A bit over the top...

Ted Stanger, a US writer and former Newsweek journalist [often seen as the "most Francophile" American citizen] was interviewed on French public television this week to tell how he was shocked by the French reactions after Katrina. Here is his point of view:

"Of course, I am shocked by the mistakes of Bush's administration. But what is wrong for me is the reservations made by many French people to help the USA because it's a rich country [...] This is a political reaction. One shouldn't confuse politics and solidarity. If France had had a great reaction like for the Tsunami in Indonesia, it could have been a great and subtle message to Bush's government. It could have been an opportunity to say: we are not revanchists about Iraq [...] When one sees a rich man falling in the street, one helps him to stand up ! [...] The poor people suffered twice : because of the hurricane first, and then because of the reactions in France. Isn't it French people who decided the site where New-Orleans was build ?"

I must say that I totally disagree with Ted Stanger's opinion here (even though he often makes some really good points). The anchorwoman also showed her disagreement as you can see on this video (at the end of the clip).

She said correcly that the U.S. is usually self-relient and never calls for international aid. People simply aren't used to the idea of a United States in need. It is a bit odd when you think about it... Besides, as Stanger himself admitted, President Bush himself intitially refused foreign aid.

Moreover as we have mentioned before on this blog, the French government made it known right away that they were making their equipment and people in the Caribbean available for any emergency support since what was needed initially was infrastructure support and not financial aid. In addition, there were also local initiatives. The problem was not about money, it was about getting the food and water to the people.

To be perfectly honest, the rest of the world doesn't necessarily feel inclined to give aid to the richest country in the world, at a time when there is a war waged against world public opinion and costing billions. That is perhaps why the aid offered was logistical support and not a blank check. The economic and political choices made by this administration about cutting Federal spending in order to give more money to the Pentagon does not make people want to send checks to the United States. It is not anti-Americanism, it is just a fact. Americans may not have a choice about how their tax money is spent for the next three years, but the rest of the world has a choice about what kind of aid it gives - financial, logistical, or just plain moral. The French would rather rebuild the French Quarter themselves than sign over a check and leave it to Bush & co ['co' includes Halliburton of course!].

The L.A. Times had an interesting editorial a few days ago called "We Asked for It" which included the issue of the environment and the need for more regulation in construction of houses and buildings on the coast. Even though this may not be politically correct, the "You asked for it" is a prevalent feeling outside the U.S. which does NOT mean that people do not feel genuinely sorry for the suffering of the victims of Katrina.

Some people may play the blame game and ridicule the French for building New Orleans in a bowl. As a joke, we accept it. But mostly because we haven't been in charge of the levees for some time now.