Disparity amid plenty

“When it's money you're after, look for it where it is most abundant, among the poor.”

There is a pattern of inequality caused by the powerful subjugating the poor and keeping them dependent. Outside influence is often a large factor and access to trade and resources is the usual cause. It is often asked why the people of these countries do not stand up for themselves. In most cases when they do, they face incredible and often violent oppression from their ruling elites and from outsiders who see their national interests threatened.

Consider the following from the United Nations: Everyone has the right to work, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection for himself and his family [and] an existence worthy of human dignity ... Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

And contrast that with the following around the same time, from a key superpower that helped create the United Nations. It is from George Kennan, head of the US State Department planning staff until 1950, and his comments on US relations with Far East:

“we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better”. (George Kennan, U.S. State Department Policy Planning, Study #23, February 24, 1948)

While it is recognized that strong institutions, a functioning and non-corrupt democracy, an impartial media, equitable distribution of land and a well structured judicial system (and other such factors), etc. all help in realizing a successful nation and society, a lack of any of these things can lead to a marginalization of a sector of people. Often, it can be a very large sector.

For example, those likely to lose out in such an equalizing effect are the rich, elite power holders. As a result of their ability to own and/or influence one of these above-mentioned things, they affect the lives of millions. This is a pattern seen throughout history. Take for example the medieval days of Europe where the wealthy of the time controlled land via a feudal ruling system and hence impoverished the common people intentionally.

The rulers (Kings etc), would proclaim their “Divine Right” to rule over their subjects. They had an army of Lords and Bishops to advise on policies that benefited these groups (religion was used - and still is - to control and influence people, while Lords and Knights were an extension to the ruling family that would carry out the wishes.) They would heavily tax the people of their land. Not allowing the peasants to own the land upon which they lived meant that they would be stuck in poverty and dependency. When the elite could no longer tax the poor, they started to tax the wealthy nobility.

It was only at that point did the revolutions such as the French Revolution take hold (because now the nobility had their wealth affected and were able to influence the peasants to fight for their cause.) While this helped bring more rights, once the “people” won, there were concessions made that allowed the elite to retain their power, but to share it a bit more.

In the same way, today, certain rich multinational corporations influence the media, politicians and various institutions to foster an environment that benefits these few people. Dressed in rhetoric about how this is good for “everyone” it becomes difficult to break from this pattern.

Today's “corporate globalization”, is another example in a more international context where the wealthier are able to determine the rules, shape the international institutions and influence the communication mechanisms that disseminate information to people. The powerful and cunning had learned to plunder by trade centuries ago and societies ever since have been caught in the trap of those unequal trades. Once unequal trades were in place, restructuring to equal trade would mean the severing of arteries of commerce which provide the higher standard of living for the dominant society and collapse of those living standards would almost certainly trigger open revolt. The world is trapped in that pattern of unequal trades yet today.

In this backdrop, how do developing nations contend with poverty? Often, if governments try to improve situations for their people, they may face pressure or even military intervention by the powerful nations. Ironic then, that the foremost backers of free trade point out that it will help reduce conflicts. It probably would, if there was truly free but fair and possibly managed to avoid problems related to power and undue influence. Today's international trade is influenced by the wealthy.

The powerful nations of course claim this is to save the other country, but it is usually to do with protecting “their” national interests; namely a constant supply of cheap resources or some other reason related ultimately to maintaining influence and power. Dictators and other corrupt rulers have often been placed/supported in power by the wealthier nations to help fulfill those “national interests” in a similar way the old rulers of Europe used the Lords and Knights to control the peripheries and direct resources to the centers of capital. Although, now, increasingly, “democracies” are supported, but ones where the economic choices are so limited, that the “democracy” provides a similar environment that a dictatorship did, for foreign investors, but without the overt violence and oppression. This means that it is hard to break out from poverty, or to reduce dependency from the US/IMF/World Bank etc.

Hence, many back the economic neoliberal policies without realizing the background to it. It is another example that while international trade and globalization is what probably most would like to see, the reality of it is that it is not matching the rhetoric that is broadcast. J.W. Smith has researched this in depth and the following offers a relevant summary:

“The Third World remains poor because the powerful strive to dominate every choke-point of commerce. One key choke-point is political control through the “co-respective” support of local elites. Where loyalty is lacking, money will be spent to purchase it. If a government cannot be bought or otherwise controlled, corrupt groups will be financed and armed to overthrow that government and, in extreme cases, another country will be financed to attack and defeat it. ... The pattern has been well established repeatedly throughout history and throughout the world, as noted by the well-known philosopher Bertrand Russell”.

A French humorist Susan George once wrote, “When it's money you're after, look for it where it is most abundant, among the poor.” Governments now do this more than ever because the poor are rooted, stationary, “slow”; whereas the big money is nomadic and travels at the speed of bytes. Stationary money (of local businesses, professionals, wage and salary earners) will be taxed to the limit for the simple reason that it can be got at.