The United States government has pledged $350 million in disaster relief for countries devastated by the underground earthquake that sent a wall of water across the Indian Ocean. $350 million is a lot of money, but, notably, it's less than the $660 million pledged by Germany. And America's contribution is far less, as a proportion of our national wealth, than other advanced nations. Even tiny Norway has pledged $180 million.
America's $350 million isn't even new money. The administration admits it's taking it out of what's already budgeted for disaster and famine assistance around the world. That means the United States will be contributing $350 million less to relief efforts in the Sudanese region of Darfur, for example, and other needy places -- sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Of course, the U.S. government's contribution is just a fraction of what America as a whole is actually contributing to the relief effort. To underscore this point, the president has just appointed his father and former President Bill Clinton to head up an effort to raise money from individuals and from the private sector.
It's a good idea to get the private sector involved. IBM has already allocated a million dollars in cash and services. Microsoft has committed $2 million. Many of America's other big global corporations -- especially with businesses in or around South Asia -- will surely contribute.
But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that the contributions of these global enterprises will necessarily burnish the image of the United States. These days, big companies don't exactly advertise that they're headquartered in America. This is partly because of the unpopularity of the United States after the invasion of Iraq. Mostly it's because global corporations want to be thought of as responsible citizens of the nations where they do business. They hire managers from the region, tailor their products to local tastes, and contribute to local causes. That's just good business. Their goal is to maximize profits, not to advance the interests of the United States.
Of course, the most important thing now is to help the people in need, however and wherever that help comes from. So even if the American government is contributing a somewhat small amount by international measures, as long as individuals and global corporations do more, we're helping get the job done.
But I can't help but wonder whether we're losing sight of the importance -- both to the international community and also to ourselves -- of contributing to this effort as a nation, as a people. IBM, Microsoft, and other global brand names are doing well by doing good -- and that's fine. But what about the brand that represents all of us -- the United States of America?
Robert B. Reich is co-founder of The American Prospect. A version of this column originally appeared on NPR's Marketplace.
