies abroad). The result is a cycle of mistrust of USA aid, distrust of the motives for giving (where the blackmail tactic is used so often, the motives are often not seen as charitable, but manipulative) and hatred of the USA's approach as a whole.

I must assert, however, that I believe most USA citizens give money because they genuinely care about the plight of the poor world, as well as their own numerous poor, but that they themselves do not often look into the mechanisms of how that aid is distributed and used. And let's face it, when we give to charity, how many of us check how the charity in question is using the funds? Especially with foreign charity, it is a difficult task and most people do not even know how to go about checking that their money is used properly, usefully and unpolitically.

So, in conclusion, I think that the USA government intentionally manipulates other countries, especially poor ones, by strategic giving, and the USA government also manipulates its own people by boosting their egos and self-worth through delusions of moral greatness achieved through charity. It is nearly certainly not the case that the average USA citizen is less caring or less generous, but is a function of USA style capitalism that money is power, and morals are subservient to long term economic interests - something which the average citizen (or company) can do little to alter. Any alteration needs to be enacted wholesale by USA federal government, but, however, the USA government system is the single biggest conscious cause of such a situation, and appears to be very unwilling to change, and perhaps even believes that its style of "free trade" is actually good for the rest of the world. Is the government wearing blinkers, or, as George Orwell would be very quick to suggest, have they succumbed to their own commercialist propaganda? Are the stats all wrong and the USA is genuinely more generous than all 21 of the most developed/richest countries even including Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden?

http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see he has pulled up newer statistics hmmm interesting. But I still don't see why we are having this contest it is ridiculous

(Edited due to additional information)

I don't know why either, why he had to find an article almost three years old, other than to bash America...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why either, why he had to find an article almost three years old, other than to bash America...

Oh crap... my fault, I taught it stood 31.06.07 :mellow:

Still, weird that it is on the front page of the english version of Nettavisen...

Edited by Immortal Norway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What can I say? It`s a shame...

Shame? Shame is starting/trolling a lame, misinformed thread from 04 without finding updated info on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nettavisen - English

What can I say? It`s a shame...

If you will give help and then cry about how come I gave this and he only gave that, then don't bother helping for it shows ingenuity and you are only doing it to make yourself look good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, that study also bases on inland charity (e.g someone in America giving money to someone else in America) which doesn`t have anything to do with this at all... and secondly, this article is about raising the devasted areas financially, not about the emergency help that US (and other countries) gave ;)

In emergency help...for the tsunami relief, America pledged $950 million; privately over $1.8 billion was pledged. America, as a whole, provided $2.8 billion of the $10 billion totaled pledged to tsunami disaster relief. The closest other giver was Australia, at 1.3 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

USA citizens are not given world news in the same way as most the other developed nations, and may well be genuinely unaware that much of the world is as poor as it is. European news is highly world-centric, whereas due to its size most USA news does not have enough time to cover news in all neighbouring states, let alone news from around the world. Therefore again it may be corporate greed that betrays American, not its relatively innocent ordinary citizens[/url]

Like world-centric Nettavisen with lame, front page articles from 04? Thats too funny. Yes we American's have no clue huh? Please...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh crap... my fault, I taught it stood 31.06.07 :mellow:

Still, weird that it is on the front page of the english version of Nettavisen...

The fact it was about the Southeast Asian tsunami, and everything about the article marks it from that time period, didn't clue you in?

Edited by BrucePrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's Gordon Sinclair when I need him.....or Ray Davies for that matter....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.