Joel Charny ‘75 is the founding director of the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) USA, an independent humanitarian organization based in Oslo dedicated to assisting refugees and internally displaced persons in need.
The NRC reported that the UK gave £16 million in aid to Somalia, a country currently experiencing its worst drought in 20 years. Do you think that the United States, being a global superpower, also has a duty to intervene?
I do feel that the United States has a responsibility, and historically the US has carried out that responsibility. As recently as last year, the US was the largest humanitarian donor in the world. We are also the largest economy in the world, so if you look at comparative numbers as a percentage of economic activity, the US may not be as generous as other countries. But in terms of absolute value in 2016, the US humanitarian aid was $7.5 billion, making us the largest donor in the world. It varies a little bit based on geo-political factors, but whether it’s a Democratic or Republican administration, the history of the US – dating back to Reagan, if not before – is generally to step up and give. The US is often the largest donor even in difficult political contexts like Cambodia right after the Pol Pot time or Ethiopia during the famine in the mid-1980s when it was ruled by a Marxist government.
Given the current administration’s focus on domestic improvement, how should the US prioritize issues of poverty and homelessness in our country, versus similar issues in other countries?
We can afford to address poverty in the US as well as afford to respond to famine in Somalia and Yemen, or the major need in northern Nigeria and among Syrian refugees. The federal budget is something close to $4 trillion – there is plenty of space within that budget to reorganize. Fundamentally, it shouldn’t be a zero-sum game. Eventually, it is about choosing priorities, but we have to throw defense into the mix and look at other possibilities for priorities and potential savings.
What’s interesting about the Trump administration is that, during the campaign, Trump frequently complained about throwing money away on international wars and adventures. Yet, the first couple months of the administration would seem to suggest that that was just rhetoric. In fact, a major priority of the administration is to further strengthen the US military. The Trump budget calls for an increase of $50 billion, Senator McCain from Arizona wants that figure to be $100 billion [The current military budget is about $570 billion]. These are huge amounts of money that dwarf my previous $7.5 billion figure that goes towards foreign aid. We’re talking about immense increases for the military compared to what we spend normally on humanitarian assistance.
How do you appeal to people who don’t have the means to donate or to those living in similar circumstances as those you are trying to help internationally?
If we’re talking about abject poverty in the United States, while at the same time making people aware of the global environment and the level of suffering internationally – that can be done. But it has to happen through institutions that people trust, like places of worship. It really can’t be on the basis of just giving money. At the risk of sounding too idealistic for these times, I think any increase in understanding is valuable. Faith-based institutions are especially important in that regard with the whole concept of tithings or the Muslim zakat. Most of the world’s religions have a sense of shared responsibility regardless of one’s means. Fifteen or 20 years ago, research showed that there is a remarkable ability of people of modest means not only to give money, but to participate in fundraising drives at a greater degree than you would think. However, I don’t think fundraising is necessarily the point. I think the point is more about having a real conversation about how and why the world functions in the way that it does.
What does the NRC USA do to educate Americans about the conditions of refugees and asylum seekers in countries that are in need of financial assistance?
If you stop an American on the street just about anywhere in the US, whether it’s New York, DC, Des Moines, or Sacramento, and you ask them, “How much money does the US spend on foreign assistance?” The typical person will tell you 25 percent of the federal budget, and the implication is that it’s a ridiculous amount of money. If you then ask the person, “What do you think is a reasonable amount to spend on foreign assistance?” based on polling the consensus is something around 10 percent. The actual number is less than one percent. So, in effect, the typical American believes that we should be spending ten times more money on foreign aid than we actually are.
The election results and the ongoing debate about putting America first both suggest that despite our best efforts, we really haven’t communicated as well as we could have with the American people about the importance and impact of foreign aid and our work as non-governmental organizations. This is something we’re taking very seriously; we’re constantly thinking about whether we’re in our own little bubble, or if we’re getting beyond our reality and reaching out to people. Some of it is about the content of the message, and some of it is just about having more contact at the local level, whether it’s through schools, churches, or other institutions.
At the same time, I’ve never failed to be impressed by the level of empathy and solidarity that average Americans show when they know what the situation actually is. The American people do step up, and they will step up, but they need to do that based on information we provide. There’s a tradition in the US of donating to charity and responding to international emergencies; there are many people who have been missionaries overseas or Peace Corps Volunteers, or had other exposure to real life in other parts of the world, etc. This is therefore not a massive uphill battle, but I do think we realize that we have to do a better job of communicating overall.