It's a question Colin Powell had to address on Meet the Press yesterday. Why had the American contribution to tsunami relief started at just $15 million and then leapt up to $350 million? Was the US really "stingy", a word the UN's Jan Egeland had used to describe rich nations' giving habits. Is the $40 million (albeit mostly from private donations) to be spent on the President's inauguration later this month an excessive amount?

Some listeners have called to suggest that oil-rich Arab nations are reluctant to help their fellow Muslims in places like Indonesia (and hypocritically so.) Professor Juan Cole disputes this on his blog ("Middle Eastern Contributions to Tsunamic Relief in Context").

Not sure what you think? CNN has an up-to-the-minute tally of tsunami relief contributions from around the world.

The LA Times, like Jeffrey Sachs on WNYC today, suggests that America's foreign aid budget is much smaller than most people believe, and far less than they wish it to be.

What's your take?

Posted by leboheme at 02:56 PM