[Rictor]

I have to say, there are some valid points. The IMF/World Bank are the ones responsible for this in the first place, and yet they get not so much as a slap on the wrist. I'm all for forgiving the debts, it's fair  considering the shady circumstances under which they were made, but I must say that those who are responsible, on both sides, ought to be punished and some sort of oversight be established for future cases.

The IMF/World Bank are fundamentally unaccountable instututions, and I think that whether you choose to believe it was negligence of malicious intent, they screwed up and unfortunately will continue to do so.

Reviving the Foreign Aid Racket
by Patrick J. Buchanan

"Debt Cut Is Set for Poorest Nations" was the headline in Sunday's Washington Post over the lead story.

"The world's wealthiest nations," wrote Paul Blustein, "agreed yesterday to cancel more than $40 billion in debts that some of the world's poorest nations owe to international lenders – a move inspired by the belief that full debt forgiveness is necessary to give those countries a chance to escape the trap of hunger, disease, and economic stagnation." Sounds wonderful.

Alan Cowell's story in The New York Times explained: "The deal [is] expected to ease the 18 poorest countries' annual debt burdens by $1.5 billion. They are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. All must take anticorruption measures."

It is hard not to break out laughing at that last line.

This $40 billion debt write-off is being hailed as the most magnanimous act since the Marshall Plan. But there is another way to see it. George Bush signed onto one of the biggest bailouts in history. For, here, children, is what has just gone down.

First, that $40 billion was squandered or stolen by the most corrupt regimes and biggest thieves in the Third World. The money is gone. We shall never see it again. And all the wastrels and crooks who got away with it will not be pursued.

Second, the idiot bankers at the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank who failed to do due diligence when they made the $40 billion in loans, and lied about how good the loans were, will not be exposed and prosecuted, or tarred and feathered as they should be.

Third, the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank will see all their lost funds replenished, so they can start flying around to those same exotic countries and capitals, shelling out new loans to the same crowd of crooks and incompetents, or their successors.

Fourth, American taxpayers will have to pony up the cash for this historic bailout of the international banks.

Why is this happening? Because George Bush owes Tony Blair, and because Blair, bless his socialist soul, believes in the salvific power of foreign aid and has to bring home some bacon to show his skeptical countrymen the "special relationship" between the two is not that of master and poodle.

Make no mistake. This not a bailout of Africa's poor or Latin American peasants. This is a bailout of the IMF, the World Bank, and the African Development Bank. They will get the money to replace their lost loans. As in a Monopoly game where the rules are thrown out, they will be handed new money to play with. Bush and Blair are bailing out failed global institutions run by the highest-paid bureaucrats on earth.

What should have been done?

The IMF, the World Bank, and the ADP should have been held to the same standards as any U.S. government bank that squandered capital entrusted to its care. Congressional auditors should have gone over their books, looked at the bad loans, looked at the backup provided and statements made at the time by lending officers, then let the American people know whether they had been faithful custodians of our tax dollars or clowns who ought not to be trusted with kids' lunch money. If the banks failed, they should be forced to undergo the same discipline and downsizing as any public bank that made similar unsecured loans and lost $40 billion.

At the least, we should shut down the World Bank-IMF country club in Montgomery County, Md. – and make them all travel coach.

But none of this is going to happen. All three of these institutions will soon be back at the same game, and their critics will be denounced as hard-hearted conservatives who lack compassion for the world's poor.

When an American worker has to take a hit for every foolish or failed investment in the family portfolio or 401K, why do international bankers and bureaucrats work with a safety net and always get a bailout? Why do they never have to answer or apologize for the follies they commit? By all means, give the African people debt relief. But why let the lenders who lied and lost the money off the hook?

In the last analysis, it is Congress that has failed in its stewardship of the money entrusted to it by the most generous people on earth. A self-confident government would not give the IMF, the World Bank, or the African Development Bank another dime. Let them call us names.

Unfortunately, we have a Congress that cannot say no to any demand for foreign aid in the name of the "world's poorest" and a U.S. government that cannot stand up to a moral shakedown.

[Liberator]

Everybody seems to have forgotten that the poorest nations in Africa are run by Dictators of some kind, of which Mugabe(sp?) is one of the worst.  He took Zimbabwe, and changed it from the "breadbasket of the continent" to a dust bowl.

[Rictor]

Well it's hardly the people's fault. Dictators are poping up all the time, especially in a environment like Africa. Even Mugabe started out as a freedom fighter, an admirable figure, but as the saying goes: power corrupts.

[Zarax]

Don't worry, if Berlusconi wins in 2006 the IMF will find a new customer: Italy.

[redmenace]

The IMF is a private organization? If that is the case, don't they have a right to do lend money as they please?

[Zarax]

Suure, it's as private and independent as the federal reserve...

[aldo_14]

I think it's worth noting that poverty can be a tool of dictators, though.  Obviously steps need to be taken to control corruption, etc, but at the same time you can't ignore the problem because of the people abusing the system.  

I would note, though;

Benin - democratic (Reporters Without Borders rates it has having greater press freedom than the UK)

Bolivia - democratic (I believe; seen no contradictory infor from the wikipedia, bbc or CIA WF to that extent), but high rich-poor divide.

Burkina Faso - reportedly democratic, albeit the current President took power through a coup and was elected in 1998 (I don't know how democratic these elections were). Concerns over human rights & possible involvement in diamond smuggling by Sierra Leone rebels.

Ethiopia - reportedly democratic, albeit with allegations over vote-rigging in last election and concerns over the jailing of journalists.  A ruling Marxist junta was overthrown in 1991.

Ghana - democratic, regarded as a model for economic and political reform within Africa.  Plays a strong peace-keeping / mediation role.

Guyana - democratic

Honduras - democratic; ruled by military government/dictatorship until 1982.  Impelementing economic reforms in return for (a degree of) IMF relief / US aid already.

Madagascar - democratic, massive poverty; 70% live on less than $1 per day

Mali - democratic.  Current president is regarded as a 'soldier of democracy' for overthrowing military dictatorship in 1991 and holding elections the following year.  Media is amongst the free-est in Africa.

Mauritania - democratic (As far as I can tell); president has been ruled since 1984 - first within a military Junta, and then elected in the 1992 multi-party elections (civillian government).  Allegations over intimidation / vote-rigging in last election.

Mozambique - democratic.  Allegations of vote rigging in last election; international monitors say this was not enough to change the result.  Economy ruined by 77-92 war and then floods in 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Nicaragua - democratic (president is politically isolated due to anti-corruption charges against predecessor, supported by the Us ahead of the main opponent - who fought against US sponsored Contra rebels); economy badly damaged by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, which left 20% of the population homeless.

Niger - Democratic.  Only banned slavery in 2003; allegations thousands still live in servitude.  President has been hailed for returning stability; but still has to cope with mass poverty, illiteracy and a non-existant health service.

Rwanda -democratic, first elections (after the 1994 genocide) in 2003.  Concerns expressed in 2002 by the International Crisis Group - a conflict-prevention agency - that the ruling party tolerated no criticism or challenge to its authority.

Senegal - democratic; President is an adovcate of democratisation and reform.

Tanzania - Democratic.  President was elected as an anti-corruption crusader and is responsible for economic liberalisation welcomed by the World Bank.  Due to retire at the end of his 2nd term this year.

Uganda - Purportedly Democratic, but with restrictions upon elections limit only the ruling party to stand in polls (purportedly to be lifted prior to the 2006 election).  The President  has been credited with improving the human rights record of the police and army, and with economic reform (western backed).

 Zambia - Reportedly democratic (opposition allegations of vote-rigging in last election); President has committed to anti-corruption reforms.  Issues over media freedom; laws against defaming the President, use of libel etc laws to intimidate journalists.

NB: a lot of the countries with allegations over vote-rigging are regarded in the CIA World Factbook as simply 'republic'; i.e. democratic.

[pyro-manic]

Blair, bless his socialist soul

I find that very funny...

It makes some very good points, though.

[Liberator]

My point about Mugabe was that he takes producing farms from the hands of the people who's families have lived and worked them for nearly 500 years in some cases just because they are white, and gives them to know nothing political allies who are black, changing his country from an exporter of foodstuffs to a land where the people are starving.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
My point about Mugabe was that he takes producing farms from the hands of the people who's families have lived and worked them for nearly 500 years in some cases just because they are white, and gives them to know nothing political allies who are black, changing his country from an exporter of foodstuffs to a land where the people are starving.

It's not even that; Mugabe essentially gave his supporters - not allies, just plain old voters - carte blanche to forcefully evict and indeed kill not just white landowners, but their black employees.  So he not only 'stole' the land (regardless of the circumstance of the original ownership / colonisation, it's never right to take without recompense), but he/they managed to drive away those black farmworkers who were educated enough to maintain the existing crops and soforth.

Mugabe is simply a menace; he may not be a threat to the rest of the world, but he is to his own people.  The problem is that, if you punish Mugabe by withdrawing aid, you're punishing the ordinary citizens more.  It's a catch-22 situation, unfortunately; aid risks propping up his regime, withdrawing it hurts millions of people who don't even support him.  

IMO the best policy in humanitarian terms is to allow NGOs to perform aid work, but at the same time to make it explicitly clear that aid is not for Mugabe - or whatever tinpot dictator there may be in the country - but for the people.  And when said dictator blocks aid, to make that clear to the people.

One thing about the poorest nations, though; some are recovering from dictatorships which incurred said huge debts.  We shouldn't punish those people for a government which foisted itself upon them; it's probably in our (the richer western world) own interests to provide aid particularly in terms of education and health, because the former will help prevent juntas from forming and suppressing the people (education breeds dissent against totalitarianism IIRC).

[Swamp_Thing]

This is in no way a surprise. When we heard Bush had nominated Paul Wolfowitz to the job of World Bank chairman, we knew this was bound to happen.
Albeit i agree with dropping the international dept for poor countries, the simple truth is that these countries never get to see a dime of that money. It alweays gets lost amidst a ton of burocratic paper work, and mostly in the hands of unscropulous greedy people. Just like the iraqi Oil for Food program.
These people are worst than vultures. It´s as if they could scent the money from a million miles away, and get drawned to it like flies on shiit.
Corporate fraud is, without a doubt, the worst plague Mankind has suffered throughout history. It has caused millions of victims more than any spanish Influenza or Black Plague could ever hope to cause. Millions of people could have been spared a horrible death by starvation, if that money had reached those who needed it the most...
And now, having Wolfowitz in control of who gets or not the much needed funds, there´s not much hope it gets any better...

[Liberator]

The best way to deal with it is to put a 40cal between his eyes and into the wall behind him.  You can't deal with megalomaniacs or the Cult of Personality that always seems to follow them around.  The only way to win a conflict is utter and complete defeat of the opposition, which is why we're having problems in Iraq.  We're trying to talk our way to victory, and while it would eventually work, it would take generations.  Much better to defeat them and then they will be easier to handle.

*note the use of the word defeat, not kill*

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
The best way to deal with it is to put a 40cal between his eyes and into the wall behind him.  You can't deal with megalomaniacs or the Cult of Personality that always seems to follow them around.  The only way to win a conflict is utter and complete defeat of the opposition, which is why we're having problems in Iraq.  We're trying to talk our way to victory, and while it would eventually work, it would take generations.  Much better to defeat them and then they will be easier to handle.

*note the use of the word defeat, not kill*

The problem is that you can't just 'defeat' them like that; any form of totalitarian state will have a security apparatus intended to control the population.  In removing the government, you remove that apparatus and create a power vacuum perfect for the next dictator to arise.

The reason for the problems in Iraq is not defeating the opposition, it's that the current tactics are especially useful creating the opposition;the Abu Ghraib scandal, Falluja, the issues over elections in Shia areas, the long-lasting infrastructure damage (electrical, medical, security) all combine to not only create an environment where rebellion can take place, but where it can grow in response.  

The best you can hope of via military action is instability; the actions taken to remove the causes of an insurgency have always been conciliatory, to remove grass-roots support.  If you were to assassinate Mugabe - even when he's still solidifying IMO his grasp on power - you'd be more likely to create resentment from even his opponents for intruding upon their affairs.  And any form of 'security intervention' (military action) to fill the resulting power vacuum would likely lead to resentment with the implication that you'd be looking to install a puppet government.  And even that's assuming that there's not a deputy just as bad, waiting to step in.

Iraq (and probably Afghanistan, with it's roaming warlords and rampant drug trade) is arguably the perfect example of why military intervention doesn't work.

[Goober5000]

On the contrary, military intervention worked perfectly: the governments of both countries fell within a month.  It's the peacekeeping/nation-building intervention that's a mess.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
On the contrary, military intervention worked perfectly: the governments of both countries fell within a month.  It's the peacekeeping/nation-building intervention that's a mess.

But military intervention was on the basis of nation-building; in reality, the military intervention is ongoing so long as there is an insurgency and instability.

[Liberator]

You know how you defeat a group like the militants in Iraq?  You close of the Sunni Triangle.  Blanket the region with pamphlets explaining that in 48 hours the planes will come, and when they leave, nothing other than mountains and small pebbles will be left, then tell them that they have those 48 hours to leave the area.  When that period expires you send in the B-52s and carpet bomb the entire region until not even a blade of grass is standing.

If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Liberator
You know how you defeat a group like the militants in Iraq?  You close of the Sunni Triangle.  Blanket the region with pamphlets explaining that in 48 hours the planes will come, and when they leave, nothing other than mountains and small pebbles will be left, then tell them that they have those 48 hours to leave the area.  When that period expires you send in the B-52s and carpet bomb the entire region until not even a blade of grass is standing.

If you're going to make war, MAKE WAR.

Reality check. Do you want to know why they don't do that? Because that also gives the militants more than enough advanced warning to get out and set up shop somewhere else. So what do you end up doing? Nothing but make the current infrastructure problems even worse and waste lots of fuel and bombs. It won't "shock and awe" them either.

[Liberator]

i beg to differ, once they see that we are willing to "drop the hammer", i believe that the militants will give up.  Right now, even with 150,000+ US soldiers in Iraq, they are convinced they can win.  (And depressingly, there are many who would help them, because it is politically expedient for them)

They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.

[Rictor]

Lib, it's more their country then yours. Maybe 10% of the insurgency at most are foreign fighters, though these tend to be among the higer echelons due to their previous expertise (Afghanistan in the 80s, Bosnia etc). US brass in Iraq has confirmed this. Most of the rank and file is pissed-off Iraqis, and until America faces that fact, victory isn't even on the horizon.

What you are suggesting is more or less what the Russians did to Chechnya. They park their artillery outside Grozny, and turn the place to rubble. And send in some bombers for good measure. Unfortunately, that resulted in about 100,000+ civilian deaths, and the destruction of an entire country. In technical terms, genocide, ethnic cleansing (there are only around 1.3 million Chehcens left) and war crimes. Didn't work though, the guerillas just went to the hills and fought from there. The point is, people resent others meddling in their country. Regardless of whether you think it's good or bad, right or wrong, the very presence of foreign troops, and their control over the civilian government, that by itself creates huge resentment.

Yes, dictators exist. Yes, it's a tricky situation to unseat them. But firstly, violence is never the solution to internal conflicts. Wars between nations, yes, but civil war and insurgency/counter-insurgency are incredibly messy, to put it mildly, and rarely achieve anything. People resent, quite naturally, when some outside power comes along and tries to fix all the problems, like some sort of global cop. Even in a completely positive situations, internal problems are best handled very, very gently. The main thrust has to come from within, or else people will not feel like they have a stake in their own affairs. The civil wars in Africa can be solved, though it takes efforts on many fronts. The African Union could potentialkly be a force for great good, if they weren't so ineffectual. If America likes to solve thing forecefully, fine: African Union peacekeepers are extremely ill equipped and trained. Handing out weapons and training is the US's specialty, I don't see why they couldn't do that in Africa too.

[Kosh]

i believe that the militants will give up.

The militants are fanatics of some kind or another. For them to "give up" means to die. This is something you need to understand.

They must be shown, through a demonstration of raw power if necessary, that under no circumstances can they win.

They thought exactly that same thing in Vietnam. The US dropped huge amounts of aerial ordinance on Vietnam, and did the Vietcong give up? Hardly. They just kept coming. This situation in Iraq isn't much different; it is a war of attrition.