LONDON (Reuters) - In the weeks following the Asian tsunami, Chuck Simmons squirreled himself away in his home in Rochester, New York, scouring the Internet for any scrap of evidence to document American generosity after the disaster.
From corporate fundraisers to Salvation Army "kettle campaigns", he spent more than 100 hours tallying up almost 1,000 private donations for "The Stingy List", an online aid ledger published on his personal blog (http://blog.simmins.org).
"I stopped updating the list when American private contributions exceeded a billion dollars," Simmons, a 49-year-old businessman, said in a telephone interview.
"It was created to make a point, that we weren't as stingy as some portrayed us."
Six months after killer waves roared across the Indian Ocean, sensitivities still run high about the true generosity of rich countries, despite an unprecedented outpouring of aid in the weeks following the Dec. 26 tragedy.
Aid pledges by governments and multilateral organisations total around $6.9 billion, according to Reuters research.
Add to that almost $5 billion of private donations to aid organisations by individuals, companies, foundations and religious groups, and you have the biggest display of generosity after any natural disaster in history.
HOW GENEROUS REALLY?
Simmons started his "Stingy List" in January after U.N. relief coordinator Jan Egeland made comments many interpreted as accusing Washington of being miserly. At the time, the U.S. government had given $15 million plus military support costing about $6 million a day.
"Jan Egeland basically opened an incredible Pandora's box by accusing the U.S. of being stingy," said Joel Charny, vice president of advocacy group Refugees International.
"We then had this maniacal race to see who could be the most generous. And it got to the point where agencies and countries were just throwing money on top of money on top of money."
A lot of that cash has yet to make it to the ground. Research by humanitarian website Reuters AlertNet shows some 35 percent of $5.3 billion promised by the world's 10 biggest governmental donors and multilateral organisations has not yet been earmarked for spending.
But aid workers say the huge sums donated mean reconstruction programmes extending over years can be planned.
"This is the first time enough money has been donated to be able to do that," said Mohammad Akhter, head of the InterAction alliance of more than 160 U.S. NGOs.
Meanwhile, donor countries are using the size of their aid contributions as a means to flex their diplomatic muscles.
Washington claims the record-busting generosity of Americans -- who have given a whopping $1.48 billion in private donations on top of the government's pledge of $857 million -- has improved its foreign image, tarnished by the "war on terror".
And Japan, which fulfilled its pledge of $540 million within days of announcing it, makes no secret of its view that aid can help secure it greater political clout, including a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
But are countries really as generous as they say they are?
In terms of aid dollars alone, the United States is by far the biggest tsunami donor with a total $2.34 billion of government and private pledges -- almost double Germany's $1.25 billion. Britain was the third-largest donor, followed by Australia, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada and Norway.
NORWEGIANS GIVE MORE
But put the aid on a per-capita basis and you get a different "generosity ranking". By this measure, Norwegians gave by far the most, with combined governmental and private donations amounting to $59 per head -- seven times more than Americans and 10 times more than Japanese.
Even that doesn't tell the full story. Experts say you must consider the "quality" of aid to assess real generosity. Is it going where it's needed or simply serving the donor's interests?
Tim O'Connor, head of Australian advocacy group AidWatch, said much of Canberra's $738.9 million package to Indonesia -- including grants and the cost of interest-free loans -- would flow back to Australian companies and contractors.
"This package has little to do with the interests of tsunami victims and is much more closely aligned to the Australian government's strategic and commercial objectives," he said.
While experts say the same could be said of other governments, some claim the fact there were no big food crises or disease outbreaks after the tsunami demonstrates the true value of donors' generosity -- whatever their motives.
"It's a success story, notwithstanding the fact that there are immense challenges involved," said Pete Haydon, tsunami spokesman for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
