This tag was started to bring attention to and mobilize relief efforts, following the 2011 tsunami in Japan.

http://www.boardersforchrist.com/2011/03/pray-for-japan/

Helped People Help People

Throughout its relatively young life, the United States of America has never failed to
come to the aid of its allies. At times, its been there from the beginning; other times, its gotten
involved later than others; finally, in some instances, its stayed involved for longer than was
absolutely necessary. Whenever the U.S. chose to help though, it has always been impactful.
There have, however, been some people that argued that the U.S. involves itself too heavily into
the businesses of other countries. Also, that its involvement isnt always welcome or even for the
benefit of those that the U.S. claims to be aiding. Additionally, these people claim that the U.S.
will harbor ulterior motives when rushing to the aid of others. Leah Stewart shows us examples
of moments where the U.S. rushed to help those in need like the Haiti Earthquake of 2010, the
Japan Earthquake/Tsunami in 2011, and the Indian storms in 1999. Regardless of the
circumstances or the severity of the crisis, the U.S. has been a powerhouse nation that proved
itself to be at the forefront of mobilization for the sake of helping those in need time and again
(Trevino). While there are those that would propose that the United States needs to keep to itself

more often and stop rushing to the aid of others, I will argue here that the U.S. should not only
continue aiding other countries but that it should do more than it already is to help others.

Not What We Used to Be

Andrew Natsios argues that the U.S. has failed to lead the world in global relief efforts,
regardless of ulterior motives, in recent history. He states, It has become clear that relief
operations are not what they used to be. Attributing this to political complications with
mobilizing and allocating government resources to relief efforts and the creation of independent
entities that specialize in relief efforts like the Red Cross, Natsios informs that it creates an
intriguing issue because the different organizations must work together in order to best distribute
their resources.
the Office of Foreign
relays that the number of

the number of global

human crises rose from 5 in
1985 to 24 by 1996..

Referencing a study done by

Disaster Assistance, Natsios
global human crises rose

from 5 in 1985 to 24 by 1996, representing an increase of 480% over 11 years. As the

occurrences of human crises rose, the U.S. had to pick and choose where to send its resources
without stretching itself too thin. It accomplished this to a certain point by increasing its total
expenditure. (Natsios, 1997)
While this looks good on paper, Thomas Eisensee and David Stromberg point out that the
United States seems to decide where to send its resources based on how much global media
attention the crisis attracts. The more attention it receives, the more aid the U.S. will send.
Whether or not the correlation stems from being made more aware of the issue or wanting to
seem more altruistic is unclear and Eisensee and Stromberg, initially, leave this question
unanswered, though they speculate that it is because the U.S. and its policy makers want the
positive press that comes with helping others.

Foreign Crises and the Media

This tag hoped to unite the world in helping a country through a string of disasters.
http://www.pixteller.com/livingclay

In May 1999, a storm struck India reportedly killing 278 people and affecting 40,000.
On the same day, a fifteen-year old sophomore shot and wounded six classmates at Heritage
High School in suburban Atlanta. The two events competed for news time. Since this was just a
month after the Columbine High School tragedy, the events at Heritage High School were
extensively covered by the U.S. television network news, while the Indian storm was not covered.
About one year earlier, a storm of similar size struck India (killing 250 and affecting 40,000
people). At that time, there was less breaking news around, and the storm was covered by the
television network news. Two days later, the U.S. Ambassador in India, Richard F. Celeste,
declared this storm a disaster, and its victims consequently received U.S. relief. He did not issue
a disaster declaration for the May 1999 storm and its victims received no U.S. government
relief. (Eisensee and Stromberg, 2007)
The anecdote above, provided by Eisensee and Stromberg, perfectly illustrates this
picture of how media coverage and international attention at the time that a crisis occurs affects

how much aid, if any at all, that the U.S. will choose to send. We see similar statistics in the
affected people between both events; however, in one case, the event is overshadowed by a more
relevant and domestic issue and, in the other, we see that it becomes a world headline because of
how much worse the event seemed because it was declared a disaster. While Eisensee and
Stromberg assert that [t]here is no reason to believe that the severity of natural disasters in
foreign countries is related to the availability of other news, they also claim that U.S. policy
makers are less likely to declare disasters when other newsworthy stories are in abundance.
However, because more severe disasters are more likely to be in the news and, therefore, more
likely to receive relief, they allow that the question of whether or not media coverage actually
correlates directly to relief aid is a difficult one to answer through empirical data. Additionally,
they share that a policy maker could equally alert the press of disasters that they would
personally prefer to provide relief to and, by doing so, strengthen the correlation without making
it any easier to determine the cause. The question is a tricky one to unravel and answer; however,
regardless of why the U.S. chooses to send aid to those that it helps, Eisensee and Stromberg
refute Natsioss claim that the U.S. has fallen off as a leading nation in relief efforts by following
where the majority of resources have come from. Providing roughly one-third of the total
resources for relief, the U.S. leads all other countries by a large margin and is also almost always
the first to respond to the scene of a disaster because of its dedication of government funds
toward international disaster relief programs. (Eisensee, 2007)

Returning the Favor

Its clear to see that the U.S. devotes a lot of its resources to helping others when they are
in need and it would mean one thing if the U.S. continually did this, despite receiving no aid
during its own times of need. The truth is the birth of the U.S. alone is owed to the French for all

of the help that they provided during the Revolution (Stewart, 2013). When Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita struck the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005, many countries like Australia, Canada, and France
came together to provide aid and relief for the friend that had so often and quickly responded
during others in their times of need, donating approximately $7.5 million, a variety of emergency
medicines and supplies, and hundreds of emergency personnel (Liu, 2011). It is most easily seen
when countries face desperate times, which is simply that humanity is never more powerfully
brought together than when tragedies like tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes strike
and affect the lives of many.

Stand Together
Standing united, the world is not a heavy enough
weight to crush Mans spirit.
http://theamicableguns.deviantart.com/art/United-westand-Divided-we-fall-361104648

Given all the information before, I would like to propose that the United States, already
doing significant work in aiding others, should strive to do even more. Though many would say
that it would be an unnecessary exercise, it should be worth noting that, even with the combined
efforts of all the relief agencies, many disasters go unaided. (Eisensee, 2007) We can never help
others enough to the point where all disasters will be provided for but the least that we can do is
try. As noted earlier, there is an incidental relationship between media attention and disaster

relief. If we as a world would unite in our efforts to relieve other countries of disasters when they
came up and passed resources along freely to work towards the goal of united progress, rather
than competing with one another for the best statistics, the world could be a much better place.
As more and more crises arise, its no longer enough to offer emotional support (though I would
say that it does go a long way), we must unite in our efforts and push even harder to aid each
other when disasters strike quickly. Theres enough pain and suffering that occurs when the
disaster strikes, theres no need for us to prolong the hurt by taking unnecessary amounts of time
trying to mobilize relief efforts. In summary, though the United States does more than its fair
share to try and aid others when disasters happen, I argue that we must do more as its citizens to
set an example and make an effort to unite as humans.

Works Cited
Cheyfitz, E. (n.d.). Tarzan of the Apes : US Foreign Policy in the Twentieth Century. Am Lit Hist
American Literary History, 339-360.
Eisensee, T., & Stromberg, D. (2007). News Droughts, News Floods, and U.S. Disaster Relief.
The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 693-728.

Liu, A. (2011). Resilience and opportunity: Lessons from the U.S. Gulf Coast after Katrina and
Rita. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Natsios, A. (1997). U.S. foreign policy and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse humanitarian
relief in complex emergencies. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Stewart, L. (2013). The history of us. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Trevino, M. (n.d.). History of Disaster Relief, North America.Encyclopedia of Disaster Relief.