All that glitters is not gold.”

This proverb should be the title of the disaster-relief effort by the United States. The United States, along with other Western nations, has pledged millions of dollars to tsunami victims. However, as history has taught us, pledging large sums of money to a disaster is not necessarily a good thing. To see why this is so, three questions need to be answered: Will the money pledged actually be delivered? If it is delivered, will money be diverted from already existing programs? Will the aid get to the people that need it the most?

If previous disasters have taught us anything, it is that aid promised is not always delivered. Last year, after Iran was hit by an earthquake, the world promised $1 billion in aid. So far, only about $17 million has been delivered. In 1998, after Hurricane Mitch hit Central America, the world promised $9 billion. To date, less than $4 billion has been delivered, according to BBC News. Even as the pledges keep pouring in, it makes sense to be skeptical, especially since the United States might use this as an excuse to divert money from existing poverty-relief efforts.

The tsunami is a highly-publicized disaster, but it is not the most urgent problem the world faces.

There are 100 million landmines around the world. There are 2 landmines for every child in Cambodia, yet President Bush refused to send anyone to the conference held last year to address this issue. About 3 million people die from malaria every year. By the year 2010, 24 million people will have died from AIDS in Africa — equaling about 6,000 every day.

A lot of resources are diverted from issues that are just as urgent as the tsunami because they are not receiving as much publicity.

It makes political sense to put a face of sympathy on a highly publicized tragedy such as the tsunami disaster. However, sadness, grief and kindness are not relative terms; they are absolute terms. Therefore, weeping in the face of one tragedy and being indifferent in the face of a greater tragedy makes the United States a hypocrite.

The final question that must be answered is: Will the aid get to the people who need it the most? The answer to this question is no. Bush has once again decided to undermine the United Nations’ role in world affairs. Three days after the tsunami disaster, the United States formed a coalition with Japan, India and Australia to coordinate relief efforts. The United Nations would be the best body to run relief efforts because of its experience in dealing with humanitarian issues.

Further, the United States’ initial contribution of $35 million is evidence that Bush does not understand the things that must be done to relieve the tsunami victims.

Every unfortunate situation has a silver lining, but it is up to the person or people involved to choose a response. If someone is sick and dying, he can choose to build the character of the people around him or worry about dying. The tsunami tragedy is no different; there are choices to be made. Should we mend the image of the U.S. military by giving it a prominent role in relief efforts, bypassing the United Nations in the process, or should we strengthen the United Nations by putting their face on a highly publicized tragedy?

Should we view this as a chance to call the world’s attention to other urgent problems, or should we dwell only in the emotions of the present?

This is a chance to transform a tragedy into a triumph and a predicament into a human achievement. As leader of the world’s only superpower, Bush is not making the right choices to make this happen.