Saturday, January 08, 2005
A severe beating
Yesterday the UN rep who flew up to Aceh solely for the event, held a press conference at which he criticized the US airlift of supplies. The little S.O.B sniffed that it was "uncoordinated" and that some villages were fed twice while others were missed and that no "assessment teams" were being sent. The Guardian and AP have picked up the story, but my internet is so s-l-o-w, that I haven't been able to find it and link to it. Maybe tonight the internet will speed up and I can find it. I learn from colleagues who were there, no journalist asked the little twit just how many people the UN had fed, and if, indeed, "assessment teams" are what is needed why haven't the gadzillion UN assessment teams hanging out in the capital moved into these remote villages.
And then there's this:
Our folks in Aceh report that UN "coordination" means that the UN holds a meeting every day at 5 pm near the runway in Aceh. Every donor nation and NGO stands up and states what it's doing; the UN rep writes it down. Some times, however, it's hard to hear. The distinctive "whoop! whoop! whoop!" of those nasty American choppers and the roar of Australian and American C-130 engines on the tarmac can prove very bothersome to the UN rep as he tries to hear what everyone else is doing. Poor man! If only those stingy Aussies and Yanks would have the decency to shut down relief operations while the UN rep is trying to hold a meeting, after all, he's here to help, help himself, that is, to taking credit for what the others are doing.
Most Americans, with a few well-known exceptions, believe that virtually the entire world needs less "talk" and more "do." The United Nations and the European Union seem to believe the reverse. This great difference may be the root of anti-Americanism among the world's chattering class, and it may explain why so many hard-working people everywhere want to come to the United States notwithstanding the bleatings of the world's bureaucrats, professors, politicians and reporters.
4 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Jan 08, 05:44:00 PM:
I wouldn't call it "anti-Americanism."
To risk a generalization similar to those made in your final paragraph: the world's "chattering class" knows the difference between a Democrat and a Republican. I'd wager that, these days, most everybody knows the difference.
You'd be more accurate calling it "anti-Republicanism."
Your little blogspace reeks of arrogance, like so much of the Republican culture, yet you still grasp for explanations as to why the world dislikes your tribe.
Peace.
Mr. Canadian Peace Anonymous Dude
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sat Jan 08, 06:21:00 PM:
Perhaps this little blogspace does reek of arrogance. I hope not -- I have certainly been very critical of all sorts of "Republicanism," as you call it.
To me, arrogance is complaining that the United States does not intervene, and then when it does intervene complaining about how it intervenes.
The question of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is the most common setting for this form of arrogance. The European press and the American Left complained that the United States since Clinton has "ignored" the troubles in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Then, when the United States has made itself heard, the complaint is that it is too supportive of Israel! If the Europeans, or the Canadians for that matter, feel that the United States is mishandling the "peace process" in Israel, they should do something about it. If the United States has influence with Israel because it gives so much aid -- this is the European hypothesis -- then the Europeans could readily address this question by giving Israel even more aid. But do not complain that the United States is not throwing its weight around, and then complain about the way it throws its weight around. To do those two things is the height of arrogance.
This is exactly what has happened with the tsunami crisis. First, the world -- and by this I mean the United Nations and most of the Western press -- complained that the United States was doing too little (never mind that an entire fleet of the United States Navy was dispatched to the Indian Ocean almost immediately). Then, when the United States organized the only really competent countries in the area while Kofi Annan was on vacation, the United Nations and the world's press complained that the United States should only operate under United Nations auspices! Of course, there is not a single official at the United Nations who would have believed that this would be politically possible for any American president, even if he were so inclined. So this demand was entirely disingenuous, and calculated to humiliate the United States. While the United States, along with Australia, Japan and India, was springing into action to prevent even more people dying in the aftermath, the United Nations was demanding fealty from the United States and doing nothing for distressed people of south Asia.
Americans, though, well understand that no good deed goes unpunished, so you can expect that we will turn up in force at the next catastrophe, and the one after that, no matter how much scorn the world heeps.
Now, Mr. Canadian Peace Anonymous Dude, I appreciate your comments on this blog. They prevent it from become an echo chamber, which was never my hope. Indeed, you seem like a thoughtful and engaging leftist, and I think it would be great if you started your own blog. Do so, and I will blogroll it forthwith.
Be well.
By Sluggo, at
Sat Jan 08, 08:28:00 PM:
Jack, I don't want to gum things up while you're trying to reach out and all, but he doesn't sound so engaging to me. More like smug and supercilious. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, but he offers no argument or evidence. If I follow his train of thought correctly, the bureauweenie from the U.N. is entitled to criticize U.S. relief efforts because the relief is offered by a Republican administration. Okay, maybe I'm not following it as much as extending it. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that red and blue, U.S. and EU, Mars and Venus have to find a way to talk to each other again because we're skidding away from each other at an accelerating rate. But, I'm sorry, it's not arrogant to object being spit in the eye.
By , at
Sun Jan 09, 12:34:00 PM:
Ok ok, gotcha. Loud and clear. It was an interesting week, so (to me) was worth the time and thought. You good folks are actually the first Americans I've communicated with online, so I treated it pretty seriously. I'll leave you with one last link, for what it's worth:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/10/22/1450216&mode=thread&tid=25
Peace.
