Somalis on the evening news. The whole affair, from first tornlast, was a political melodrama, and no one should have beenrnsurprised by the cameras and klieg lights covering the Marinernlanding.rnWere the Somalis suffering because the West had neglectedrnto send them aid? On the contrary, it is far more likely that ourrnaid made the trouble in the first place. In fact, the United Statesrnand other Western nations had heavily subsidized the crunrblingrnregime with lavish annual donahons. By 1987, debt-servicernobligations were 167 percent of Somalia’s $130 million exportrnearnings —as opposed to $400 million in foreign aid.rnSomalia was, in fact, the recipient of America’s largest aid programrnin sub-Saharan Africa.rnNot all the dollars spent, however, went to feed starving Somalis.rnUSAIL^ workers were said to live on a lavish scale with arn25 percent bonus for serving in a hardship country. Providedrnwith all the amenities—luxury hotels, beach clubs, fine restaurantsrn—the Western aid workers failed to deliver relief in 1987,rnpartly because of interagency bickering among the representativesrnof USAID, UNICEF, Oxf^im, WHO, etc. Little had improvedrnby 1992, and at the time of the American invasion, thernWashington Post recounted how 15 people a day were dying ofrnthirst in one settlement because the UNHCR office was hagglingrnwith a local contractor over the price of putting in a well.rnIf international relief governmental or professional, is by andrnlarge a failure, the humane person does have other options. Hernmight, for example, practice charity closer to home, where it isrnpossible to become personally involved and where it is muchrneasier to monitor the honesty and effechveness of relief programs.rnMother Teresa, when a Milwaukee woman volunteeredrnto come and assist her in India, told the woman to do good inrnher own hometown, to find Calcutta in Milwaukee.rnCharity does begin at home, and the burden of charity isrnmost easily discharged toward those widi wlioni we are alreadyrnconnected by bonds of blood and experience. Charity towardrnstrangers requires effort, and the more foreign the stranger, therngreater the effort rec|uired. I am speaking, now, of that naturalrncharity, which grows and expands with the maturing consciencernof the individual, in distinchon from what is generallyrnknown as “compassion,” the artificial sense of benevolence wernare taught to feel in doing good deeds by long distance. In thisrncase, the reverse is true. People who will not take a bowl of souprnto a sick neighbor will weep over the fate of starving Albaniansrnwhose pictures they have seen on television.rnAll these goals are laudable in themselves, and worthy nrenrnand women may well choose to devote themselves to pursuingrnthe welfare of foreigners as a sort of special vocation, but whatrnseems to be far more common is the telescopic philanthropy ofrnDickens’ Mrs. Jellaby, whose eyes —so farsighted that “theyrncould see nothing nearer than Africa”—overlooked the needsrnof children, friends, and neighbors. One American thinker putrnthe whole problem in a nutshell: “Wliy don’t you mind yourrnown business, ’cause if you’d mind your business, then yournwon’t be minding mine.”rnSo we see today, people who neglect their own children —rnsend thcni to public schools and give them unrestricted accessrnto TV—are getting teary-eyed over a Cuban kid they will neverrnmeet. A famous Unionist judge in Charleston once remarkedrnthat Sourii Carolina was too small to be a nation and too big tornbe a lunatic asylum. The United States today has apparentlyrngrown too big to be a nation, but it is still a lunatic asylum.rnDICTATIONSrnCliarity Versus Foreign Aidrna C harity begins at home” strikes tiie modern ear asrna contradiction in terms. In our time, charityrnhas come to mean giving to strangers —thernstranger the better. It is a duty that we discharge by writing arncheck or typing a credit card number into our favorite charity’srnwebsite. (By the way, that address is www.chroniclesmagazine.rnorg.) How can it be charitable to give somethingrnto my wife and children or even to my cousins or neighbors?rnW’lien we forget the meaning of words, it is small wonderrnif we no longer recognize the thing itself “Charity” comesrnfrom the Latin caritas, which meant something like “dearness,”rn”fondness,” “affection.” St. Jerome used it to translaternSt. Paul’s Greek word, agape, the deep affection we are tornhave for each other in imitation of Christ’s perfect love forrnus. As St. Augustine put it, charity is tlie “virtue wliich joinsrnus to God in love,” and it is, as St. Paul tells us, a greater giftrnof the spirit even than faith.rn/Vs a gift of the Holy Spirit, charity connects us with God.rnSt. Thomas tells us that, rather than lavish our wealth on thernevil (e.g., thieves, confidence men, and child molesters), wernshould do the greatest good to those who are closest to God.rnQuoting Paul’s dictum that “Charity^ dealeth not perversely,”rnhe points out that “to do good deeds to ccrtiiin persons isrnto act perversely. . . . Therefore, since kindness is an act ofrncharity, we ought not to be kind to eveiyone.” From tliis perspectivernof grace, then, much of the do-goodingtinie and effortrnspent on drug dealers, tliugs, and child molesters is notrnonly misguided, but perverse.rnHowever, from the natural perspective, as Thomas says,rncloseness to ourselves must also affect the degree of our charity:rn”In what concerns nature we should love our kinsmenrnmost, . . . and we are more closely bound to provide themrnwith necessities of life.” In other words, charity does beginrnat home and radiates outward to the broader spheres of ourrnkinfolk, friends, neighbors, and fellow citizens before it is cxlian.rnsted in the general sea of humanity.rnPhilanthropists who speak of a general duty to the worldrndo not understand the problem of scarcity. “Since one cannotrnhelp everyone,” said Augustine, “one has to be concernedrnwith those who by reason of place, time, or circumstances,rnare by some chance more tightly bound to you.”rnA Christian saint who had the power to do everyonerngood would obviously exercise it (within the limits set forthrnby Tliomas), but such power belongs to the divine and notrnto the human. Charity obliges us to be kind to those who arernattached to us and to relieve the deserving poor who comernour way. Universal charity is impossible even for the wealthiestrnindividuals or governments in the world; in attemptingrnto practice it, wc become morally niunb to the obligations ofrneveiyday life. International philanthropy is evil.rn—Humpty Dumptyrn12/CHRONICLESrnrnrn