Dr. Zeki Ergas
To speak of the laws of prudence to the house less wanderer To listen to the hungry ravens cry in the wintry season. It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity: Thus could I sing & thus rejoice, but it is not so with me!
William Blake Enion's Second Lament
The eradication of extreme poverty in the world is one of the half-dozen or so major challenges facing mankind today. Some of the others are (not necessarily in that order): Nuclear weapons and their proliferation; the environmental deterioration of the planet (due to pollution); (1 and the various forms of violent conflict and their terrible consequences (wars, civil wars, genocides, ethnic cleansing, the refugee problem and, last but not least, international terrorism. (2 Extreme poverty (and its eradication) is a global problem in two essential senses. Firstly, in the geographical sense. It exists all over the world, including in the rich countries. (3 In the United States, for example, 13 per cent of the population live under the poverty line -- admittedly, here it is 'ordinary' poverty we are dealing with, which is far less catastrophic than 'extreme' poverty, defined by some international organisations as having less than a dollar a day to survive.
That is the fate of at least about 1.1 billion people in the world today. Secondly, the eradication of extreme poverty is a global problem in the sense that its resolution would cause a significant decrease of a large number of other serious problems that are linked to it. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are a good illustration of that second point. The reduction/eradication of poverty is the first MDG, and the 'Development of a Partnership for Development' (between the rich and the poor countries), the eighth and last MDG. The achievement of these two MDGs means, to a large extent, the simultaneous realisation of all the other six more specifically-defined MDGs (2 to 7). (4 Recent research by international organisations has shown that the number of extremely poor people around the world has declined in the last ten years or so. That decline has not, however, happened everywhere. It has been significant in China and India, and in other Southeast Asian countries; but in Africa the total of extremely poor people has increased and is presently estimated to be about 200 million (with about 24,000 children dying each day of starvation and malnutrition). Increasingly -- owing largely to the efforts of the Global Civil Society (formed by thousands of Non-Governmental Organisations, or NGOs, around the world, both in the rich and in the poor countries, whose members belong to charity organisations, religious groups, small businessmen, and trade unions representing peasants and workers, and so on) (5 –, a great deal of pressure has been applied on the rich countries' governments to face the challenge of extreme poverty and, as a result, some progress has been achieved in the areas of Aid and Debt (see further down in this article). But it is by far not enough, and much more needs to be done.
The second half of 2005 is of particular relevance in that respect. Two crucial international meetings – the G-8 in Scotland and the Millennium+5 in New York -- were held in July and September in which the rich countries made promises and commitments (see further down in this article) to eradicate extreme poverty (and to promote economic development) in the poor countries. While the results of these two 'Summits' can be seen as a step in the right direction, two comments still need to be made concerning them:
1) If the past is any guide to the future, some of these promises and commitments will not be kept; and
2) Even if they are kept (and this is where I part company with most analysts and commentators of the Global Civil Society), extreme poverty (and underdevelopment) will still, to a significant extent, continue to exist. That, I believe, is so mainly because the eradication of extreme poverty (and economic development, its Siamese twin) require qualitative change, in the form of structural change, in the economic, political (power), social and cultural relations between the rich and the poor countries.
A third international meeting that is of extreme relevance to the issue of extreme poverty eradication is the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Sixth Ministerial summit which will be held in Hong Kong on 13-18 December 2005. The raison d'etre of the WTO (which replaced GATT, or the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ten years ago) isthe proposition that international trade leads to development of all concerned. Increasingly that proposition is challenged, primarily by Civil Society Organisations (CSO), which claim that that is not necessarily so for a number of reasons, some of which are presented below:
i) while it is true that, in the past, both before and after the Industrial Revolution, international trade has, in the Western world, led to development; and that, more recently, the same thing happened in China, India (6 and some other countries in South-East Asia, it should be noted that that trade has largely concerned manufactured , or industrial, products;
ii) more importantly, in China and South-East Asia, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by multinational corporations (MNCs) has preceded trade, and it was only later (after significant capital accumulation in the recipient countries) that local entrepreneurs and the State became major partners;
iii) the problem with Africa is that (for various reasons) the MNCs have not, in the recent past, or presently, invested there; therefore, the precondition mentioned above has not happened;
iv) agriculture has a number 'specificities', both in the rich and the poor countries, which make it a poor candidate for liberalisation or globalisation. The need for self-sufficiency in food (or food sovereignty) is one reason, the protection of the small farmers is another. Also, dumping by agribusiness cannot be easily controlled; neither can the enormous subsidies (whether Production or export) paid to the farmers in the rich countries. That mainly owing to the impossibility of eliminating all the loopholes;
v) as for the services (GATS) – water, electricity, education, health, banking, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), etc – MNC control of them leads inevitably to inequalities and price increases that make those services unaffordable for a large number of poor people.
These are some of the important reasons why the 'development round' that has been initiated in the 4th WTO Conference in Doha, Qatar, in 2001, has not been so far brought to a satisfactory conclusion. And this is why, predictably, less than a month to go before the 6th Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong, WTO is in an impasse and likely to fail. It is possible that the only way to prevent the organisation's demise is the exclusion of agriculture and services from its activities.
So: What are these qualitative and structural changes needed in the economic, political (power), social and cultural relations between the rich and the poor countries for the eradication of extreme poverty (and the promotion of economic development) in the poor countries?
For reasons of space, I can only, in the framework of this essay, scratch the surface of that enormous subject. To begin with, one must admit that these relations have been in the past, and continue to be, in the present, heavily 'loaded' in favour of the rich countries. What that means is that the wealth and development of the rich and developed countries, on the one hand, and the poverty and underdevelopment of the poor and underdeveloped countries, on the other hand, are, to a significant extent, linked. In other words, the rich and developed countries are rich and developed because the poor and underdeveloped countries are poor and underdeveloped.
Even a cursory look at the dismal history of slavery, colonialism and the 'unequal terms of (international) exchange' in the post-colonial period is enough to convince the fair-minded observer of the correctness of the argument stated in the preceding paragraph. During the three centuries or so that it lasted, slavery was responsible for ten million young men and women being forcibly taken away from the 'Dark Continent', in order to provide cheap labour for the coffee, tobacco, cotton and sugar plantations in the 'New World', i.e., in the Americas and the Caribbean region. Hundreds of thousands more died during their transport in inhuman conditions across the Atlantic Ocean. In the colonial era, which also lasted about three centuries or so, and partly overlapped with slavery (Spanish and Portuguese colonialism came first, followed by the French, British, German, Italian and Belgian colonialisms), the natural, mineral and agricultural resources of Africa, Asia and Latin America were plundered. That enabled the rich countries of the North to accumulate the necessary capital for a successful Industrial Revolution – while, at the same time, the cottage of industries of the colonised nations were destroyed.
Later, in the post- or neo-colonial era, and under the cloak of the so-called objective market 'laws' (two of the most important of which are 'competition' and 'comparative advantage' regulated by the 'Invisible Hand'), the raw materials and primary products of the poor countries -- such as, copper, gold, diamonds, coffee, tea, cocoa, cotton, etc. – were 'bought' at very low prices, while the manufactured products of the rich countries were sold at very high prices. That 'unequal terms of (international) exchange' still continues today, increasing the wealth of the rich and developed countries, while poor countries remain stuck in underdevelopment and poverty.(7 How can that 'situation' be corrected? The answer to that question is, it seems to me, obvious: By returning, at least partly (it would be impossible to do it in full) what was forcibly and unjustly taken from the poor countries over the last three or four centuries. This can be done:
a) By investing massively in the economy of the poor countries (a new 'Global Marshall Plan');(8 b) By reversing the 'unequal terms of (international) exchange'. The relations between the rich and the poor countries can, I believe, be compared to relations between two men, one of whom is fat and rich, and the other, poor and skinny. The former is the owner of a big loaf of bread from which he breaks some crumbs from time to time, which he throws to the latter. The fat rich man is smiling, feeling good about himself, because he thinks that he is a good man, generous and charitable. The poor skinny man picks the crumbs from the ground and eats them. He is scowling, and is sad and angry, because he knows that a large part of the loaf of bread was stolen from him. The poor skinny man believes that there cannot be a lasting peace in the world unless the fat rich man gives him back that part of the loaf of bread. The fat rich man disagrees, telling himself: I will throw some more crumbs, but the loaf itself I must keep to myself.
The sceptic will say: 'I told you. I am not surprised. Can a leopard change its spots?' The rulers of the rich countries remain what they have always been: opportunistic politicians.(9 As Lord Acton has brutally, but honestly, observed a century or so ago: 'Nations don't have friends, they have only interests.' Let me now list briefly the crumbs (in the form of promises and commitments) that were thrown by the rich countries to the poor countries, in the second half of 2005 (in the two summits mentioned above).
US$ 40 billion worth of debt of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) was abolished; and there was talk about extending this 'exceptional largess', under certain conditions, to eighteen more poor countries, which would bring the overall total to US$ 56 billion. This represents about 15 per cent of the total debt owed by the poor countries. It is multilateral debt (owed to the World Bank, the IMF and the regional Development Banks), and not bilateral debt (owed to MNCs and private banks).
Insofar as aid is concerned, the goal is to increase Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to 0.7 per cent of the rich and developed countries' Gross National Income (GNI) by … 2015. The UK, France and Germany, and some other Western European countries, and Japan, made firm commitments; the US, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand, did not. The Scandinavian countries and Netherlands already grant ODA at around, or more than, 0.7 per cent of the GNI.
So, true qualitative and structural change in the economic, political social and cultural relations between the rich and the poor countries won't happen unless the rulers of the former are forced to do it. And this is where the Global Civil Society comes in. The GCS will have to launch world-wide and massive civil disobedience campaigns based on the Soul Force (Satyagraha)and Non-violence (Ahimsa) which I now present briefly below.(10. Satyagraha is a composite word made up of Satya which means 'truth' -- 'the equivalent of love,' Gandhi explained, who added, 'and both truth and love are attributes of the soul' -- and Agraha which is firmness or force. Satyagraha, therefore, means 'Soul Force'. As for Ahimsa, it means 'non-violence' (Himsa means violence). For Gandhi Ahimsa implies selflessness, or the suppression of the Ego. It is achieved through manual labour, the renunciation of property, an austere lifestyle and frugal living. Then a tremendous force, or freedom, is appropriated by the soul. For Gandhi a strong kinship exists between Satyagraha and Ahimsa on the one hand, and the Sermon on the Mount, on the other. Actually, Gandhi felt so very close to Jesus when he was young that he seriously considered converting to Christianity. Actually, Gandhi did not invent the 'Soul Force'. Leo Tolstoy, with whom Gandhi corresponded in 1909-10, was the propagator of a similar concept. Another man Gandhi admired greatly was Thoreau who went to jail rather than obey unjust laws (more precisely, he refused to pay taxes that would be used to make war, as he was a confirmed pacifist). Gandhi also admired Emerson (Thoreau's mentor). What all these remarkable men shared was an essential distinction between power, or physical force, and authority, or moral force. They believed moral authority is capable of changing the world for the good – something that physical power cannot do (as the government of the only superpower in the world is presently discovering to its detriment).
For Gandhi, at the root of the innumerable wrongs that human 'civilisation' is responsible of is the 'discrepancy between word, creed and deed'. He was convinced that that 'discrepancy' was the common weakness of 'churches, states, parties and persons everywhere'. Gandhi attempted to heal that discrepancy, or split, by putting 'harmony' in its place. In Gandhi's life, 'word, creed and deed' became one. In other words, he practised what he preached. His life was indeed made up – in addition to working tirelessly for peace and justice -- of manual labour, the renunciation of property, an austere lifestyle and frugal living. When he died, felled by an assassin's bullets, his personal possessions consisted of two pieces of loin cloth (that he himself had made), a book, a bowl, a spoon, his reading glasses and a pair of sandals. He believed that the absence of material riches in his life made him truly free.
One of Gandhi's greatest statements is: 'I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew.' In other words: I am a Man, and we are all Men, equal and the same; or, Our common humanity is our true identity -- not religion, nationality, ethnicity or class. If that statement was truly accepted and adopted by all men and women of the world, including their leaders, then the 'discrepancy between word, creed and deed' would disappear and we would be living in a much better world. But, unfortunately, such is not the case, despite some worthwhile attempts at dialogue. And as long as it continues, the world will remain what it is: a place full of shameless greed, naked ambition, utter selfishness, unbelievable cruelty, despicable hypocrisy, terrible injustice and unbearable inequality. A world in which, to quote Albany in King Lear, 'Humanity must perforce prey on itself, like monsters of the deep.'
It doesn't have to be that way. Humanity has created the mess it is in and it can must do what it takes to get out of it. Ultimately, it is a matter of political will. In fact, the Global Civil Society is far ahead of the governments of the rich countries in that respect. The politicians need to see the light and follow in the footsteps of the GSO. It is not too late. Mankind can still do the right thing.
Extreme poverty must disappear from the surface of the earth. Decent living standards must be achieved for the poor people. Economic relations between the rich and the poor countries must be based on justice, not charity. The world is sick and tired of charity. Given the injustices of the past, charity is wrong and demeaning for the poor. The main demands of a world-wide and massive civil disobedience campaign based on Soul Force and Non-violence should include, at a minimum, the following: (11
A) The unconditional and immediate abolition of all debt owed by the poor countries;
B) A massive investment program in the economies -- agriculture, industry and services -- of the poor countries (a kind of Global Marshall Plan), representing, to begin with, one per cent of the rich countries GNI -- which should be increased rapidly to two per cent (possibly, in a period of ten years);
C) An international trade that would reverse the 'unequal terms of exchange' of the past, guaranteeing thus a decent income for the small farmers, workers and small businessmen of the poor countries;
D) Good governance, not only in the poor countries, but also in the rich countries. Let us not forget that corruption is of two sorts: grand and petty. The facilitators of grand corruption are in the the rich countries. Grand corruption simply could not exist without their collaboration. As for petty corruption, it is -- like the informal sector -- a means of survival in the poor countries. Petty corruption tends to decrease with economic development.
+ The writer is grateful to Carl Freeman for reading an earlier version of this essay and for providing a number of useful comments.
NOTES 1) Environmental degradation, or pollution, was one of the five 'variables' dealt with by the Club of Rome in a path-breaking and (it turns out some forty years later) prophetic study, Stop to Growth. Among the other variables were: the depletion of non-renewable resources and minerals, like fossil fuels; population growth beyond what the planet can support; and limits to food production.
2) Terrorism is a form of war. I remember a PEN meeting in which Peter Ustinov defined war 'as the terrorism of the rich and powerful', and terrorism as the 'war of the weak and poor, the only difference between the two being that war makes far more victims than terrorism.' There is, of course, no justification for either war or terrorism. They are both evil and should be thrown to the dustbin of history. See my essay No More War in www.peacejournalism.com
3) Mainly the 22 countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
4) As well known, there are eight MDGs. Two are of a general nature: MDGs 1 and 8 (see text); and six – MDGs 2 to 7: Universal Primary Education, Empowerment of Women, Improvement of the Children's and of the Mothers' Health, The struggle to eradicate AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis and the Protection of the Environment – are specifically defined. There is a very large literature on the MDGs, published by the UN and various NGOs of the Global Civil Society; see the Publications and Agenda pages of our website, www.millennium-solidarity.net
5) The leading NGO in the struggle for the eradication of poverty is the Global Call to Action against Poverty (G-CAP). It is a very broad coalition representing more than a thousand NGOs. See www.whiteband.org
6) In India the initial impetus to development came from the availability of a large pool of competent workers in the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT).
7) The subjects of slavery, colonialism and the 'Unequal terms of exchange' will be presented more in depth in a forthcoming essay. The term 'Unequal terms of exchange' was first coined in the early-1960s by Raoul Prebisch, the first director of UNCTAD (the United Nations Commission for Trade and Development).
8) An important NGO based in Germany, the Global Marshall Plan Initiative (GMPI) advocates 'A Global Marshall Plan for a World-Wide Eco-Social Market Economy'. One of the important GMPI publications is Radermacher, F.J. Balance or Destruction. Eco-Social Market Economy as the Key to Global Sustainable Development (Vienna, 2004)
9) Of course, disproportionately, the world is still largely run by men; if more women were in positions of power and authority, it is probable that we would be living in a better world. So women must be 'empowered' everywhere.
10) Much of this section and all the quotes are (unless otherwise specified) from: Louis Fischer, Gandhi. The Life and message for the World (New York, 1954)
11) To build a 'better world', much more than qualitative and structural change in the relations between the rich and poor countries is, of course, needed. Some of the additional challenges of that overarching goal are:
a) The abolition of war as a means of international conflict resolution. War must be the solution of the last resort and the authority for waging it must rest with a world parliament or government. Ultimately, there should be only one army in the world.
b) The complete abolition of all nuclear weapons. And not only stopping their proliferation. As long as an exclusive club of countries claims for itself the right of having them, while refusing that right to others (an understandably unacceptable position for those who are outside the 'Club') that problem will not be solved.
c) Ethical authority. 'Market economy', 'democracy' and 'liberalism' should not be taken to mean that 'anything goes' to make a profit. Especially worrying are: the manipulation of information by a world media controlled by a few 'media barons' /giant corporations; and the (sex)exploitation of the 'consumers' by degrading (for the women) and misleading publicity (commercials). Establishing National Committees of Wise Men could be a way to check this discrepancies.
d) Limits to wealth and income. Almost everything that has any value in life and the world has limits: joy and sorrow, pain and pleasure, happiness and despair. See, for a detailed treatment of this subject, my essay 'Extreme Wealth, Extreme Poverty: Are the Two Linked?' in www.peacejournalism.com
(Dr. Zeki Ergas is a scholar and a writer, and the founder of Millennium Solidarity Geneva Group (MSGG).)
Copyright peacejournalism.com
