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
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Assad To Destroy Chemical Weapons 'In A Year' [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)10. Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid.
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.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Even better - Russia and Qatar. Big weapons suppliers, small players in humanitarian aid.
pampango
Sep 2013
#10
The goal of the administration was never a diplomatic solution, it was a PR solution.
hughee99
Sep 2013
#32
The USA has a ban on selling weapons to Syria/Iran/NK , let the F-ing salesmen and investors pay
Sunlei
Sep 2013
#9
could start with today without having to pay for all 300 years of injustices first.
Sunlei
Sep 2013
#15
"Our country has a mandate, Americans are banned from selling to those countries"
Nihil
Sep 2013
#28
The United States began destroying its chemical weapons in 1990. We're still not finished.
Xithras
Sep 2013
#16
Agreed. My first thought was disbelief, then I realized it's not an easy thing to do the right way
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#30
Short answer? No one. The precursor chemicals can be used for a variety of non-weapon things.
stevenleser
Sep 2013
#31