Schroeder and Fischer

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's announcement yesterday that Germany would give €500 million in tsunami aid relief created little stir -- rumors had been circulating for days in Berlin that such an announcement would come. During a press conference Wednesday, Schroeder and his foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, were in their element -- direct, focused, in control. Times of crisis have a way of bringing out the best in people, and this is no less true for governments. The horrific floods of 2002 -- though incomparable with the current South Asia disaster -- and the stately way Schroeder handled them, boosted his ratings at the polls at a key time. Wednesday's announcement was no different. Schroeder's generosity will likely help his Social Democrats on Sunday, when voters go to the polls in the north German state of Schleswig-Holstein.

Once again, the opposition is mute. They can't praise Schroeder too loudly, for obvious reasons. Nor can they be critical. Dietrich Austermann, CDU budget expert, did, however, say Schroder's response to the crisis was akin to throwing money at a problem without caring how much was really needed to solve it. The Greens, who are the junior coalition partner of Schroeder's party, were quick to denounce Austermann's response as "cynical and inhuman." While Schroeder and Fischer have hit their stride in these days of crisis, the €500 million pledge comes with some questions. Chief among these: Where is the money going to come from? The figure makes up only .02 percent of the total annual budget, but Germany isn't exactly cash-rich. The Chancellor said that the money must come out of the execution of this year's budget, and that "in the following years would be a part of the usual federal budget." One thing in Schroeder's favor is that no one is likely to be too critical about how the money is made available. "We can start from the position that no one in the cabinet would raise objections," said Schroeder.

A second pertinent question is where the €500 million figure came from. When asked this, Schroeder aswered curtly that it was what was "appropriate" and "necessary."

Finally, came the issue of whether the money is a passive bribe. Some commentators have speculated that India's decision to turn down foreign monetary aid has something to do with its push for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Germany wants a seat just as badly, and reporters lost no time in quizzing Schroeder a connection between a seat and the €500 million. Schroder smiled, but insisted that "one has nothing to do with the other." Germany would be helping, even if "there was no discussion going on about the Security Council," he said. (3 p.m. CET)

A Tempest Too Small for Even a Teacup

Only in the wacky field of international politics could a humanitarian disaster become to tool for one-upsmanship. The last few days have seen an outpouring of donations from all over the world, but also increasingly heated words from both sides of the Atlantic. Is the issue of tsunami relief going to be the new Iraq invasion, in terms of trans-Atlantic relations? Please, 2005, don't turn out to be that kind of year.

The war of words began last week when Jan Egeland, United Nations undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, said, "We were more generous when we were less rich, many of the rich countries. And it is beyond me, why are we so stingy, really."

When people talk about rich Western countries, they usually mean a specific, Northern American one. So, the next day, President Bush spoke from his ranch in Texas and called the comments "very misguided and ill informed." He also announced that the US was forming a "core group" of nations to provide aid -- a la the coalition of the willing involved in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Egeland quickly back-pedalled, saying he'd been "misinterpreted" and that his comment had "nothing to do with any particular country".

Andrew Natsios, administrator of the US Agency for International Aid, felt free to comment on specific countries. When asked about France's response to the tsunami on a Fox News program, Natsios said "The aid programme in France is not that big." He added that "I'm not an expert in the French aid programme but they do not tend to be dominant figures in aid."

Which the French, of course, just loved. "I was surprised to learn of the shocking and uncalled for comments you thought fit to make," said French ambassador Jean-David Levitte, in an open letter to Natsios the next day. "I would be interested in learning your reasons for misguidedly impugning France this way." French President Jacques Chirac is reported to have gone even further this week, according to comments made in the French satirical weekly Le Canard Enchaine. "Bush is making propaganda by deploying huge resources. He is using it as an opportunity to give the United States an image other than that of the Iraq war," Chirac said, according to the newspaper.

Another report, published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, claims that Chirac fears that "that Washington is deliberately circumventing the United Nations and wants to compete with the international organization."

Without citing its sources, the newspaper's report said that "President Chirac wants to hinder America from using its ad hoc-organized aid operation to set a precedent that will lastingly weaken the role of the United Nations."

There's hope that the flap has blown over already, though. The EU's foreign policy head Javier Solana met with top US officials on Tuesday, and a spokesperson said the whole 'who pays more, who pays less' rhetoric wasn't a part of the conversation.

As an editorial in Wednesday's Financial Times Deutschland said -- after describing the international aid-giving as a "coldly calculated competition of mercy" -- in the end, "the actual goal must not be forgotten: effective and quick relief for the victims." (1:45 p.m. CET)

What the World Gives

There has been much talk lately about the generosity the world has shown in donating aid to the countries devastated by the Dec. 26 tsunami in South Asia.

The outpouring of both private donations and money from public coffers has been astounding. The total funds pledged from governments across the globe now tops $4 billion and hundreds of millions more have been donated by private citizens. But how much do industrial countries give the developing world when the countries aren't struck by disaster -- times when they need help creating sustainable agriculture or environmentally friendly manufacturing methods? The stated United Nation's goal is for every industrialized country to offer up to 0.70 percent of its gross national product in foreign aid. As it turns out, only four countries in the world meet that goal, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The average is only 0.41 percent of GNP. And the aid given by the United States, the world's most generous in terms of the absolute dollar amounts, with a whopping $15.79 billion in aid given in 2003, only equals 0.14 percent of its GNP. (12:25 p.m. CET)

One possible, if small, silver lining in the South Asian disaster is the effect that it may have had on the area's nightmarish pirate problem. The modern-day pirates who ply the Indian Ocean eschew wooden legs and eye patches for machine guns, Bowie knives, grappling hooks and -- importantly -- small, high-speed boats like those that were destroyed by the thousands on Dec. 26.

An AP story on depth changes in the Strait of Malacca off the coast of Sumatra, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes, quoted Peter Doherty of the International Hydrographic Organization as saying "Maybe there's less pirates now."