Let them eat cake

Global taxes are inherently undemocratic,” argued the U.S. delegation at a recent U.N. summit on hunger. This comment was in response to Brazilian President Lula’s call to tax the global arms trade. Even though more than 50 world leaders attended these meetings and over 100 countries have endorsed a global campaign to raise $50 billion a year to combat hunger, President George W. Bush failed to attend. In response to a call for aid to poor countries, we argued that “economic growth is the long-term solution to global poverty.” In a world in which over one billion people live in extreme poverty and live on less than $1 a day, we are the Marie Antoinette of nations.

The assumption underlying these recent U.N. meetings is that global poverty is inexcusable in the presence of wealth and development. “The greatest scandal is not that hunger exists, but that it persists even when we have the means to eliminate it,” stated a declaration signed by 110 nations and adopted at the end of the summit. As the richest country in the world, our conscience should be troubled. In 2002 alone, Oxfam International estimates that 800 million people suffered from chronic hunger, 500,000 women died in childbirth or pregnancy and almost two million children died from diarrhea.

The leaders at this summit believe that global poverty is not only a humanitarian concern, but also a threat to security. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, astutely warned of “a global underclass of the hungry poor, who are untouched by larger economic forces improving the lives of the rest of humankind.” The desperation faced by billions of people around the world breeds resentment and hatred. Without the ability to improve their situation, many in this “global underclass” embrace fanatical religion and dogma in order to get through the hell that is their lives. Whether this means that young men in Sierra Leone embrace a military dogma that tells them to slaughter their fellow citizens or that young people in Palestine look to Islamic fundamentalism as an escape from their material reality, world security pays the price.

Closer to home, I would argue that recent crimes on our campus are partly the result of an outrageous amount of wealth situated amidst some of the most extreme poverty in the United States. North Carolina now ranks 41st in the nation in terms of median income, 17 percent of our population lacks health insurance, and 23 percent of North Carolina’s children live in poverty. About 60 percent of Duke student are able to foot a $42,000 annual bill without financial aid. While coercion is never justified, and I certainly count myself among those shaken by recent robberies, I must admit that some of my fear stems from my knowledge that we are the “haves” and Durham is largely made-up of the “have-nots.” We might want more security, greater surveillance and even higher walls around our campus, but none of these measures really protect us when we are surrounded by people who work a year to earn what we pay to attend Duke for four months. Fortunately, Duke has been somewhat aware of this connection and has funded initiatives in Durham to a much greater degree than our national government has addressed global poverty.

Perhaps our government is simply unaware of the connections between poverty and violence. Or, perhaps security is not really our top concern. Could it be that we oppose a tax on the arms trade because we are the world’s number one supplier of arms? It is interesting to note that according to Amnesty International, 39 percent of our arms exports are to the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, these regions are the main recipients of arms exports from the U.S. Many poor nations, such as Oman and Burma, spend more on arms than they do on health and education combined. But someone here in the U.S. is raking it in to the tune of $14 billion each year, and few of us are drawing the connection between our role in the arms trade, poverty and world security.

To their calls for democracy and bread, we tell poor nations to eat the cake of “economic development” as we sell them arms. Marie Antoinette would have been proud.

Bridget Newman is a Trinity senior.