By Ian McDonald
It would cost US$600 million a year to immunise 200 million children in poor countries against polio, measles, whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus and tuberculosis. This is equal to a few weeks’ beer for one or two countries in the rich world, but it is a few weeks’ beer money that simply will not be spared. It is this sort of thing that fills one with such disgust that it almost makes one physically sick contemplating the hypocrisy of world leaders as they mouth glib clichés about the terrible state of the world and express concern for the millions of people in developing countries who live now, right this minute, in absolute poverty.
As one outstanding example of this contemptuous hypocrisy, let us consider the attitude taken in the world today to what might conveniently be called the Robin Hood principle.
Not so long ago the activity of a Robin Hood – taking from the rich to give to the poor – may have been considered glamorous, but it was certainly not legal. Nowadays, this activity is not considered glamorous at all but it is quite legal as all those who pay income tax know full well.
The change that has taken place in a relatively short time is remarkable when you think about it. Taking from the rich to give to the poor is now completely accepted by thinking men and deeply entrenched in all developed societies. This has served the great purpose of distributing sustenance and services more in accordance with genuine need than simply by reference to birth or acquired wealth or arbitrary power.
Across the board in individual countries this saving principle holds – to a greater or lesser degree, but it holds. Just to give one vivid example: in an article on post-world war economic history in Europe I find that in Britain in 1979 the top10% of households in the country had their original incomes cut from £14,000 to £9,860 per annum while the bottom 10% had their original income increased from £10 to £2,120 per annum – thus narrowing the gap between the top and the bottom in that society from more than 400:1 to less than 5:1. This is a remarkable example of the Robin Hood principle in action. That re-distributive principle is fundamental in the organization of any reasonably civilized society.
This fundamental change in the way societies are organized has taken root in every land. Two things are inevitable, it is said – death, of course, but also taxes. Not even the most self-centred tycoon or radical free marketeer would dream of putting the clock so far back that no re-distribution of wealth takes place.
Outright resistance to the Robin Hood principle would be considered grossly reactionary, absurdly selfish and politically impossible in every single country in the world today.
This is quite remarkable. What is even more remarkable – and a terrible stain on the conscience of the world – is that this same principle, taken for granted within states, is not at all taken for granted between states.
Indeed the principle of re-distribution of wealth in favour of the poor among nations is all too often resisted and scorned by the same people who accept the principle in their own countries. At the purely rational and philosophical levels this is disgraceful. At the practical level it means hideously increased deprivation for millions of individual human beings in the poor countries.
The callous attitude of those who rule the world was summed up many years ago by Mr Tom Clausen, then President of the World Bank: “The Bank,” he said, “is not in the business of re-distributing wealth from one set of countries to another. The Bank is not the Robin Hood of the international financial set.”
Well, there you have it, very precisely expressed – a principle which is fundamental to relationships within states is scornfully rejected when it serves to improve relationships between states. The signs, I fear, are everywhere. America, for instance, has clearly turned toughly against international efforts to increase aid to poor countries and reduce worldwide poverty through multilateral concessionary lending. The percentage of rich world income given over to assisting the world of the poor is going down.
With a sense of despair one gets the feeling that the world is filling up with petty men and that the most contagious and deadly disease abroad now is simple selfishness. Where are the great leaders to find the cure? Can we presume to hope that a future President Obama will be different? Soon enough there is bound to be yet another summit about alleviating poverty, reducing child mortality, improving education and building heaven on earth in the developing countries. Given the mean-spirited preoccupations of the rulers of today, nothing will happen except the usual speeches, declarations and splendid resolutions.
If all was even half-way right with the world the Robin Hood principle would have been applied long ago to relations between nations – debt cancellation and taxing arms, energy, and capital exchanges for the benefit of the poor – with some chance of at least partial realization of a better life for the desperately deprived.
Regrettably, however, these are ideas whose time has not yet come. Perhaps much later this century it will seem as obvious as national income tax now seems. But not yet, sadly, not yet.
