Well done QF
Eidolon
Thread Starter
Well done QF
I was very pleased to see the effort and money QF as a company have put into tsunami relief in SE Asia.
Details online at QF http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn...004/dec04/3196
Hope the international community would be so helpful if Australia was faced a natual disaster of similar scale.
I was ashamed to see how little the Middle Eastern countries have contributed.
Details online at QF http://www.qantas.com.au/regions/dyn...004/dec04/3196
Hope the international community would be so helpful if Australia was faced a natual disaster of similar scale.
I was ashamed to see how little the Middle Eastern countries have contributed.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
funny how those other countries will send their religious leaders over there to make sure the "infidel" christian aid groups dont "convert" any of their followers, but not 1 rich nation of that religios persuasion has sent $1 in aid for the fellow bretheren.
very sad.
i was secretly hoping this type of disaster would help break down those religious barriers and bring more understanding to the world, in that way the 100's of 1000's of live lost would have have not been in vein so to speak.
congrats QF.
very sad.
i was secretly hoping this type of disaster would help break down those religious barriers and bring more understanding to the world, in that way the 100's of 1000's of live lost would have have not been in vein so to speak.
congrats QF.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AsiaNews/Agencies
10 January, 2005
SAUDI ARABIA – ASIA
Tsunami: Little aid from Arab countries
Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Many Arab media commentators are harshly critical of the governments of rich Arab states because of their stingy response to the tsunami catastrophe. Although their development was largely made possible by an influx of millions of Asian workers, they have thus far donated US$ 113 million in aid out of a total of US$ 3.7 billion pledged by the international community.
A telethon in Saudi Arabia that ended yesterday morning raised US$ 83 million in private donations. During the televised fund-raising event, scholars repeatedly told viewers that “Islam promotes charity” and that “it was the duty of every Muslim to help the poor and the needy”.
Saudi watchers have been critical of the government which, despite being the largest oil-exporter, reaping the benefit of high oil prices and employing thousands of Asian workers, has not been terribly generous in its aid to tsunami-stricken countries.
Stung, government officials have baulked at the criticism stating that US$ 30 million plus tons of food, medicines and other aid are “generous” in terms of the country’s population and economy.
Neighbouring rich United Arab Emirates have donated “only” US$ 20 million, Qatar, 25, and Bahrain, 2, this despite the fact that these countries’ workforces are largely made up of Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians and Sri Lankans, who are often exploited to a point that comes close to slavery.
Mohamed Ali al-Harfy, an editorial writer with the Saudi daily al-Watan, said: “The sum is very weak compared to the size of the catastrophe and the riches of Gulf countries. There is no convincing answer as to why they haven’t donated more”.
King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and other dignitaries of the kingdom donated about US$ 10 million to the telethon. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a rich billionaire, donated money, tents and clothing worth US$ 19 million.
However, economists point out that a better cash flow due to higher oil prices does not necessarily mean more disposable income for governments like that of Saudi Arabia which said it would put the revenue towards reducing its 3 billion public debt and financing development projects to create much-needed jobs for Saudis. In fact, unemployment in the kingdom is currently high and the authorities are facing a terrorist campaign by Islamic fundamentalists tied to al-Qaeda.
===========================================
http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/ (USA)
January 10, 2005
Donations Are Not for Competition
by: Editorial
Zainab Saadi
The international community has pledged over $3 billion to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami disaster that hit Southern Asia and parts of Africa. In a list of over 45 countries, the biggest contributors so far are Australia ($810 million), Germany ($680 million) and the United States. ($350 million).
Since the disaster, we have been bombarded by the media with their single-, double- or triple-digit figures that each country has contributed to the relief effort so far.
They eagerly announce a country’s recent donation or increase in aid to the relief effort as if it is some kind of contest for who can donate the most money, with the grand prize of improving their country’s image in the international community.
Jan Egeland’s “the rich countries are stingy” statement, with a little help from the media, started this unofficial donation competition between the richest countries.
Each country, it seems, is trying to outdo the other by donating more and more money. After all, which country would want to be known as the stingy one?
We are not criticizing governments for their generosity. Rather, we are questioning why it is necessary to have an atmosphere of competition between countries in the first place.
When church-goers get that basket and put their donation money in it, they don’t do it for the prize they will recieve in the end for donating the most money. They do it, ideally, out of the kindness of their hearts.
Similarly, in an ideal world, governments will donate as much money as they can not because some U.N. emergency-relief coordinator told them that they were being stingy, but because they feel they have a moral obligation to help out their fellow man. The relief effort remains to be just that—a relief effort. No politics, no drama, no contest between countries.
But we don’t live in a perfect world. In church, there’s always someone who donates their money because they don’t want to look bad in front of the other people who donated their money. There is also always going to be a couple of church-goers who don’t donate at all, thinking that everyone else’s donation is sufficient.
Likewise, there are governments that donate money because they want to protect their image and integrity, and governments that do not donate enough money because they think that someone else’s donations will be enough.
Therefore, it seems that in our less perfect but more realistic world, some healthy competition is necessary between the governments of the world to ensure that everyone is giving as much aid as they can to the victims.
We need people like Jan Egeland to call countries stingy. We need the media to hype up each contribution or increase in aid that a country pledges. We need this so-called “competitive compassion” among countries because without it, there is no realistic incentive for governments to give money that they could have used for other things.
The real winners (or losers) of a “bidding war” are the victims of the earthquake and tsunami disaster. With or without the competition between countries, these people will still need our help.
And ultimately, amidst the hype and the competition, helping these victims is all that really matters.
==========================================
TIME.com
January 10, 2005
How Much Will Really Go to the Victims?
By JYOTI THOTTAM
With nearly $4 billion pledged in tsunami relief so far, the governments of the world's wealthiest countries have sought to lay to rest doubts about the largeness of their largesse. But the sobering backdrop to that rush of official sympathy is a sorry history of half-finished aid efforts. The Iranian city of Bam, for example, where an earthquake killed some 30,000 people in December 2003, has so far seen only $17 million of the $1.1 billion in aid pledged by foreign governments at the time of the disaster, Iran's leaders say. To do better this time, rich countries will have to match to the size of their promises the strength of their commitment.
Why is that so difficult? Good intentions are partly to blame. Donor countries do not want their aid to overwhelm a country's bureaucracy or feed corruption, so in the name of accountability, they give very carefully. The pledges of aid made by governments are just that--pledges to help, not outlays of cash.
Rather than write the U.N. a $4 billion check, governments pick and choose which relief and reconstruction efforts they want to fund. "It makes no sense just to give money," says German Chancellor Gerhard Schr??der. "Our people don't want that." At the donors conference in Jakarta last week, the U.N. launched an appeal for $977 million in short-term help over the next six months.
Now it must go through the painstaking process of matching donors to dozens of projects in five countries as well as to overall regional aid. That means persuading donors to fund not just the high-profile, big-ticket projects like clearing debris in Aceh and monitoring disease outbreaks in Sri Lanka but the small-scale tasks as well. Somali fishermen need $1.9 million to repair their boats; $750,000 would measure damage to coral reefs in the Maldives. Some countries will give the U.N. unrestricted aid, but for the most part, each project needs confirmed funding to begin.
The risks of bungling the aid effort are very real. Having made such conspicuous pledges to the tsunami victims, foreign governments will have to deliver results fast or risk inviting resentment from the people they are trying to help.
In Afghanistan, donors pledged $2 billion in 2002 for the first crucial year of rebuilding. But Afghan officials said the country saw only a fraction of that, $90 million. Many Afghans have lost faith since then and now direct their bitterness at the relief workers who are there.
Will the tsunami victims face disappointment? If history is any guide, yes. "Unless we keep the scrutiny up, there's nothing to suggest this case will be any different," says Max Lawson, policy adviser to Oxfam, a relief and development organization. But there's also reason for hope. In country after country, it was pressure from ordinary citizens that prodded governments to do their part. In the end, such pressure is the only thing that will make official generosity more than a show.
--By Jyoti Thottam. Reported by William Boston/Berlin, Simon Elegant/Jakarta, Tim McGirk/ Islamabad, Eric Roston and Elaine Shannon/ Washington and Aatish Taseer/ London
==========================================
10 January, 2005
SAUDI ARABIA – ASIA
Tsunami: Little aid from Arab countries
Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Many Arab media commentators are harshly critical of the governments of rich Arab states because of their stingy response to the tsunami catastrophe. Although their development was largely made possible by an influx of millions of Asian workers, they have thus far donated US$ 113 million in aid out of a total of US$ 3.7 billion pledged by the international community.
A telethon in Saudi Arabia that ended yesterday morning raised US$ 83 million in private donations. During the televised fund-raising event, scholars repeatedly told viewers that “Islam promotes charity” and that “it was the duty of every Muslim to help the poor and the needy”.
Saudi watchers have been critical of the government which, despite being the largest oil-exporter, reaping the benefit of high oil prices and employing thousands of Asian workers, has not been terribly generous in its aid to tsunami-stricken countries.
Stung, government officials have baulked at the criticism stating that US$ 30 million plus tons of food, medicines and other aid are “generous” in terms of the country’s population and economy.
Neighbouring rich United Arab Emirates have donated “only” US$ 20 million, Qatar, 25, and Bahrain, 2, this despite the fact that these countries’ workforces are largely made up of Pakistanis, Indians, Indonesians and Sri Lankans, who are often exploited to a point that comes close to slavery.
Mohamed Ali al-Harfy, an editorial writer with the Saudi daily al-Watan, said: “The sum is very weak compared to the size of the catastrophe and the riches of Gulf countries. There is no convincing answer as to why they haven’t donated more”.
King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and other dignitaries of the kingdom donated about US$ 10 million to the telethon. Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a rich billionaire, donated money, tents and clothing worth US$ 19 million.
However, economists point out that a better cash flow due to higher oil prices does not necessarily mean more disposable income for governments like that of Saudi Arabia which said it would put the revenue towards reducing its 3 billion public debt and financing development projects to create much-needed jobs for Saudis. In fact, unemployment in the kingdom is currently high and the authorities are facing a terrorist campaign by Islamic fundamentalists tied to al-Qaeda.
===========================================
http://horus.vcsa.uci.edu/ (USA)
January 10, 2005
Donations Are Not for Competition
by: Editorial
Zainab Saadi
The international community has pledged over $3 billion to the victims of the earthquake and tsunami disaster that hit Southern Asia and parts of Africa. In a list of over 45 countries, the biggest contributors so far are Australia ($810 million), Germany ($680 million) and the United States. ($350 million).
Since the disaster, we have been bombarded by the media with their single-, double- or triple-digit figures that each country has contributed to the relief effort so far.
They eagerly announce a country’s recent donation or increase in aid to the relief effort as if it is some kind of contest for who can donate the most money, with the grand prize of improving their country’s image in the international community.
Jan Egeland’s “the rich countries are stingy” statement, with a little help from the media, started this unofficial donation competition between the richest countries.
Each country, it seems, is trying to outdo the other by donating more and more money. After all, which country would want to be known as the stingy one?
We are not criticizing governments for their generosity. Rather, we are questioning why it is necessary to have an atmosphere of competition between countries in the first place.
When church-goers get that basket and put their donation money in it, they don’t do it for the prize they will recieve in the end for donating the most money. They do it, ideally, out of the kindness of their hearts.
Similarly, in an ideal world, governments will donate as much money as they can not because some U.N. emergency-relief coordinator told them that they were being stingy, but because they feel they have a moral obligation to help out their fellow man. The relief effort remains to be just that—a relief effort. No politics, no drama, no contest between countries.
But we don’t live in a perfect world. In church, there’s always someone who donates their money because they don’t want to look bad in front of the other people who donated their money. There is also always going to be a couple of church-goers who don’t donate at all, thinking that everyone else’s donation is sufficient.
Likewise, there are governments that donate money because they want to protect their image and integrity, and governments that do not donate enough money because they think that someone else’s donations will be enough.
Therefore, it seems that in our less perfect but more realistic world, some healthy competition is necessary between the governments of the world to ensure that everyone is giving as much aid as they can to the victims.
We need people like Jan Egeland to call countries stingy. We need the media to hype up each contribution or increase in aid that a country pledges. We need this so-called “competitive compassion” among countries because without it, there is no realistic incentive for governments to give money that they could have used for other things.
The real winners (or losers) of a “bidding war” are the victims of the earthquake and tsunami disaster. With or without the competition between countries, these people will still need our help.
And ultimately, amidst the hype and the competition, helping these victims is all that really matters.
==========================================
TIME.com
January 10, 2005
How Much Will Really Go to the Victims?
By JYOTI THOTTAM
With nearly $4 billion pledged in tsunami relief so far, the governments of the world's wealthiest countries have sought to lay to rest doubts about the largeness of their largesse. But the sobering backdrop to that rush of official sympathy is a sorry history of half-finished aid efforts. The Iranian city of Bam, for example, where an earthquake killed some 30,000 people in December 2003, has so far seen only $17 million of the $1.1 billion in aid pledged by foreign governments at the time of the disaster, Iran's leaders say. To do better this time, rich countries will have to match to the size of their promises the strength of their commitment.
Why is that so difficult? Good intentions are partly to blame. Donor countries do not want their aid to overwhelm a country's bureaucracy or feed corruption, so in the name of accountability, they give very carefully. The pledges of aid made by governments are just that--pledges to help, not outlays of cash.
Rather than write the U.N. a $4 billion check, governments pick and choose which relief and reconstruction efforts they want to fund. "It makes no sense just to give money," says German Chancellor Gerhard Schr??der. "Our people don't want that." At the donors conference in Jakarta last week, the U.N. launched an appeal for $977 million in short-term help over the next six months.
Now it must go through the painstaking process of matching donors to dozens of projects in five countries as well as to overall regional aid. That means persuading donors to fund not just the high-profile, big-ticket projects like clearing debris in Aceh and monitoring disease outbreaks in Sri Lanka but the small-scale tasks as well. Somali fishermen need $1.9 million to repair their boats; $750,000 would measure damage to coral reefs in the Maldives. Some countries will give the U.N. unrestricted aid, but for the most part, each project needs confirmed funding to begin.
The risks of bungling the aid effort are very real. Having made such conspicuous pledges to the tsunami victims, foreign governments will have to deliver results fast or risk inviting resentment from the people they are trying to help.
In Afghanistan, donors pledged $2 billion in 2002 for the first crucial year of rebuilding. But Afghan officials said the country saw only a fraction of that, $90 million. Many Afghans have lost faith since then and now direct their bitterness at the relief workers who are there.
Will the tsunami victims face disappointment? If history is any guide, yes. "Unless we keep the scrutiny up, there's nothing to suggest this case will be any different," says Max Lawson, policy adviser to Oxfam, a relief and development organization. But there's also reason for hope. In country after country, it was pressure from ordinary citizens that prodded governments to do their part. In the end, such pressure is the only thing that will make official generosity more than a show.
--By Jyoti Thottam. Reported by William Boston/Berlin, Simon Elegant/Jakarta, Tim McGirk/ Islamabad, Eric Roston and Elaine Shannon/ Washington and Aatish Taseer/ London
==========================================
Last edited by Wirraway; 10th Jan 2005 at 11:29.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but not 1 rich nation of that religios persuasion has sent $1 in aid for the fellow bretheren.
This isn't a pissing contest.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wowser
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fat chance.... he's skint. So desperate he's down to re-loading his old brass.
His wives and hordes of bastard children blew his wad ages ago... That's what happens when you leave them at home for years with the credit cards. Anyway he can't get to an ATM at the moment.
His wives and hordes of bastard children blew his wad ages ago... That's what happens when you leave them at home for years with the credit cards. Anyway he can't get to an ATM at the moment.
Eidolon
Thread Starter
ferris,
I stumbled across that link on the Qf web site, I was not aware until I saw that link that they had made such an effort. I think if any PR dept were to try and use this as a pissing contest, customers would be turned off by it.
Giving money alone is not enough, and I see sending medical teams, and other professionals to help as being just as valuable contribution as pure money. I congratulate EK also if they have done the same.
BTW according to the C.I.A. UAE Ethnic groups: Emirati 19%, other Arab and Iranian 23%, South Asian 50%, other expatriates (includes Westerners and East Asians) 8% (1982). They are a small country, I was referring to the middle east in general (which has a population many times that of Australia), these comments stemmed from news I saw from the UN regarding the worldwide giving after the disaster, they referred to the middle east as a collective and did not isolate any country which would turn it into a pissing contest.
I stumbled across that link on the Qf web site, I was not aware until I saw that link that they had made such an effort. I think if any PR dept were to try and use this as a pissing contest, customers would be turned off by it.
Giving money alone is not enough, and I see sending medical teams, and other professionals to help as being just as valuable contribution as pure money. I congratulate EK also if they have done the same.
BTW according to the C.I.A. UAE Ethnic groups: Emirati 19%, other Arab and Iranian 23%, South Asian 50%, other expatriates (includes Westerners and East Asians) 8% (1982). They are a small country, I was referring to the middle east in general (which has a population many times that of Australia), these comments stemmed from news I saw from the UN regarding the worldwide giving after the disaster, they referred to the middle east as a collective and did not isolate any country which would turn it into a pissing contest.
