G G: And are the wealthier nations of the world doing enough to meet these responsibilities to people in need?
J E: Definitely not. The range of nonmilitary aid contributions varies tremendously, with the most generous nations giving over 0.8 percent of their national income and some giving as little as 0.15 percent. This means that rich countries are all keeping at least 99 percent for themselves.
G G: But after you implied in December 2004 that the wealthier nations of the world should have been donating more money to the tsunami relief effort, many public officials and private citizens, especially in the United States, pointed to the large donations given by individuals. Many Americans were saying they were happy to donate money, but they wanted to control who received that money and how much they gave. Do you see a problem in shifting foreign aid from being the responsibility of governments to being the charge of private individuals?
J E: I obviously do not see a problem with the outpouring of generosity by individuals in response to the tsunami. In fact, I would welcome increased individual donations to other natural disasters and to complex emergencies, most of which are chronically underfunded, especially those in Africa.
However, individual or corporate funding can never be a substitute for multilateral humanitarian aid on the part of governments. For one thing, donations by individuals are most frequently in response to well-publicized disasters or crises, which inevitably attract the lion’s share of aid in the first place. This, then, begs the question of who will help those in more forgotten, lower-profile crises, who are often the neediest in the world. Moreover, by its very nature, individual donation is ad hoc and cannot be counted on, nor will it redress geographic gaps or gaps in the types of supplies or services provided for the people in need.
Donor governments, however, annually dedicate a proportion of their resources for humanitarian activities. While I would like this proportion to increase in absolute terms, and to be contributed in a more timely fashion, at least we know that we can count on regularly receiving some part of what we need from governments.
G G: And is there a broader statement made by government aid, as opposed to private donations?
J E: Aid by governments represents a collective national response by all members of a country to those most in need in poor countries. So it therefore carries added weight as a transnational symbol of support and concern.
G G: There has been a growing body of research into what inspires people to help others in distress, even at a cost to themselves. One thing that seems clear is that people are far more likely to demonstrate altruism when they recognize a shared identity between themselves and the person in need. How can you marshal international support for people who aren’t bound by a common national or ethnic identity?
J E: I think human beings are virtually “hardwired” to reach out a helping hand when we witness people in need. The first responders are always those closest at hand—neighbors, townspeople, relatives, civic organizations, and local and national officials. In complex emergencies like Sudan, people fleeing violence turn to so-called “host communities,” themselves living in poverty, who take them in. Neighboring countries—again sometimes often desperately poor—also lend a hand, giving asylum to masses of refugees, as did both Iran and Pakistan for Afghan refugees for many years, as Chad is doing now for its Sudanese neighbors.
I do think proximity can inspire altruism, especially when we see suffering up close and firsthand—for example, when people from developed countries find themselves in developing countries or in countries in crisis. This can serve as a lifelong wakeup call for them. Moreover, in today’s world, with the advance of communications, we can see situations happening live on television or through photographs instantly relayed through e-mail or satellite transmission, and this immediate proximity to crisis brings the story home to people.
G G: But even with those technological advances, can we really expect levels of foreign aid to rise significantly from their present levels? Perhaps it’s an indication that human beings are really just self-interested animals?
J E: I am optimistic about this for several reasons. For one thing, the United Nations secretary-general has proposed the establishment of a fund for humanitarian emergencies that could jump-start operations where needed. This would be a useful improvement on what we currently have, the Central Emergency Revolving Fund, which at $50 million is simply too small for responding to major crises.
Second, I am heartened by the recent news that the European Union has agreed on a proposal about how its members can meet the goal of pledging 0.7 percent of their gross national incomes on aid, thereby increasing their contributions by over $25 billion [in U.S. dollars] by 2010. This is not at all too much to ask.
I am also encouraged by the inspiring global generosity that we saw for the survivors of the tsunami. It showed humanity at its best, when life was at its worst for millions of people on the other side of this planet. In addition to the billions of dollars from individuals and corporations, a record number of governments also contributed. I refuse to believe that this response was a fluke.
Finally, we need to recognize that giving to the less privileged gives us a sense of satisfaction. This Christmas, I witnessed many dedicated volunteers standing in the cold, ringing the bell for the Salvation Army. The passersby who paused to put money in the kettle did not continue on their way with a look of regret, but with a smile.
GLOBAL COMPASSION: A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE DALAI LAMA AND PAUL EKMAN
Paul Ekman
EMOTIONS UNITE AND DIVIDE the worlds, both personal and global, in which we live, motivating the best and the worst of our actions. Without emotions there would be no heroism, empathy, or compassion, but neither would there be cruelty, selfishness, or spite.
Bringing different perspectives to bear—Eastern and Western, spirituality and science, Buddhism and psychology—the Dalai Lama and I came together in conversation and sought to clarify these contradictions, in hopes of illuminating paths to a balanced emotional life and a feeling of compassion that can reach across the globe.
As the leader of a millennia-old spiritual tradition as well as a nation in exile, the Dalai Lama holds something resembling divine status among his fellow Tibetans. He is the world’s principal living advocate of nonviolence and the winner, in 1989, of the Nobel Peace Prize and, in 2007, of the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest award given to a civilian by the U.S. government. He is denounced and at times publicly despised by the leaders of the People’s Republic of China, which has occupied Tibet since 1950.
Yet he is also more than a religious and political leader: In the Western world his celebrity approaches that of a rock star. He has authored several best-selling books and is nearly always traveling, speaking, and inspiring audiences that number in the thousands. He is also strongly interested in integrating the findings of modern science into the Buddhist worldview.
I first met the Dalai Lama in 2000, when I attended a small conference on destructive emotions organized by the Mind and Life Institute, in Boulder, Colorado. Whether through a shared sense of playful and probing curiosity, our commitment to reducing human suffering, or a conviction that we were likely to learn from each other, the Dalai Lama and I immediately found an unexpectedly strong rapport across the wide gulf of the intellectual heritages we each represent.