A Stitch in Haste

It has always been my opinion that the best way to contribute to overseas disasters is through the American Red Cross, not the International Red Cross (ICRC) or any United Nations bureaucracy (and certainly not a Christian charity). The ARC is an extremely efficient and effective organization, and I think it makes a huge difference when aid recipients know unequivocally that the help is coming from the United States, the most charitable nation on earth. You can donate online (choose "International Response Fund") and can give as little as $5.

Also remember to ask your employer whether they, like my greedy Swiss bank firm, match charitable contributions.

UPDATE: Instapundit has more on the distinction between the ARC and the ICRC. Donations made through Amazon are also going to the American Red Cross (but why bother, when you can donate directly to the ARC online?).

ADDENDUM #1: A reader asks, much to my shock and awe, why not give via Christian charities? The best Randian answer I could give is, "Because I read the newspapers."

The question can be answered on many levels. Primary level: I'm not a Christian, I suspect most of my readers are not Christians, nor are most libertarians Christians or even deists.

Secondary level: If you want to achieve a "message" in addition to simply rendering aid (and, since we're not Randian "altruists," we don't shy away from a message being attached to our money, do we?), then that message should be "Courtesy of the people of the United States of America" rather than "Look how much the Lord loves you, especially after he just wiped out your country, village, family, livelihood, etc."

Tertiary level: Most Christian (and practically all Catholic) charities are overtly missionary in their nature. (It's not called the "Salvation Army" for nothing!) Give money to a Christian charity, you are subsidizing and catalyzing the spread of the Christian religion. If you want to spend the effort figuring out which Christian franchises are less obnoxious than others, then go right ahead. I will have no part of it -- especially when a no-cost alternative is right at my fingertips.

On a related note -- "Because I read the newspapers."

ADDENDUM #2: John of Arkanssouri (one of my first loyal readers) raises the issue of the Red Cross' "ban" on gays donating blood -- see my previous post. The ban is actually an FDA regulation, not an ARC policy, though one can certainly argue that the ARC isn't trying very hard to overturn the nonsensical -- and life-threatening -- ban on gays donating blood. I therefore can't fault any gay man who refuses to do business with the American Red Cross. A detailed list of alternative organizations can be found at the nonsectarian -- indeed the quite capitalist -- Network for Good.

As mind-numbing as the ever-escalating casualty count has already been, people of good will are going to have to prepare themselves for the little-reported fact that the military dictatorship of Burma (aka Myanmar) is refusing to release accurate statistics and is stubbornly insisting that the death toll is only 90 -- not 90 thousand, but 90 people.

If we can ever get the real numbers, they will be likely horrific -- in a context where "horrific" is already an understatement.

UPDATE: Welcome Economics With a Face readers. The situation regarding Burma has not changed much -- Australia is leading the calls for greater openness from Burma while the U.N. says "no big deal." Go figure. Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation has ranked Burma the second least free nation, behind only North Korea. Reason also weighs in.

This grips me more than would a muddy old river or reclining Buddha...
--"One Night in Bangkok"

It took nearly all weekend for me to get my arms around the great Reason-Instapundit-Blair debate over folks who are vacationing in the midst of the tsunami carnage. Some tidbits from various comment sections of assorted blogs:

--It's not a boycott, exactly. Just a sort of sympathetic shunning, I guess.

--"Hey honey... Let's go to Thailand. With all those rotting bodies filling [the] streets, they have cut prices in half! What a deal!"

--What['s] better for these people, some rice and blankets, or the ability to keep their jobs?

--[B]ooze it up on the beach while watching the corpses float by. Ah, the smell of rotting flesh and the cries of starving locals! It'll be a vacation to remember.

--You can forgive people for not visiting Bali after the bomb. They were afraid for their own safety. There is no reason at all not to continue to visit Phuket now, apart from the threat of disease which should quickly pass.

--An indignant Russian who arrived at the Novotel Phuket Resort on the day after the tsunami loudly complained that there was no champagne reception.

I think what these alternating remarks demonstrates is that there is more "talking past each other" than a bona fide clash of ideologies.

I once had a moment of potential disaster tourism -- when Prague was devastated by floods in August 2002 it shot up to the top of my destination list, though for a variety of reasons I don't do much traveling these days and never actually went. (I'm also currently trapped in a reverse form of the same phenomenon in that I very much want to visit Rome but I'm reluctant to do so out of fear that the Supreme Bigot will die while I'm there and the whole city will shut down and ruin my trip.)

In any case, I think the two opposing camps are both presupposing a ubiquitous image of the devastation that may or may be true everywhere in the disaster zone. There are almost certainly not "rotting corpses" everywhere, especially in tourist areas like Phuket. And I can understand someone with non-refundable airline tickets and resort packages making a reasoned decision not to cancel a trip (which is not the same as making an especial effort to travel to South Asia to "catch a bargain").

Still, one must keep in mind that this tsunami is sui generis, as is Thailand (i.e., many tourists are seeking something there besides the natural scenery). And to abstain from going to South Asia this week or this month is hardly "misguided compassion." It's respect for the dead and, one would hope, for one's own sensitivities and humanity. In other words, there's potential for both compassionate capitalism and ugly bargain-hunting.

But sweeping generalities on either side of the debate and extrapolating from other, comparatively smaller disasters, are unwarranted. South Asia tourists are entitled to some slack -- but not unlimited slack.

Not everything has to be black-or-white.

UPDATE: The New York Times is reporting that the "compassionate capitalist" argument may be something of a red herring:

In the economies of Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, Thailand and the other affected countries, the tsunami is likely to register more as a small wave, because the two industries most heavily hit -- tourism and fishing -- make up small percentages of the overall economy.
...
Thailand's economy is expected to grow about 6 percent in 2005, about the same as in 2004. Tourism in southern Thailand around Phuket, the only part of the country affected, accounts for about 1.3 percent of the national economy. Already, much of the Phuket tourism has been rerouted to other Thai resort towns, and the damaged beach towns could well see a construction boom as up to $2 billion is expected to be invested to rebuild beachfront hotels, homes and shops.

Also noteworthy: "The currencies and stock markets of Thailand, Malaysia and Sri Lanka did not move significantly last week. Indonesia's Jakarta Composite Index rose Tuesday and Wednesday but fell slightly on Thursday." Interesting.

Related Posts:
Regarding Tsunami Donations
Tsunami Update: Be Prepared for the Burma Numbers

Slate has a Bush-bash piece today on Burma essentially asking why we are not effecting regime change in what has been described as the second worst dictatorship in the world.

Nobody in Washington loses sleep over Burma policy. Burma isn't a vital oil supplier like Saudi Arabia, we don't do much trade with Burma as we do with China, and there are no al-Qaida operatives to kill and capture as in Pakistan. Our hard interests in curbing Burma's massive opium production, preventing Burma from becoming a full-fledged Chinese satellite state, and tapping its modest oil and gas reserves are low priorities. Washington is happy to apply economic sanctions on Burma in the name of high-minded principles because those interests are small in comparison to the magnitude of human rights abuses in the country. And, oh yeah, we have other regional headaches, like figuring out what to do with North Korea.

This seems to me to be a case of wanting it both ways -- the U.S. is wrong on regime change because we do it at all, and it's also wrong because we don't do it enough? Go figure.

Anyway, I found it utterly stupefying that such a piece could have not one word about the current, and far more important, scandal regarding the international community and Burma -- the ludicrous "official" tsunami casualty count of 90 -- not 90,000, but 90.

Leave it to a self-described "grassroots" newspaper (and Canadians, no less!) to do the real reporting:

Refusing all international aid, Burma's authorities have not let any international monitors enter its borders, even to assess the damage.
...
The [Burmese junta] SPCD has [a] reputation for downplaying disaster, and for keeping stringent control over outbound media.

Condemned by critics for outlawing fax machines, censoring television broadcasts and taking prisoners of conscience, Burma has been called the most information-starved country on earth. One example involved an attack on the convoy of Nobel Peace Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, during her brief release from house arrest in 2003. Eyewitnesses estimated some 60 dead in the ensuing clash, while the SPDC reported only four.
...
On August 8,1988, at the height of three-weeks of carnage, junta soldiers opened fire on thousands of unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Yangon. Reporting some 500 dead ... the massacre of 8-8-88 is believed by ambassadorial staffs that witnessed it to have claimed over 10,000 lives -- more, that is, than Tiananmen Square.

They claimed 500 dead, it likely turned out to be over 10,000. That's a factor of 20, which would imply not 90 tsunami casualties, but 1,800 -- and if you're going to lie by a factor of 20, then why not 200 or whatever number suits your dictatorial fancy?

Not to be a Broken Window type, but the tsunami provided a unique opportunity to make some real progress in ending the Burmese nightmare. The international political community, and the international charitable community, are dropping the ball. Which doesn't stop fools from laying it all at the United States' doorstep.

How very sad.

Related Posts:
Tsunami Update: Be Prepared for the Burma Numbers
Tsunami Tourism: Compassionate Capitalism or Just Plain Gauche?

In honor of Downtown Lad's Sri Lankan vacation, let's all get furious at Sri Lanka:

Oxfam has had to pay £550,000 in customs duty to the Sri Lankan government for importing 25 four-wheel-drive vehicles to help victims of the tsunami, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
...
Oxfam said it had "no choice" but to pay the exorbitant 300 per cent import tax or face further delays to its relief operation.

Sources said that when Oxfam officials tried to reason with the government, the ministry of finance offered three options: pay the duty, re-export the vehicles or hand them over to a ministry of their choice.

A useful if sad case study. In the modern era nations are poor for one and only one reason: because their leaders are either totally incompetent or — far more often — totally evil.

An important lesson as we debate aid to Africa (which has more despots per capita than anywhere else, at any time in human history) or our funding of that ultimate "theater of the absurd, decomposing corpse, and insane asylum," the United Nations.

Hat tip to Samizdata.

The latest estimates are that over 30,000 people died in yesterday's Southeast Asia earthquake. As the calls for charitable relief again swing into motion, I am reposting a revised version of this piece I wrote in response to the Boxing Day Tsunami.

---

It has always been my opinion that the best way to contribute to overseas disasters is through the American Red Cross, not the International Red Cross (ICRC) or any United Nations bureaucracy (and certainly not a Christian charity). I think it makes a huge difference when aid recipients know unequivocally that the help is coming from the United States -- the most charitable nation on earth -- and that the funds are voluntary, private donations rather than taxpayer-subsidized government monies.

You can donate online (choose "International Response Fund").

Also remember to ask your employer whether they, like my greedy Swiss bank firm, match charitable contributions.

ADDENDUM #1: A reader asks, much to my shock and awe, why not give via Christian charities? The best answer I could give is, "Because I read the newspapers."

The question can be answered on many levels. Primary level: I'm not a Christian, I suspect most of my readers are not Christians, nor are most libertarians Christians or even deists.

Secondary level: If you want to achieve a "message" in addition to simply rendering aid (and we don't shy away from a message being attached to our money, do we?), then that message should be "Courtesy of the people of the United States of America" rather than "Look how much the Lord loves you, especially after he just wiped out your country, village, family, livelihood, etc."

Tertiary level: Most Christian (and practically all Catholic) charities are overtly missionary in their nature. (It's not called the "Salvation Army" for nothing.) If you give money to a Christian charity, then you are subsidizing and catalyzing the spread of the Christian religion. If you want to spend the effort figuring out which Christian franchises are less obnoxious than others, then go right ahead. I will have no part of it — especially when a no-cost alternative is right at my fingertips.

ADDENDUM #2: Another reader raises the issue of the Red Cross' "ban" on gays donating blood — see my previous posts. The ban is actually an FDA regulation, not an ARC policy, though one can certainly argue that the ARC isn't trying very hard to overturn the nonsensical — and life-threatening — ban on gays donating blood. I therefore can't fault any gay man who refuses to do business with the American Red Cross. A detailed list of alternative organizations can be found at the nonsectarian Network for Good.

When word first started to emerge that a major cyclone had hit Burma, the first thought of many of us was, "Here we go again..."

"Again" not only in the context of the natural disaster, but also in the context of the authoritarian disaster:

The death toll from Cyclone Nargis, the deadliest in Asia since 1991, rose to nearly 22,500 with an additional 41,000 missing, even as Myanmar's leaders continued to refuse entry to U.S. disaster response teams.
...
The disaster's scale has drawn a rare acceptance of outside help from Myanmar's generals, who spurned such approaches in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.

The ever-escalating death toll from the cyclone continues to be "new news." The paranoid insanity of Burma's military dictatorship is not, as I chronicled after the Boxing Day Tsunami in a piece originally published 16 February 2005:

---

Slate has a Bush-bash piece on Burma essentially asking why we are not effecting regime change in what has been described as the second worst dictatorship in the world.

Nobody in Washington loses sleep over Burma policy. Burma isn't a vital oil supplier like Saudi Arabia, we don't do much trade with Burma as we do with China, and there are no al-Qaida operatives to kill and capture as in Pakistan. Our hard interests in curbing Burma's massive opium production, preventing Burma from becoming a full-fledged Chinese satellite state, and tapping its modest oil and gas reserves are low priorities. Washington is happy to apply economic sanctions on Burma in the name of high-minded principles because those interests are small in comparison to the magnitude of human rights abuses in the country. And, oh yeah, we have other regional headaches, like figuring out what to do with North Korea.

This seems to me to be a case of wanting it both ways — the U.S. is wrong on regime change because we do it at all, and it's also wrong because we don't do it enough? Go figure.

Anyway, I found it utterly stupefying that such a piece could have not one word about the current, and far more important, scandal regarding the international community and Burma — the ludicrous "official" tsunami casualty count of 90 — not 90,000, but 90.

Leave it to a self-described "grassroots" newspaper (and Canadians, no less!) to do the real reporting:

Refusing all international aid, Burma's authorities have not let any international monitors enter its borders, even to assess the damage.
...
The [Burmese junta] SPCD has [a] reputation for downplaying disaster, and for keeping stringent control over outbound media.

Condemned by critics for outlawing fax machines, censoring television broadcasts and taking prisoners of conscience, Burma has been called the most information-starved country on earth. One example involved an attack on the convoy of Nobel Peace Laureate and democratic opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, during her brief release from house arrest in 2003. Eyewitnesses estimated some 60 dead in the ensuing clash, while the SPDC reported only four.
...
On August 8, 1988, at the height of three-weeks of carnage, junta soldiers opened fire on thousands of unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Yangon. Reporting some 500 dead ... the massacre of 8-8-88 is believed by ambassadorial staffs that witnessed it to have claimed over 10,000 lives — more, that is, than Tiananmen Square.

They claimed 500 dead, it likely turned out to be over 10,000. That's a factor of 20, which would imply not 90 tsunami casualties, but 1,800 — and if you're going to lie by a factor of 20, then why not 200 or whatever number suits your dictatorial fancy?

Not to be a Broken Window type, but the tsunami provided a unique opportunity to make some real progress in ending the Burmese nightmare. The international political community, and the international charitable community, are dropping the ball. Which doesn't stop fools from laying it all at the United States' doorstep.

How very sad.