California Policy

The government instead of improving the situation it was making the situation to be worse . This was attributed by the fact that the government was preventing other non governmental agencies from helping the victims but at the same time being reluctant to help the casualties. Moreover the criticism was directed towards the government by the politicians, activists and the journalists at large (MacCash, Doug and O’Byrne, James, 2005). The criticism was mostly directed to the federal government and the state government in general.

The New Orleans mayor came into attack by the public since he was seen as a failure in the implementation of the plans which were aimed at evacuating the food victims. At the same time he failed to provide food, shelter and clothing to the affected victims. It was established this mayor delayed the emergency evacuation procedures until the last one day before the disaster occurred which led to the death of many people (Bumiller, Elizabeth, 2005).

At the same time it was evaluated that the mayor refused to give permission for the usage of the school buses which were available at the time to evacuate the victims, whereby he argued that the buses lacked the insurance liability which was not satisfactory at all to the public. Even the New Orleans mayor Mr. Nagin Ray said that he was frustrated by the insufficient support which was being provided by the federal government and the state government at large.

The president of the United States of America who was then Mr. George bush was constantly criticized for not taking action although he was warned earlier on the possibility of the levees being destroyed. Moreover president bush was criticized for not going to Louisiana immediately to analyze the situation and look for the alternative ways of managing the disaster (California policy desk, 2006). However the president of America was later on concerned about the situation which needed to be corrected .

In his speech of January 2006 he quoted “As we renew the promise of our institutions, let us also show the character of America in our compassion and care for one another… A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency — and stays at it until they’re back on their feet. So far the federal government has committed $85 billion to the people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans” (Toosi, Nahal, 2007). The Katrina Hurricane was one of the major drawbacks in the Homeland security department of the United States of America.

Much question has been asked on who was supposed to be in charge of the response towards this disaster. Many politicians, activists and the media groups argued that the response was not standard and it was due to the poor leadership response. Consequently the United States of America was reluctant to allow the foreign aid to the affected citizens (Landay, Jonathan et al. 2005). The USA government was seen as a lone venture which led to the dead of victims as a result of insufficient resources.

Some countries such as Venezuella, France and Russia were willing to send their aid but the Bush administration was not willing for such an idea. The Chinese government on contrary to what was witnessed during the Hurricane Katrina, it managed to show the world that it was responsible for the caring of its citizens during the times of disasters such as the earthquake which struck the Sichuan province consequently killing and wounding so many people (FEMA, 2005). The government responded by supplying a lot of relief food to the affected families and the wounded civilians at large.

The medical facilities were placed at alert to cater for those who were injured as a result of the disastrous earthquake. Moreover the government deployed so many workers to evacuate the citizens to the safest hillside areas, these workers were responding well as they were provided with the sufficient equipments to use during the evacuation process The response was high by the government has it managed to open many routes which were used for the transportation of the casualties from the disaster location to hospitals.

Unlike the United States of America which refused to accept the foreign aid, the government of China accepted the foreign donations which were provided in the form of financial aid, doctors and at sometimes relief distributor workers were provided by other countries like USA and India. The government at the same time managed to encourage the local people to donate money and blood to help the victimized individuals (http://www. unosat. org).

Thus the two countries which are the United States of America can be contrasted apart on the way they dealt to such disastrous occasions. The United States of America responded in a low pace compared to the Chinese government. This response has led to many questions in relation to the democracy and the accountability of the USA government.


Bumiller, Elisabeth, 2005. “Bush criticized over storm response.” International Herald Tribune. California Policy Desk. 2006, “Pelosi: Katrina Response a Scandal of Incompetence and Cronyism. ” California Chronicle. Retrieved on November 30, 2006. Davis, Matthew. 2005, “Fema ‘knew of New Orleans danger’. ” BBC News. FEMA, 2005 “First Responders Urged Not To Respond To Hurricane Impact Areas Unless Dispatched By State, Local Authorities. ” Landay, Jonathan S et al2005, “Chertoff delayed federal response, memo shows.

” Knight Ridder. Linda Singer, James Howell, et. al (2005). “A Continuing Storm: The ongoing struggles of Hurricane http://www. appleseeds. net/. MacCash, Doug; O’Byrne, James, 2005. “After the mighty storm came the rising water. ” Times Picayune. Toosi, Nahal. 2007, “Brown: Politics played role in Katrina. ” The Associated Press via the Houston Chronicle. Wolf, Richard (2006-12-21). “New Orleans symbolizes U. S. war on poverty”. USA Today. http://www. usatoday. com/news/nation/2006-12-21-new-orleans- poverty_x. htm. http://www. unosat. org/