Pacem In Terris

The following are excerpts taken from Pacem In Terris- an encyclical of Pope John XXIII, entitled On Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity and Liberty delivered on April 11, 1963.  This document reveals the unswerving dedication of this man to the causes of world peace and universal social justice and demonstrates the truly visionary scope of his thinking.

Note: for full text click Here

Peace on Earth—which man throughout the ages has so longed for and sought after—can never be established, never guaranteed, except by the diligent observance of the divinely established order.

Order in the Universe

2. That a marvelous order predominates in the world of living beings and in the forces of nature, is the plain lesson which the progress of modern research and the discoveries of technology teach us. And it is part of the greatness of man that he can appreciate that order, and devise the means for harnessing those forces for his own benefit.

An lmperative of the Common Good

85. But one of the principal imperatives of the common good is the recognition of the moral order and the unfailing observance of its precepts. "A firmly established order between political communities must be founded on the unshakable and unmoving rock of the moral law, that law which is revealed in the order of nature by the Creator Himself, and engraved indelibly on men's hearts . . . Its principles are beacon lights to guide the policies of men and nations. They are also warning lights—providential signs—which men must heed if their laborious efforts to establish a new order are not to encounter perilous storms and shipwreck." (54)

In Truth

86. The first point to be settled is that mutual ties between States must be governed by truth. Truth calls for the elimination of every trace of racial discrimination, and the consequent recognition of the inviolable principle that all States are by nature equal in dignity.
Each of them accordingly has the right to exist, to develop, and to possess the necessary means and accept a primary responsibility for its own development. Each is also legitimately entitled to its good name and to the respect which is its due.
87. As we know from experience, men frequently differ widely in knowledge, virtue, intelligence and wealth, but that is no valid argument in favor of a system whereby those who are in a position of superiority impose their will arbitrarily on others. On the contrary, such men have a greater share in the common responsibility to help others to reach perfection by their mutual efforts.
88. So, too, on the international level: some nations may have attained to a superior degree of scientific, cultural and economic development. But that does not entitle them to exert unjust political domination over other nations. It means that they have to make a greater contribution to the common cause of social progress.
89. The fact is that no one can be by nature superior to his fellows, since all men are equally noble in natural dignity. And consequently there are no differences at all between political communities from the point of view of natural dignity. Each State is like a body, the members of which are human beings. And, as we know from experience, nations can be highly sensitive in matters in any way touching their dignity and honor; and with good reason.

In Justice

91. Relations between States must furthermore be regulated by justice. This necessitates both the recognition of their mutual rights, and, at the same time, the fulfilment of their respective duties.
92. States have the right to existence, to self development, and to the means necessary to achieve this. They have the right to play the leading part in the process of their own development, and the right to their good name and due honors. Consequently, States are likewise in duty bound to safeguard all such rights effectively, and to avoid any action that could violate them. And just as individual men may not pursue their own private interests in a way that is unfair and detrimental to others, so too it would be criminal in a State to aim at improving itself by the use of methods which involve other nations in injury and unjust oppression. There is a saying of St. Augustine which has particular relevance in this context: "Take away justice, and what are kingdoms but mighty bands of robbers "(56)
93. There may be, and sometimes is, a clash of interests among States, each striving for its own development. When differences of this sort arise, they must be settled in a truly human way, not by armed force nor by deceit or trickery. There must be a mutual assessment of the arguments and feelings on both sides, a mature and objective investigation of the situation, and an equitable reconciliation of opposing views.

The Treatment of Minorities

94. A special instance of this clash of interests is furnished by that political trend (which since the nineteenth century has become widespread throughout the world and has gained in strength) as a result of which men of similar ethnic background are anxious for political autonomy and unification into a single nation. For many reasons this cannot always be effected, and consequently minority peoples are often obliged to live within the territories of a nation of a different ethnic origin. This situation gives rise to serious problems.
95. It is quite clear that any attempt to check the vitality and growth of these ethnic minorities is a flagrant violation of justice; the more so if such perverse efforts are aimed at their very extinction .
96. Indeed, the best interests of justice are served by those public authorities who do all they can to improve the human conditions of the members of these minority groups, especially in what concerns their language, culture, ancient traditions, and their economic activity and enterprise. (57)

A Cautionary Note

97. It is worth noting, however, that these minority groups, in reaction, perhaps, to the enforced hardships of their present situation, or to historical circumstances, frequently tend to magnify unduly characteristics proper to their own people. They even rate them above those human values which are common to all mankind, as though the good of the entire human family should subserve the interests of their own particular groups. A more reasonable attitude for such people to adopt would be to recognize the advantages, too, which accrue to them from their own special situation. They should realize that their constant association with a people steeped in a different civilization from their own has no small part to play in the development of their own particular genius and spirit. Little by little they can absorb into their very being those virtues which characterize the other nation. But for this to happen these minority groups must enter into some kind of association with the people in whose midst they are living, and learn to share their customs and way of life. It will never happen if they sow seeds of disaffection which can only produce a harvest of evils, stifling the political development of nations.

Need for Disarmament

112. Hence justice, right reason, and the recognition of man's dignity cry out insistently for a cessation to the arms race. The stock-piles of armaments which have been built up in various countries must be reduced all round and simultaneously by the parties concerned. Nuclear weapons must be banned. A general agreement must be reached on a suitable disarmament program, with an effective system of mutual control. In the words of Pope Pius XII: "The calamity of a world war, with the economic and social ruin and the moral excesses and dissolution that accompany it, must not on any account be permitted to engulf the human race for a third time." (59)
113. Everyone, however, must realize that, unless this process of disarmament be thoroughgoing and complete, and reach men's very souls, it is impossible to stop the arms race, or to reduce armaments, or—and this is the main thing—ultimately to abolish them entirely. Everyone must sincerely co-operate in the effort to banish fear and the anxious expectation of war from men's minds. But this requires that the fundamental principles upon which peace is based in today's world be replaced by an altogether different one, namely, the realization that true and lasting peace among nations cannot consist in the possession of an equal supply of armaments but only in mutual trust. And We are confident that this can be achieved, for it is a thing which not only is dictated by common sense, but is in itself most desirable and most fruitful of good.

V. PASTORAL EXHORTATIONS

146. Here once more We exhort Our sons to take an active part in public life, and to work together for the benefit of the whole human race, as well as for their own political communities. It is vitally necessary for them to endeavor, in the light of Christian faith, and with love as their guide, to ensure that every institution, whether economic, social, cultural or political, be such as not to obstruct but rather to facilitate man's self betterment, both in the natural and in the supernatural order.

And so, dear brothers, with the ardent wish that peace may come upon the flocks committed to your care, for the special benefit of those who are most lowly and in the greatest need of help and defense, lovingly in the Lord We bestow on you, on Our priests both secular and regular, on religious both men and women, on all the faithful and especially those who give wholehearted obedience to these Our exhortations, Our Apostolic Blessing. And upon all men of good will, to whom We also address this encyclical, We implore from God health and prosperity.

Getting off the Wheel

For thousands of years, human history has been punctuated by a continuous chain of aggression, conflict and wars.  These conflagrations are far too numerous to effectively catalog without requiring documentation on such a massive scale that it would be more than enough to depress even the most stoic and dispassionate of historians.  Some of these conflicts span decades due to a seemingly endless cycle of aggression followed by violent retaliation and retribution that inspires the adversary to further atrocities and on and on it goes until either side or both are so decimated and exhausted by conflict that the hostilities end.  This cessation of hostilities does not preclude, however, the possibility that the conflict would be reignited at some future time.  This story is all too familiar and the human cost is staggering beyond imagination.  It has been estimated that World War II alone resulted in the loss of 50 million human lives worldwide.

What needs to happen for this cycle to be finally and irrevocably broken?  This is a question repeatedly asked by those who have actively pursued peace and social justice over the centuries.  The answer remains elusive.  Having this discussion is vitally important if the species is to endure for a prolonged period of time especially given the strain on natural resources on planet earth created by the material needs of a population of over 7 billion individuals - a population that continues to grow and further increase the pressure placed on those essentials for survival – clean water, clean air, shelter and adequate nutrition.  These issues are enormous and do not include the ramifications of unchecked climate change as a result of the combustion of so-called “fossil fuels.”

In my opinion, in order to radically change the trajectory of human history, transformation must be approached from within.  It is the cultural and societal assumptions that we have all been taught to adhere to - whether through overt or more subtle means – that must be examined and ultimately reformed.  It is through self-discipline and self-analysis that individuals can examine their motivations and more accurately define the internal forces that drive them.  It is through such a process that raw emotions - through which rage and aggression operate – can be successfully constrained and ultimately supplanted by reasoned judgment and tempered by love.

This process is not foreign to human experience.  Quite to the contrary, we have witnessed within the current era the evolution of thinking and behavior around the areas of race, women’s issues and matters relating to sexual preference.  It is my fondest hope and expectation that over time – the time required in this instance may be considerable – humanity will discard the pernicious idea that conflict is resolvable through violent means and embrace peace as being an integral and necessary part of the human experience.  When this transformation actually occurs, then and only then will social justice and true equality of all persons be an undeniable reality.   

The Real Nature of Power

In contemporary culture, power has become associated with economic strength as measured by the accumulation of wealth.  This essential conception regarding the nature of power is embraced by nation states, communities and ultimately by individuals.  Nations pursue their global economic interests by any means at their disposal including the unabashed use of military might with the ultimate aim of utilizing and accumulating wealth and, therefore, power.  This has become the standard model through which nations measure their own success and standing in the world community.

Within this social ethos, individuals have likewise been conditioned to assess their own personal development and success in life in completely analogous terms.  Individuals tend to rate their own measure of success and standing within the community by the amount of wealth accumulated and the conspicuous display of such wealth.  Conversely, a failure to enhance one’s material riches is taken as evidence of personal failure and, by implication a measure of a flawed personality – in modern parlance, such a person is often described as a loser.  The news media reinforces this point of view by paying special homage to those individuals possessing great wealth and influence and elevating the most trivial aspects of their lives to special scrutiny at the expense of reporting on those aspects of living that are of a more essential nature.  The net result of this kind of exposure is to ultimately trivialize that which is of importance and exaggerate that which is trivial.

An inevitable consequence of this worldview is the development of a hierarchy of power that can be represented as a pyramid with the wealthiest individuals occupying the rarefied atmosphere at the top with the remainder of this pyramid occupied by those who have been deemed of far less significance.  Those at the top have come to regard themselves as uniquely different than those “below” them and inherently superior.  Within this narcissistic view, they have come to regard themselves as living outside the boundaries of ordinary reality and not subject to the usual societal constraints on behavior.  They have deemed themselves to be free from feelings of compassion, caring and love that ordinarily serve to moderate behavior motivated by self-interest.

In reality, this conception of supremacy is more reflective of impotence than real power.  Real power cannot flow from material acquisition no matter how masterfully or skillfully accomplished.  Real power does not emanate from the barrel of a gun no matter how big or how deadly it might be.

An individual exhibiting genuine power does so naturally through the ability to be present within the moment – to be essentially grounded in reality without the desire to redefine or reshape what is imminently evident to fit a self-generated image of what that reality should be.  Real power requires the ability to see clearly – both eyes wide opened – and to allow the senses to reveal the true nature of the external environment.  It is such power that allows the possibility of true self-knowledge and ultimately self-realization.  Real power requires the capacity to listen and to be effected by what is heard, seen and felt.  Real power is, after all, the natural product of love stemming from a profound compassion and deep-seated humility – hubris effectively diminishes power by making those who carry such a burden blind to the real and tangible relationships that actually exist in the world.  Avarice and greed – from which hatred naturally flows – overlay reality with artificial conceptions and, therefore, introduce a formidable obstacle to true human progress.

The unfortunate burden of the accepted idea of the nature of power is the horrendous and unnecessary suffering that it imposes upon both the world of humans and the natural world we inhabit.  Such a conception is fundamentally flawed and inherently false; it is an idea that has not served humanity well.  Whether or not the human kind possesses the aptitude to discard what is patently false and develop a new social and ethical paradigm that is more confluent with the true nature of reality is matter open to serious question.  

Bill McKibben - Founder of 350.org

William Ernest "Bill" McKibben was born on December 8, 1960 in Lexington, Massachusetts.  He did his undergraduate work at Harvard University, and went on to join the New Yorker as a staff writer between 1982 to early 1987.  He quit the magazine when its longtime editor William Shawn was forced out of his job, and soon moved to the Adirondack Mountains of upstate New York.  He currently resides in Vermont with his wife and writer, Sue Halpern, and their only child, Sophie who was born in 1993 in Glens Falls, New York. He is a scholar in residence at Middlebury College located in the Champlain valley of central Vermont, where he also directs the Middlebury Fellowships in Environmental Journalism. He is also a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute founded in 2003 with its main office in Santa Rosa California.

McKibben has written extensively about global warming and alternative energy and advocates an economic model based on local rather than global production. In 2010, the Boston Globe referred to him as, "probably the nation's leading environmentalist." He is well known for the fact that he led the creation and organization of 350.org that coordinated what Foreign Policy magazine called, "the largest ever global coordinated rally of any kind," with 5,200 simultaneous demonstrations in 181 countries. The magazine named him to its inaugural list of the 100 most important global thinkers, and MSN referred to him as one of the dozen most influential men of 2009.   McKibben is also active in the Methodist Church, and his spirituality has helped shape and influence his thinking and worldview.

In his books and in his lectures and presentations, McKibben has attempted to focus attention upon the deleterious consequences that human activity has had and continues to exert upon the natural environment.  He is not only an eloquent and outspoken critic of the dependence of developed and developing societies upon the burning of fossil fuels for energy, but he also suggests an alternative model for living if humanity is seriously committed to stopping and ultimately reversing the ever-increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the environment.

We will examine in some detail the reasons for his concern and the strategies that he has developed to counter the current trend.  To begin, however, it is important to state that the science regarding the chemical nature of the greenhouse gases and the relationship between their accumulation in the earth’s atmosphere and global warming and climate change is clear and unambiguous.  The overwhelming burden of scientifically-based evidence leaves little room for reasonable doubt.

According to McKibben, the modern conception of civilization has become wholly dependent upon the belief that maximum production occurs when individuals pursue their own individual interests in the context of a market-driven society.  According to this view, individuals make one another richer by enhancing the efficiency of production and by increasing the scale of production.  In such a model, more can and should be produced, for more is better.  The actual consequence of this thinking, however, is that such accelerated growth increases inequality and economic insecurity.  Adding to the detrimental consequences of uncontrolled growth is the current dilemma where growth is colliding with the physical barriers imposed by a planet possessing limited natural resources.  Symptoms of such a collision are climate change and peak oil – the point at which energy consumption is greater than one-half of all known reserves.

McKibben poses a fundamental question – does the acquisition of greater wealth make one happier?  His answer to that question is decidedly, no; he proposes that there needs to be a shift in priorities in order to rebuild local economies and that, “… these may yield less stuff, but they produce richer relationships, they grow less quickly, if at all, but they make up for it in durability.”  This thinking represents a radical shift from the conventional economic paradigm.  He maintains that community is the key to physical survival within our current environmental quagmire.  His belief in community is quite analogous to Vandana Shiva’s emphasis on the intrinsic value of the commons as we shall soon learn .

From an historic perspective, the first 4000 years of civilization produced little change in the individual standard of living.  There was about 100% of economic growth during those first 4000 years.  In comparison, in recent times 100% economic growth has been achieved in a few decades.  This enormous change in the rate of growth is essentially due to the invention of labor saving devices and the accessibility of cheap energy in the form of fossil fuels to drive these engines.  In 1712, Thomas Newcomen developed the first steam engine that was used to drain waste from coal mines.  This engine essentially replaced a team of 500 horses walking in a circle.  This one development marked a dramatic change regarding the way work was accomplished, our eventual reliance on machines to do our work and our increasing dependence on fossil fuels as the primary energy source.

The post World War II era saw the rise of the United States as a world economic power; it was the only large industrially-based economic  power that was essentially unscathed by the war.  The per capita Gross National Product (GNP) of the U.S. rose by twenty-four percent from 1947 to 1960 - a phenomenal increase.  This kind of economic growth came to be seen as the model upon which economic progress is measured.  In the words of Lawrence Summers, Bill Clinton’s secretary of the Treasury, “It is the task of economic policy to grow the economy as rapidly, sustainably and inclusively as possible.”  This viewpoint is so engrained in the culture that individual and national progress and prosperity has been irrevocably linked to growth; the kind of growth that is rapidly becoming unsustainable.  As a consequence, economic inequality has risen sharply and the divide between the wealthiest individuals and everyone else continues to increase at an alarming rate; this is not auspicious for the general well-being of the nation.  This is not simply a domestic issue; more than 80 countries have seen their per capita income fall within the last decade.  The thrust of McKibben’s argument is that there needs to be a global reassessment of this paradigm towards the development of sustainable growth.

The perils faced by the continued reliance on fossil fuels as the source of energy to drive economic growth represents an essential aspect of McKibben’s fundamental argument.  Oil, coal and natural gas are intimately connected to the ideology of perpetual growth, for economic production is constrained by its access to “affordable” energy.  And, of course, fossil fuels represent a limited resource.  The world is rapidly approaching peak oil – the point at which consumption is more than one-half of all reserves; there are some experts who claim that we have already reached that juncture.

 

A far more important impact of the burning of fossil fuels is the production of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.  For example, the burning of 6 pounds of gasoline produces 5 pounds of carbon.  In 1712, at the advent of steam power, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 275 parts per million (ppm).  The current concentration is approximately 380 ppm.  This increase has resulted in a rise in worldwide temperature of one degree Fahrenheit (F) – this represents a significant change.  The relationship between economic output and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can readily be illustrated by the fact that between 1990 and 2003, the carbon dioxide concentration increased by sixteen percent.

The implications of this increase on the planetary environment are many including an increase in the frequency of:

·         extreme weather

·         droughts

·         floods

·         mosquito-borne diseases in temperate climates

·         severe hurricanes

·         temperature and acidity of the oceans

·         sea level rise.

According to McKibben, the twin realities of the approach of peak oil and imminent danger to the global environment caused by the burning of fossil fuels should be sufficient motivation to mobilize a substantial change in the way humans do business.  As a result of this passionate concern about the impact of human activity on the natural environment, he has created the 350.org international campaign, as mentioned previously, that's, “building a movement to unite the world around solutions to the climate crisis--the solutions that science and justice demand.

“Our mission is to inspire the world to rise to the challenge of the climate crisis—to create a new sense of urgency and of possibility for our planet.

“Our focus is on the number 350--as in parts per million CO₂. If we can't get below that, scientists say, the damage we're already seeing from global warming will continue and accelerate.  But 350 is more than a number--it's a symbol of where we need to head as a planet.”

On October 10, 2010 there was a 10/10/10 Work Party with events in 188 countries for the purpose of drawing attention to the importance of the climate change issue and to pressure governments to begin to take effective action in order to forestall the worst possible outcome for the future of the natural environment.

McKibben’s essential point in regards to future prospects for humanity is that there needs to be a shift in outlook from perpetual growth to what he refers to as maintenance; the focus, in his thinking, needs to be on preserving the societal infrastructure and significantly curtailing the use of fossil fuels with the emphasis on sustainable production.  He refers to this methodology as “backing off.”

McKibben, like Vandana Shiva and Wangari Maathai, sees a distinct relationship between the issues of peace and social justice and the health of this planet that sustains human societies everywhere.  He has drawn our attention to the prospect of climate change  so profoundly important to the future of human societies on the earth that to ignore it will have a devastating impact on future generations.

Waging Peace

This country is now in the midst of economic doldrums exacerbated by the apparent inability of the federal government to effectively deal with the endemic problems that face the nation’s people, including unemployment, underemployment, hunger, homelessness, a failing infrastructure, a crisis in affordable health care and, most importantly, the looming eventuality of economic and social dislocations caused by climate change.  In fact, to some of the nation’s leaders, these problems are dutifully ignored or treated as if they do not exist – as if the suffering that their reality imposes on so many is of no real consequence.

The Great Depression that began with the stock market crash of 1929 was caused by many of the same factors that resulted in the Great Recession of 2008.  In spite of the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s (FDR) New Deal, it is believed that it was the industrial revitalization propelled by preparations for the U.S. entry into World War II that brought the nation out of the devastating depression.

The arguments given for the U.S. participation in World War II were many and included:  the preservation of democracy, the need to subdue and defeat fascism and to keep the nation secure from outside aggression.  The case made for the U.S. to abandon its policy of isolationism was ultimately accepted by the general public after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that decimated the pacific fleet and left the public feeling terribly vulnerable.

Although war and the prospects for war can readily be used to mobilize public opinion and permit the expenditure of vast amounts of public resources necessary to maintain a war footing, it seems that the idea of spending economic capital in order to assure a peaceful future through peaceful means holds no real traction.  

The application of economic resources in order to ensure that no one goes hungry or homeless; that the infrastructure required to sustain a modern technological culture is appropriately tended to; that monies required to build an adequate health care system are provided; that quality education for all is  appropriately financed and, most importantly that resources are utilized to help forestall the worst possible outcome from climate change  – all of these necessary expenditures would stoke the economic engine, yet they face extraordinary opposition.   Efforts to mobilize the public to address these important issues with the appropriate resources and sustained effort have apparently stalled.  Quite to the contrary, we have heard calls for increased austerity that will serve no useful purpose except to worsen the very problems that will ultimately endanger the prospects for peace and social and economic justice.

I pose the following question – why are we unable as a people and, in the broader sense, as a species  to wage the peace through reasoned and intelligent judgment while we are all too willing to jeopardize our collective  future in the name of conflict, of aggression and ultimately war?   A failure to find an adequate answer to this puzzling reality and finally correct it may eventually lead to horrific consequences.

Muhammad Yunus

Muhammad Yunus’ pioneering efforts in regards to the burgeoning use of micro-loans in many parts of the world to help foster the economic vitality of the underprivileged had won him the Nobel Peace Prize.

Muhammad Yunus is known as the “Banker to the Poor” and founder of the Grameen Bank.  Yunus was born on June 28, 1940 in Bangladesh during the beginning of the Second World War.  .  He grew up on Boxirhat Road in Chittagong, the largest port in Bangladesh and a commercial city with a population of three million.  Bangladesh is a densely populated country with a total population of about 150 million people.  His family was relatively prosperous; they lived in a two story house with his father’s jewelry shop on the ground floor.

His family was Muslim by religion.  His mother exerted a powerful influence on the young Yunus; he was particularly influenced by her strong sense of compassion and concern for the poor.  According to Yunus, his mother dominated his early years.  She gave birth to fourteen children; five of them died.

Early in Yunus’ life, the subcontinent was freeing itself from British domination.  In 1947, the Pakistan movement for partition reached its peak.  The area that is now the sovereignty of Bangladesh was expected to be subsumed by Pakistan.  His parents were deeply committed to partition.  On August 14, 1947, the Indian subcontinent was granted independence.  This was a period of great turmoil and uncertainty.  In addition, when Yunus was nine, his mother was stricken with mental illness - a disease that ran in her family.    She suffered for some thirty-three years before her death. His father’s reaction to his wife’s chronic and debilitating illness was a model of love, graciousness and perseverance for all that time, and in 1982, his mother passed away.

As a young man, Yunus traveled to Canada, the U.S., the Philippines and Japan.  In 1957, he was a student in the Department of Economics at Dhaka University and received his BA in 1960 and MA in 1961.  Following his graduation, Yunus joined the Bureau of Economics at Dhaka University. Later he accepted a faculty position as a lecturer in economics in Chittagong College.  Using his education, he also set up a successful business; until, 1965 when he received a Fulbright scholarship and went to the University of Colorado at Boulder.  There he became a student of economics, and was deeply influenced by Professor Georgescu-Roegen, a Rumanian.  Yunus described his mentor in the following way, “He also taught me that things are never as complicated as they seem.  It is only our arrogance that prompts us to find unnecessarily complicated answers to simple problems.’”

During his stay in the United States, he was married.  At that time, Pakistan was unable to hold firmly onto West Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and used repressive methods to control the population.  This helped spawn a movement in his homeland to seek independence. As a consequence, the Pakistani army was ordered by the central government to brutally suppress the organizations responsible for the Bengali Declaration of Independence.  Yunus was committed to the independence of his homeland from continued Pakistani rule.  He became Secretary of the Bangladesh Citizen’s Committee and its chief spokesperson.  Finally, on December 16, 1971, Bangladesh won its war of independence – a conflict that resulted in the  catastrophic  loss of three million Bengali lives.  Ten million citizens fled the country during this time of upheaval.  Yunus felt duty-bound to return home and participate in the immense task of rebuilding his war-ravaged land.

He became head of the Economics Department at Chittagong University.  There he soon became disenchanted with traditional economics, for he felt that economic theory did not coincide with the needs of the majority of Bengalis living in dire poverty – a country where the illiteracy rate was seventy-five percent.  In categorizing his feelings about the role of education, he stated that, “A university must not be an island where academics reach out to higher and higher levels of knowledge without sharing any of these findings.  These economists spend all their talents detailing the processes of development and prosperity, but rarely reflect on the origin and development of poverty and hunger.   As a result, poverty continues.”  Furthermore he felt that, “Nothing in the economic theories I taught reflected the life around me.  How could I go on telling my students make-believe stories in the name of economics?  I wanted to become a fugitive from academic life.  I need to run away from these theories and from my textbooks and discover the real-life economics of a poor person’s existence.”

One of the historic factors that greatly influenced Yunus’ decision to encourage economic reform in his country was the famine that had become pervasive throughout Bangladesh.  He,  therefore, took it upon himself to visit poor villages and discover firsthand the nature of their living conditions and real causes for their poverty.
 

From this study, he came to realize that many Bengali households attempted to increase their economic standing by creating their own small businesses and provide products that are in local demand.  He was to discover that one of the main obstacles that faced these individuals was the common practice of usury, where unscrupulous lenders would lend money with such exorbitant interest rates that their clients could never free themselves from seemingly endless cycles of indebtedness.  The traditional banks offered no relief in this regard.

Yunus summarized his findings in this way - “This is the beginning for almost every Grameen borrower.  All her life she has been told that she is no good, that she brings only misery to her family, and that they cannot afford to pay her dowry.  Many times she hears her mother or her father tell her she should have been killed at birth, aborted or starved.  To her family, she has been another mouth to feed, another dowry to pay.  But today, for the first time in her life, an institution has trusted her with a great sum of money.  She promises that she will never let down the institution or herself.  She will struggle to make sure that every penny is paid back.”

These data inspired Yunus to organize an institution to lend directly to these industrious entrepreneurs.  What started with humble beginnings ended with the state-sanctioned Grameen Bank that has a presence all over the world, including Malaysia, the Philippines, South Africa and even the United States.  The Grameen Bank officially began operations in January of 1977.  The operating assumption of the Grameen Bank is that every borrower is honest.  Borrowers are required to adhere to a regular repayment schedule.  In addition, borrowers are encouraged to enter into groups with the idea that as a member of a group, they will have additional incentive to behave responsibly.  Membership in a group also affords each member additional support and encouragement.  As a result of implementing these practices, the bank suffers less than one percent of bad debt.  Prior to the creation of the Grameen Bank, less than one percent of borrowers were women in a society where women typically bear the brunt of the burden of poverty. 

On October 2, 1983, the Grameen Bank was recognized by the government as a separate bank that could also issue home loans.  Currently, seventy-five percent of the shares in the Grameen Bank are owned by the borrowers themselves.  As of 1999, 190 million dollars has built 560,000 houses with near perfect repayment.  In the 1980s, one hundred branches were added each year.  In 1985, a Grameen Branch was set up in the state of Arkansas during the governorship of Bill Clinton - it is called the Good Faith Fund.  Branches have also been set up in Oklahoma and Chicago, Illinois.  Today the Grameen Bank has about eight million members - some 40 million individuals counting family members - and has loaned about eight billion dollars to the poor in Bangladesh.  Grameen America is a growing organization in the U.S. that uses the group lending and savings models pioneered by Yunus.

As a result of his monumental efforts, Yunus was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006.  The following is an excerpt taken from his acceptance speech -

“If we consider ourselves passengers on “Spaceship Earth,” we will find ourselves on a pilotless journey with no discernible route to follow.  If we can convince ourselves that we are actually the crew of this spaceship, and that we must reach a specific socioeconomic destination, then we will continue to approach that destination – even if we make mistakes or take detours along the way.”

In my mind, Yunus demonstrated by his actions the remarkable power of an idea.  His solution to the endemic problem of poverty that surrounded him in his native country of Bangladesh was a simple one, yet it has had profoundly beneficial consequences for many millions of individual lives and families.  In his mind, the primary goal of the Grameen Bank was and continues to be economic development.  Its obvious success is a testimonial to the validity of his thinking.  His brainchild has spread beyond the borders of Bangladesh and has found worldwide application.  What was originally conceived as a rather simple concept has grown into a viable approach to practically and successfully bring millions of people out of blinding poverty.  

The Legacy of Dag Hammarskjold and the UN

The United Nations (UN) has been existence for over seventy years.  Its existence may be controversial for those who believe that it poses a threat to national sovereignty; however, it has played a critical role over its lifetime in providing an environment for dialog between nations in the midst of conflict and has on many occasions averted the possibility of unrestrained conflict.  One of the early architects of the UN was Dag Hammarskjold.  A brief description of his life and his contribution to the cause of world peace is described below.  In addition to his role as a global statesman, Hammarskjold was also a poet in his own rite.

The UN was created in 1941 by the Allied powers during World War II anticipating the end of the war with the goal of maintaining the peace after the hostilities had ended.  The one significant drawback regarding the makeup of this organization is the fact that it is essentially controlled by the powerful industrial nations through the Security Council that was originally composed of five members - the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and England.

The UN is under the leadership of the Secretary General, who is voted in.  The first Secretary General was Trygve Lie, who remained in that position until 1952.  During his administration, many UN members had lost confidence in the international organization for a number of reasons.  The Security Council had become known for its inaction.  Furthermore, the Taiwanese government represented China on the Security Council after mainland China - People’s Republic of China (PRC) - had fallen to the Communists.  As a consequence, about one-quarter of the world’s population was not represented. In protest regarding this exclusion, representatives of the Soviet Union boycotted the UN from January to August 1950; it was their absence that allowed for the UN-sponsored military intervention in Korea.

At that time, Lie had supported the Security Council’s decision to resist by force the invasion of South Korea by military forces from North Korea - a conflict that was first called a “police action” but eventually came to be referred to as the Korean War.  The Soviet Union essentially ignored Lie after 1950 and right-wing elements of the United States were severely critical of his leadership.  As a consequence of the Korean War, Lie came under intense political pressure.  He ultimately resigned his position on November 10, 1952. 

At that time, Dag Hammarskjold was Minister of State in Sweden’s Foreign Office.  He was recommended for the post of Secretary General of the UN and was accepted by all with the exception of the Chinese.  Hammarskjold was truly surprised by the nomination; he never expected it.  After considerable personal deliberation, he accepted the nomination and on April 10, 1953, he was instated.

The following taken from a speech he made at John Hopkins University in 1955 sheds considerable light on his worldview and the principles that motivated him, “The dignity of man, as a justification of our faith in freedom, can be part of our living creed only if we revert to a view of life where maturity of mind counts for more than outward success and where happiness is no longer to be measured in quantitative terms.  Politics and diplomacy are no play of will and skill where results are independent of the character of those engaging in the game.”  He was a realist, but also was a man of strong ethics.  He was a believer in the power of the mind, especially when operating through reasoned judgment.  He deeply valued integrity and what he often referred to as “maturity of mind.”

To further illustrate the character of his thinking, I have included a number of his commentaries taken from his book entitled, Markings:

 “The more faithfully you listen to the voice within you, the better you will hear what is sounding outside.  And only he who listens can speak.  Is this the starting point of the road towards the union of your two dreams – to be allowed in clarity of mind to mirror life and in purity of heart to mold it?”

“A heart pulsating in harmony with the circulation of sap and flow of rivers A body with the rhythms of the earth in its movements?  No.  Instead: a mind, shut off from the oxygen of alert senses, that has wasted itself on “treasons, stratagems and spoils” – of importance only within four walls.  A tame animal – in whom the strength of the species has outspent itself, to no purpose.”

“Like the bee, we distill poison from the honey for our self-defense – what happens to the bee if it uses its sting is well known.”

“O how much self-discipline, nobility of soul, lofty sentiments, we can treat ourselves to, when we are well-off and everything we touch prospers – Cheap: scarcely better than believing success is the reward of virtue.”

“Only he deserves power who every day justifies it.”

“To preserve the silence within-amid all the noise.  To remain open and quiet, a moist humus in the fertile darkness where the rain falls and the grain ripens-no matter how many tramp across the parade ground in whirling dust under an arid sky.”

“The style of conduct which carries weight calls for stubbornness even in an act of concession: you have to be severe with yourself in order to have the right to be gentle to others.”

“Do not seek death.  Death will find you.  But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment.”

“Forgiveness breaks the chain of causality because he who “forgives” you---out of love---takes upon himself the consequences of what you have done.  Forgiveness, therefore, always entails a sacrifice.

“The price you must pay for your own liberation through another’s sacrifice is that you in turn must be willing to liberate in the same way, irrespective of the consequences to yourself.”

These comments offer, in my judgment, important insights into the character and persuasions of the man and inform us regarding the inner motivations that determined his actions.

Hammarskjold was born on July 29, 1905 in Jonkoping, Sweden.  His father, Hajmar Hammarskjold, was involved in Swedish politics; he served as a delegate to the negotiations that led to the dissolution of the Swedish union with Norway.  He was a severe man, fully entrenched in his principles.  His father ultimately became Prime Minister in 1914.  Over time, he became unpopular; his views were interpreted as essentially undemocratic and reactionary.  During the First World War he proclaimed Sweden’s neutrality.  In a joint note to both warring parties, Hajmar proposed that the Swedish government remain the guardian of international principles.  He was chosen as chairman of the League of Nations Committee for the Codification of International Law and delegate to the Disarmament Conference.  Hammarskjold felt that one of his father’s admirable qualities was that he believed in and actively sought justice.  His mother, Agnes, was described as having clarity of mind and a radically democratic view of her fellow humans.

Hammarskjold was obviously influenced by both his parents.  Given his upbringing, it is no surprise that he chose a life of public service.  Those who knew him found him to have a quick and astute mind, a sense of humor, boundless curiosity and to be highly disciplined.  These traits would serve him well as Secretary General of the UN.

 

At the time that Hammarskjold took over the Secretary General position at the UN, the international body was in disarray, especially in regards to its role in the Korean War in the midst of the Cold War.  He realized that the UN needed reorganization; he set about this task with remarkable energy.  The world community seemed to be pleased with his efforts and, more importantly, his results.

According to Brian Urquhart, author of Hammarskjold, “Hammarskjold saw as the primary function of the UN the day-to-day effort to control and moderate conflicts that were a threat to peace, through a system of mediation and conciliation developed on the basis of the sovereign equality of states.  This primary function went hand in hand with a long-term effort to attain wider social justice and equality both for individuals and, in the political, economic and social senses, for nations.  He believed that progress in this direction must be based on a growing respect for international law and on the emergence of a truly international civil service, free from all national pressure and influences and recognized as such by governments.”

He saw his role as Secretary General as a discreet, objective and relentless negotiator always acting with and through sovereign governments.  He visualized his role as an embodiment of the hopes of mankind and for peace and justice.  He felt that in this position, he should avoid pointing a finger of blame.  It is a position that only assumes any semblance of authority when the situation becomes so tenuous and dangerous that the UN becomes the last hope for a peaceful resolution.

During his tenure as Secretary General, Hammarskjold had to employ his talents and abilities on numerous occasions.  We will focus on one in particular regarding the issue of Palestine.  With the collapse of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire during World War I, the colonial powers, especially Great Britain and France, filled the political vacuum left by the former empire.  The post war arrangements that were a direct result of this shift in power and influence created the environment for future upheavals, especially the Arab-Israeli conflict that persists even to this day.  When Hammarskjold arrived at the UN in 1953, an uneasy peace was maintained through armistice agreements and the Tripartite Declaration of France, Great Britain and the United States, signed in May 1950.  Its purpose was to maintain the status quo and prevent aggression by any governments in the region against their neighbors.  The inherent instability of the region came to a head in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel.  There were many factors that contributed to the de-facto end of the Tripartite Declaration including the growth of Arab nationalism, the increased influence of the Soviet Union in the region and the decline of influence of the waning powers of Great Britain and France.  The failed Arab invasion of Palestine in 1948 exacerbated the underlying tensions.

To further exacerbate difficulties in the region, President Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt refused to allow ships to and from Israel to pass through the canal despite UN resolution issued in 1951 that called upon Egypt to allow all ships to pass through the canal.  In spite of his intransigence, Great Britain and France pulled their troops out of the canal.  The enmity between Israel and Egypt and other neighboring Arab states in the region quickly deteriorated.  Skirmishes and reprisals soon began to spiral out of control.  Israeli raids into Gaza and raids of Egyptian-trained Palestinian fedayeen became all too common place.  During this time, Hammarskjold made it quite clear that he would not intervene in any way; until, he was asked to do so.  It was not long before the situation became so grim that he was called upon to get the offending sides to negotiate with one another.  Despite the intense enmity and hatred, Hammarskjold managed to get Nasser and David Ben-Gurion of Israel to sit down with one another; this represented a significant first step in the negotiation process.  Eventually, all sides agreed upon a cease fire.  This was a truly amazing accomplishment.  In spite of this success, Hammarskjold was too much of a realist to believe the situation was resolved, for he knew only too well that he was but one man.  In fact, in just a few years the Suez Canal crisis would erupt, and, once again, he would be called upon to employ his remarkable skills.

Dag Hammarskjold had an illustrious career; until, his untimely death in a plane crash while trying to help bring peace to the troubled African Congo.  He was a person of great courage and inner strength, who believed strongly in the cause of peace and the rule of law.  He was driven by a strong sense of purpose, and an indefatigable willingness to serve.  He dedicated himself to a selfless life of service for what he understood to be the greater good.