Tsunami aid 'went to the richest'

BBC News ^ | 06/25/05

[TigerLikesRooster]

Last Updated: Saturday, 25 June, 2005, 02:48 GMT 03:48 UK

 

Tsunami aid 'went to the richest'

 

Thousands in Aceh have not been able to move out of camps

Six months after the Asian tsunami, a leading international charity says the poorest victims have benefited the least from the massive relief effort.

A survey by Oxfam found that aid had tended to go to businesses and landowners, exacerbating the divide between rich and poor.

The poor were likely to spend much longer in refugee camps where it is harder to find work or rebuild lives.

Oxfam has called for aid to go to the poorest and most marginalised.

They must not be left out of reconstruction efforts, the charity said.

HAVE YOUR SAY There is a great deal of room for governments and aid agencies to work closer together J. Mehta, UK Send us your comments

The tsunami in the Indian Ocean on 26 December killed at least 200,000 people in countries as far apart as Indonesia, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Somalia.

David Loyn, the BBC's developing world correspondent, says it is perhaps not surprising that the poorest suffered the most from the disaster itself.

Living in frail shelter, on marginal land, they were literally swept away by the waves, and the survivors among the poorest communities had less access to medical help than richer people did.

Intolerable gaps

The survey points to the marginalisation of dalits - outcasts in India - and specific problems in Sri Lanka where aid has gone to businesses and landowners rather than the landless.

Identifying victims 'to take months'

This poverty gap is worst in Aceh, the Indonesian province which was the most badly affected area, already impoverished by conflict before the tsunami hit.

Half a million survivors were homeless.

Yet the wealthier among them have already been able to move out of temporary camps.

Another survey by a group of British academics monitoring the delivery of aid has found that, six months on, there is little evidence of permanent accommodation being built for most people.

It says starkly that these failures would not be tolerated after a disaster in the developed world.

All aid agencies, as well as regional governments must share some blame for this failure, our correspondent adds.

The unprecedented international response to the tragedy means that the immediate humanitarian demands could be fully funded.

Failure to deliver assistance effectively to the poorest, or to plan properly for the future, reveals fundamental weaknesses in the system.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Those who shout "oppression" loudly on an international stage are usually the well-to-do in the third world, who won't hesitate to skim these donations for themselves.

[Zeppelin]

That's why we should oversee (at the very least) every penny we as Americans donate. None of this "trusting" corrupt third-world governments who thrive on natural disasters because it allows them to skim a "little" off the top.

Where will the UN be on this one?

[Mr. Mojo]

"Foreign aid is the process of taking money from poor people in rich countries giving it to rich people in poor countries."

[sandydipper]

Among other low life attributes stealing is one of Bill Clinton's traits of shame.

[gridlock]

It would be far better for the people to fly over the area and drop the money out of airplanes. Then they could pick up the money from the ground and buy what they need. If the money is concentrated and distributed, there is no way to keep the well-connected from stealing it.

[txroadhawg]

Wait, Aid money goes to business and land owners, those that had assets destroyed, so they could rebuild the ecomony. The people that were living in tin shacks before the tsunami are living in tents now. What's wrong with that?

[Rodney King]

Once again I am vindicated in my not having donated a penny.

[philo]

Tsunami aid 'went to the richest'

So will the African aid

[fatnotlazy]

I had actually heard something about this earlier...that those who suffered the most have received little or nothing.

I gave a nominal amount to a fund drive at the office. But that was it. No more donations for overseas relief. We have people in this country still trying to rebuild after last year's hurricane season. I'd rather give to them.

[brownsfan]

"The people that were living in tin shacks before the tsunami are living in tents now. What's wrong with that?"

Sarcasm?

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #6

Those donations are not intended as business loans.

[txroadhawg]

Not meant as sarcasm, just poor wording. what I meant was they are no worse off then before the wave. I've been to alot of these places before the tsunami, a tent is probably an improvement over what they were living in previous.

[thoughtomator]

Now really, who didn't see this coming?

[txroadhawg]

Not business loans, grants.
All the money should go to people with no assets prior to the tsunami and let the business and land owners wiped out fend for themselves?

[brownsfan]

"Not meant as sarcasm"

Odd concept. Ok, the people there were living in squalor, that can't be debated. After the tsunami, they are living in squalor. Now, if you help the businesses and land owners, the people will continue to live in squalor, they did before didn't they?
Or, do you suggest that with the grants, the businesses will suddenly become more benevolent?
If I were to give money to this sham, (obviously I didn't), I'd rather see a poor family get enough to buy a tent upgrade and maybe a few chickens then to see some relatively rich guy stuff his pockets.

It's aid, it should be available to all who were damaged. Unfortunately, in that part of the world, only the rich and politically connected will get the money.... hey wait a minute... that's how it works here!

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #14

giving out reconstruction loans is not Oxfam's job. It is the job of World Bank or Asia Development Bank.

Those charity donations are for needy folks.

[meema]

As soon as our Navy was invited to leave, I said to myself, these govts don't deserve our help. Certainly NOT OUR MONEY!

[riri]

Well, that's what I was thinking. If you had a business and a beachfront home, should your compensation be the same or less than the guy who lived in a lean-to shelter down on the beach?

[Zeppelin]

Indeed.

At the time, the UN was b*tchin about how stingy we are with our money.

First of all, we were the first ones there, we had three (i think) ships whose sole mission was to desalinize water to make it potable. I think we were pumping out 250,000 gallons of fresh water a day before the UN even organized their meeting to talk about what to do.

Also, we wanted to make sure our money went to the people and not to Kofiesque skimmers who thrive at the expense and sufferring of others.

[txroadhawg]

"...Or, do you suggest that with the grants, the businesses will suddenly become more benevolent?"

Oh no, but you cant rebuild without a local economy. That produces jobs which allow the poor to improve their own standing, if they're so inclined. The bootstrap principle only works if you want to pull on them.