Gambia-L,

Thought one or two might be interested in reading the piece below. It formed
part of my contribution to a seminar I attended yesterday in Wolverhampton,
near Birmingham, on Eradicating Worldwide Poverty, organised by "BETTER
WORLD."

Ebrima Ceesay
Birmingham, UK.

PS: Omar Drammeh, congragulations on the Chelsea victory. Zola, what a
player!!! What about Emerson Thome, the Brazilian defender who partnered
Marcel Desailly in the absence of the injured Frank Lobeauf. What a good
buy? Chelsea paid Sheffield Wednesday just £2 million for Emerson! Watch out
for him!!

Yes, Cherno Samba's dad is Ali Koro Samba who, like his late Brother Saul,
also played together with Brother Joe Sambou. Bai Omar Samba, as you
thought, is Ali's younger brother.

********************************************************************



I am indeed honoured and more than pleased to be asked to take part in
todays' seminar on "How to Eradicate Worldwide Poverty."

I am delighted to be here because the theme means a lot me as a journalist,
but more importantly, having come from a Continent where the landscape is
underdeveloped, where starvation reigns supreme and where disease and
squalor are part of a daily existence.

But let us not fool ourselves, for poverty and inequality is not just an
African problem. Poverty is a global disease, also found in the Western
World, and certainly it needs to be tackled urgently in my view; otherwise
the result would, of course, be a serious breakdown of social cohesion and
an increase in many social problems in our societies.

I must, however, say that nowadays, the disparity between the rich and the
poor is in fact unbelievable! The statistics, I have got for you, are indeed
frightening. That's why I, for one, have always laughed at reports/claims
that the World Economic System "now delivers more for all", because really
the facts suggest otherwise.

Among most of the 4.4 billion people living in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America, it is fair to say that life has indeed become a more desperate
struggle for survival.

The UNDP estimates that 840 million people worldwide are malnourished, the
majority of them living in countries of the Third world. In fact, more than
half the countries for which statistics are available do not have enough
food to provide all their population with the minimum daily requirements of
calories.

It is reported that "in some regions, hunger has become far more general."
Across Africa, for instance, the average household now consume 25 per cent
less than in the early 1970s.

Furthermore, it is reported that between 1995 and 1997, only 21 out of 147
Third World countries recorded per capita growth of over 3 per cent a year -
the rate specified by the UN for reduction of poverty."

During this period, California in the US alone, according to the UN, had a
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of equal value to that of China and India
combined.

In fact, there is a survey which even says that the wealth of the world's 15
richest people now exceeds the combined GDP of Sub Saharan Africa and that
the wealth of the world's richest 84 individuals exceeds the GDP of China,
with its 1.2 billion inhabitants.

Therefore, in the light of these facts, one can safely say that there is no
evidence to suggest that worldwide human suffering is in fact alleviating at
the pace we would want it.

Between 1960 and 1994, we are told by various surveys that the gap in per
capita income between the richest fifth of the world's people (most of whom
are in developed countries) and the poorest fifth (mostly in developing
countries) more than doubled from 30:1 to 78:1.

By the mid 1990s, this trend was said to be "becoming more marked". In fact,
by 1995, the ratio was 82:1. And, in 1997, the richest fifth of the world's
people had obtained 86 per cent of the world income; the poorest fifth
received just 1.3 per cent. Consequently, some 1.3 billion people had
subsisted on less than $1 dollar per day - a life threatening decline in
living standards since the 1960s.

By 1996, no less than 30 countries showed an annual decline in Human
Development Index, which measures literacy, life expectancy and access to
health services, safe water and adequate food. Among 147 countries defined
as within the Developing World, 100 had experienced "serious economic
decline" over the past 30 years.

By 2030, the UNDP estimates, world GDP will more than double but Africa will
experience a further sharp decline in its share of the world total from 1.2
per cent in 1997 to 0.4 per cent.

In Latin America, the number of people living in poverty increased between
1990 and 1995, from 183 million to 230 million, or 48 per cent of that
Continent's population.

In fact, the disparity between the rich and poor has grown so enormously,
over the years, that in 1997, 225 people worldwide were identified by the
UNDP, as having combined wealth of $1 Trillion in US dollar terms.

Of these ultra-rich, over 60 per cent were said to be based in the most
advanced industrial countries, including Japan. Of the rest, about half were
based in Asia, a quarter in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the rest in
Arab States, Russia and Eastern Europe. Only two of the 225 were from Africa
- South Africa I mean!

Last month, your country's (Britain's) Rich list, compiled annually by the
Sunday Times newspaper, recorded an increase since last year, of almost £31
billion pounds in collective wealth of the 1,000 wealthiest people in
Britain.

The newspaper had reported that "the rise is the highest surge since it
began compiling the list 12 years ago. The top 1,000's collective wealth has
increased by 27 per cent to almost £146 billion pounds. The Sunday Times
further reported that the world's wealthiest people are to be found in
America.

Some 27 of the richest 50 people internationally are Americans. Bill Gates
of Microsoft leads the Sunday Times list with a personal fortune of £53
billion pounds sterling.

So all the evidence available today suggests that inequality is in fact
becoming much more visible/pronounced. During the 1960s, the poorest 50 per
cent of people in Brazil received some 18 per cent of National Income; but
by the mid 1990s, the figure had fallen to 11.6 per cent.

In Egypt, 23 per cent of the population was estimated to be below the
poverty line in the late 1970s; however, by the early 1990s, the figure had
risen to over 40 per cent.

Just on Tuesday, it was reported - over the BBC - that more than 8 million
people in Ethiopia alone, were now threatened by famine. Ironically, we all
know that there is enough food produced that could feed everyone on earth.

I am sure if all the surplus food in the stores/supermarkets in the West
were distributed to the needy/hungry, no one would starve. In fact be
informed that in 1976, the United Nations FAO did announce, in its annual
report, that "there shouldn't be difficulty, given the current state of
knowledge about food production, in doubling world food production."

An expert had argued that "if the world food production was organised, as it
is in Holland, there would in fact be enough food to feed 67 billion people
- 15 times the entire world's population."

So, there is no dispute about the fact that could be or there is in fact
enough food on earth to feed all the hungry people in the world, but why
don't they (the hungry) get the food is the question to be posed?

Here in England, there are enough empty houses, for instances, to house the
homeless people who are freezing on the streets, but why don't they live in
them?

Well, the answer to these questions is simple! It is because the world in
which we live is governed by a system called Capitalism, which is driven by
the accumulation of wealth for the minority at the expense of the majority.
Capitalism depends on markets forces which drive the owners of means of
production to compete with each other to produce according to where they can
make a PROFIT.

Yes, the world has certainly got the technology and the capacity to put a
complete stop to the massive poverty gripping its inhabitants.

But the fact of the matter is that the rich class in control - I mean the
capitalist merchants, the distributors, the mega-farmers - will become
interested in producing food if ONLY they can make a PROFIT out of it.

Now, the 18 million people in the Horn of Africa currently facing
starvation, unfortunately, do not have the money to buy the food at the
price necessary for profit, so they don't get the food unless and until
someone buys it for them. It is as simple as that.

Also, there is enough cement in the UK to build extra homes for the
homeless, but why is the number for the homeless people in Britain on the
rise when there are in fact more than enough bricks here to build more
houses for the homeless?

Again, the truth is that the capitalist entrepreneurs who control the wealth
will only build more houses if they could make a profit. And since the
homeless don't have the money to pay for a mortgage to buy a house, then
that should explain why more houses are not now being built, or why empty
houses are around and yet more and more people are becoming homeless.

Now, take marijuana as an example (but please don't get me wrong for I am a
non-smoker ). Anyway, why is "weed", as you call it here, which is in fact
said to be useful for remedying certain ailment, smuggled and sold secretly,
while cigarettes which cause far more deaths than the "weed", is advertised
in the open, and also sold openly? Of course, the answer is simple: there is
legal profit in tobacco, but only illegal profit in weed.

Meanwhile, a recent report, issued by the Organisation for the Economic
Cooperation Development (OECD) has suggested that poverty in Western Europe
and North America "is far wider than previously calculated."

The report, entitled "Poverty Dynamics in Six OECD Countries", had surveyed
Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the US.

Between 12 and almost 40 per cent of the population across the six countries
were affected by poverty over the six-year period of the study - a much
larger percentage than would be suggested by the "static" poverty rates.

Interestingly, the country with the highest poverty rates - both static and
over the six year-period - is the UK, followed by the US and Canada. Before
benefits payments, 55 per cent of the population of the UK fell below the
poverty line at least once in a six-year period.

After benefits, the figure is just under 40 per cent. The UK figures
therefore reveal/show how widespread poverty has become in Britain; in fact
more than half the UK population can expect to be touched by it at any one
time, according to the report. And welfare benefits payments have such a
marginal effect on this.

In fact, it is now clear that the more people on the dole, or on welfare
benefits, the more the government will cut down on public spending. So, as
long as more people are on the dole, or receiving State benefits, the
government will continue to spend less on health, on education, on housing
or on employing people in stable jobs.

And what makes the OECD poverty figures "most striking", according to some
analysts, is that they were calculated during a period when most of the
countries surveyed had "enjoyed economic stability" or even, as in the case
of the US and UK, "a boom."

Anyway, having said that, despite this "boom", another survey - also issued
recently - had concluded that "Britain is the most unequal country in the
developed world after New Zealand, with a wealth gap between the richest and
the poorest in society wider than in Ghana and Ethiopia."

In fact, since 1979, the richest ten per cent of the British population have
seen their income rise by 65 per cent in real terms, while the income of the
poorest ten per cent has actually dropped by 13 per cent.

A report, issued by the Family Budget Unit, estimated that "the cost of a
modest but adequate diet for a family of four in the UK comes to £69 pounds
a week."

If that family were living on income support, or on welfare benefits, the
amount of money they would have for food in their weekly budget would be
just £41 pounds.

"It is no wonder that many families find themselves unable to make ends meet
and parents often have to go hungry to ensure their children are fed," says
the report.

And with Prime Minister Tony Blair's government committed to further cuts in
public spending, especially vis-a-vis welfare, it is clear that an economic
reversal will, say many analysts, "produce a social catastrophe of
unprecedented proportions."

So, don't be surprised if more NHS hospitals and council houses are closed
down. I don't have recent figures, but in fact in 1981, over 45,000 council
houses were built here, but in 1991, the number had slumped: only a little
over 8,000 council houses were built in 1991! This meant that capital
spending on council houses in 1982 was £2.9 billion pounds, but it fell to
£1.5 billion in 1992.

Anyway, coming back to the theme of our discussion, we should now ask
ourselves the question: Can poverty be eradicated?

Well, in my view, poverty can indeed be eradicated because it is caused by
human decisions and actions. But let us be frank with ourselves: as long as
we continue to live in a mad capitalist world which is driven by profit
making, mass poverty and high levels of inequality, in my view, will remain
with us, because the truth is that Capitalism is actually based on a few
people with money and power controlling the lives of the majority, period.

In my honest view, the disparity between the rich and the poor will always
have to grow, because the fact of the matter is that these rich people, who
interestingly are in a tiny minority, own the means of producing things, the
means of financing things and the mean of distributing things.

So from this ownership of the offices, the banks, the factories, the houses,
the stores, the oil and water companies, they'll continue to derive their
dividends, their rents and their interests!

These rich people, as small a group as they are, almost own everything where
goods are produced, transported, distributed bought and sold. But having
said that, that doesn't necesarily mean that they are better than you and I,
or they are in fact more enterprising than us.

In fact, some of them inherited their wealth, while the majority of them got
their wealth from what is termed as "unearned income." In short, their
wealth had come from rents; interests towards monies they keep in banks, or
dividends coming from shares in companies they own.

Now, let us take D.J. Chris Evans as an example. He is certainly not better
than any one of us here, but I am sure you are aware that recently, he sold
his Virgin Radio and Ginger Company - which he bought for about £80 million
some time ago - for over £200 million.

So, just one day, Chris Evans made a fortune of over £100 million pounds.
Anyway, good luck to Chris Evans, but this is, I am afraid to say, the
reality of the system under which the world we live in today, is run.

In fact, it was revealed by the Treasury that in 1998 over £8 billion pounds
of what is termed as an "unearned income" had gone into pockets of the top 1
per cent of the British tax payers, that is just about 250,000 people.

Now, let me give you another example: Saddam Hussein of Iraq. In my view, in
1990, the West launched a war against him when he invaded Kuwait not because
the West wanted to teach a bitter lesson to an aggressor, but because the
West was obliged to protect Kuwait since it had a huge business interest in
that country.

Kuwait was producing, at the time, 8 per cent of the world's oil and surely,
the profits of the oil companies, most of them owned by Westerners, would
have been threatened if the regime in Kuwait was overthrown by Saddam
Hussein's forces.

And take it from me that despite all these anti-Saddam Hussein sentiments
being expressed by Western Governments, the West, especially the US, given
the huge commercial interest it has in the Middle East Region, would, in
private, prefer to see Saddam Hussein continue to rule Iraq.

Why? You may ask. Well, because as long as there is a hostile government, or
leader, in Iraq, the West will continue to say to Arab countries in the
Gulf: "Look, you have to keep buying sophisticated arms from us so as to
protect yourselves, because the devil (Saddam Hussein) is still in power,
and you know no one can never predict what he is up to."

In fact, after the Gulf war ended, the British arms industry alone, in 1992,
had exported £26 billion pounds worth of weapons. And it is fair to assume
that most of these weapons were sold to Gulf countries.

And talking about Western double standards, let me inform you that while
your Foreign Minister, Robin Cook, is calling on President Robert Mugabe of
Zimbabwe to hold multi-party elections in Zimbabwe in May 2000, as
scheduled, there is in fact a country in Africa, Uganda, which is still a
one-party state, and yet, as far as I know, Mr Cook is not saying anything
about it.

In Uganda, opposition parties are banned, but the West has never complained
about it. In fact, didn't President Bill Clinton visit Uganda in 1999,
during his Africa tour? Well, let me now tell you why the West refuses to
take President Museveni of Uganda to task: The Western Governments like
President Museveni because he is a strong defender/proponent of IMF and
World policies in Africa, period.

Anyway, let me conclude on a brighter observation; by saying that in any
case, those of us who are here, should, all the same, thank God, because
despite all these minuses in Western Societies that I have cited, ranging
from abject poverty, multiple crimes to homelessness, the Western World, in
my honest view, still offers more opportunities for man than other places in
the world.

Yes, the system here doesn't favour minorities, especially blacks, but one
can still find consolation in the fact that a man/woman can push some of
these prejudices and discrimination behind him/her and do well for himself
and his family.

I thank you all for listening so attentively.

Ebrima Ceesay

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------