Samoa Tsunami

[George Beverly]

How well are the authorities supplying aid to those in need? Should foreign governments in a time of economic 'squeeze' supply other nations in trouble with aid? I think that in a case such as this where no human action caused the disaster then immediate aid is necessary, yet in cases where human fault has contributed to the disaster a more laissez faire approach is required. What's your view?

[anna]

The situation in Samoa looks really bad, and I think that it is really important, as with any big disaster, to act immediately. Saving lives and initial clear-up is important. However, it is also important, I think, to continue this long after the disaster has hit. In Samoa, the entire coast has been all but destroyed as it is only a few feet above sea level. The major tourist areas, such as beaches, will have been ruined and that industry will take more than a couple of months of emergency aid to rebuilt. Similarly, hundreds of houses have been swept away making many people homeless. These need to be rebuilt and communities need to be reformed. So while I agree with George that immediate aid is very important, I think we should invest in a more long-term approach too. It is a shame that as soon as the disaster stops hitting our TV screens every night, people stop helping.

When it is a human at fault, as opposed to a natural disaster, I still think we should give aid. It is rarely the fault of those worst effected - a greedy leader, an expensive and devastating war, civil unrest, poor governance and hyper inflation, or whatever, tend to be the fault of a minority of a population - so it should not be the ordinary people who are punished for happening to live where they do.

[edmason]

Yes of course provide emergency aid to Samoa and anywhere that has suffered from a natural disaster. As the wise man once said, government should never try to do what it cannot do, but must always act when it needs to. Governments around the world who can help the Samoans should help; the issues is complicated by the fact that people from across the world end up footing the bill with, honestly, little or no immediately tangible benefits to their daily lives.

That's why I think aid under other circumstances has to be tied to strict requirements. Should we not only give aid to countries provided they work towards democratic or environmental reforms? One of the arguments commonly used against aid to developing countries is corruption: tie aid to a requirement to open up government and you allay this problem somewhat.

Further, climate change affects all countries, but is often measured in human terms; New Orleanais made homeless, Samoans made refugees. The human cost of natural disasters is greater in developing countries, so it's only right, and a good investment for American, French and British taxpayers, to ask poorer countries to work hardest to fight climate change.

[anna]

The problem with aid-with-ties is that the people that have to open up the government or be less corrupt or allow elections are not the people that need the aid the most. By witholding aid from a country yes we punish the leaders by showing our disapproval, but we punish ordinary people more. Ordinary people that are already being punished once by having the misfortune to live in a corrupt or poorly run country.

I think that if we can help, then we should. Good governance should be encouraged and less corruption is all well and good, but humanitarian aid doesn't have to be a selfish action so it can simply be to help someone less well off, not for any tangible benefit here.