share his wealth: “So far from being entitled to well earned applause,rnfor having employed some scanty pittance in the servicernof philanthropy, he is in the eye of justice a delinquent, if hernwithhold any portion from that service.” Godwin was addressingrnhis argument only to the people of England, but if there arernsound moral reasons for redistributing wealth within a society,rnthen the same or similar arguments can be used to justify redistributionrnbetween societies.rnhi adopting this point of view, internationalists can no longerrnconsider themselves American or French or Croat. They arerncitizens of the world, and their neighborhoods are linked byrncomputers, fax machines, and mass media into a universal consciousnessrnthat feels “a special providence in the fall of a sparrow.”rnIn the secularized vision of the human brotherhood, as it isrnrepresented by international agencies for relief and development,rnall the world’s resources should be shared by all thernworld’s peoples collaborating for the common good. The obstaclesrnto fulfilling this dream are not lack of resources, the cidturernof Third World nations, or even common human frailty.rnFormer World Bank President Robert McNamara points thernfinger at provincial pride, ethnic resentments, localism, and nationalismrn—all of which stand in the way of global justice:rnThere are no material obstacles to a sane, manageable,rnand progressive response to the world’s developmentrnneeds. The obstacle lies in the minds of men.. .. Toornmany millennia of tribal suspicion and hostility are still atrnwork in our subconscious minds. But what human societyrncan ultimately survive without a sense of community?rnToday we are in fact an inescapable community, unitedrnby the forces of communication and interdependence inrnour new technological order. The conclusion is inevitable:rnwe must apply at the world level that samernmoral responsibility, that same sharing of wealth, thatrnsame standard of justice and compassion, without whichrnour own national societies will surely fall apart.rnThe underlying conception of global philanthropy is that ofrnthe national welfare state applied internationally. Because ofrninjustices committed by previous generations of Europeans, therncurrent inhabitants of developed nations are positively obligated,rnaccording to dozens of declarations, charters, and manifestos,rnto promote (in the words of one internationalist commission)rn”the economic and social progress of all countries,rnespecially developing countries.”rnThe language of international justice and development is notrnconfined to congresses of Third World leaders; it is the everydayrnlanguage of World Bank presidents and American secretaries ofrnstate. And while we as individuals have little (if any) power overrnthe decisions made by national and international leaders, wernare expected to pay taxes and abide by declarations in ways thatrnmay increasingly intrude upon private life.rnThis international concern with individuals (now expressedrnas “international human rights”) has two sides. Most obviously,rnit includes the various U.N. declarations on human rights andrnchildren’s rights, which implicitiy take precedence over nationalrnsovereignty and national legislation. A child mistreated or neglectedrnin Detroit may now become the concern, not just of thernUnited Nations, but of the member nations and (presumably)rnof file citizens of those member nations, and a Cuban custodyrnbattle can be turned into an international incident.rnHumanitarian globalists always boast of their accomplishmentsrnwhen they are demanding relief for Rwanda or proposingrnan international tax to redistribute the goods of the developedrnNorth to the developing South. They prefer not to mentionrnhow much of the money sent by Western nations is squanderedrnby inefficient and corrupt organizations, both public and private.rnIn his book The Lords of Poverty, Graham Hancock hasrndocumented the waste, fraud, and mismanagement of the “internationalrnaid business.” His indichnent takes in the UnitedrnNations and Red Cross officials who administer relief while livingrnin luxury hotels; religious organizations (such as InternationalrnChristian Aid and World Vision) whose “overhead” costsrncan exceed 50 percent; and the record of rotting food, inoperativernequipment, and unusable (sometimes potentially lethal)rnmedicines that have been inflicted upon the objects of internationalrncharity.rnWliat, for example, has been the effect of the World Bank uponrnthe Third World countries it has attempted to “develop”?rnAnyone who is willing to take upon himself the unpleasant taskrnof reading through the annual addresses Robert McNamararnmade while World Bank president will soon notice a pattern ofrnrecurring themes. In speech after speech, Mr. McNamararnlauded the World Bank’s “very impressive record of development,”rnwhile at the same time conceding that the Bank hadrnfailed either to close the gap between rich and poor nations orrnto reduce poverty. In 1970, McNamara declared war on therntribal mentality, and three years later in Nairobi he unveiled arnnew plan of attack against “absolute poverty,” setting specificrngoals for small farm production as well as establishing a programrnof institutional reforms in the poorest nations. In 1976,rnadmitting that “poverty tends to perpetuate itself,” he outlinedrnhis new battle plan of “intervention . . . designed and launchedrnagainst its dynamics.” However, in the very next year, the presidentrnconfessed that “in retrospect it is clear that too much confidencernwas based on the belief that rapid economic growthrnwould ultimately result in the reduction of poverty.”rnBoth capitalist and socialist critics have held the World Bankrnresponsible for at least some of the economic and agriculturalrndisasters that have overtaken many poor nations in recentrndecades. In the capitalist critique, easy money has encouragedrnThird World countries to engage in reckless spending on money-rnlosing projects, to discourage the start-up of profitable andrnproductive businesses, and to undertake the sort of centralizedrneconomic planning and controls that have failed everywherernthey have been tried.rnTanzania is the African nation that has been the recipient ofrntire largest amount of foreign aid and has been frequently describedrnas Robert McNamara’s pet project, and former PresidentrnJulius Nyrere was frequently held up as a model Africanrnruler. But despite massive infrisions of aid from the World Bankrnand from Scandinavian countries throughout the 1970’s,rngrowth in agriculture and in industry achially slowed in 1978-rn79. By 1979, even President Nyrere was admitting his defeat onrnall fronts, and in 1990, worn out by his well-subsidized efforts torncreate a socialist state, he resigned in despair from all politics.rnSimilar stories can be told of Mozambique or Mexico or Somalia.rnThe 1992 U.N./U.S. invasion of Somalia was undertaken,rnaccording to the American press, with tiic purest motives everrnknown for a military action: undiluted altruism. Monthsrnbefore President Bush decided to send in the Marines, he andrnthe rest of the country had been subjected to pictures of starvingrnJUNE 2000/11rnrnrn