Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. We take your concerns very seriously.
However, as you can see from below excerpts from the White house and transcripts from subsequent interview with Fox, Mr Egeland’s comments were misrepresented.
We Hope that this helps to clarify the matter.
White House Spokesman's Reaction to the "stingy" comment
QUESTION: Was the president as upset as Colin Powell was about U.N. humanitarian official saying that some rich nations are being stingy with aid?
DUFFY: Well, I'd encourage you to look at his remarks, his recent remarks. I think he's said as much that he's been misquoted and sort of misinterpreted.
As I said, the United States is the single largest contributor to international aid in the world. We outmatch the contributions of other nations combined, we'll continue to do so.
So I would encourage you to look at his remarks and maybe contact his office, because I think some of those were taken out of context.
Transcript of JE on fox news today at 1:30
Rick (Fox) a u.n. official says that's not going to be enough. we can understand that. a country as rich as the u.s. could afford to give away a little bit more money, you would think. with us now, we have the undersecretary of humanitarian affairs for the united nations, his name is jan eggland. thank you for being with us. what do you think? you just heard trent duffy down there, spokesperson basically for the white house. what do you think of his comments? >>
JE: well, i agree with every word. the united states is a very generous donor to our disaster relief operations in the -- in helping the tsunami victims in southeast asia. there is a very generous outflow now from the united states in addition to the initial $15 million, we've heard of $20 million coming from usaid, the u.s. air force, many number of organizations are helping. we see the same response in europe, within asia and elsewhere. it will be, i think, perhaps the biggest relief operation of its kind ever.
Rick so you are getting a good response. i mean, are you satisfied as of right now from the wealthiest countries of the world? >>
JE: in this emergency phase, yes, i'm very satisfied. i have commented on earlier occasions on the general trend from rich countries in the world to give less of their riches to development assistance, to general assistance to the poorest nations, and here it is my job to be dissatisfied, i always want donors and more donors to give, because i see refugees starving, i see children not getting medical help because we have too little funds, in the u.n., in the red cross, in organizations.
RICK: when people watch at home and hear you say that, and they're not rich countries, but they have a little money to give out of their individual pockets, where should they send it? to red cross and owings like that or could the u.n. use some of that? >>
JE: well, the united nations has excellent operations as we speak in southeast asia, unicef, world food program, world health organization, but it's equally good to give through the red cross, through the nongovernmental organizations of which there are so many excellent ones in the united states that are so close partners to us in the united nations in the field.
Rick: you know, i'm sure there are people sitting behind me here and at home watching saying, please, god, make sure this money gets into the hands of the right people, the people that need it. how do we, please, make sure this doesn't turn into a corruption story? >>
JE: yeah, and i understand people are afraid of that, and there have been too many bad examples in the past, but i've been working in international relief human rights and relief work since i was 25 years old. the work has been never -- has never been more monitored, there's never been more quality control, it's never been more effective. for $1 a day, we can feed a child, for less than a dollar, we can immunize a child. it is perhaps the most effective use of money anywhere in the world given what we get in return.
Rick: bring let you go, talk about immunization. i know the u.n. put out a statement about a half-hour ago and said the disease problem may be worse than the tsunami itself, may kill more people in the long run. what are you hearing about that?
JE: now that's exactly what i and others have been saying since it all started in -- on sunday, that there are two waves of destruction. the first is the wall of water, the tidal wave itself, and it has taken tens of thousands of lives but many more could now die because of infected drinking water. it's all polluted, sanitation systems are down. children drink sewage virtually, and that will lead to -- to disease and death. so the relief effort is now concentrating on giving that kind of assistance. rick: speaking of relief effort, please keep us updated on this. we'll check back in with you. >>
JE: thank you for having me.
Great e-mail. My hope is the W looks to other outfits (including faith based) that are not crooked. We'll see...
Looking forward to it.
You GO girl!
You da man! Way to go! Eagerly waiting for the post......
You also da girl! Sorry!
Nice job.
bump
Great job Howlin. Post his email address and I'll send him a polite letter :-)
Good job Howlin..proud of ya.
Tell it like it is. He said stingy and he can't take it back.
Thata girl!
What a LOAD OF HOOEY!!
That has to be an automated response, they don't address your main point [raising taxes to fund aid].
P.S. Forget about a UN and/or world tax; it's not going to happen.
LOL! Nothing like twisting the knife when it's in the wound!
And isn't it odd the UN didn't direct you to the actual transcript of his remarks?
I still can't find one.
This is to good not to ping.
Good job Howlin.
The UN seems to have its fair share of PR bungles. Oh how awful for them.
I have joined you now in the ranks of the UN emailers. I'm sure they'll be coming to get us soon. lol
The fact that the UN needed to respond at all speaks volumes for how much FR is a force and ho badly they have hurt themselves recently.