The Scandal Of Tsunami Relief: Sad Proof That Bush And Blair Would Rather Spend Money Killing People Rather Than Saving Them


Governments can't prevent natural disasters. Not even I can think of a way to blame Tony Blair for the tsunami that has destroyed much of Asia. (Though it is possible that America's selfish determination to ignore the Kyoto Protocol might be in some way responsible for this particular disaster.)

But, just as we have responsibilities to our families and our communities, so the Governments of rich, well-established countries have responsibilities to help other nations. Individuals, taxed up to their eyeballs by greedy and incompetent Governments, cannot possibly manage to send all the help needed in Asia.

Of course, `responsibility' isn't a concept which means much to George Bush or Tony Blair.

What a pity it is for the millions who need help as a result of the earthquake in Asia that there is no oil to be `rescued' in Thailand or Sri Lanka.

If there was a major oilfield in the middle of Thailand the Americans would be in there like a shot - pledging aid in return for oil. That's their usual self-centred way of helping people out. The Americans have proved time and time again that they will only help when they can see a way of making a buck. Now, under Blair, Britain seems to be following the same ruthless approach when creating its foreign policies. `Starving? Struggling to cope with a disaster? Need help? Forget it, unless you've got something we want.'

Bush and Blair have together spent billions of taxpayers' money killing people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Blair in particular spent public money against the wishes of the people who pay the bills. He deceived Parliament and the electors so that they would pay for a war he wanted but they didn't. The total bill for cluster bombs, landmines, rockets and all the other lethal weaponry is likely to exceed £1,000 billion. So far Bush and Blair have managed to kill 100,000 innocent civilians in Iraq alone - mostly women and children. (That is, coincidentally, around the same number as have been killed by the earthquake in Asia).

Bush and Blair have pushed Afghanistan and Iraq into chaos and destroyed their fragile infrastructures. They have further destabilised the Middle East and put their own citizens at risk of counter-attack from terrorists.

But Britain's initial offer of aid to the countries where five million people are homeless, injured, hungry or at risk of disease was just £500,000. I suspect that David Blunkett spent more than that on the bizarre and meaningless investigation into his own `visa for the mistress's nanny' scandal. Half a million quid is just an expenses claim for a couple of New Labour MPs.

British voters want their Government to help. They would gladly see some of their taxes being used to save lives in Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Thailand. But Blair doesn't seem to know - or care - what his employers really want. Only after it was made clear to them that the British people expected more of their Government did Blair and Company dig a little deeper into the nation's coffers. (They will, no doubt, use this as an excuse for huge tax increases in the near future.)

`The emergency relief is of almost Biblical proportions,' said Chancellor Gordon Brown on the radio, `and that is why we will put whatever money is necessary behind the international effort.' It sounded good but it was just more typical New Labour spin. At that point the New Labour Government had offered just half a million pounds in aid to the five million people desperately needing food, water and medicines and to the countries struggling to repair their damaged infrastructure.

(Where, you might wonder, was Blair when news of the crisis broke? On one of his endless free holidays, perhaps? Not a bad guess. Without much chance of a decent photo opportunity he was tucked away comfortably in Egypt, nowhere to be seen - leaving whichever Ministers weren't busy sorting out visas for their mistress's nannies to offer up the spin to the media. Blair has truly shown us where his heart lies. He is presumably too busy planning his next illegal invasion to spend time worrying about the starving millions on the other side of the world.)

The initial offer of help from America (the country which loves to remind us that it is the richest nation in the world) was typically mean. I would not be surprised if their total offer of £18 million (less than an A list Hollywood film star will expect to be paid when the movie about the earthquake is made) was tied up with clauses designed to ensure that American corporations will be the only real beneficiaries.

When criticised for their pathetic offers of help both Governments were quick to defend themselves. Britain doubled its offer of aid to £1,000,000. And then pushed it up to £15,000,000. And, under pressure, took it up even higher. Bush, ignoring the fact that the people of Asia need help not spin, went on television to tell the world that America is a generous country.

It would, of course, have been far more helpful if Blair had offered to send a large chunk of our army over there to help rebuild roads and bridges and to provide field hospitals and distribute food and water.

But Blair couldn't do that because the British army is scattered around the world killing innocent people and destroying - rather than mending - vital roads and bridges.

A great, caring Prime Minister would have devoted energy, time and money to dealing with what was within hours perceived as one of the greatest tragedies of modern times. A caring Prime Minister would have cut his latest holiday short, and come home to ensure that his Government did everything it could to help its own citizens (many of whom are in hospital abroad) and to help the citizens of those Asian nations in so much trouble.

But `great' and `caring' are not words which fit easily alongside the name Blair.

In my heart, I really don't suppose Blair gives a toss about what has happened in Asia. He prefers to take his holidays (preferably freebies) closer to home. Besides, his best pal George W Bush hasn't told him he has to do something. And Blair doesn't get out of bed in the morning unless Bush has told him to.

Britain, now effectively the 51st State, is it seems, unable to act on his own. Blair's Britain does what Bush's America does.

And America is not a good example to follow.

America - our modern mentor where foreign policy is concerned - has behaved appallingly when other countries need help and is the meanest country in the world when it comes to foreign aid - coming 22 out of 22.

Denmark, one of the most generous nations, gives 1.01% of its GDP to foreign aid.

In contrast, America gives 0.1% - and most of that goes to Israel for arms purchases (from American arms companies). America's foreign aid is organised in such a way that the only country which ever really benefits is America. America sees another nation's problems simply as an opportunity to gain wealth or power or both. When George W Bush boasts about his nation's generosity he forgets to mention this. George W Bush regards America's invasion of Iraq as `foreign aid'.

When the Americans actually do give something away it is usually something that neither they nor anyone else will really want. For example, in Afghanistan the Americans dropped peanut butter to villages they had destroyed. They then flew in boxes full of school satchels. Which American decided that school satchels and peanut butter are the thing to win the hearts of the people of Afghanistan who are reduced to living in tents in the middle of a rocky desert? The Americans seem unaware that the children have no books and no schools; they are presumably not aware that 90% of children in Afghanistan don't actually go to school but spend their days scavenging for bits of scrap metal (guess where that comes from) or building coffins (one of the few growth industries in yet another country destroyed by Bush and Blair).

And it is worth remembering that America only entered World War I when both sides were pretty well exhausted by the fighting. Once it finally agreed to join the war, America demanded that its own economic and political objectives be taken into account when the war was over. One of those objectives was access to oil. And America made a fortune out of the Second World War too. The Americans entered the war when it was half over and demanded that the world be restructured so that they would be on top. They wanted control of the world's oil and they insisted that the dollar be the world's only significant currency. For the Americans, World War II was a business opportunity that was too good to miss.

The initial response of Blair's Government to the crisis in Asia caused by the earthquake which has destroyed so much of that part of the world is just one more piece of evidence damning Blair, his Government and his party.

Has Britain ever had a more loathsome, detestable creature as its Prime Minister?

I can't think of one.

Has Britain ever had a more dangerous, more destructive, more uncaring Government?

Simple question.

Simple answer.

No.




December 30th 2004


Copyright Vernon Coleman 2004 Home