Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok here is a question. How much aid should the United States give Pakistan because of the floods?

The U.S. has a real chance to win some hearts and minds in Pakistan. Considering the economic times how much should we give to Pakistan if you think we should at all?

There are many issues to consider. How much aid do we provide for our own people in the same situations, hell in different situations also? How much can we afford to give. How valuable is it to win their hearts and mind? Is it priceless, is it worth anything at all? Should we even ask such questions when people need help? Are we obligated to help them. I'm sure you guys and gals can come up with more.

The U.S. has already donated $76 million, a pretty hefty amount, but this is actually quite small compared to the hundreds of millions we gave them during the 2004 tsunami and the 2005 earthquake.

On an interesting side note how should we deliver this aid, when the U.S. had the military deliver aid in 2004 and 2005 it drastically improved our image to the victims versus just letting the local authorities carry out distribution.



I want to provide help, because it is good to do, it could be a great PR thing to do also. But seeing as there is so much domestically that could use that funding I'm kind of on the fence, especially when I hear people throwing around numbers in the hundreds of millions. Pakistani good will could be worth quite a bit, but could it be worth hundreds of millions? But then I feel guilty for even thinking that way and just want to send them whatever they need. But then I see this $100,000,000, that is a lot of 0s especially when we have such a large debt ourselves.

I figure the best way to handle it is to have a discussion.

I edited the question a little bit based on some of the responses to give a little more insight into the situation.

50 cent...The rapper, not the coin...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooops, actually, I forgot about all the floods over there, I take that back!

After yesterdays innings I'd say none.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadnik wrote:Ooops, actually, I forgot about all the floods over there, I take that back!

oooh, maybe I should have read the post first.

Sorry forgot to mention the floods I just assumed everybody was thinking about that too. I've edited the post.

Even given the floods, it would be a better idea to withdraw so-called foreign aid. Such aid distorts the local economies, and much of it gets skimmed off along the way by the third-parties contracted to deliver it.

It's like debt-relief. It sounds good in principle, but the fact of the matter is that countries (and people!) who work to pay off their debts go on to grow economically.

Closer to home that's also why I think that Red River "flood" victims aren't victims: they know that they live on a flood plain. Take the earthquakes in Chile, for example. The Chileans know earthquakes, and were far better prepared for them than the Haitians were for their most recent one. It's more complex than "Well, the Haitians have a joke for a gov't, terrible infrastructure, and no indigenous resources, and the Chileans do." But the fact is that every link of dependence and leverage you give people, is another pound they forgo the ability to carry themselves.

Either we subsidize a lifestyle that requires continual intervention to alleviate the burdens of being insulated from the effects of disaster, or we withdraw and let them sort themselves out.

Nurglitch wrote:Even given the floods, it would be a better idea to withdraw so-called foreign aid. Such aid distorts the local economies, and much of it gets skimmed off along the way by the third-parties contracted to deliver it.

It's like debt-relief. It sounds good in principle, but the fact of the matter is that countries (and people!) who work to pay off their debts go on to grow economically.

Closer to home that's also why I think that Red River "flood" victims aren't victims: they know that they live on a flood plain. Take the earthquakes in Chile, for example. The Chileans know earthquakes, and were far better prepared for them than the Haitians were for their most recent one. It's more complex than "Well, the Haitians have a joke for a gov't, terrible infrastructure, and no indigenous resources, and the Chileans do." But the fact is that every link of dependence and leverage you give people, is another pound they forgo the ability to carry themselves.

Either we subsidize a lifestyle that requires continual intervention to alleviate the burdens of being insulated from the effects of disaster, or we withdraw and let them sort themselves out.

ftr most people on earth live on flood plains. Just so happens rivers were the best place to get water when people wondered where to build their homes before the days of the tanker truck and water pumps.

I see what your saying. But in the case of a flood or another natural disaster it's totally different. They need the money to repair the damage and get on with their lives. They wont gain a dependence on aid by recovering what they already had.

Except that Pakistan (well, the lowland parts at least) experience annual flooding. The problem isn't that there's flooding where there wasn't flooding before. The problem is that there's extra flooding. That means several things. It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.

Here's the thing: Pakistan is not lacking for rich people. It's not lacking for engineers, architects, contractors, or money to fund infrastructure. It's because they have decided not to.

Would you donate money to a family that lost everything because they decided to skimp on home-owner's insurance in order to buy a bigger pool for their backyard? Maybe you would, and that's noble, but you know what? You aren't helping out the disadvantaged, you're facilitating stupidity. You're not helping that family get their first member in college, you're giving them what they would have gotten from the insurance company had they not decided on a bigger pool for their backyard. It's not punishing them for their mistakes, but refusing to continue to throw good money after bad.

I really don't know what kind of infrastructure would cope with the kind of floods they have just had. There are entire towns under water. Are they supposed to build everything on eight foot high stilts? Still wouldn't have saved the people who got swept away in the water and died or drowned. Your being totally unrealistic.

It's not unknown in some parts of the world.

You're being unrealistic.

I'll defer to your expertise.

Tell me what kind of infrastructure helps with that sort of flood so I can patent the idea and make a mint.

It's only on Dakka that you'd find people arguing that you shouldn't give a nation emergency relief for their own good. For feth's sake.

Nurglitch, gdp per capita in Pakistan is about $1,000 per head, and it is a country with on-going instability. This places a substantial limit on any infrastructure development, it is not sensible to expect them to build flood levees to exceptional levels when the road networks, plumbing and electricity remains so undeveloped.


To answer the OP's question... yes, the nations of the world should contribute considerably to aid relief in Pakistan. It would build tremendous goodwill, but that's really besides the main point - aid will stop people dying. Seriously, some things are just that simple.

And yeah, $100 million seems like a big number. It is a big number. But your country has an economy that generates 13 thousand billion every year. In the scheme of that this is a very small thing.

Nurglitch wrote:Except that Pakistan (well, the lowland parts at least) experience annual flooding. The problem isn't that there's flooding where there wasn't flooding before. The problem is that there's extra flooding. That means several things. It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.

Here's the thing: Pakistan is not lacking for rich people. It's not lacking for engineers, architects, contractors, or money to fund infrastructure. It's because they have decided not to.

Would you donate money to a family that lost everything because they decided to skimp on home-owner's insurance in order to buy a bigger pool for their backyard? Maybe you would, and that's noble, but you know what? You aren't helping out the disadvantaged, you're facilitating stupidity. You're not helping that family get their first member in college, you're giving them what they would have gotten from the insurance company had they not decided on a bigger pool for their backyard. It's not punishing them for their mistakes, but refusing to continue to throw good money after bad.

whatwhat wrote:Tell me what kind of infrastructure helps with that sort of flood so I can patent the idea and make a mint.

Wait, I've got one. Pakistan is suffering now "because they decided not to" build a fifty foot deep flood channel system throughout the entire country. No?

Get real. Your argument sounds like an excuse not a reason for not giving aid. A selfish excuse.

We should give them more money to fight the Taliban...and make sure their nuclear arsenal does not fall into the wrong hands.

sebster:

It's not for their own good. It's for our own good. I don't think we should send aid to countries experiencing a disaster through their own intransigence regarding infrastructure.

Pakistan, if my co-workers were right about their homeland where they averred people would rob you for a sandwich, is a complete feth-up, and that's not because they started off poor and under-developed. They've been going steadily downhill since Independence and it's been precisely because their own moneyed elites give much less of a damn about their poor and their national infrastructure than your average Joe on the street in the West. They haven't just not gained the infrastructure we take for granted in the West, they've also lost a considerable amount.

The current disaster is man-made, and it's man-made by the political instability that the Pakistanis have manufactured by and for themselves. It's most certainly been exacerbated by aid and intervention on the part of other nations. And the aid that will be contributed will likewise either be wasted, or go towards facilitating a greater disaster down the road.

If you want to make the argument that we should contribute aid to save lives, well guess what, you're saving 100 now so that 1000 can die next year. Something I don't think people understand is just how incredibly crowded Pakistan is. If New Orleans had half of Islamabad's population, Hurricane Katrina would have killed thousands of people, simply from the odds.

But hey, take up the White Man's burden and help a brown dude out. It's not like they can help themselves, right?

While I see what nurglitch is trying to say but the amount of rainwater released during this year is phemononal. No margin of error could account for such heavy rainfall.

Actually the margin of error is built in after you account for variation in rainfall and drainage. Speaking of drainage, was anyone else aware of the massive deforestation that's been going on in the highlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan? People need firewood. Pity about the effect of deforestation on people down-river.

Like you said, this area sees annual flooding. Infact, the depend on the flooding to grow crops in that area and they've never had such a massive disaster before. The amount of rainfall this year (16 inches) was greater than the amount of rain released on Louisiana during Hurricane Katrina. No amount of "margin of error" could account for this.

Nurglitch wrote:It's not for their own good. It's for our own good. I don't think we should send aid to countries experiencing a disaster through their own intransigence regarding infrastructure.

Pakistan, if my co-workers were right about their homeland where they averred people would rob you for a sandwich, is a complete feth-up, and that's not because they started off poor and under-developed. They've been going steadily downhill since Independence and it's been precisely because their own moneyed elites give much less of a damn about their poor and their national infrastructure than your average Joe on the street in the West. They haven't just not gained the infrastructure we take for granted in the West, they've also lost a considerable amount.

Yes, there is corruption and instability and this has impacted growth and infrastructure development in Pakistan. I have no idea how letting people die will somehow spur the people into somehow choosing not to have corruption and instability.

But hey, take up the White Man's burden and help a brown dude out. It's not like they can help themselves, right?

Are you deliberately misusing the idea of white man's burden, or do you just not understand it? Because if it's the latter I'd be happy to explain it, and explain why it doesn’t relate to what I’ve mentioned in this thread. If it’s the former is their any point in continuing this conversation?

Nurglitch wrote:It means that the infrastructure built to deal with the extra water was either non-existent because some Pakistani engineer/civil servant decided that it wasn't worth their time to build a margin of error into their work, or because they didn't bother to build it after all.

As you can see I wasn't claiming that Pakistani civil engineers had simply failed to build sufficient drainage to handle abnormally large amounts of rainfall. It's not the case that existing infrastructure was shoddily built, but that existing infrastructure was designed to be incapable of handling emergency measures. Good to know.

Hey, know something about rope? The amount of weight a rope can handle is actually 10x more than the quoted amount because that's the margin of error required for safe use. But then, since we know it's not a matter of having a sufficient margin of error for emergencies, but not having a rope in the first place because the budget goes towards more important things, why worry about how much of a margin of error was built into non-existent drainage infrastructure in the first place.

Something else to think about: A cat falls off the 10th floor of an apartment building. Until it reaches the 10th floor, it falls without ever getting hurt. The excuse "Well, it never happened that way before" is a weak argument when it comes to dealing with changing climate (and hence weather systems), deforestation, and changing drainage.

Should have had better levies.

sebster:

Letting people die won't change Pakistan's budgetary emphasis on military spending, or affect their budget, but neither will not letting people die, and either you let some people die now, or more people will die later because this will happen again next year. In fact it's not that simple, but the choice to lend aid is: you either give sufficient amounts or you don't. At least if you don't give, then you're better prepared when disaster strikes in your own 'back-yard'.

I'm using Kipling's reference to the "White Man's Burden" to denigrate the advocacy of interventionist "aid" policies as wrong-headed paternalism.

Nurglitch wrote:Letting people die won't change Pakistan's budgetary emphasis on military spending

Pakistani expenditure is around 2.5%, which is about average for world expenditure and in line with the neighbour with whom they share on-going hostilities.

Now, there is a sensible argument to be made that Pakistan needs to redirect more of its armed forces away from the border with India and towards its internal problems, but that has nothing to do with the overall size of military. Funnily enough, by supplying aid to Pakistan now, we gain greater influence within the country, so that we might be able to encourage greater action against the Taliban.

or affect their budget, but neither will not letting people die, and either you let some people die now, or more people will die later because this will happen again next year.

Yes, because if we provide emergency aid then Pakistan will learn nothing from what happened. You're being silly.

In fact it's not that simple, but the choice to lend aid is: you either give sufficient amounts or you don't. At least if you don't give, then you're better prepared when disaster strikes in your own 'back-yard'.

An expenditure of $100 million from the US will materially draw down on it's own coffers, given it produces $13 thousand billion every year.

I'm using Kipling's reference to the "White Man's Burden" to denigrate the advocacy of interventionist "aid" policies as wrong-headed paternalism.

You're failing to distinguish between the notion of on-going charity by people who consider themselves honour bound to do so as a product of their inherent racial superiority, and emergency relief to a poor country. Given you know the source of the phrase in Kipling's poem, I'm guessing you're familiar with the poem itself, and chose to ignore the actual problem with the poem is its racist outlook, not the idea of charity.

It depends on wether or not they give up Bin Laden first.

How much help did Pakistan give to the US when Hurricane Katrina sacked New Orleans?

At least that much should be sufficient.

The news showed anti America demonstrations in Pakistan the other night. Sorry but that doesn't make me feel too generous.

snurl wrote:How much help did Pakistan give to the US when Hurricane Katrina sacked New Orleans?

Do you have any idea of the relative wealth of the two countries?

The news showed anti America demonstrations in Pakistan the other night. Sorry but that doesn't make me feel too generous.

You saw some people in a protest, and assumed those protests were representative of the country as a whole?

whatwhat wrote:Tell me what kind of infrastructure helps with that sort of flood so I can patent the idea and make a mint.

Houseboats.

sebster wrote:
Yes, because if we provide emergency aid then Pakistan will learn nothing from what happened. You're being silly.

I think the more damning criticism is that, based on the initial premise of the argument, refusing to help is no more or less likely to produce change than helping is. After all, if the problem is that the state is corrupt and oppressive, then both the provision of aid and the withholding of aid fail to address the actual issue.

For what its worth, there is a lot of research that suggests providing unsupervised aid is highly detrimental to the social state of any given nation, as that aid most often is only used to reinforce the fundamental inequality that ensures the existence of an oppressive government. As such, I can see why aid donations should be avoided, but that doesn't really apply to directly orchestrated civil engineering projects, or food distribution missions. There are reasonable criticisms of both those things, notably the ones that follow from intrusion and dependency, but there are also reasonable responses, notably that we want to be intrusive in order to make states like Pakistan dependent on us. Of course, its that latter bit that makes Pakistan extremely unlikely to accept direct, foreign aid.

sebster wrote: But your country has an economy that generates 13 thousand billion every year. In the scheme of that this is a very small thing.

I didn't even know that was a number.

I'm honestly not one for foreign aid over domestic, as it is economically better to give domestic aid (less money gets skimmed on its way to the people that need it, and costs of providing the aid are generally less, meaning more bang for your buck), but yeah, I would send aid to a potential hotspot in the middle east. We as a country need to do all we can to make that entire region stable and Pro-US. Especially emerging nuclear powers.

dogma wrote:For what its worth, there is a lot of research that suggests providing unsupervised aid is highly detrimental to the social state of any given nation, as that aid most often is only used to reinforce the fundamental inequality that ensures the existence of an oppressive government.

Sure thing, long term aid programs where the funding is provided direct to government have frequently had little actual benefit on the ground. Of course, those aid programs are more about purchasing the loyalty of governments than anything else.

But this is direct aid relief, administered through NGOs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:I didn't even know that was a number.

National economies are a lot bigger than people realise. It's part of the reason that efforts to scare people over debt levels tends to use whole numbers and not percentages of

I'm honestly not one for foreign aid over domestic, as it is economically better to give domestic aid (less money gets skimmed on its way to the people that need it, and costs of providing the aid are generally less, meaning more bang for your buck),

Well, sort of. Counter to that is how few resources are already available, and so how much can be done with so little. Some of the work done with micro-loan programs is amazing, people are being given economic independance and livelihoods so that they can put their kids through school... all from an original loan of a hundred dollars or less. Over here you can't change a person's life by lending them the money to buy a sewing machine, but in many impoverished countries it really is as easy as that.

but yeah, I would send aid to a potential hotspot in the middle east. We as a country need to do all we can to make that entire region stable and Pro-US. Especially emerging nuclear powers.

There's also that, for sure. A couple of weeks ago a muslim fellow at work mentioned that back home in Saudi Arabia there was charity, but it was only really substantial at Ramadan, and it was always flashy, for show. He mentioned how here there's always aid for the poor, government provided. He said our model was much more Islamic than any Islamic country.