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.

We Day and Save the Children

On Wednesday March 27, 2013, some 15,000 middle and high school students from around the state of Washington are expected to converge upon Key Arena in Seattle to celebrate We Day.  The students who are attending share one thing in common – they have committed to work on at least one globally-based service project and one project focused on a local problem. 

This event is sponsored by Craig Kielburger, co-founder of Free the Children, and represents the twenty-fourth gathering and the first to be held outside Canada, the home of the organization.  Kielburger now thirty years old has been an activist for the causes of world peace and social justice since a young boy of twelve.  His story is exceptional and a brief description of his early life follows.   

Craig Kielburger was born on December 17, 1982.  He gained some notoriety as an activist for the rights of children around the world.  He is the founder of an organization called, Free the Children and Me to We.  Kielburger comes from Thornhill, Ontario, Canada.  At twelve years of age, he happened to come upon an article about the senseless murder of a young boy named Iqbal Masih.  This story was to launch Kielburger on a personal quest that would irrevocably change his life.

Iqbal Masih was a freed child laborer from Pakistan.  He had won the Reebok Youth in Action Award on account of his courageous decision to speak out against and in expose child labor abuses in his native country.  He came to the United States to receive this honor.  This child’s story is representative of the horrors so many children face in South Asia.  His parents had taken out a loan amounting to 600 rupees (equivalent to 12 USD) from an unscrupulous lender - who was the owner of a carpet factory - in order to pay for the wedding of their eldest son.  As repayment for this loan, Masih was forced to join other children whose job it was to squat before looms in the owner’s carpet factory tying miniscule knots in the products destined for world markets.  According to the nature of the agreement made with the owner, Masih would be literally owned by the manufacturer; until, the loan was fully paid off.  The boy was, in a sense, human collateral for this loan that in Western eyes would appear miniscule.  The “owner” retained the right to “sell” the boy to another factory owner.  As a consequence, Masih worked twelve hours a day and six days a week.

This horror does not end here.  For it was within the factory owner’s right to add on to the amount of the loan should the boy make mistakes and daily charges were made for the boy’s bowl of rice.  In addition, severe physical punishment was applied to these young children when mistakes were made; many of these hapless victims had scars on their hands and feet as a result of this kind of abuse.  Accidents were common as well given the long hours and physical exhaustion that accompanied this kind of work.

By the time Masih was ten years old, he realized that he would never be able to pay off the debt which now amounted to 13000 rupees.  With the help of a human rights organization that learned of his plight, Masih was able to escape and go on to school where he did exceedingly well.   He quickly learned to read and write and became an eloquent advocate for the rights of child workers and eventually campaigned on their behalf.

Masih’s personal dream was to become a lawyer and use his profession to help free more children trapped in the same kind of bondage that severely impacted his life.  All his aspirations were to end in tragedy, however, for on April 16, 1995, Masih was assassinated in Pakistan while attempting to visit his uncle on bicycle with two of his cousins; he was twelve years old at the time. 

Kielburger clearly remembered reading about this tragic event on April 19, 1995; this news had a profound effect upon him.  He questioned his mother about the story; her response was that he should go to the library and get more information.  The library was of little help, but by the time he returned home that day he remained extremely concerned about the tragic story of that boy and the horrific injustice that it spoke of.

This harsh reality that he was suddenly exposed to through something as innocuous as a newspaper article, seemed to light a fire in his mind.  As a result, he began making telephone calls to organizations dedicated to such issues.  Kielburger was to discover that all the persons he talked to over this issue that impacted children were adults; he found this very disturbing.  This apparent awakening in his awareness of the magnitude of this social inequity, Kielburger describes in the following way, “I’m always fascinated by coincidences, how one random event can come on the heels of another and together alter the whole direction of a person’s life.”

Eventually, Kielburger would be introduced to Alam Rahman from Bangladesh and shared his thoughts regarding child labor with him.  Rahman encouraged him to pursue the issue further.  In short order, Kielburger had organized students at his school and together they formed a group called, Free the Children with the goal of raising both awareness regarding this issue and funds to help combat it.

Kielburger often wondered why it was that even as a young boy he was so determined to be involved in such a large and important issue as the abuses of child labor.  His Grandfather on his father’s side was a German immigrant who arrived in Canada during the Great Depression (1929-1938).  His life and the life of his family were exceedingly difficult; they worked exceedingly hard.  In a similar way, his mother’s parents had a tough life.  Kielburger felt that he was instilled since childhood with a strong work ethic; his parents believed that anything was possible if one worked hard enough to achieve it.  His parents also emphasized the importance of issues of peace and social justice.  In addition, his older brother Marc had a profound impact upon him and served as a model for him to emulate, for Marc was concerned about environmental issues as a young boy and became an activist for this cause.

The Free the Children organization began to grow, not only on account of the indefatigable energy of the young Kielburger but also do the upwelling of support his organization received from many of his peers.  Many were shocked to learn that there were over 250 million child workers across the globe, and that, in general, their working conditions were abominable.

At the age of 12, Kielburger was invited to address two thousand delegates who were attending the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) regarding the work of Free the Children.  As a result of his presentation, the OFL agreed to pledge five thousand dollars to his organization.  This initial donation, created the momentum for other groups to donate as well.  Free the Children had truly taken off.  It is still extant to this day – freethechildren.com.

Kielburger’s real adventure began when his good friend Rahman – mentioned above – decided to take a year off from his university studies to travel through Asia and discover his ethnic roots.  He asked Kielburger to accompany him.  In this way, he suggested, Kielburger could meet working children throughout the region.  It took some convincing to receive the approval his reluctant parents, who were concerned about his safety.  Ultimately, they relented provided that some conditions were met to ensure their son’s well-being. 

After some negotiations, The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) agreed to contact their offices in South Asia to see if they could help.  In addition, PLAN International – a development agency – became involved; PLAN representatives sought to find individuals in the countries on the travel itinerary who would be willing to take care of Rahman and Kielburger.

When all these many conditions were met, the ambitious trip actually materialized.  The two traveled to Dhaka, Bangladesh, Bangkok Thailand, Calcutta, India, Kathmandu, Nepal, Varanasi, New Delhi, India, Karachi and Islamabad, Pakistan, Lahore and many other destinations.  In all these various and exotic locations, Kielburger witnessed firsthand the extent of child labor and actually met with many children who described their horrific experiences to him.  This remarkable and eventful journey had a definite impact on the young boy’s life.  As Kielburger describes it, “Shortly after my return to Canada, a newspaper quoted me as saying, ‘I divide my life into pre-Asia and post-Asia.’  I still do.  The trip had a profound effect on me, one that changed my life forever.  I would spread the word about the suffering of all the children I met.  I would let the world know that we, too, are part of the problem.  I would not fail them.”

This remarkable journey irrevocably transformed this young boy’s life.  The extreme nature of the social injustice endured by children throughout the world that Kielburger witnessed first-hand made him determined to draw the attention of people throughout the world , especially the young, to the plight of these young victims and to help make a change for the good. 

Regarding the Cayman Islands and the Phenomenon of Off-shore Banking

There is a disturbing trend in the developed countries, especially in the United States, in which the very wealthy – the so-called super-rich – along with multinational corporations are using offshore accounts to evade taxation from their home countries.  This is phenomenon is referred to as offshore banking.  For US-based multi-nationals and private citizens, the usual repository for their capital is the Cayman Islands.  These banking institutions are not subject to local financial regulations or local taxation.

This kind of financial activity represents an increasingly sizable portion of the entire global financial system.  Current estimates are that as much as one-half of all capital finds its ways to these offshore institutions at some point.  The Cayman Islands, as an example, serve as a tax haven for the exceedingly wealthy.  In total, tax havens around the globe may hold over one-quarter of the world’s wealth within the accounts of only approximately 1% of the world's total population.  In addition, some 30% of profits held by US multi-nationals are deposited in offshore accounts.  There may be 3 trillion dollars in deposits in these banking institutions with large sums held in securities by so-called “international business companies” (IBCs).  The Cayman island-based institutions are believed to hold 1.9 trillion dollars in deposits and are considered to be fifth largest of such centers.  The tax advantages provided by such accounts are supported by the fact that some 25% of US corporations pay no federal income taxes.

Furthermore, according to the “World’s Wealth Report,” generated by Merrill Lynch, approximately one-third of the entire wealth held by the super-rich may be held in offshore accounts.  A substantial portion of this wealth resides within the accounts of an estimated 90,000 individuals - .001% of the world population.

There are many disturbing consequences of this global-based trend –

• These vast sums of money remove much needed financial resources from national economies and from appropriate taxation in many countries, including the so-called “developed” world
• With a diminished tax base, this puts additional burdens on the middle-class.  An example of this is the current pressure in the United States to balance the federal budget by cutting back substantially on the government services provided to the middle-class and to the those in need
• The net result of the removal of a substantial portion of the world’s wealth is to exacerbate the endemic problem of unemployment and the growing unavailability of work paying a living wage.  It also takes money away from the essential human institutions that make up the Commons and delays or aborts important societal infrastructure projects and innovations including those related to the global threat inherent in climate change.

In my mind, this problem is a fundamental issue that has serious and unprecedented consequences for the vast majority of people around the globe.  It is also representative of a thoroughly corrupt mentality that places the interests of a very few individuals and institutions above the good of humanity.  The fact that this reality is widely accepted by political systems on a worldwide basis is sufficient cause for alarm, for it demonstrates the corrupting influence of money and power.  It is a sad testimonial to the failure of human institutions - represented by governments - to serve the public good.  Without access to a large portion of the world’s real financial assets, billions of the world’s people suffer unnecessarily. 

Amartya Sen

There is little room for the realities of economic life - faced by the majority of the world’s people  - within the scope of widely accepted and conventional economic theory.  There is a particular exception to this general tendency and that is embodied in the theoretical framework of Amartya Sen who has clearly brought human compassion into the realm of economics.

Amartya Kumar Sen was born on November 3, 1933 and was the sole recipient of the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on welfare economics. He is currently a Professor of Economics and Philosophy at Harvard University and is also a fellow of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge.  He is known for his astute analysis of economic theory as it relates to the actual realities that haunt the underprivileged in the world.  He examined, in detail, the economic conditions that result in famine, homelessness and unemployment.

Sen was born in East Bengal, India in the region that is now called Bangladesh. His family is very distinguished with strong roots in academia and government.  As a nine-year-old boy, he witnessed the horrendous famine that devastated Bengal in 1943, in which three million people perished. He would later conclude that this terrible loss of life was unnecessary.  This experience seemed to have exerted a powerful influence upon where his future career would take him. 

In his seminal work entitled, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen claims that, “Enhancement of human freedom is both the main object and the primary means of development.”  In his view, freedom encompasses economic facilities, political freedoms, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security.  Within this context, freedom is not simply a political attribute, but has very practical manifestations such as accessibility to adequate health care, housing, etc.

Sen proposed a model for economic development that is substantively different from the conventional paradigm.  While obviously a proponent of free trade, he envisions a very different approach to its implementation.  He identifies the traditional ethics, exemplified in the policies of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, as focusing on the primacy of income and wealth.  Furthermore, he defines poverty as a “deprivation of elementary capabilities which can lead to premature mortality, illiteracy and other consequences.”

He has postulated a freedom-based orientation to policies geared towards economic development.  The author states that, “With adequate social opportunities, individuals can effectively shape their own destiny and help each other.  They need not be seen primarily as passive recipients of cunning development programs.”

This unique perspective allows application of this economic model not only to developing countries but also to the developed world.  The fact that tens of millions of Americans lack access to adequate health care provides a striking example.  A link between income and mortality can also be readily established.  For example, the life expectancy of African-Americans compare to poor countries such as China, Sri Lanka, Jamaica and Costa Rica.

In this view of development, a consideration of personal liberties cannot be divorced from economic consequences.  The link between income and poverty is, of course, self evident.  Freedom can be seen not only as residing in so-called political freedoms, i.e. freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but also dependent upon those aspects of economic life that are fundamental to living successfully, i.e. adequate health care, housing and food, referred to as substantive freedoms.  What good are political freedoms to those who expend all their energy simply trying to survive?

From this economic perspective, development is seen in terms of substantive freedoms and requires an analysis of the unfreedoms that people may suffer.  This differs substantially from the current operational approach of the traditional institutions.  The IMF’s approach to economic development often exacerbates, or, in extreme cases, creates the very inequities that make the plight of the poor even more devastating. 

Sen has devoted much of his attention to the idea of justice and from this idea he has evolved his economic theory.  He has detailed his analysis of justice in his work entitled, The Idea of Justice.  He has approached the theory of justice through the diagnosis of injustice.  From his analysis, understanding involves reasoning and critical examination.  He stresses the roles of rationality and reasonableness in understanding the demands of justice.  Coming from this orientation, he has concluded that the implementation or evaluation of social change should focus on whether or not such change would enhance justice.

In his view, injustice may either arise systemically or stem from individual behavioral transgressions.  In Sen’s mind, injustice must be evaluated at the level of the individual as well as the institutions.  For example, a society that prides itself on the democratic nature of its institutions may quietly condone and neglect the poverty and hunger that is a fundamental part of the lives of some of its people.  Within the paradigm that Sen has proposed, this reality is an injustice in part because it is readily open to remedy.  This practical consideration of the real impact that social institutions and public policy have on the lives of individuals represents a radical departure in regards to the analysis of the institutions themselves.  Within this point of view, the emphasis is on reasoned and rational arguments rather than relying on articles of faith and unreasoned convictions; reasoning and justice are, therefore, regarded as interdependent factors.

In his writing, Sen claims that the age of European Enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries has had a marked influence on his thinking.  He describes the idea of justice from two historic perspectives.  The first he refers to as “transcendental institutionalism.”  This represents the point of view taken by such notable philosophers as Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau.  They envisioned a perfect justice that could be realized if the institutions themselves were perfected.  This approach does not, however, take into account the behaviors of ordinary people and their social interactions.  Sen believes this to be a major flaw, and, in many ways, an impediment to real justice.

The other perspective he refers to as “realization-focused comparisons.”  This idea examines actual realizations and accomplishments.   In defense of this approach, he cites such well-known thinkers as Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.  As far as Sen is concerned, “The rules may be right, but what does emerge in society – the kinds of lives that people actually live.”  This particular focus lies at the heart of Sen’s thinking.  This point of view can be readily summarized in Sen’s own words, “The need for an accomplishment-based understanding of justice is linked with the argument that justice cannot be indifferent to the lives that people can actually live.” 

Sen proposed that reason needs to be balanced by an instinctive revulsion to cruelty and to insensitive behavior and that the remedy for bad reasoning is better reasoning.   Sen was strongly influenced by John Rawls in regards to formulating his theory of justice.  In Sen’s scheme, justice must include the fundamental property of fairness and the application of reasoned judgment.  He strongly asserts  that individuals have a deeply held inner sense of justice and a conception of the good.  The following statement provides some insights into his thinking, “Why should we regard hunger, starvation and medical neglect to be invariably less important than the violation of any kind of personal liberty.”  In his mind, justice must encompass an actual assessment of real freedoms and capabilities.

Amartya Sen applied his conceptions of justice, freedom and the use of reason to economics in his seminal work entitled, On Economic Inequality, and formulated an economic paradigm that continues to challenge the conventional approaches to economic development.  His sensitivity to the plight of many of the world’s people lies at the very heart of his conclusions.

Mental Illness and the Homeless

It has recently been reported that 1 out of every 17 individuals in the U.S. suffers from mental illness - that translates to approximately 20.5 million people.  This is a significant number of individuals plagued by this galaxy of diseases that disrupts mental processes.  Those of us who function “normally” do not fully recognize how much processing - within the circuitry of the human brain – is ordinarily required to perform even the most mundane activities.  The daily tasks that are required to work every day, for example, include waking up on time, preparing for the day doing such things as showering, brushing one’s teeth, preparing clothes, planning for the day’s eventualities, taking a bus or train or driving a car.  All of these tasks must be performed in an orderly, precise and timely fashion.  These functions are required simply to get to a place of employment not to mention all the social skills, capabilities, human interactions, use of learned abilities and reliable memory, timeliness, prioritizing of goals etc. that are the minimal requirements to accomplish rather complex work-related functions successfully.

  

According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “20 to 25% of the homeless population in the United States suffers from some form of severe mental illness.” This compares to the 6% of the general population that is afflicted with mental illness as reported by the National Institute of Mental Health, 2009. In addition, a survey was conducted in 25 U.S. cities in which the question was posed as to what were the three major causes of homelessness for single adults. The results of this investigation indicated that mental illness was ranked as the third largest cause.  In addition, mental illness was also indicated as playing a significant role as a cause of homelessness among families.  This is not surprising given the fact that living with a mentally ill individual places significant stresses upon the entire family.  Additional fallout from these and similar studies is that individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder are particularly vulnerable.

There is yet another level to this issue that adds further complexity and concern –a strong correlation exists between the state of mental health in an individual and the corresponding status of overall physical health.  Individuals that are constantly distracted, confused and disoriented by mental disease are far less likely to pay attention to their physical well-being.  They are far more likely to ignore significant warning signs that would ordinarily send people to their physicians.    Furthermore, they are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis or other communicable diseases.  They pay less attention to their personal hygiene and often place themselves in dangerous situations that often lead to bodily harm. 

In addition, it has been reliably estimated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration that approximately one-half of the mentally ill homeless in the United States also are substance abusers.  It is a well-established fact that many sufferers from mental illness use drugs as a form of self-medication.

These extensive studies regarding the real implications of mental illness demonstrate that the individual overtaken by aberrations within the functioning brain experiences a satellite of related conditions including substance abuse and the resulting poor physical health.  These conditions when taken together make it very difficult to find reliable employment and ultimately adequate shelter.

In spite of the fact that the scientific disciplines of Neurobiology and Neuroscience have elucidated many of the biological and biochemical mechanisms that are responsible for the galaxy of symptoms that are collectively regarded as mental illness, there remains a great deal of suspicion and the resulting stigma that is associated with those who are afflicted by mental illness.  This kind of fallacious preconception regarding mental illness obscures the indisputable reality that mental illness is a result of definitive imbalances in the biochemistry and function of the human brain.  The society, at large, has inadequately addressed this issue in a way that could produce meaningful help and remediation for those who suffer from mental illness.  A reevaluation of the status of the mentally ill and homelessness would certainly be in the public interest. 

Desmond Tutu

Desmond Tutu is known for his work as the chairman of the Peace and Reconciliation Commission formed by President Nelson Mandela shortly after his election in South Africa that put an end to Apartheid. Throughout his involvement in the battle against Apartheid, Tutu was instrumental in convincing many of the need for pursuing non-violent opposition against the white regime that had repressed the black majority for so long. Tutu was born on October 7, 1931 in Klerksdorp in the Transvaal into a multiethnic household. To arrive at a better understanding of Tutu’s contribution to the causes of peace and social justice, it would be fitting to describe the nature of Apartheid. In the year 1652, the Dutch came to South Africa where they referred to themselves as Afrikaners. They were later displaced by the British in 1820. The Afrikaners ultimately rebelled against British rule; this opposition led to the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902). The Afrikaners ultimately prevailed. The white minority population in power realized that their vulnerability lied in their small number. In 1923, the Native Urban Areas Act was passed. This act deemed urban areas in South Africa as “white” and forced all black African men in cities and towns to carry permits called “passes” at all times. Anyone found without a pass could be arrested immediately and expelled to a rural area. These harsh methods that the government employed proved to be inadequate over time as far as the white power structure was concerned. As a result, the principles of Apartheid were formulated in 1948. It was instituted by the National Party under the platform of the so-called “Black Peril.” Its aim was to insure continued white domination of the black majority and other segments of the population including “Coloreds,” Mixed Race peoples and Indians. The laws crafted under Apartheid held that blacks, coloreds and Indians were to be segregated in the cities where they lived. Blacks were required to live in designated townships and could not live in the suburbs or the major cities. They were allowed, however, to live in urban areas. A notable example of the extremely repressive environment imposed by the system of Apartheid is the Pass Laws Act of 1952. This law made it compulsory for all black South Africans over the age of 16 to carry a “passbook” at all times. This passbook was knows as a dompas; it served as an internal passport and contained extensive identification information. According to this statute, an employer could only be a white person. The law came to be hated throughout South Africa and inspired mass protests leading to the Sharpeville Massacre on March 21, 1960. On that day following massive demonstrations by the blacks in the township of Sharpeville, the South African police opened fire on the crowd killing sixty-nine protestors. The repressive character of Apartheid was enhanced by the so-called “Grand Apartheid.” This overarching social architecture was designed by Hendrik Verwoerd in the mid 1950s. This scheme began to be implemented in the late 1960s. According to this master plan, all blacks in South Africa were to be forcefully relocated to their tribal homelands and kept there. Ultimately, eighty percent of the South African population was forced to live on only thirteen percent of the land. The other part of this plan was that blacks would lose their South African citizenship as they were absorbed into their new tribal homelands. This was the social environment in which Tutu was raised. His reaction to the conditions of his countrymen was informed by his spiritual beliefs. He is an essential optimist and believes in the existence of a moral universe. He is an advocate of the principle of Transfiguration that holds that conditions can change radically and abruptly. In regards to his ideas concerning human nature, the following aptly describes his view - “The ideal society is one in which its members enjoy their freedom to be human freely, provided they do not thereby infringe the freedom of others unduly. We are made to have freedom of association, of expression, of movement, the freedom to choose who will rule over us and how. We are made for this. It is ineluctable. It cannot ultimately be eradicated, this yearning for freedom to be human. This is what tyrants and unjust rulers have come to contend with. They cannot in the end stop their victims from being human. “Their unjust regimes must ultimately fall because they seek to deny something that cannot be denied. No matter how long and how repressive their unjust and undemocratic rule turns out to be, the urge for freedom remains as a subversive element threatening the overthrow of rigid repression. The tyrant is on a road to nowhere even though he may survive for an unconscionably long time and even though he may turn his country into a huge prison riddled with informers, but the end cannot be in doubt. Freedom will break out. People are made for it just as plants tend toward the light and toward water.” The following statement that Tutu made, exemplifies, in my judgment, his worldview, “What is needed is to respect one another’s points of view and not to impute unworthy motives to one another or to seek to impugn the integrity of the other. Our maturity will be judged by how well we are able to agree to disagree and yet continue to love one another, to care for one another and cherish one another and seek the great good of the other.” He has an all inclusive view of humanity and the family of man. He feels that what is needed is to extend the concept of family to include all of humanity. According to Tutu, “The first law of our being is that we are set in a delicate network of interdependence with our fellow beings.” He continues, “In Africa recognition of our interdependence is called Ubuntu in Nguni languages. It is the essence of being human. It speaks to the fact that my humanity is caught up and inextricably bound up in yours.” Originally, Tutu wanted to practice medicine, but he contracted tuberculosis and endured an excruciating twenty month recovery. On account of this untimely onset of health issues, he modified his plans and in 1955 he got married and started teaching. In 1960, Tutu went into the ministry in the Anglican Church and was ordained as a Deacon. During this informative period in his life, he was deeply moved and inspired by the courageous work of Father Trevor Huddleston, who became one of the first leaders of the resistance against Apartheid in South Africa. Throughout the momentous years that ultimately led to the long-sought dismantling of Apartheid, Tutu had been sent to London and the Kingdom of Lesotho where he was Bishop. In 1976, he was Dean of the Anglican Church in Johannesburg and was deeply concerned about race relations. He sent an open letter to Prime Minister, John Vorster. This letter was a passionate plea to the government to reconsider its policies. As anticipated, his heart-felt message was ignored. Five weeks after this letter was sent, the Soweto Riots ensued with disastrous results. Soweto was a southwestern township outside Johannesburg - a black-only residential area with a population of three quarters of a million. The residents lived in squalid and oppressive conditions. The Afrikaner government had decreed that black students in Soweto would be instructed in Afrikaans as well as in English. Afrikaans was regarded as the language of the oppressor. Riots began on June 16, 1976; it was the anniversary of the black resistance movement begun in 1952 with the help of black leaders like Nelson Mandela. Thousands of people, mostly children and young adults, took to the streets. The government reacted violently and in the end dozens if not hundreds of children were killed or injured. Tutu rushed to Soweto as soon as he heard. He pleaded with the government to pull back, but he did not have the political clout that he enjoys today. His entreaties were ignored. Although Tutu was not involved in the African National Congress (ANC) - founded in 1912 - and the resistance movement that began in the 1950s under the guidance of Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, he collaborated with them during the resistance of the 1970s and 1980s. On December 10, 1984, Tutu received the Nobel Peace Prize for his nonviolent efforts towards social and political reform in South Africa and in the following year, he was chosen as Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg. In this period of time, the South African Government was coming under increasing economic pressure from the world community in regards to Apartheid. As a result, the government became more intransigent in its position and intensified its repressive tactics. The level of violence escalated and on a number of occasions Tutu risked his personal safety to intervene. In one particular instance, he personally rescued a man, who was suspected of being a police informant, from being “necklaced” - burned alive from a gasoline-filled tire placed around the victim’s neck. The presiding South African Prime Minister, P.W. Botha, came to understand that change was inevitable and began to relax the pass laws. Along with these changes, Nelson Mandela was released from solitary confinement. Blacks, however, continued to be segregated into tribal homelands. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, as exemplified by the fall of the Berlin Wall, was a compelling indicator that long-held assumptions regarding race and power were no longer tenable. Nelson Mandela was finally released from prison in February, 1990 after spending twenty-seven years in prison. Following his release, Mandela began having discussions with President F.W. de Klerk who had replaced P.W. Botha. In spite of these discussions, the South African government was quietly inciting violence. In addition, The ANC was also involved in an internal struggle with Zulu leader Mangosuthu Buthelezi. These were very difficult times, and Tutu was very outspoken against this violence and feared the worst. In the spring of 1994, despite the turmoil and violent unrest, an agreement was reached to hold elections in April of that year in which all South Africans would participate. The opponents in that election were Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk. The outcome, of course, was a foregone conclusion. Tutu’s work, however, was not over. On account of the years of horrific violence and suffering of the majority black population at the hands of the Afrikaners, there was a considerable residue of hatred felt by the many victims of Apartheid. Fearing that this might lead to violent upheaval and bloody reprisals, President Mandela asked Tutu to be the chairperson of the newly created Truth and Reconciliation Commission. He was suddenly faced with an awesome responsibility. It was the mission of this commission to expose the truth and yet find the wherewithal to let the past go. It was decided to limit the scope of the investigation to the years between 1960 and 1994. The commission not only looked into the transgressions perpetrated by the white regime but also the violence initiated by the resistance. Tutu insisted that all findings be made public and on October 29, 1998 he presented the five volume report to President Mandela. Desmond Tutu made a remarkable contribution not only to his country but to a world grown weary of war and violence. He persisted in pursuing his vision of peace and reconciliation in spite of events that seemed to suggest otherwise. He retained his optimistic vision, and that vision ultimately prevailed.