Foreign Affairs, July/
Humanitarianism is probably the most important "ism" in the world today, given the collapse of communism, the discrediting of neoliberalism, and the general distrust of large-scale political ideologies. Its activists often claim to escape or transcend partisan politics. We think of humanitarian aid, for example, first of all as a form of philanthropy -- a response to an earthquake in
Individuals send contributions to charitable organizations when there is a humanitarian crisis, and then these organizations rush trained aid workers into the zone of danger and desperate need. But governments also send help, spending tax money that is coercively collected rather than freely given. Are individual citizens free not to give? Are governments free not to act? Does it matter whether the money is a gift or a tax?
The dilemma is even clearer in the case of humanitarian intervention. Governments may use force to stop a massacre -- as
But what if the combination doesn't work -- what if the fellow feeling doesn't flow freely?
I have been puzzling over these kinds of questions in the course of helping edit a volume in the series The Jewish Political Tradition, one dealing with, among other things, charity and taxation -- giving and taking. It should be easy to distinguish the two, shouldn't it? Individuals give, freely and spontaneously; the state takes, with threats and penalties. Yet it turns out that the distinction is not so easy to make. The difficulty is signaled by the Hebrew word tzedakah, which is commonly translated as "charity" but which comes from the same root as the word for "justice." This suggests that charity is not only good but also right. The same message is conveyed by the Hebrew word mitzvah, which in the Bible means "commandment" but has come colloquially to mean "a good deed" or "an act of human kindness" -- although still something that you have to do.
One can see how these versions of the two-in-one argument might develop among a stateless people. With little or no coercive power, the Jewish communities in the Diaspora had to rely heavily on the charitable contributions of their members. The contributions were indeed necessary, for without them there would be no way, for example, to ransom Jewish captives (a major concern of the Diaspora communities throughout the Middle Ages), help the poor and the sick, provide for orphans, or fund synagogues and schools.
And so the medieval philosopher Maimonides argued, following Talmudic precedents, that insofar as Jewish communities in the Diaspora had coercive power, they could legitimately force their members to give tzedakah. The kahal, the autonomous or semiautonomous Diaspora community, could compel people to give what they were supposed to give freely, and it still counted as a charitable gift. It was distinct (although often hard to distinguish) from the taxes imposed, usually by the gentile overlord, which were levied on individuals by the Jewish rulers of the kahal, the tovei ha-ir (the good men of the city).
In the Jewish tradition, this view of tzedakah as an expression of justice was sometimes described in theological language. The idea is that God has heard and responded to the cries of the poor and, in principle at least, has given them what they need. You may possess some part of what they need, but you possess it only as an agent of God, and if you do not pass it on to the poor, if you do not contribute, say, to the communal charity fund, you are robbing the poor of what in fact already belongs to them. The negative act of not contributing is a positive theft. And since theft is unjust, you are acting not only uncharitably but also unjustly by not giving -- which is why coerced tzedakah is legitimate. I called this a theological argument, but it is possible even for nonbelievers to accept that, in some sense, it is true and right. Or nonbelievers can translate the argument into secular language: some part of everyone's wealth belongs to the political community, which makes economic activity and peaceful accumulation possible -- and it can and should be used to promote the well-being of all the members of the community.
Fundraising in the contemporary Diaspora still partakes of this two-in-one character. I celebrated my bar mitzvah in 1948 in
What moral or philosophical principle was Sam enforcing? He probably could not have answered that question, but the answer seems obvious: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." That line is from
The idea of obligatory charitable giving is not peculiar to the Jews; there are many non-Jewish charities whose staffs would happily collect money the way the Johnstown UJA did, if they could, and would believe themselves to be acting justly. The two-in-one argument comes in Christian and Muslim versions; tithing, for example, is also understood as an act of justice and charity together. But the centuries of statelessness give the Jewish version a special force. Recall the powerful line in the book of Isaiah denouncing those who "grind the faces of the poor." I think of UJA fundraising as grinding the faces of the rich, and although that may or may not be nice, it certainly seems right.
But what should be done with the money collected? What does it mean to address the needs of the poor? This, too, is a question not only of charity but also of justice. Maimonides has a famous discussion of the eight levels of tzedakah, but only two need concern us here. The highest form of charitable giving, he wrote, is to set up a poor man in business or in work of some sort, to make him independent. This is the height of tzedakah because it recognizes and respects the dignity of the person who is being helped -- which is also, obviously, a requirement of justice. When charity perpetuates dependency and subordination, it is unjust. Maimonides also insists that tzedakah in its highest form should be anonymous, for if the poor do not know the names of their benefactors, they cannot defer to them. The encounter of helplessness, on one side, and condescending benevolence, on the other, is humiliating for the needy, and so it should be avoided. Here, charitable giving among a stateless people takes on the most important feature of a decent welfare state, where the people receiving benefits are not obligated to any particular benefactor. They are helped as citizens by their fellow citizens, acting collectively.
Tzedakah in actual Jewish communities has often not taken the forms that Maimonides recommended. In many cases, it has been the product of noblesse oblige (which is not the same thing as moral obligation), and there have certainly been many poor people humiliated by gifts for which they had to beg. But the ideal, the collective sense of what tzedakah should be, was shaped by the belief that charity had to be governed by the demands of justice. And this two-in-one conception arises from the experience of statelessness.
Jewish statelessness can help us understand what charity more generally is or should be. It can also provide us with the crucial categories for thinking about humanitarianism in international society. When you do not have a state, charity and justice come two in one. Individuals decide which good deeds, out of many possible ones, they will undertake, which needs they will recognize and how much of their time, energy, and money they will give. But decisions of this sort cannot be made appropriately without understanding what justice requires.
There will be disagreement about what justice requires, of course, and in the absence of a state, there will not be any established procedures for resolving the disagreement -- hence, no democratic debates and no democratically chosen policies. And in that situation, the richest and most powerful members of the community will have inordinate influence. Any community that relies heavily on the charitable contributions of its members will be oligarchic in character. It will be ruled by people such as
This is the most important leftist criticism of charity -- that it concedes the power of the powerful and forces the poor into the position of beggars. Jewish beggars were known to be unusually demanding, insisting on their entitlements, as if they were expounding the deep meaning of the word tzedakah. But they were beggars still. Even when there is a state, but not a fully just state, one that fails to provide generously for education and welfare, the rich and powerful will play a dominant role -- as they do, these days, in
But if there were a strong and effective welfare state relying on a just system of taxation and taking care of basic needs, then charitable giving would achieve a kind of independence. Now, the giver would be free to follow the impulse of his or her heart, helping other people or improving the common life in any number of ways: volunteering to work in a daycare center, hospital, or nursing home; visiting the sick; supporting charitable projects of a church or synagogue or mosque; giving money to organizations defending civil liberties or human rights; teaching in a local prison or school; contributing to cultural societies, museums, symphonies, and theatrical groups; helping underfunded political magazines.
These choices will have an impact on the quality of life in the larger society, and the accumulation of benevolent acts will shape its overall goodness. But since in our hypothetical good state, the most important decisions about social policy will be made democratically, no individual's choices will have a determining effect. There will be limits on the influence of the rich and powerful. Only in this context would charity mean what we have always taken it to mean: freely chosen acts of kindness, acts that reflect a generosity of spirit, free from the imperatives of justice, free from the urgency of other people's desperate need.
THE POLITICS OF HUMANITARIANISM
In international society, however, there is no global state. Here, the condition of the Jews for 2,000 years is everyone's condition, although it is felt most acutely by those for whom statelessness is doubled, at both the global and the national level -- people without a state, or living in failed states, or in states torn by civil wars. There is no higher authority to which such people can appeal for help.
This is the context in which we have to think about humanitarianism, which cannot in the circumstances of statelessness be a freely chosen gift, which has to respond to urgency and need. It is like tzedakah: if it does not connect with justice, it will not be what it should be. Religious men and women can reasonably think that God has already determined what we owe to the global poor, and the sick, and the hungry, and that our task is just to figure it out. And secular men and women can acknowledge that whether or not God exists, this is not a bad way of thinking about these things.
But even when driven by religious motives, humanitarianism is a political project. And because it is, it carries risks with it that are not usually associated with charitable work. Indeed, recent literature on humanitarian aid suggests that the work can go very badly when its organizers are not politically informed, committed to justice, and ready to make prudential calculations. You can, for example, deliver aid in ways that bring in new predators to feed on the provisions and resources intended for the poor, or you can insist on the military or police forces necessary to keep the predators out. You can act through governments that are often corrupt, or you can send your own people into the zones of need and danger and work directly with local individuals and groups. These are choices that primarily involve calculations of effectiveness.
But there are also choices of a different kind. You can help desperately needy people in ways that disempower them and turn them into permanent clients, or you can help them in ways that promote their independence and enable them to help themselves. You can attempt to maintain your political neutrality, or you can take sides in civil wars and ethnic or party conflicts. You can act nonviolently, or you can decide to use or support the use of force. You can aim at relief, or you can aim at repair, sustaining the status quo or trying to transform it. No doubt, different cases require different choices, but in all the cases, these are going to be political choices, and they are likely to be made badly if they are governed chiefly by philanthropic considerations. There is not much room here for post-partisanship. Instead, it is necessary to think about the two-in-one character of humanitarian aid and to ask what justice requires. Similarly, when we judge the value of particular humanitarian projects, we cannot consider only the goodness, the warm-heartedness, the self-sacrifice of the aid workers; we must also ask whether they are acting justly and respectfully toward the people they are trying to help.
Who should make the critical decisions? Who are the agents of international humanitarianism, of charity and justice together? Just as rich and powerful individuals have disproportionate influence in determining the character and direction of domestic philanthropy, we have to worry that the richest and most powerful states and organizations will have a disproportionate influence in determining how aid is delivered and to whom. The big aid organizations are not accountable to the people they claim to help. Won't they often act in their own institutional interests? Don't states always defend their national interests even when they are engaged in humanitarian work?
This seems especially worrisome in the case of humanitarian intervention, which involves the use of force in someone else's country. And indeed, there is a lot of suspicion, especially on the left (but not only there), of any use of force for humanitarian purposes. There are people who claim that all military interventions will inevitably be the work of rich and powerful states acting imperially and will all end in domination. This claim is right -- sometimes, which means that it is not inevitably right. Suspicion in these cases invites suspicion in turn, for the original suspicion sometimes follows from a refusal to recognize the extent of the crisis that calls for intervention.
Opposition to all interventions is a mistake, although opposition to some is sure to be morally necessary.
Still, military interventions will sometimes deserve our support, without regard to who the interveners are, so long as they meet the two-in-one criteria. Although we do not want powerful states to dominate international society, we do want access to their resources, precisely to their wealth and power -- in the same way that we want access to the resources of wealthy individuals in domestic society, which is why it is right to grind the face of the rich. Charity and justice together require that rich and powerful states contribute disproportionately to the common good or, better, that they contribute in proportion to their disproportionate wealth -- "from each, to each." It is more often the case that powerful states don't do enough, or don't do anything at all, in response to desperate need than that they respond in imperialist ways. Humanitarian crises are more often ignored than seized on as an excuse for domination. There cannot be many countries eager to dominate
In fact, there are actually many states in international society that are capable of acting as humanitarian agents. In contrast to ordinary individuals in domestic society, ordinary states, even those far from being great powers, can act effectively in crises because of their ability to collect taxes and recruit aid workers and soldiers. So it is possible to imagine a division of humanitarian labor. Consider the role of the Vietnamese in shutting down the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in
Again, this dedication is not merely philanthropic. It arises also from a commitment to justice; like tzedakah, it is two in one. And a commitment to justice is not voluntary; it is a commitment that we are all bound to make, as individuals and as citizens, and that all states are bound to make. We are not in a position where we can let generosity and warm-heartedness determine what states do in international society. In the absence of a global welfare state, there are many things that individual states have to do. But here is the agency question again: Which states have to do what?
RELIEF AND REPAIR
International humanitarianism is an imperfect duty. In any crisis situation, different states are capable of acting, but no single state is the designated actor. There is no established procedure that will tell us the proper name of the agent. Aid organizations often respond to a crisis in very large numbers, but without anyone assigned to take charge. The work should be coordinated, for the sake of its effectiveness -- and justice requires effectiveness -- but there is no named coordinator. We might look for UN designations of responsibility, both when military intervention is called for and when massive aid is called for. But we are likely to look in vain for timely or consistent assignments. In these circumstances, decisions about intervention and aid will often have to be made unilaterally -- as by
That is not a principle that can be legally enforced, but there is a political process of enforcement -- not very effective, to be sure, but worth considering. It works through public criticism, shaming, moral appeal, and sometimes popular mobilization. The
The same combination, two in one, should determine the character and purpose of aid and intervention. It is, of course, immediately necessary to feed the hungry, to stop the killing. Relief comes before repair, but repair, despite the risks it brings with it, should always be the long-term goal -- so that crises do not become recurrent and routine. As with tzedakah according to Maimonides, aid workers and soldiers should do what they can, the best that they can, to promote the independence of individuals and states. In international society, this means building states that can defend the lives of their citizens and helping them help themselves. What must be avoided is enduring economic or political dependency -- the creation of pauper populations or of satellite states and puppet governments. Although we are often told that the state system must be transcended, sovereignty is in fact humanitarianism's morally necessary end: a decent state, capable of providing security, welfare, economic management, and education for all its citizens. Then, the aid workers and the intervening armies can go home. If they have created the conditions for self-determination, we know that they have acted both charitably and justly.
So state building can be a form of humanitarian work, even though we don't know anywhere near enough about how to do it. Regime change, however, is something different. When the Red Army tried to bring communism to
Relief and repair can take a long time, and there will be hard choices to make along the way, without any international procedure for making them. There is also no legal way to conscript people or states to do the necessary work or to regulate the work they do. That is, again, what global statelessness means. And so we must search for more informal ways of pressing people into humanitarian service and evaluating and criticizing what they do (and don't do). Since there are few effective laws in international society, we need principles of charity and justice that will shape our own contributions and also our judgments of what other people contribute.
Humanitarianism has to be an ongoing argument: What ought to be done right now? The answer to that question will change depending on the existing needs, the political circumstances, the resources that benevolence can provide, and the requirements of justice. But once we have figured out an answer, we can think of humanitarianism as the two-in-one enterprise that I have been describing. As individual men and women, as members of or contributors to nongovernmental organizations, as citizens of powerful states, it invites us to choose to do what we are absolutely bound to do.
Michael Walzer is Professor Emeritus of Social Science at the Institute for Advanced Study and co-Editor of Dissent.
- On Humanitarianism: Is Helping Others Charity or Duty or Both?
- Financial Rebalancing Act: Stop Worrying About Global Flow of Capital
- Globalization and Unemployment
- The Divided States of Europe
- The Secrets of Germany's Economic Success
- Russia's Evolving Leadership
- Does Obama Have a Grand Strategy?
- The Crisis in Clean Energy
- Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring
- Egypt's Military and Upcoming Elections
- Taliban Hotel Attack: Low Death Toll, High Psychological Value
- Bin Laden's Re-branding of al-Qaida
- Perfidious Pakistan
- Effects of the American Drone Program in Pakistan
- NATO After Libya: The Atlantic Alliance in Austere Times
- South Africa's Land Reform Crisis
- Defending Democracy in Cote d'Ivoire
- Greece and EU Attempt to Avoid Disastrous Default
- Greece Passes Second Austerity Legislation
- Greek Parliament Narrowly Approves Austerity Program
- Greece Should Not Be About Austerity, It's About The Future Of Democracy
- Greek Crisis: Brace for More Volatility in Financial Markets
- Violence Mars Strikes in Greece
- Papandreou Seeks Greek MPs Support For Austerity Plan
- Ten Million at Risk as Drought Strikes African Horn
- South Sudan Teeters Weeks Before Independence
- Moroccan Voters Asked to Approve Reforms
- Myanmar Open To Microcredit Expansion
- Thousands Protest in Bangladesh Against Islamic Constitution
- New Evidence Not Sufficient to Retry Filipino Senator's Son For Rape and Murder
- Government Boosts Disaster Preparedness as Latest Storm Subsides
- Health Personnel Spreading Hepatitis in Pakistan
- Pakistan: More Polio Cases Despite Efforts to Contain It
- Brotherhood Gets Out Muslim Message with Movies
- Rejecting IMF Loan Egypt Risks Undermining Economy
- Arabs Divided on Prospects for Change
- Arab Spring: From Textbook to Tahrir Square
- Palestinian Inmates Put Away Their Textbooks
- Israel's Army Becoming God's Army
- Lebanon's New Leaders Face Economic-Credibility Problem
- Lebanon's Clerics Attack Domestic Violence Law
- Is Syrian Unrest an Invitation for Al-Qaeda?
- UK Public Workers Strike Over Pension Changes
- Belarus Holds Lessons for Syria's Asssad
- Libya and America's Commitment Problem
- Afghanistan: How Much Easier It Is to Start a War Than to Finish One
- Obama's Afghanistan Plan and the Realities of Withdrawal
- Confusing Reports of a Battle in Matamoros
- Implications of El Chango's Arrest
- All Wheat Varieties Will Have To Be Replaced
- In the Desert Kingdom: No Grassroots Politics
- Fear and Trembling in Saudi Arabia
- Minister's Resignation Highlights Jordan's Tense Relations
- Muslim Brotherhood Walks Democratic Path With Caution
- Mentoring Tomorrow's Middle East Youth Movement
- Saab Unable To Pay Employee Wages
- KLM To Power European Flights With Used Cooking Oil
- Mindanao Aid Plan Underfunded Says United Nations
- Philippine Airport Operator Looks for Body Scanners
- NATO Chief Welcomes Obama Decision To Withdraw Troops
- Afghanistan Bracing For Reduced Wheat Harvest
- Bangladesh Ethnic Communities Protest Islamization Of Constitution
- Former Mexican Attorney General Suspected of Helping Drug Cartels
- Canada to Issue New $50 And $100 Plastic Bills In November
- Conflict In Sudan's Southern Kordofan Region
- Michael David: 'My Duty Was Cleaning Guns And Shining Boots'
- Insecurity and Land Conflicts Threaten Peace In Sudan's Upper Nile State
- Children Unprotected as Polio Spreads in Chad
- Muslim Brotherhood Walks Democratic Path With Caution
- The Afghan Money Pit
- United States and Pakistan: Afghan Strategies
- Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad Admits Opposition Has Legitimate Grievances
- Syria: The Last Domino
- Turkey in Position to Lead Region Out of Tumultuous Century
- Lebanon's Opposition Feeling Threatened
- New Mexican President, Same Cartel War?
- Limited Options for United States in Yemen
- Yemenis Look To Tribes As Force For Change
- In Arab Spring Chill United Arab Emirates Puts Bloggers On Trial
- Hamas Leader Urges Fatah To Abandon West
- Somalia Power Struggle Could Intensify As Premier Quits
- Ousted Tunisian Leader Denies Charges Before Trial Begins In Absentia
- Tunisia Risks Controversy with Travel Ads
- New Insight Into Male Sex Work and HIV Epidemic in Africa
- Angola's 'Sans Papiers' Violently Deported In New Wave Of Expulsions
- Severe Drought and High Food Prices Hit Pastoralists In Africa
- The Hidden Cost Of Piracy In Somalia
- Flood-hit Mindanao Battles Water Lilies
- No Clear Route Out Of Servitude For Indentured Girls
- IMF Urges EU Leaders to Act Now on Greece Bailout
- European Finance Ministers Delay Second Greek Bailout To July
- European Union Assures Greece Bailout Funds
- Spaniards Protest Against Euro-Pact and Austerity Measures
- Greece Is The World's Least Credit Worthy Nation
- A World of Three Reserve Currencies -- Good or Bad?
- Europe Is Warning Us
- United States Has Trust Issues With China
- The United States - Russia Missile Defense Impasse
- Al Qaeda's New Video: A Message of Defeat
- Why Sudan's Peace Is in Jeopardy
- Egypt's Interim Rulers Learn the Democracy Game
- Egyptians Back Keeping Clerics Out of Politics
- House Pushes Obama on Libya
- Ignoring the War Powers Act
- Congress' Bipartisan Vice Is Cowardice
- Outgoing Robert Gates Outlines Future US Presence in Asia
- Robert Gates: Parting Shot on Afghan Policy
- An Invitation to Leave Afghanistan
- Obama Undermines Prospects for Middle East Peace
- Forty-Four Years Later, Israeli Attack on USS Liberty Provokes Strong Response
- Saudi Arabia Orders Men Out of Women's Clothing
- Gulf Becomes Fault Line for Sunni - Shiite Tensions
- Double Whammy for Bahraini Peace and Prosperity Drive
- The Human Cost of the Yemen Conflict
- Yemeni President Saleh Is Out But Yemen's Future Uncertain
- Turkey's Dilemma: Economy or Constitution
- Turkey: Elections and Strained U.S. Relations
- A Bad Day That Never Changes
- G8 Leaders Vow Billions in Aid to Egypt and Tunisia
- What 'Arab Spring'?
- Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood on the March -- Cautiously
- International Law, Palestinian Statehood and Israel's Security
- The Palestinian Move
- Israel's Borders and National Security
- Netanyahu's Message Is Self-Defeating
- Justice for a General -- At Last
- Protective Intelligence Lessons from an Ambush in Mexico
- Corruption: Why Texas Is Not Mexico
- Politics Behind Thai - Cambodian Conflict
- Re-examining the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
- The Bin Laden Operation: Tapping Human Intelligence
- Inside Pakistan After bin Laden
- The Kaspersky Kidnapping - Lessons Learned
- A Political Vision for Israel
- 3 Ongoing Conflicts You May Not Be Paying Attention To But Should
- Visegrad: A New European Military Force
- Turkey Setting Poor Example for Other Arab Nations
- IMF's Crisis-Management Challenge
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn Scandal an Embarrassment for France
- Going Cold on Bin Laden
Available at Amazon.com:
Copyright 2011, Foreign Affairs