>From: Rick Rozoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [STOPNATO.ORG.UK] World Bank, IMF Beyond Reform - Shut Them Down > >Helping the poorest to get poorer >The World Bank and the IMF are beyond reform. Shut >them down > >Special report: debt relief > >George Monbiot >Thursday September 21, 2000 >The Guardian > >A few months ago I used this column to argue that the >World Bank was destroying health and education in the >developing world. > >In Zambia, for example, the conditions the bank had >attached to its loans - cuts in state spending and the >privatisation of services - had contributed to a 25% >increase in infant mortality since 1980 and, as >parents now have to pay to have their children >educated, a disastrous decline in school enrolment. > >The bank, oddly enough, didn't seem to be too happy >about my analysis. "It is simply false," Mats >Karlsson, one of its vice-presidents wrote, "to claim >that the World Bank is further impoverishing people." >It was, he insisted, lending developing countries more >money for health, education and poverty reduction than >ever before. > >This is perfectly true. This year, for example, the >World Bank will be handing out some $1.9bn for schools >in poor countries. It will also be destroying >schooling worth many times this amount by continuing >to insist that countries put debt repayments ahead of >public spending. It has yet to explain why on earth it >is making dollar loans for schools in the first place, >when nearly all their costs are incurred in local >currencies. Only if local provision is to be replaced >by foreign contractors, or if children are to be given >computers before they are taught to read or write, >does lending hard currency for basic education make >sense. First they break your legs, then, by way of >compensation, they offer you a pedicure. > >At their grand summit in Prague at the end of this >week, the World Bank and the International Monetary >Fund will insist, as the IMF's former managing >director has claimed, that they are now "the best >friends of the poor". The bad old days of "structural >adjustment" -forcing all the countries they deal with >to accept precisely the same neoliberal prescriptions >- are over. Instead of being obliged to accept >policies imposed by the first world, debtor nations >will now be allowed to devise their own >"poverty-reduction strategies". > >This sounds fine, until you discover that, as the >World Development Movement has documented, the >recipient countries can request whatever they want as >long as it's neoliberalism. As one senior bank >official pointed out, the new scheme is a "compulsory >programme, so that those with the money can tell those >without the money what they need in order to get the >money". > >To me, the abiding mystery surrounding the World Bank >and the IMF is why anyone still believes that they are >capable of reform. The New Economics Foundation >concludes its devastating critique of the two bodies >by suggesting only that they should "undergo >democratic overhauls". Even the Guardian's usually >far-sighted economics editor, Larry Elliott, has >argued that those who believe the World Bank and IMF >are inherently corrupt "are not only wrong, but are >giving succour to extremists on the right who oppose >all but minimalist government and despise >internationalism". There is, most commentators agree, >no alternative to the existing global financial >system. > >This is not a consensus that John Maynard Keynes would >have joined. In 1944, he warned that a financial >system which imposed penalties and strictures on >debtor nations but not creditor nations would ensure >that the rich became richer and the poor became >poorer. He proposed a global financial institution >which would charge interest on both debt and credit. >Creditor nations would thus be encouraged to spend >their surpluses in debtor nations, automatically >correcting imbalances in trade. > >The US proposed an alternative system. Help for debtor >nations would be confined to a fund and a bank which >lent them money when they got into trouble. These >would both be based in Washington and effectively >controlled by the creditors. As Keynes foresaw, the US >proposal would ensure both that debtor nations fell >further into debt and that creditors - the US in >particular - could exercise ever-greater economic and >political power over them. But the US told Britain >that if we didn't accept its proposal, we wouldn't get >our war loan. > >The World Bank and the IMF, in other words, were >conceived as the policemen for a coercive and grossly >unbalanced world order. The idea that they could >deliver anything but disaster for the world's poor is >laughable. If, as they will claim in Prague, they want >to help build a fairer world, then they must start by >closing themselves down. > >ï George Monbiot's new book, Captive State: the >Corporate Takeover of Britain, is published today by >Macmillan > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com/ > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb _______________________________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi _______________________________________________________ Kominform list for general information. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anti-Imperialism list for anti-imperialist news. Subscribe/unsubscribe messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________________
