October 18, 2001 | Read Time: 4 minutes
After last month’s terrorist attacks, American foundations, corporations, and individuals have given to others on a scale that has been without precedent. Millions of people were captivated by the sight of America’s most famous music, film, and television stars, who helped raise an astounding $150-million during a two-hour telethon last month. Total donations to September 11 recovery efforts have already raised at least $840-million, and it’s not far-fetched to expect the total to reach $1-billion.
That so many organizations and people would be motivated to respond in such a heartfelt way is tremendously satisfying. Yet, at the same time, it is hard not to feel saddened that we have never seen a comparable outpouring of support for other tragedies that occur around the globe every day — and not to worry that, in the days ahead, our intense focus inward could lead many foundations, corporations, and other donors to ignore people in the most impoverished parts of the world. Could hundreds of millions of dollars in donations ever be mobilized in a matter of weeks to prevent the deaths of the 30,000 children under the age of 5 who die every day, according to Unicef estimates? Though I have become increasingly optimistic about our collective power as a society to respond to human tragedy after September 11, I continue to be concerned about the countless others who are being left out.
Even before the terrorist attacks, overseas giving was relatively small in comparison to the total donations made by Americans. Less than 2 percent of all donations made last year went to charities that work abroad, according to Giving USA, the annual yearbook published by the American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel’s Trust for Philanthropy. And only $1 of every $10 donated by foundations goes to projects overseas — a figure that has remained unchanged throughout the past decade, the Foundation Center reports. Given the intensity of suffering and the lack of social services in developing countries, the rate of international philanthropy seems completely disproportionate to what could be done to help.
The military action in Afghanistan has brought increased international attention to the plight of that country’s vulnerable population. Yet Afghanistan is but one of many places in the world in need of assistance. On the evening of September 11, ABC’s “Nightline” program was to air the second segment of its series on the war and humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has led to 2.5 million deaths in only three years. After devastating earthquakes in January and February, the people of El Salvador are now facing a severe drought, leaving hundreds of thousands of people at risk of starvation.
Each day, 8,500 children and young people worldwide are infected with HIV and 2,500 women perish from AIDS. Contaminated water in developing countries takes the lives of 5 million children each year.
Many Americans are reluctant to give internationally out of concern that their donations will not reach those who need it most. For others, the perceived magnitude of global problems leads them to wonder how they can begin to make a difference.
In response to those concerns, it is imperative that leaders in international philanthropy demonstrate how grass-roots efforts abroad can be effective and accountable. What’s more, we must point out just how far donated dollars will go: In most parts of the developing world, a small donation can be stretched to change many lives.
It is perfectly understandable that the terrorist attacks at home should receive much more attention than other tragedies worldwide. This incident personally touched our lives. It affected our friends, colleagues, and loved ones. Yet in light of the tragedy, it is more crucial than ever that we not turn away from the world but more fully engage in it, recognizing how we are all interconnected and dependent upon each other to survive.
The lesson of our collective power as a society to respond to the outrageous attacks should be that the great American philanthropic spirit can do much to eliminate suffering, wherever it exists. Foundations and corporations, which have donated millions to the September 11 relief efforts, can take a leadership role by earmarking a specific percentage of their annual grants to support people in the most impoverished areas of the world.
When I tell people of my work with international charities, I am often asked, “why are you helping people in other countries when there are so many people in need at home?” I often respond with the same arguments I have offered here, but it all comes down to one simple fact. When a 3-year-old from Afghanistan, Congo, or India stands next to my 3-year-old child, is one less human than the other?
Every person in this world is equally human and deserves the opportunity to realize his or her own potential. Each person deserves the right not to die from starvation in the Congo or from the violent terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center. That should be the message organized philanthropy sends as the nation seeks to recover from a horrific moment in history.
Marc Ross Manashil is executive director of the Clarence Foundation, an organization in Albany, Calif., that seeks to alleviate poverty worldwide. His e-mail address is marc@theclarencefoundation.org.
