posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:40 PM
I just listened to a lecture (University of Toronto) where a member of 'Doctors Without Borders' complained about the fact that aid is tied to the
running of a war. I won't bother with the details, it's the idea that counts.
The notion is that aid is dependant upon co-operation. If you don't co-operate, you don't get it...period.
The good doctor, who is part of an organization that delivers aid to the victims of war, no matter what side they're on, complained that they are
finding it more and more difficult to dispense medical aid to those civilians on 'the wrong side' of a situation.
On the aid being dispensed to the victims of the tsunami, I doubt very much if politics are playing a huge part in it, although 'winning hearts and
minds' has always been there, especially in Indonesia with it's huge percentage of muslims.
The sheer numbers of those affected (millions) are being helped by an amazing group of countries, and the fact that some of the first aid to reach the
stricken areas had the symbol of the 'Red Crescent' on them showed me that politics really are not the main concern...yet.
Powell's statement, though, played directly into the accusation made by the member from 'Doctors Without Borders'.
IMO...the non-combatents (whether civilian or wounded soldier) in any war should be allowed to be cared for without harrassment...any Red Cross ship,
tent or truck should not be targetted, nor one bearing a Red Cescent. Their abilities be not be impaired by political circumstance.
Now, if we could just get all the really evil little despots, terrorists and tribal chiefs to agree to that...