Mabel criticizes President Bush on AIDS

[m67345]

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

[GlitteringTiaras]

Originally Posted by m67345

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

Nicely said:)

[Charlotte1]

Originally Posted by m67345

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

The country that gives the highest percentage of its gross national product in aid is Norway. It gives 1% of its GNP. Aid agencies are pushing that all major developed countries give 1% of their GNP in aid, the US gives a very small percentage of its GNP in aid ( I have to look it up to see exactly what the percentage is) When looking at the population of the country plus the wealth it produces Norway is a far more generous donor than the US.

As far as Mabel is concerned, the attack she made against the Bush Administration has merit. She criticised their policy of not providing aid to agencies and NGOs who work with AIDS victims if they are not prepared follow the retoric the Bush Administration wants repeated. This she argues is unconstitutional ( and morally deplorable, my words not Mabel's) and that's why the Open Society Institute of which she is the acting director is suing the Bush Administration. Mabel was working for the OSI before she married, she is speaking in her capacity in that organisation, not as a member of the Dutch royal family. Regardless of whether she gets more publicity because of whom she married.

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

The country that gives the highest percentage of its gross national product in aid is Norway. It gives 1% of its GNP. Aid agencies are pushing that all major developed countries give 1% of their GNP in aid, the US gives a very small percentage of its GNP in aid ( I have to look it up to see exactly what the percentage is) When looking at the population of the country plus the wealth it produces Norway is a far more generous donor than the US.

As far as Mabel is concerned, the attack she made against the Bush Administration has merit. She criticised their policy of not providing aid to agencies and NGOs who work with AIDS victims if they are not prepared follow the retoric the Bush Administration wants repeated. This she argues is unconstitutional ( and morally deplorable, my words not Mabel's) and that's why the Open Society Institute of which she is the acting director is suing the Bush Administration. Mabel was working for the OSI before she married, she is speaking in her capacity in that organisation, not as a member of the Dutch royal family. Regardless of whether she gets more publicity because of whom she married.

I agree, in terms of population and production the US doesn't give as much as other countries.

Also, the Bush administration has been very discriminating against organizations that won't agree with and promote their beliefs and policies.

[Maxie]

Originally Posted by m67345

In principle she's supposed to be non-partisan, and she could easily campaign for AIDS awareness without blaming America for all the world's problems and launching hysterical attacks against Bush. It's always so easy to criticise and much more difficult to actively attempt to alleviate problems without complaining and blaming others for them.
Also, claiming that America doesn't give enough aid is ridiculous. In 2003, the U.S. gave $37.8 billion out of a total $108.5 billion in foreign aid from the world's major countries - more than three times the amount from the next largest donor, the Netherlands, at $12.2 billion. Americans make up about 5 percent of the world's population and give about 35 percent of the aid.

I've said it before and I'm going to say it again (I think I'll make it my motto in life): Mabel is not a part of the Royal House anymore, so she is not automatically supposed to be non-partisan. Next to that I don't think that she is launching hysterical attacks against Bush or against I know who (I've never read or saw anything about it that really deserved to be called hysterical). She was just doing her job for Soros and so I suppose critisizing things that the organization she works for doesn't find okay is just the thing she does for a living, whether we like it or not.

(OMG. It's starting to look like I actually like Mabel, which I don't...argh! I just like to have the facts straight...)

That's an interesting thing you say about the aid contributions, by the way. I should never have supposed that the Netherlands (with it's 16 million inhabitants) would be the second country to contribute so much...

[GlitteringTiaras]

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading :(; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by GlitteringTiaras

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading :(; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

I must support GlitteringTiaras and say that I think we're all adult enough to keep this thread diplomatic and thoughtful rather than turning it into some petty and childish excuse to vent our anger.

Yes, I don't agree with Bush in any way, but I'm not anti-American in any way either.

[Maxie]

Originally Posted by GlitteringTiaras

I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't turn into an anti-Bush politics or anti-American thread because I feel that this is where it is heading :(; I don't visit this board to talk about such touchy sentiments and their feelings towards my country.

Neither do I. I just wished everybody read the earlier messages in this thread to figure out:

a. What is this thread about? (can Mabel do this?)
b. What is Mabels position? (she isn't a member of the Royal House)
c. Why does she do this? (it's her work)

These three things can put the whole situation in perspective, imho. To discuss this, we don't need to talk about the US, The Netherlands or even Burkina Faso (if somebody feels like it...). But I have to admit, this thread touches some very delicate matters, which I surely don't want to talk about myself (since I think this board is much more fun without them, and as I stated earlier: they're hardly interesting... :))

[Alexandria]

Mabel is treading new ground as far as I am aware. She is a princess although her husband is no longer in line to the throne; her title as princess is honourary and represents her familial ties to the Queen. She doesn't carry out royal duties in the sense that Maxima does.

She has a very fine balancing act: As someone pointed out, while we at this forum and other royal watchers may be familiar with the distinction that Mabel is part of the Queen's family but not part of the royal family others in the mainstream media and public will not and will simply identify her as a Dutch princess, which could put the Dutch royal family in an impartial position.

On the other hand, as Mabel does not carry out any royal duties and is not paid to represent the Netherlands in any official capacity, she is a private citizen for those intents and purposes and as such, should be able to speak her mind as she sees fit.

I do not want to get into the dynamics of the individual or the government as a whole whom Mabel criticized, but I would say that at least Mabel's criticism is for a worthy cause. No matter whom or what country she criticized, I think that at least her heart and her social conscience are in the right place. Her criticism would've been a whole lot worst had it been for something trivial or had it been for something much more of a minefield, such as someone's religious beliefs.

I have always liked Mabel and from what I have read about her, I have found her to be a very intelligent, educated, and socially conscience individual. As such, I don't think she would do anything or put herself or the Queen or the rest of the family in a negative light.

Mabel would also not be the first person ever to say something politically charged or to comment on a particular leader or government. Charles has done this on several occasions as well and has been criticized for it, too, as did Phillippe of Belgium to a lesser degree. Perhaps this is new ground for royals: To comment, even if to skirt around, government policies and leaders, whether their own or another country's.

[Elspeth]

Well, if Mabel has a full-time job and this sort of statement is part of the job, then it's something she has to do. If it isn't appropriate for her to say things like this, then she should give up her job and find work that's less controversial.

Unfortunately her options are somewhat limited. If she gives up work altogether, she'll be accused of being a drain on her husband and only marrying him so she could be a kept woman. She can't give up work and do royal duties because she isn't a member of the Royal House. If this is the sort of work she's trained to do, she'd have a hard time finding the right sort of work elsewhere.

As long as this is part of her job, I think she's doing the right thing by not ducking her responsibility.

[m67345]

I was under the impression that as long as she retains her title, she remains a nominal representative of the royal family, if not an active one. If that's wrong, then obviously she is free to say what she likes.

In response to GNP percentages (sorry, I know this might be off topic), quoting GNP percentages makes no sense because its money that buys aid, not percentage points. In terms of money donated, the U.S. is the most generous country the world has ever seen, no other country comes close. For example, the U.S. has given more aid in the last 4 years than any combination of developed countries. And if you want percentages, last year, the U.S.'s $2.4 billion in disaster relief was 40% of all relief aid given in the world.
Percentage of GNP is an inaccurate measure of 'generosity' and is used only because calculations involving GNP are the most disparaging to the U.S. It completely ignores massive categories of aid such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving. The billions that the U.S. spends on medicines it gives to third world countries for free, and military security from which the rest of the world profits dwarf those of Norway or any other country you may care to name. And these are only two examples.

[Pink Tulip]

Originally Posted by Layla1971

I must support GlitteringTiaras and say that I think we're all adult enough to keep this thread diplomatic and thoughtful rather than turning it into some petty and childish excuse to vent our anger.

Yes, I don't agree with Bush in any way, but I'm not anti-American in any way either.

Yes and being against the views or actions of a particular government doesn't mean being against the people of that country.

I think she is justified in her statements. You don't have to agree with her but from what I can gather, with the work she does, she is making informed statements about the issue.

[susan alicia]

wonder why she did not mention the vatican too.

[Layla1971]

Originally Posted by m67345

I was under the impression that as long as she retains her title, she remains a nominal representative of the royal family, if not an active one. If that's wrong, then obviously she is free to say what she likes.

In response to GNP percentages (sorry, I know this might be off topic), quoting GNP percentages makes no sense because its money that buys aid, not percentage points. In terms of money donated, the U.S. is the most generous country the world has ever seen, no other country comes close. For example, the U.S. has given more aid in the last 4 years than any combination of developed countries. And if you want percentages, last year, the U.S.'s $2.4 billion in disaster relief was 40% of all relief aid given in the world.
Percentage of GNP is an inaccurate measure of 'generosity' and is used only because calculations involving GNP are the most disparaging to the U.S. It completely ignores massive categories of aid such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving. The billions that the U.S. spends on medicines it gives to third world countries for free, and military security from which the rest of the world profits dwarf those of Norway or any other country you may care to name. And these are only two examples.

You forgot to mention that America is also the most developed and most wealthy country in the world. They have more money than any of us to give to worthy causes.

Although my statement shouldn't allow the fact of how, to whom and why the money and aid is distributed, being unfair and completely conditional on the agreement and promotion of US policies.

[betina]

Originally Posted by Layla1971

You forgot to mention that America is also the most developed and most wealthy country in the world. They have more money than any of us to give to worthy causes.
.

There are still a lot of poor people in USA as far as I know. I would think that Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco are the most wealthy countrys in the world.

[Australian]

Originally Posted by betina

There are still a lot of poor people in USA as far as I know. I would think that Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Monaco are the most wealthy countrys in the world.

Well to be fussy, Liechtenstein and Monaco are not countries. But yes, those principalities are very wealthy.

I commend Mabel for speaking out. Royalty should do that more often. Im not saying i do or dont agree with her comments but i agree that she had a right to speak out. I hope this sets a precedent to other royals. What good is being in a public position without being allowed to speak out. Good on you Mabel.

[Roxsteve]

So many people are anti-American! Please let's keep our cool and move on. It does not matter if my country (US) gives money or not, we will be critized anyways so let's move on. Let's forget about Bush, Mabel and let's move on to other subjects.