Why Help the Distant Poor?

I've heard the question before in one form or another: last year when the earthquake hit Pakistan; the tsunami in early 2005. But it's ongoing, in some form, and people always preface it with some verbal dancing, trying to ask the question without coming across as a completely insensitive. Most recently, I heard the question from one of my own friends. It went something like this: "Why are we sending all this money overseas to help people when we have problems here? I mean I hate that bad things happen like earthquakes and things, but we've got our own problems." OK, that was paraphrasing, but that's the type of question that I got.

There are two sides to this argument: the moral/ethical, and the self-interest/stability arguments. But before I get into that, we need to set something straight: It is a myth that the United States gives huge amounts of money for humanitarian aid, or official development assistance. Sure, it's the largest number out there in absolute terms, but the U.S. also has the world's largest economy. As a percentage of GDP, the U.S. government spending comes in dead last among the industrialized countries. Annual giving from the U.S. government is around $1.5 billion, a fraction of what's been spent in the Iraq catastrophe.

That aside, there's the moral argument. We should help the poor because they're suffering, and that's appalling. It's not that there isn't enough in the world to go around because there is. One of the most interesting takes I've heard recently on this moral/responsibility side of the argument was in the song, "All U Can Eat," by the brilliant Ben Folds. He performed it recently on the Henry Rollins Show. You can see the performance by going to that link, clicking on Uncut on Demand, the Henry Rollins Show, and Musical Performances and Interviews. In the song, Folds recounts a conversation with his son in a restaurant, wondering aloud at all the bloated people, asking what they would do if they had to give up their minivans and the convenience of their supermarkets and trade places with someone in a developing nation. It's a nice message, especially coming from a popular artist such as Folds.

That message is clear and true. But even if you don't feel that we need to help the starving and sick just because people shouldn't have to suffer through their short lives, there's also the fact that we bare a burden of ethical responsibility. For example, saying that rising sea levels due to global warming -- a situation that will undoubtedly be more difficult for poor countries -- is everyone else's problem just doesn't cut it. Less developed countries have contributed very little in terms of greenhouse gases, while the overwhelming majority of the gases created by human activity have come from the developed West: Western Europe and the United States. So when the people of Tuvalu find their entire country underwater and become environmental refugees, is it their problem? I think not.

One theory about the relationship between the developed world and the less developed world is dependency theory, which states that power relationships were formed with the less developed world by European colonizers. The inequality created by this power system was caused by colonial exploitation when developed nations sought raw materials from the less developed areas.

Dependency theorists believe that the current system is linked to the colonial past. Less developed countries remain poor because of the past relationships; therefore, it is the responsibility of the developed world to help the poor in the less developed world because we, or our ancestors, created that system. The poor are poor because we made them -- and keep them -- that way.

There are also reasons of self-interest for helping underdeveloped countries. And this is the last-straw argument I would use for people like my selfish friend. Helping impoverished places leads to economic stability for them which leads to political stability. Political stability leads to less market volatility which is economically beneficial for the developed world. Moreover, as incomes increase in less developed countries, the people in those places begin to desire manufactured goods and intellectual property created by the developed world. This would bolster first-world economies. And finally, if a person is suffering from malnutrition, AIDS, Malaria or Tuberculosis, he can't work and produces very little that is economically beneficial to the less developed world or to the more developed world.

Even if you suffer from the American condition of unapologetic selfishness described in the Ben Folds song, there are still leak-proof reasons for helping the distant poor. The return on the investment is immense.

Burmese Hill Tribes

Human Rights Watch asked for an international response to a recent surge in violence and abuse against Burma's Karen ethnic group, a minority hill tribe that lives in parts of Burma, Thailand and Vietnam. Burma has a reputation for oppressing its general population (here's my earlier blog on Myanmar/Burma), but the oppression of Burma's ethnic minorities has been especially brutal. A rebel group from the Karen tribe has been fighting for greater independence from Burma for years, and the most recent Burmese government backlash against Karen tribes has displaced as many as 10,000 of the Karen villagers, adding to a growing refugee crisis in neighboring Thailand, where nearly 150,000 Karen villagers live in refugee camps after having fled oppression in Burma.

Back in December, the United Nations Security Council held a rare discussion on the issue of Burma's abuses and the growing humanitarian situation those abuses have caused. In the past, the UN has been reluctant to bring the Burmese issue in front of the Security Council because the situation was considered by many to be an internal affair, and that interference ran the risk of questioning the state's sovereignty, a longstanding sacred cow of international law.

The UN was originally conceptualized as a means to foster world peace by attempting to manage and prevent state on state aggression. But the world has changed since 1945, and both international law and the UN have evolved since then to incorporate the idea that intra-state problems can also be threats to international security. Since the crisis in Kosovo in the late 1990s, a more drastic normative shift has taken place, an idea championed in the seminal report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty called The Responsibility to Protect. The basic principles and the foundations of the international community's responsibilities are laid out in the report's synopsis:

(1) Basic Principles
A. State sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself.
B. Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect.
(2) Foundations
The foundations of the responsibility to protect, as a guiding principle for the international community of states, lie in:
A. obligations inherent in the concept of sovereignty;
B. the responsibility of the Security Council, under Article 24 of the UN Charter, for the maintenance of international peace and security;
C. specific legal obligations under human rights and human protection declarations, covenants and treaties, international humanitarian law and national law;
D. the developing practice of states, regional organizations and the Security Council itself.

Although the ideas presented in the report are now widely accepted as appropriate doctrine for these matters, the issue of intervention is still a sticky subject. Understandably, the report also presents the idea that military intervention in the case of a humanitarian crisis should be the last resort, but the problem is that the international community has been extremely reluctant to act on humanitarian crises even when the case is clear, such as in Darfur, that an appalling situation would justify an intervention.

I would argue that even without the notion of the "Responsibility to Protect," these internal humanitarian crises are still cause for the Security Council to take action. We turn our heads and ignore humanitarian crises and human rights violations when they are "internal" issues, but what almost invariably happens during these intra-state situations is that they have a tendency to spill over into other states: The crisis in Darfur is now destabilizing Chad. In the same vein, the nearly 150,000 Karen refugees are living in several refugee camps in Thailand. Refugee crises are international issues that threaten world peace and security. As such, the rightful place for discussion of -- and action on -- these matters is with the Security Council.

Human Rights Watch is right to demand that the Security Council examine the situation in Burma. The corrupt, totalitarian junta that rules Burma has failed miserably in its responsibility to protect its citizens. And that irresponsibility is now causing problems for other states.

World Press Freedom Day

Yesterday was World Press Freedom Day, a day marked by the United Nations with an awards ceremony. The UN news release of the event and this report both note that 2005 was a record year for journalist deaths. The high number was due, in large part, to the situation in Iraq; in the past three years since the U.S. invasion, over 70 journalists have been killed there. Here's part of Kofi Annan's statement about the annual Freedom Day:

On World Press Freedom Day, I again declare my firm support for the universal right to freedom of expression. Many members of the press have been killed, maimed, detained or targeted in other ways for pursuing that right in good conscience. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 47 were killed in 2005, and 11 have lost their lives so far this year. It is tragic and unacceptable that the number of journalists killed in the line of duty has become one of the main indicators of press freedom. I urge all governments to reaffirm their commitment to the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”, as set out in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It's difficult to remember that the UN is a broad, multifaceted conglomerate of organizations and bodies that has been in a constant state of evolution since it was formed at the end of World War II. The UN was originally concieved as a world body and forum that was meant to prevent another catastrophic, multi-state World War. Something I take for granted -- something that was a revolutionary concept several decades ago -- is the notion that security doesn't simply mean military security or security from imperial tyranny. World security now means security from poverty, disease, environmental degredation, discrimination, and so on.

One of the recurring themes at the event marking the World Press Freedom Day, was that there is a link between press freedom, democracy, security, and poverty. To be fair, the studies that have been done on this are limited. Certainly, there is a direct link between press freedom and democratic societies. It's easy to understand that an open democratic country such as Finland would have a very robust press, whereas Burma's press -- whatever that may be -- enjoys very little freedom. And there's evidence to suggest that it's more than a chicken and egg dilemma. Growing press freedom has a tendency to erode authoritarian and totalitarian governments.

The connection between poverty and limited press freedom is more tenuous. Singapore, for example, scores very low on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, lower than Russia, but it has a standard of living on par with the most industrialized countries. On the other hand, Mali scored higher on the Index than Spain, Italy or the U.S., but has an annual GDP per-capita of $1,000. But the correlation between press freedom and poverty is an interesting one that warrants thought and investigation.

All that may seem like splitting hairs, so what's important is to remember that while we argue about balanced reporting, or which journalists have liberal or conservative biases, or who's spinning what for whom, journalists are risking their lives around the world. As Press Freedom Day passes, remember that there are journalists who die while trying to find truthful information that they can share with the rest of us.

Click Here for the Reporters Without Borders main website.

Using Celebrity for Humanitarian Causes

It's easy to get cynical when you see a self-inflated celebrity rockstar like Bono get a little too cozy with world leaders. Sure, we sneer when Angelina Jolie is appointed goodwill ambassador to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We know that these celebs fly in private jets and drink high-dollar wine on their way to visit development projects in Africa, or refugee camps in Cambodia. And I'm sure that their net worths are on par with the gross national products of many developing countries.

But I don't begrudge these celebrities their money, and my response to all this is that at least they're using their status for something other than showing us just how lucky they really are. I have a sneaking suspicion that I could probably find someone on my street who is at least cursorily acquainted with the trouble in Sudan because George Clooney and Al Sharpton spoke at a rally for Sudan's Darfur humanitarian crisis yesterday in Washington.

One could argue that it is their duty to give something back after winning the fame/fortune lottery in life. They should use their celebrity status for something positive. It's sad-but-true that the average American knows lots of things about our rock stars, sports stars and movie stars, but little to nothing about pressing global issues. Even if celebrities' efforts are merely exploiting the trivial nature of American public knowledge -- thereby raising awareness of global poverty or the need for debt relief in developing countries or some looming refugee crisis -- this is a step in the right direction.

Heck, Bono even has some quantifiable accomplishments under his designer belt. Of course, the fact remains that the situation in Darfur is disastrous and appalling, even though celebrities are marching on the Mall in Washington. And the multilateral lending institutions have yet to relieve many of the poorest nations of their debts. Bono hasn't saved the world, but he may have started a trend. With more celebrities getting on the humanitarian bandwagon, one can only hope for a growing level of the public's awareness of international humanitarian issues in the future. That public awareness alone doesn't always sway our policy makers, but it's a start. And sure, Bono wears silly, expensive sunglasses, and Pitt, Jolie and Clooney are annoyingly pretty. And they may be enjoying five-star meals while pushing the causes of people who live on less than $1 a day. But at least they have causes. Consider the alternatives: What has Britney Spears done for anyone lately?