Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pampango

(24,692 posts)
10. Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid.
Thu Sep 19, 2013, 09:28 AM
Sep 2013
Countries in the forefront of arming either side in Syria's civil war have been among the least generous when it comes to dealing with the resulting humanitarian disaster, according to a new Oxfam report.

The aid agency and advocacy group found that Russia and Qatar had committed just 3% of their fair share to the United Nations humanitarian appeal, measuring their contributions as a proportion of national income and wealth.

At the other end of the scale, Kuwait has contributed more than four times its share, while Britain has given more than one and a half times what the agency estimated a proportionate contribution to the UN fund. Saudi Arabia has given nearly twice its share.

Overall, under-payers far outnumber over-payers, especially among rich countries. The US, despite being the biggest contributor in absolute terms, has given 63% of its fair share in relation to national income, Oxfam found. Japan has paid 17% of its fair share and South Korea 2%.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/19/syria-arms-aid-oxfam-russia-qatar

Russia and Qatar must be financially exhausted from all the arms shipments they send to the government and rebels, respectively. At least, the UK, Kuwait and, surprisingly to me, Saudi Arabia have been very generous with humanitarian funding.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Every day that Assad can hold on to power Turbineguy Sep 2013 #1
he does have a point Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #2
Not intended to work like that. dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #3
they probably don't have the technology Niceguy1 Sep 2013 #8
Let the Saudis fund it, they were willing to fund the bombing. morningfog Sep 2013 #4
Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid. pampango Sep 2013 #10
Just a small difference. arewenotdemo Sep 2013 #18
Agreed. Although whether either is moral is another question. n/t pampango Sep 2013 #19
To all the people celebrating that diplomatic solution... jessie04 Sep 2013 #5
Look, a crystal ball! Celefin Sep 2013 #7
Laugh all you want. jessie04 Sep 2013 #23
Not really Celefin Sep 2013 #24
And thank you. jessie04 Sep 2013 #27
The goal of the administration was never a diplomatic solution, it was a PR solution. hughee99 Sep 2013 #32
Compared to a bombing campaign that's probably a bargain Celefin Sep 2013 #6
The USA has a ban on selling weapons to Syria/Iran/NK , let the F-ing salesmen and investors pay Sunlei Sep 2013 #9
"The country that sold the guns gets to clean up the mess" JoeyT Sep 2013 #11
the helicoptors Assad flies, the huge rocket launchers came from someone. Sunlei Sep 2013 #12
So you think the US should pay for everyone we ever armed? JoeyT Sep 2013 #14
could start with today without having to pay for all 300 years of injustices first. Sunlei Sep 2013 #15
Oh right. I forgot that we're special. JoeyT Sep 2013 #17
"Our country has a mandate, Americans are banned from selling to those countries" Nihil Sep 2013 #28
The USA has been training people there for decades. We do have a mandate. Sunlei Sep 2013 #29
Straight out of the North Korean playbook. Daniel537 Sep 2013 #13
The United States began destroying its chemical weapons in 1990. We're still not finished. Xithras Sep 2013 #16
you're being far too reasonable frylock Sep 2013 #20
^^THIS^^ -nt- Celefin Sep 2013 #25
Agreed. My first thought was disbelief, then I realized it's not an easy thing to do the right way stevenleser Sep 2013 #30
Ok sounds good. obxhead Sep 2013 #21
There is a precedent Nunn/Lugar and then Lugar/Obama funded the US karynnj Sep 2013 #22
Who sold them JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #26
Short answer? No one. The precursor chemicals can be used for a variety of non-weapon things. stevenleser Sep 2013 #31
Thanks JustAnotherGen Sep 2013 #34
It has taken the U.S.and Russia over a decade daleo Sep 2013 #33
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Assad To Destroy Chemical...»Reply #10