We in the rich nations seem more intent on keeping needy people out than in doing what we can to tackle the root causes of their misery.
A week or two ago a tragedy occurred in the Mediterranean. A small boat crammed with clandestini (migrants seeking to slip into the European Union) sprang a leak and rapidly sank. Of all those on board only three survived to be rescued by a Tunisian fishing boat.
Such accidents are so frequent that the story barely caused a ripple: although it hit the front page of The Independent in the UK. No one knows whether it was economic desperation or political oppression which led these people to their deaths—it may well have been a combination of both.
There is a growing sense of panic in many wealthy nations at the tide of hapless humanity seeking shelter and security. Yet we seem more intent on keeping needy people out than in doing what we can to tackle the root causes of their misery. And, on the economic side at least, there is much we can do to address the plight of developing nations.
Poverty, of course, has many causes—overpopulation and erratic weather, exploitation, armed conflicts, corruption, poor governance, lack of education, drugs, misfortune and disease, to name but some. But those of us living in the rich ‘North’ need to remember that many nations’ efforts to escape from poverty are severely handicapped by discriminatory terms of trade, often imposed to protect the markets of the richer nations.
Of course some trade barriers have been lowered, and some less wealthy countries have reaped the benefit, ‘importing’ millions of jobs from the ‘North’. But the rich world calls the shots and in many areas of trade it is the poorest nations who come off worst. How can the poor trade their way out of trouble if they have to play on an uneven pitch?
To give just one example, Kenya’s burgeoning flower export industry has been hit hard by an import tax imposed earlier this year on flowers delivered to a large auction near Amsterdam. €14 per 10,000 stems may not seem a huge sum but it has been enough to destroy 2,000 jobs in just two months. As the chairman of the Kenya Flower Council, Erastus Mureithi, commented, ‘It all feels very unfair.’
Philip Bowring, writing in the International Herald Tribune (17 June), was more outspoken. In an article headlined, ‘How the West pays to keep the rest poor’, he describes Europe’s $50 billion annual agricultural subsidies as, ‘the biggest single contributor to Third World poverty’.
Fears in the rich world of being swamped are understandable. There is a limit to how many jobs, houses, hospitals and schools a country can provide. But surely the answer is not to slam our doors.
Dealing with this global injustice is one of the great moral imperatives of our time. Even on pragmatic grounds, it is not in the long-term interests of us Northerners to allow the South to languish in poverty. As the mass media penetrate the remotest regions of Earth, the glaring gap between rich and poor is becoming obvious to everyone. Envy and anger will proliferate and some among the poor—not perhaps the very poorest for they struggle merely to survive—will retaliate as best they can.
What can I as an individual in a wealthy country do? I can make my views known. I can let my political leaders know that I want change—and that I am willing to accept the consequences for my own wallet. I can buy fair-trade products so that more of the profit goes to producers in the developing world. I can maintain a downward pressure on my own material expectations. I can remember that happiness lies not so much in possessions as in good relationships, not only with those around me but those who are risking everything on wave-tossed boats that are hardly worthy of the name.
NOTE: Individuals of many cultures, nationalities, religions, and beliefs are actively involved with Initiatives of Change. These commentaries represent the views of the writer and not necessarily those of Initiatives of Change as a whole.
English