Baghdad UN mission assisted US and World Bank robbery

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:15

whether its true or not its seems a bit insensitive of Mary Robinson to talk of 'second fiddles' and 'wake up calls' after people have been murdered. Nobody deserves to die in this situation.

Can you provide a source for this article as Id like to read more.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:38

Al Jazeera say IMF people killed the IMF say:

"Five IMF members of staff, and an IMF security consultant, were at the scene of the explosion. Four staff members sustained injuries, for which they have received treatment. We have been unable to establish contact with the fifth staff member nor with the security consultant, but reports indicate that they were injured and are receiving treatment. At this time, our thoughts are with our colleagues and their families."

by Rapper Tandy Wed Aug 20, 2003 11:57

The function of IMF staff is to pauperise developing countries in particular to destroy the living conditions of workers and small farmers. I have no sympathy for these mercenaries. Unlike soldiers who mainly come from poorer backgrounds, IMF officials are a well paid elite.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:12

you show no sympathy for them (even though we dont know they are dead yet) and you would expect them to show sympathy for the people of Iraq etc. Sounds like your attitude would fit nicely into their(IMF) agenda. 'dont know, dont care'

you dont know those people, you dont know their roles yet you say they deserve to die - real clever mate

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:19

IMF are thugs, they enforce financial regimes on countries which completely open them up to the "Free Market". This means an end to sussidies on staple foods, cooking oil, etc AND privatisation of utilities such as water, electricity, gas. This results in a crackdown on trade unionists, peasant activists and anyone who stand uo to the IMF edicts.

I dont know who exactly the IMF staff in Baghdad were, but I know their type. The IMF is enemy of all progressive people.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:24

you dont need to explain the policies of the IMF to me. Im not here to defend the IMF economic poilicies which you seem to have a vast knowledge of. All im saying is that if you claim that anybody deserves to die in a situation like that you are as morally inept as those running the IMF/World Bank, no matter what your 'agenda' is.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:32

I am as morally inept as the IMF? They have been responsible for the deaths of millions! Cop on! Theres a difference between a few highly paid IMF goons being offed and the calculated genocide of millions of the wretched of the Earth. If you cant see that then you are simmple, Simon.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:47

look Im not going to get bogged down on some IMF battle but if you spout a few facts that you picked up off some pamphlet or a few activist sites your not an expert on the IMF. You said you didnt know who the people were and what they were doing, am I wrong.

Do you not think its ham-fisted to say once you belong to a particular organisation you deserve to die (Would you be willing to live up to your well constructed assertions). Thats the level of thinking that the nazi's etc live by - and we all know that level of thinking is simple in the extreme

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:01

If you are going to use Nazi analogies then you should address them towards the IMF. JUst a moment ago you were claiming to know a lot about the peridifies of the IMF. The IMF destroy any economy in developing countries which is in any way skewed towards the poor. They even force countries to grow cash crops rather than food crops.

If there are Nazis around then they are in the IMF who carry out Genocide against the poor of developing countries. Do you really believe the IMF were there to help the Iraqi people?

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:11

your missing the point, I didnt call you a nazi but criticised your thinking. I used the nazi analogy for ease but I could have said racist, terrorist, GW Bush whatever.

You can rattle of some juvenile bravado but you obviously dont think about what you are saying. Do you simply not care about the people dying or do you condone the bombing. If you are to live by your assertion would you take part in a bombing. Say in this bombing, would you walk around the bodies and say 'he deserved to die, she didnt, she did, he didnt' etc etc.

by Gaillimhed Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:22

Hereas an interesting article dedscribing hw the IMF ran russia into the ground in the early nineties, basically looting all assets and funnelling every available rouble offshore.

"Russia in the 1990s has witnessed a peacetime economic contraction of unprecedented scale. Many believe much of the blame for the social and economic catastrophe rests with the IMF, which has had a central role in designing and supervising Russia's economic policy since 1992.

The number of Russians in poverty has risen from 2 million to 60 million since the IMF came to post-Communist Russia. Male life expectancy has dropped sharply from 65 years to 57. Economic output is down by at least 40 percent."


http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/imf/europe/imf_russia.htm

by James McKenna Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:34

Mary Robinson was speaking on RTE Radio 1 this morning.

She is a very sensitive and concerned person and also expressed sorrow for those who died. What she is suggesting is a review of the current UN position of supporting the US occupation, so as to save the further loss of life.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:48

You dont seem to care about the millions of people who have died do to the actions of the IMF. You are effectively an IMF apologist; otherwise you would not have posted so many messages about the deaths of 4 IMF goons.

If you are proportionate then you really should write a few books about the sins of the IMF.

You are the one who is being juvenile with your wailings about these pindtriped thugs. Save your tears for the children murdered by the IMF.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 13:57

again not defending the IMF, but have you actually ever been to Russia. its a bit of a major oversite if you dont realise that the IMF worked in co-operation with the Russian government. They didnt invade and take over all the banks etc. Effectively they are accepted as consultants and policy 'shifters'. Youll find that there are far more corrupt Russians who have benefitied immensely over the last few years. Many of the elderly resent the transition because they lost life savings overnight but youll have a hard time convincing young Russians that 'capitalism' as many interpret it is wrong. Non of the russians I met expressed any interest in returning to the previous system. Although they would be dismayed at the mis-management and corruption of the current one.

Also, Rapper how do you think the IMF 'force' farmers to grow cash crops. Do you think men in suits and shades enter farms digging up crops and telling the farmer to only grow coffee - fantasy. I think youll find that almost all farmers want to grow 'cash' crops. Take Ireland - how many of our farmers self sufficient small-holders. If you actually think about it youll realise its the unfair distribution of market forces that adds to the problems for 'third-world' farmers. Maybe grow up a bit and get your facts in order before you start calling people simple.

Cheers James, I know what she meant about the eye-opener but I wanted to know the full context of what she said.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 14:45

C'mon you know that the IMF enforce conditions on States which result in the state hassling farmers to grow cash crops for export rather than food crops for home consumption.

Whether I have ever been to Russia is irrelevant, otherwise any of us could only comment on countries we had visited.

The IMF forces regimes of privatisation on Contries, the net result of which is the pauperisation of workers and farmers.

You are an apologist for the IMF.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 15:19

'apologist for the IMF' is that a joke. I think i just interpret the policies of the IMF slightly different to you. Ive already said that the IMF is morally inept etc. Do you honestly think all farmers from the 'developing' world simply want to grow crops to feed their immediate family. You dont think they have similar hopes and aspirations as you or your friends and family. As I see it your logic will further humiliate, degrade and 'keep-down' the 'developing' world in the same way that the IMF/World Bank do.

My initial point about you condoning the bombing went unanswered. Are you an apologist for murder and terrorism?????.

I know you dont have to have been to a country to understand its socio-political make-up but I wanted to know what those claims were based on. But, I can say from experience that things are as simple as that article or your earlier points portrayed.

If you show a lack of understanding or ignorance on these issues it makes it very easy for people such as the IMF to dismiss your claims as infantile crap.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:04

The farmers dont have a choice in what crops they grow. But in any case are you seriously suggesting that it is better that people should die from famine so that a country can earn foreign currency from exports to pay off loans to th IMF & other foreign debtors???

What about privatisation of water, gas , electricity? The banning of subsidies on foodstuffs? The IMF insists on these conditions when they go in to bail out the local capitalists.

You are the one who is being infantile. Deal with the genocide caused by the IMF rather the people with the small bombs.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:06

Yes people have the right to fight back against invaders. I think it would have been better if the IMF had been dealt with by mass action though. I would love to see a gang og IMF goons cornered by peons and publicly hung.

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:21

look, the steps that facilitate poverty and famine etc. are greater than just the dealings of the IMF. Focussing on them entirely does show a lack of appreciation for the factors and issues involved and may work against you in the long run.

Back to the original point: no matter how much I despise the IMF i wouldnt want any of they blown up in a terrorist bomb. thats a very simple principle - and i cant see public executions of IMF members happening so you have to figure out a different way of dealing with them. Im not comparing the bombing in any way to the actions of the IMF etc just I take issue with any person who would be happy with the death of anybody or see it as a self-serving triumph. Simply put I felt that Mary Robinsons comments were pulled out of context of how I imagined she would have reacted and wanted to clarify if that was all she said. Phew!!

I wasnt implying that you were infantile but if I can see holes in your interpretation of the impact of the IMF how do you think they would treat you.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:41

Aletter from todays Guardian

IMF medicine goes down the wrong way

Wednesday August 20, 2003
The Guardian

George Monbiot's attack on IMF policy in Hungary (Poisoned chalice, August 19) is well-timed, because other countries are being lined up for "treatment".
The IMF poison had already been applied to Yugoslavia almost immediately after the death of Tito. It was IMF demands for privatisation and cutbacks in welfare which aggravated the internal strains in the Yugoslav federation and led directly to the collapse of the Yugoslav dinar and then to the bloody consequences in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia.

The problem of unpayable international debt will only begin to be tackled when there is democratic control of the global money system. That means taking control of the system out of the hands of privately owned finance.
Kevin Donnelly
Christian Council for Monetary Justice
[email protected]

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:46

Poisoned chalice

Wherever it is prescribed, a dose of IMF medicine only compounds economic crisis

George Monbiot
Tuesday August 19, 2003
The Guardian

For how much longer should we give those who run the global economy the benefit of the doubt? The International Monetary Fund has made the same "mistake" so many times that only one explanation appears to remain: it is engineering disaster.
The crises over which it has presided in Thailand, South Korea, Russia and Argentina are well-documented by Joseph Stiglitz, the former chief economist of the World Bank, among others. But we have, until now, lacked a comprehensive description of the way it worked in eastern Europe. A new book by the economist Pongrac Nagy* shows for the first time how the IMF smashed Hungary.

Communist economic management was hopeless: coercive, unaccountable, incompetent and wasteful. So when Hungary began to democratise in the late 1980s, it was plain that a new economic system was required. There were a number of options for transition. But before anyone had considered them, Hungary's naive and trusting new government was persuaded by the western powers that it had no alternative but to turn to the IMF.

Unless a country's economic policy is approved by the IMF, it cannot obtain foreign capital. Post-communist Hungary needed foreign capital for just one purpose: to help repay its enormous external debt. It could have applied, as many other countries had done, for debt relief, but the IMF, in the face of substantial evidence, told it that this would deter foreign investors. The only option was to implement the policies the IMF recommended.

It has just one set of policies. Governments must impose restraints upon the supply of money and credit, open the door to foreign capital, privatise state assets and cut public spending. It justifies these demands by persuading them that they are suffering from unmanageable debt and galloping inflation.

So in 1990 the IMF told Hungary that it was undergoing an inflationary crisis. Prices, it pointed out, had risen by 17% in 1989. In truth this rise was caused not by inflation (demand outstripping supply), but mainly by policy changes, such as the introduction of VAT and the abolition of subsidies. The IMF insisted on pretending that it was caused by excess demand.

The best way of reducing demand, the IMF maintained, was to restrict the amount of money the banks could lend. So between 1990 and 1996, the central bank ensured that the credit made available to businesses halved. The immediate and predictable result was that interest rates soared (to 50%) and businesses all over Hungary collapsed. As workers were sacked and wages were cut, consumer demand crashed. The IMF, Nagy writes, had "artificially plunged the Hungarian economy into its greatest-ever depression in peacetime". Between 1990 and 1993, Hungary's gross domestic product fell by 18%.

Far from curing inflation, this treatment caused it. Between 1993 and 1996, prices rose by 130%. This was not because demand was rising, but simply because it wasn't falling as fast as supply. But the IMF, once more, treated this new problem as if it was caused by runaway demand. It insisted on further economic restriction, which, predictably enough, pushed Hungary further into depression.

To ensure that Hungary serviced its debt, the IMF demanded that it cut every possible public service, and privatise every possible state asset. Entire economic sectors were flogged swiftly and cheaply, with the result that foreign corporations acquired complete market control. To ensure, in the government's words, "the desirable reallocation of income _ towards the business sector", Hungary was then obliged to introduce one of the most regressive tax policies in the world: 43% of government revenue came from taxes on consumption, but just 20% from income tax and 14% from business taxes.

All this was carried out, as all IMF programmes are, in conditions of total secrecy and institutional deceit. The lie the IMF tells is that it simply approves the "letter of intent" written by a government, in which the new economic policies are contained. This story relieves it of all responsibility for what happens. But the letter of intent is actually written by the IMF, and simply signed by the government. It is massive and detailed, and guides the economic and political life of the nation for between one and three years. It is entirely confidential. The only sight the people of Hungary have ever received of IMF policy was a leaked letter from a senior IMF official to the finance minister. His demands precisely matched the policies the government was implementing.

One-and-a-half million people (almost 30% of the workforce) lost their jobs. The incomes of those who stayed in work declined by 24%; pensions fell by 31%. By 1996, most people were living on or around subsistence levels. Public services shrivelled. Between 1989 and 1998, the crime rate rose by 166%. This, we must remember, was the result of a process almost universally described as "the triumph of capitalism".

Then, in 1996, suddenly, without announcement or explanation, the policy changed. The banks were permitted to start issuing credit again and the recession, as a result, came to an immediate end. Over the next four years, industrial production climbed by 45% and gross domestic product by 21%. Wages and pensions began to rise again.

The experiment, in other words, could not have had a clearer outcome. You apply the IMF's medicine and the economy collapses. You stop, and the economy recovers. It has been repeated often enough for us to trust the results. In Thailand, South Korea, Indonesia, Russia and Argentina, the IMF's financial liberalisation and forced restrictions led to economic crisis, which was relieved only as those restrictions were lifted. Those nations which refused to take the medicine, even though they were confronting almost identical conditions (Malaysia, China, Poland) prospered while their neighbours collapsed.

So why, knowing what the results will be, does the IMF keep applying the same formula for disaster? It can hardly be through lack of expertise. The truth is that the results happen to suit its sponsors very well. While the IMF works mainly in poor nations, it is controlled, through its one-dollar, one-vote system, entirely by the rich. As a result, as Stiglitz says, its programmes reflect "the interests and ideology of the western financial community".

Desmond Tutu once remarked that: "When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said 'let us close our eyes and pray'. When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land." The Hungarians were handed the Bible of economic orthodoxy by its missionaries. Through deceit and secrecy, the IMF ensured that their eyes were shut. By the time they opened them, foreign banks and corporations owned the economy; the public sector was giving way to foreign capital; structural unemployment had produced a pliant and desperate workforce. The IMF, in other words, had engineered the theft of an entire nation. How many more times does this need to happen before we can see what the game is?

* From Command to Market Economy in Hungary under the Guidance of the IMF, Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.

www.monbiot.com

by simon Wed Aug 20, 2003 16:58

i totally agree with that and as it notes that Communist economic management was hopeless: coercive, unaccountable, incompetent I want to figure out where we go from here. I dont think murder/terrorism will help the process in any way. Its not enough to simply know why the IMF is bad but we must be able to provide realitic alternatives.

by Rapper Wed Aug 20, 2003 17:02

I'm no supporter of Stalinism. But I save my outrage for the real criminals. I agree though that indicriminate bombings are wrong.

I just have no sympathy for IMF casualties.