A Promise To Eradicate Poverty

“The new president of the World Bank is determined to eradicate global poverty […] in the same way that he masterminded an Aids drugs campaign for poor people […]”, said the intro of an exclusive interview the WB president Jim Yong Kim had with The Guardian. (“World Bank’s Jim Yong Kim: ‘I want to eradicate poverty’”, July 25, 2012)

Kim, the report says, is “passionately committed to ending absolute poverty […]” and wants to “eradicate poverty from the face of the Earth.” “I want to eradicate poverty”, he said. “I think that there’s a tremendous passion for that inside the World Bank.”

It’s only a few weeks the WB president is at the helm of the global lending agency. Questioning Kim’s “passionate commitment” to “eradicate poverty” and his trust on the bank that holds in its inside “tremendous passion” to eradicate poverty may sound indecent now.

Determination, passion, commitment are required to eradicate, even to fight if not eradicate, poverty. But poverty neither depends nor persists for lack of passion, etc. individual and organizational attributes. Obstacles standing between eradication and poverty are “something else”. Passion, etc., to eradicate poverty turns ineffective if these obstacles are kept intact and unmoved. Individual’s or an organization’s good intentions fundamentally play marginal role in the task of eradicating poverty.

Kim will broadly and fundamentally find almost the same intention, etc. if he goes through the lectures and addresses McNamara delivered, statements McNamara made and intention McNamara expressed as the WB president after McNamara gave up the job of waging war in Vietnam. In terms of pronouncements, expressed intentions, etc. the WB-McNamara was apparently different from the Vietnam War-McNamara. McNamara’s deliberations, as the WB president, told of a kind-hearted and considerate person who was always concerned with the poor, their plight, poverty, hunger, and similar problems that were hurting humanity. Anyone unaware of McNamara’s role in the Vietnam War, the principles and objectives the Bretton Woods institutions uphold, reasons behind poverty and intricacies – source, actors, etc. – in war against poverty found no reason to mistrust McNamara and his dream, or whatever those were.

But poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, etc. not only persisted stubbornly, these expanded their wings and pulled more human souls into their hungry stomachs over all these decades since McNamara’s intentions were expressed.

Based on the claims the WB used to make it can’t be said that the WB at that time was devoid of determination, etc. to eradicate poverty. Who should doubt those? No WB document, policy, pronounced principles, etc. apparently shows the lack of that passion, etc. Even, the WB in pre- and post-McNamara days broadly had the same pronounced passion.

It’s not only a McNamara- or the WB-case. In this world, many similar individuals and organizations, very good in publicly pronouncing their good wishes, very powerful and resourceful, with similar passion, etc. initiated and are initiating fights to eradicate poverty. Many of them, instead, turned millionaires by selling shares of organizations meant for the poor and the poor are dwelling in poverty.

Lyndon B Johnson said on a night in 1965: “All Americans must have the privileges of citizenship […] It requires a decent home, and the chance to find a job, and the opportunity to escape from the clutches from poverty.” (“Long steps on a long trail”) The American people, the peoples in other lands including Vietnam know the effective meaning of these pronouncements. Still they bear the scars of a brutal war that took toll from the American and the Vietnamese peoples. Now, many of the American people, homeless and jobless, living on food stamps and in a life devoid of dignity, know the real meaning of the pronouncement better. LBJ had very little to do. Capital took hold of everything, all aspects of life. It was a system constructed by capital that made every individual helpless in the face of powerful force of appropriation.

Forces that produce poverty deny considering passion, urge for dignity, etc, of these individuals and organizations uttering noble intentions. The problem with poverty lies not within good hearts of good individuals, not in an empty pot that can be filled with petty savings, not in recognizing the rights to credit, etc. but somewhere else.

Ignoring that “somewhere” but set “‘a clear, simple goal’ in the eradication of absolute poverty”, as Kim plans, will generate huge data providing rosy pictures of the pronounced passion for a short period of time. But dismal, may be shameful, facts will emerge in post-Kim period, or it may happen, even before the period begins.

The reason is not problem with fixing the “clear, simple goal” as Kim plans to materialize his determination. All pronounced warriors against poverty had and have “clear, simple goals.” Moreover, there were and are tools, tool kits, verifiable indicators, means of verifications, methodologies, strategies to subdue poverty and to measure progress in the war against poverty, there were programs for structural adjustment and re-adjustment. Never any of those appeared useless to bankers repeatedly pronouncing intentions to fight poverty. Rather, those, as was told, were very effective, flawless, brilliantly innovated, devised and designed, and effectively, forcefully and faithfully implemented. None can blame any of the implementers/executioners for negligence while implementing those. And, the world poor had also trust on those.

But, now poverty persists very arrogantly. It’s spreading in European and American middle class homes, it’s pulling in executives with business suite in bread lines in Greece, it’s denying entrance to educational institutions in advanced capitalist countries, it’s pressing down students with loans in a matured capitalist country. The story of the Afro-Asian-Latin American poor now sounds cliché to many.

The problem is with something else, not with pronouncements and expressions.

In the interview, the WB chief said: “The private sector has to grow, you have to have social protection mechanisms, you have to have a functioning health and education system. The scientific evidence strongly suggests that it has to be green – you have to do it in a way that is sustainable both for the environment and financially.”

That’s a problem area Kim is planning to step in. Private sector, experiences showed and are showing, denies providing social protection, denies providing health and education if labor doesn’t successfully stands for those or the sector doesn’t feels it necessary in its interest. Private sector, no doubt, has widened opportunities in the areas of health and education, and that was for the rich, not for the poor Kim is concerned with. Now, it’s the fact not only from Asian, African and Latin American countries. Now, this fact is available in the markets of European countries, in the US. For years and decades the facts are coming out.

“The private sector creates the vast majority of jobs in the world and social protection only goes so far,” Kim said.

But Kim can’t ignore the fact: Private sector has demolished hundreds of thousands of jobs and snatched away social protection over the last few years in countries. Consulting ILO documents helps one understand the fact.

The sector indulged in gambling, speculation with finance, financial tools, risks, etc. in association with corruption, while it abandoned job creation as gambling was fetching more profit. Actually, rise of monopoly finance capital was taking away the sector’s capacity to create and retain jobs. The sector forcefully engaged with waging a class war against people that took away social protection and has thrown away people into unemployment, homelessness, hunger, misery, poverty and suffering.

Private sector’s first choice is not the green, sustainable environment and finance. Private sector is hostile to sustainability. In the interest of its survival it can’t take sustainable approach. Private sector devastates environment until the devastation compels it to suspend its acts of devastation.

Kim is concerned with people’s right to a dignified life as he said in the interview, “[P]eople had a right to live a dignified life. The good news is that this place – the Bank – is just full of people like that.”

Private sector, to be specific, private capital is never concerned with people’s right to dignified life. History of capital delivers the fact. Capital’s character determines the limit. It gives up space to people only when it feels necessary for its survival, and the extent of space depends on pressure on capital. Nourishing private sector and expecting to nourish people’s dignified life are contradictory goals. One nullifies the other.

Kim is hopeful because of, as the Guardian report said, “his stint at the World Health Organisation (WHO), where he challenged the system to move faster in making Aids drugs available to people with HIV in the developing world […]”“Now, he says, he thinks he can do the same for poverty: ‘We think we can do something similar for poverty,’ he said.”

Combating poverty and dealing within WHO are not the same. Dealing Aids drugs within the WHO and challenging the system is obviously difficult. Eradicating poverty is far difficult. Politics is there in both the areas: poverty and Aids drugs. But the politics with poverty is far difficult and complex than the politics with pharmaceutical industries and its subservient political entities. These are well known facts to all world actors. Kim is also aware of these facts.

Actors in poverty business are more difficult to deal with as they deliver pious promises lined with sweet smiles, engage lobbying firms with notorious records, pocket a lot of money by selling of shares of organizations once floated in the name of eradicating poverty, manipulate research methodology, and they defend factors generating poverty. And, the business has deeper interest that will get hurt if the poor stands to fight poverty. So, the ideology they sell is individualism – individual enterprise, compete with each other. But, eradicating poverty is a collective task, a political task, cooperation among the poor not competition among them, which is to be carried out by the poor under their leadership. Individual interests can’t attain collective goal. Rather, the opposite happens: Individual initiative grabs collectives.

And, good pronouncements make no ripple in the life of the world poor. There are instances of good pronouncements that hide brutal acts.

Humanity has not forgotten the pronouncement Harry S Truman made after dropping atom bomb, “greatest marvel”, as he said, of “the achievement of scientific brains in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge” and “the greatest achievement of organized science in history”, on Hiroshima: “I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace.” (“Statement on the atomic bomb, 1945”)

The world people know facts following the pronouncement: wastage of resources in the interest of war traders while the poor were combating hunger, flow of blood over lands while the poor were desperately searching safe water, distortion of all nature and life by capital to enlarge its profit while the poor were finding it near to impossible to have a simple shelter. Pronouncements and wishes are turned silent onlookers by capital as capital is the deciding factor, as capital shapes politics and institutions. Within years people will hear an expression of failure in determination, etc., and a renewed expression to fight poverty from the same pulpit by another noble heart. And, the cycle shall move on till poverty is eradicated by people free from the clutches of capital.

Bangladesh: Politics With Padma Bridge

Politics with the planned Padma Bridge is now live in Bangladesh. Equations in politics that the planned bridge has generated are complex, multi-dimensional, and bear deeper implications in more than one level.

Accusations and counter-accusations centering the $2.9-billion bridge issue involve many actors, visible and invisible. The accuser, the world famous, and to many, infamous, World Bank, has also turned jurist and executioner, and the judgment was delivered while the judgment process was going on, and execution was carried our before the judgment was delivered.

As press reports said the WB approached the Anti-Corruption Commission, the Bangladesh corruption watchdog, submitted documents/evidences of alleged corruption and the anti-corruption agency claimed that necessary process was initiated.

Then the next scene in the drama was staged. The WB took its decision before the ACC announced completion of its process. The WB, the lead and coordinating agency in the consortium funding the bridge project, announced cancellation of funding $1.2-billion it had pledged for the project on Jun 29. Thus, an accuser turned not only executioner, but both, jurist and executioner.

Bangladesh politics, fully loaded with competition in its own form as in all other countries, found an issue in its agenda. Bangladesh Awami League, the political party heading the government, initially tried to explain the issue and publicly expressed hope for pursuing the WB in reversing the cancellation decision. Bangladesh Nationalist Party, the main opposition party in parliament, assumed traces of corruption.

The usual political bout began. Now the Dhaka press is running stories on accusations and counter-accusations aimed at political competitors: AL and BNP.

The opposition party, BNP, has tactical advantage. It can easily point fingers to the AL. Section of the Bangladesh opposition political elites have suggested compromise with the WB.

There are talks of favoring a particular firm, a universal capitalist reality. And, a few fingers point to the global lender.

But, all information is not placed before the public. And, strangely, Bangladesh progressive camp has not made strong demand to make the entire business transparent and a white paper to be prepared by an independent body. They had a better chance to reach public with the issue and unmasking motive and method the Bretton Woods institution follows as the bridge is very close to the heart of Bangladesh people. The global lender has given them a scope but that has yet been denied.

The party in government, AL, found tactical ground in another place: Political mobilization. Sheikh Hasina, the Bangladesh prime minister, made a call to patriotism and national honor as she dealt the issue in her speech delivered in the concluding day of the last session in the Bangladesh parliament. She cited the entire incident, her government’s efforts to dig and continue digging the alleged corruption. Then, she made observations and remarks, significant, in terms of the WB and honor of Bangladesh people. The Bangladesh prime minister outlined her government’s plan to finance the bridge construction with resources to be generated in home.

In a central leadership level meeting of AL, as Bangladesh media reported, Sheikh Hasina hinted role of Professor Muhammad Yunus, the micro credit proponent, behind the WB decision. However, the US ambassador in Dhaka issued a statement canceling the assumption related to the hinted role of Prof. Yunus.

Contributions to fund the construction project have been pledged by the Bangladesh parliament members and different sections of the society. These came out as a show of national honor in the face of high handedness. The Bangladesh government has drafted policy on opening bank accounts to raise fund for the purpose.

Sections of Bangladesh capital also expressed their willingness to finance the Padma (it should be Paddaa as Dacca, the Bangladesh capital, is now properly and correctly spelled Dhaka) bridge construction project.

In appearance the planned Padma Bridge over the river Padma, the lower part of the Ganges (Ganggaa) and one of the longest rivers in the world, has connected a lot of actors, within Bangladesh and outside of the country. It is another example of “development”, “aid”, credit, ties, dictation, politics in poor countries.

Role of external actors in Bangladesh is an old story. This land is experiencing masters’ hands since pre-liberation days. Wikileaks has made latest revelations of interesting characters, concerns, issues, factions, information gathering, brief but sharp descriptions of allegiance. Sometimes, roles of external actors are very stark, visible, crude, arrogant, humiliating. Protests and silence, both follow external actors’ role, suggestions, advices, demands. The common people also notice these silently and they mark who stands where and who is closer to whom. Their expression comes out in due time.

At least a partial reality of Bangladesh economy, politics and aspirations of sections of Bangladesh society are getting revealed by the incidents and initiatives centering the planned bridge. Sections of Bangladesh capital and sections of ruling elites also come to light with their aspiration, capacity, tact, limitations. Contradictions and compromises, now and in the coming days, are being and will be connected by the planned bridge.

Reports on alternate sources of financing from abroad, possibilities of involvement of firms from Malaysia and/or China have been carried by the Bangladesh media. Geopolitical considerations, very significant, surface.

Bangladesh, rich in resources and possibilities and poor in distribution, is the home of more than 150 million people and experienced insurgency in its south-eastern corner a few years back. Bangladesh sitting on the head of the Bay of Bengal, and the Bay on the shoulder of the Indian Ocean, is not far away from the Palk Strait, the Andaman Islands, the Ten Degree Channel, and the strategic straits: Malacca, Makassar, Mindoro, Lombok. The Indian Ocean now is a space for strategic maneuvering by a number of blue water navies. Bangladesh, adjacent to India and Burma/Myanmar and closer to Nepal, Bhutan, China, Sri Lanka, Thailand, now occasionally turns seat of international tactical moots, and is now moving from garments manufacturing to ship building. Its smaller ships are now being exported to a number of European buyers along with its garments to the European and North American markets. The country’s loss or profit in its state of jute trading with Iran following sanctions imposed on the oil producing country is a question, but not in the agenda of anti-imperialist politics. Sections of Bangladesh capital are connected in varying ways and levels to capitals in other countries while hydrocarbon resource is a major issue of competition and politics in Bangladesh. External relations the country maintains officially are a complex exercise. The country provides shelter to a group of Rohinga, who had to leave their homes in Burma a few years ago. Recently the issue surfaced once more, and the country has not accepted advices from a number of powerful external actors to provide shelter to the Burmese citizens. The country’s position on Kosovo is a question to a number of important international actors.

Bangladesh is home to a number of micro credit debtors, totaling to more than total populations of a number of countries. The issue turned a live political issue on the occasion of release of Tom Heinemann’s documentary on micro credit. Internal and external actors appeared and are still appearing repeatedly on the issue. Sometimes, these appear interference and the actors turn so desperate that they keep no façade to hide their reliable friend. The Bangladesh people politically disregarded and stood against imperialist plan during their valiant struggle for liberation, and, at times of awareness and struggle, the people stands against imperialism and its friends.

Ruling elites of this poor country have not yet succeeded to get out of the situation basically described as the general crisis of the Bangladesh bourgeoisie by Badruddin Umar, a leading Marxist theoretician in Bangladesh, in the famous Bangladesh weekly Holiday in July-September, 1977. A legislature acceptable to all factions of the ruling elites is yet to materialize.

Politicization, an imperative to rule and a very normal process to all classes according to respective capacity in all societies, is carried out earnestly but is opposed theoretically by all factions of the Bangladesh ruling elites and their theoreticians as the process is yet to bring coherence and equilibrium between the factions. Donor advices are there to train up political entities of the ruling factions so that a stable ruling system can come up and operate. But their methodology ignores elite character and ingredients formulating the character. Exercises with NGOs in Bangladesh are not always happy one for the donors. Rather, a few turned ridiculous while a few exposed subservient character. Political activities and mobilizations or efforts for these by a section of NGOs are now not a hidden agenda in Bangladesh.

In most of the times, schedule of general election brings assumptions of uncertainty in Bangladesh politics. Actors, visible and invisible, turn active in overt and covert ways.

These realities are there as the Padma bridge politics emerges.

The way the World Bank issue was discussed by Sheikh Hasina is quite unusual, sharp, unambiguous in the history of Bangladesh parliament. Never before in the history of the Bangladesh legislative assembly the global lender was discussed, dissected and criticized for so long time with such words. Her pronouncements sometimes made one imagine hearing voices from Latin America. She spoke of national honor and dignity, of the Glorious War of Liberation, and was critical of the World Bank method and its practices. The World Bank lending-“development” business has turned into a political issue in Bangladesh carrying geopolitical implication.

Now, more people in Bangladesh know the global lender, its role in Bangladesh, the way the bank deals with poor borrowers. No political literature has taken the issue to so many citizens as the incident has done. This is the way people learn from day-to-day political developments.

None is sure about the way payments would be made by the masters for the political incident, politics with the Paddaa Bridge. Appeasement? Political price? A new, more faithful lackey? Whatever happens there in the politics of Bangladesh ruling elites, people will learn and their lessons will accumulate furthering politicization of the society.