Ukraine: Poverty breeds Violence, not Peace

In his 2005 article 'Really Betraying a Revolution' our founder Terry Hallman drew attention to the root cause of civic unrest   

"Elimination of graft and corruption, and raising the overall standard of living for ALL Ukrainians rather than a few insanely greedy oligarch clans, was the main underlying and implied reason for the Orange Revolution – at least from hundreds of people, activists and otherwise, I talked with on the ground during and after the Revolution. Further, as director for any sort of peace institute, Mr. Aslund is obliged to review the connection between poverty and peace. Peace does not and cannot exist for people in poverty, unless they are harshly suppressed by government or other forces. Poverty is a horrible existence and lifestyle, and is bound to breed violence, not peace."

It was a response to the Washington Post article from Anders Aslund, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in which Aslund  had accused PM Yulia Tymoshenko of betraying a revolution with socialist ideals.

The Orange Revolution had been largely peaceful but this is not the situation today as violence erupts in the capital of Kyiv. There has been one report of a young girl beaten to  death by police while breaking up #euromaidan demonstrations  

Reading back both articles today, highlights a collision between the old - markets serving an elite minority and the new - an economy which serves people. Unlike Hallman, Aslund had not seen the imminent collapse of the economy that was only 3 years away.

Just a year earlier the British government and the social enterprise sector had been warned about the same risks in a businress plan to tackle poverty:

"While the vast majority of people in poverty suffer quietly and with little protest, it is not safe to assume that everyone will react the same way. When in defence of family and friends, it is completely predictable that it should be only a matter of time until uprisings become sufficient to imperil an entire nation or region of the world. People with nothing have nothing to lose. Poverty was therefore deemed not only a moral catastrophe but also a time bomb waiting to explode. "

Along with the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street, there would be riots on British streets in 2011.

In 2003, again on the ground in Crimea with a proposal to lift Ukraine's repatriated Tatars from poverty, Hallman wrote:

"Once a nation or government puts people in the position of defending their own lives, or that of family and friends, and they all will die if they do nothing about it, at that point all laws, social contracts and covenants end. Laws, social contracts and covenants define civilization. Without them, there is no civilization at all, there is only the law of the jungle: kill, or be killed. This is where we started, tens of thousands of years ago.

By leaving people in poverty, at risk of their lives due to lack of basic living essentials, we have stepped across the boundary of civilization. We have conceded that these people do not matter, are not important. Allowing them to starve to death, freeze to death, die from deprivation, or simply shooting them, is in the end exactly the same thing. Inflicting or allowing poverty on a group of people or an entire country is a formula for disaster.

These points were made to the President of the United States near the end of 1996. They were heard, appreciated and acted upon, but unfortunately, were not able to be addressed fully and quickly due primarily to political inertia. By way of September 11, 2001 attacks on the US out of Afghanistan – on which the US and the former Soviet Union both inflicted havoc, destruction, and certainly poverty – I rest my case. The tragedy was proof of all I warned about, but, was no more tragedy than that left behind to a people in an far corner of the world whom we thought did not matter and whom we thought were less important than ourselves.

We were wrong."

In his "shocking and insightful" article describing 'Death Camps, For Children' he'd pointed to the root of the problem:

“Excuses won’t work, particularly in light of a handful of oligarchs in Ukraine having been allowed to loot Ukraine’s economy for tens of billions of dollars. I point specifically to Akhmetov, Pinchuk, Poroshenko, and Kuchma, and this is certainly not an exhaustive list. These people can single-handedly finance 100% of all that will ever be needed to save Ukraine’s orphans. None of them evidently bother to think past their bank accounts, and seem to have at least tacit blessings at this point from the new regime to keep their loot while no one wants to consider Ukraine’s death camps, and the widespread poverty that produced them..”

It beggars belief to realise that it was members of the British Labour Party who aligned their interests with these oligarchs and against social justice.  I refer to Tony Blair , Lord Mandelson and Steven Byers

What's on in Kyiv wrote:

"Britain’s most shady political figure, Peter Mandelson, is at the centre of another scandal in the British press, and this time it’s around his all-expenses paid trip to Ukraine to give a speech at an event organised by Donbass oligarch Rinat Akhmetov’s Foundation for Effective Governance (let’s say that once again in case you missed the irony, Akhmetov’s Foundation for Effective Governance).

No one will be overly surprised by the allegations surrounding Mandelson’s visit to Ukraine, as the former Labour Party MP was twice forced to resign from cabinet positions amid accusations of corruption. While both Mandelson and Akhemtov vehemently deny the latter paid the former a hefty appearance fee, rumours that Mandelson is about to trade up to an 8 million pound house (around $13 million) in London have encouraged people to start asking from where’s he’s getting the money. "

It's meetings like this, at Davos which bring these people together: .  

"A philanthropic meeting point organised by the Victor Pinchuk Foundation in Davos during Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum, Davos Philanthropic Roundtable is aimed at developing philanthropy in Ukraine and increasing effectiveness of social projects. Main theme of the Second Davos Philanthropic Roundtable, entitled "From Philanthrocapitalism to Philanthrocrisis", was the impact of the economic crisis on philanthropy and perspectives of philanthropy development.

The key speakers at the event were the dignitaries who have significantly contributed to the development of a new model of philanthropy: 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton; former
Prime-Minister Of Great Britain Tony Blair; businessman and philanthropist Richard Branson; Laureate of 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Muhammad Yunus; actor and founder of the One Foundation Jet Li, founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Bill Gates and also Victor Pinchuk, the Roundtable organiser, public leader and businessman. Matthew Bishop, Chief Business Editor of The Economist and co-author of the book "Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World" acted as a moderator of the discussion."

To recap, that's the work of an Endowment for International Peace, a Faith Foundation, a Foundation for Effective Governance and a Roundtable on Philanthropy in action, or not.