The International Dimension

I have left out thus far the consideration of who should be included in our philanthropic activity. How wide a net do we cast? Where does our responsibility stop?

A charitable act requires more than one person; helping yourself, the ancients discovered, is not charity. (Have you noticed the proliferation of advertising based on buying products and services because we "deserve" them? That ain't charity.)

Put the question in the language of economist Morris Silver: Are we willing to include genetic strangers?

We work outward from our own immediate responsibilities. Individuals contribute to their local church and volunteer fire department; corporations contribute to community hospitals that serve their employees; community foundations are designed to keep their attention largely on local needs.

How have we managed to persuade ourselves to provide technical assistance to agricultural cooperatives in Ghana, or scholarships for poor Peruvians, or food relief to Thai refugees? Why have we been willing to share our resources with "genetic strangers" in remote parts of the world—strangers who threaten our peace and security far less directly than do richer and better developed countries.

Let me borrow again from St. Thomas Aquinas; as we think about international philanthropy it would be useful to bear in mind the "ten points of enquiry" into almsgiving that he set out to examine:

1. is almsgiving an act of charity?

2. the different kinds of almsgiving;

3. which are the more important, spiritual or corporal alms?

4. does corporal almsgiving have a spiritual effect?

5. is giving alms a matter of obligation?

6. do we have to give material alms even if it means depriving ourselves of what

is necessary?

7. can we give as alms what has been unjustly acquired?

8. whose function is it to give?

9. to whom should they be given?

10. how should we give them? (Pp. 237-73)

There is a religious motivation of long standing and great power of serving God by helping those at a distance as well as by helping those nearer to us. A tiny fraction of our total resources is involved; it is even a tiny fraction of the small fraction that we commit to philanthropy.

That is another answer: We can afford it. Could we afford more?

A friend of mine is persuaded that Americans will expand their philanthropic horizons abroad only when they know more about the world and better understand its interdependence. The first task is one of public education; the first task of international education is therefore domestic; we must first enlighten Americans about the needs of the world and about what we might be able to do to help people cope with them.

It is wishful thinking at best and pernicious at worst to argue that there is a strong case to be made for the national political or economic interest to increase philanthropic support to the poorest countries of the world. Self-interest of the political kind will not increase food shipments to starving Ethiopian children when the Ethiopian government is pro-Soviet and anti-American as well as oppressive in its own right. And, although there may be scarce minerals yet to be discovered, still hidden someplace beneath those parched sands, most of the poorest countries remain that way because they promise neither short-term nor long-term return on investment.

The poor people of the poor countries are not a threat to us; they can command no tribute. (That is not always the case among our own poor, who are relatively much better off, much more likely to rise up in a "revolution of rising expectations.") It is better to recognize that philanthropy that seeks to help the poor will be rewarded perhaps in heaven; it won't garner many benefits here on earth.

Our increased sense of interdependence will, of course, encourage more philanthropic support of such things as international educational exchanges, especially with those countries that are prospective allies and customers. It will stimulate us to invest more of our resources in the study of foreign language and foreign cultures—we have begun to realize that we are engaged in a struggle of ideas with people we know too little about, people ally are important to our welfare and security.

The main contribution we have come to make to the countries of the Third World has been our "know-how." Missionaries as well as non-religious relief and development organizations devote their primary energies to helping people learn how to help themselves. That help ranges from technical assistance (that includes technical training so that the project can continue after the technical assistants have departed) to education in community development and even political action.

American private voluntary organizations have become a powerful presence in the developing countries of the world; in many cases they actively oppose official policy and offer (or ally themselves with) an alternative to what the host government provides. In many cases, American philanthropic organizations oppose United States policy, sometimes in alliance with local governments considered hostile or unfriendly by the White House and the State Department. They are often at loggerheads with one another on ideological grounds, and ideology is sometimes the dominant style of thought: dogmatic, simplistic, single-minded.

Consciously or not, we are spreading the threatening American doctrine of pluralism abroad, often in societies that have permitted only certain voices to be heard on issues of importance. Some governments attempt to seal themselves off from all ideas they consider alien and hence threatening. No government that I can think of takes uninvited criticism from outsiders with very good grace.

There is growing reason to expect more defensive action against the increasingly "activist" and overtly political—but private and voluntary—organizations working abroad. To the extent that that kind of confrontation occurs and American lives are put in jeopardy and even lost, the federal government will intervene.

Another consequence of any such confrontation is that non-political relief and development activity will also be cut back or made more difficult. It is difficult enough already to negotiate a technical assistance agreement with a Central American government when the project will be funded both privately and with funds from the Agency for International Development.

The same hard choice is involved abroad that we face at home: The more influential the sector in shaping political and economic policy, the more pressure there will be to impose controls and restrictions. We should do everything we can to preserve the independence of the independent sector.

That may mean that in time some organizations will have to express themselves with greater restraint and act more discreetly.

Where you or I would be cautious, others among us might be bold. Where you or I would be aggressive, others among us might be prudent.

That is another reason we have so much to talk about.