An Obsidian Potency PSA: World Bank + IMF = Crunchies imitating Sisyphus

"This is another public service announcement, brought to you in part...by Obsidian Potency."

One thing I don't think I'll ever understand is the point of all the crunchies who spend so much time and energy protesting against the policies of two large NGOs -- the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. A big part of me feels like if these people were better informed, they wouldn't bother wasting their time on such a pointless activity.

Some of you might already be tuning me out. But I advise you to heed me, because I really do know what I'm talking about when it coems to the Bank and Fund. This is going to sound like one-half extreme cynicism and one-half pinko-commie liberal ranting, but I have enough information (and enough reliable sources) to know that it is simply the truth.

I have several family members and friends who either used to work for these organizations, or who still work for them. I'm not going to name names or tell you who they are, becuase I don't want to imply in any way that my post represents their views. But I will pass on my own interpretations of what I've learned over the years. And by the end, you'll hopefully understand why raging against these NGOs is a total waste of energy.

First, some history. The IMF and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) were founded at the end of World War II. The IMF is the world's financial police officer. It is the Fund's responsibility to make sure the economic collapse that led to the Great Depression never, ever repeats itself again.

It is NOT the Fund's job to make sure that everyone approves of the way they accomplish this job. It is also NOT their job to make sure that the world's poorer countries grow and develop. And it probably never will be, for a variety of reasons.

The Bank's story is a lot more complicated. The IBRD was set up to assist Europe in its reconstruction after the world war devastated a large potion of the continent. That was the original reason for its existence.

Unfortunately for the Bank's employees, this job got done a lot quicker than expected. a reconstruction process which experts thought might take several decades was largely finished in 10 years. This left the Bank with a quandary: how to we continue to justify our existence?

They got the best and brightest minds in the group together, and decided to come up with the "World Bank" concept. Now, they would be a resource for developing countries everywhere in the world. They would loan these countries money, and collect interest as these countries used the money to improve their infrastructures and services.

Of course, there are several problems with this notion. How do countries with crappy economies actually pay these loans off? And how would an organization built to rebuild Europe be able to shift its prime directive so dramatically?

Then the Carter administration took over the USA in the late 70s, and the oil crisis hit. The world was in danger of falling into another depression, and the IMF intervened. They realized "hey, we can get into this money-lending business too." As a result, the two organizations have gotten to the point that they are virtually indistinguishable from one another.


So what does any of this have to do with hippies wasting their time? Simple: the IMF and the World Bank have only two organizational goals. The Fund continues to exist to prevent another Depression. The World Bank continues to exist to justify its own existence and perpetuate itself.

So why it is worthless to get them to change their policies to better help poor countries?

Simple: it's not their job to help poor countries develop. I know what the Bank's website says. Don't believe the hype. If you talk to almost anyone who is a part of these organizations, they will tell you that they know that the Bank's policies do not actually help poor countries to escape poverty. It's no secret.

It's a matter of economics. Poor countries don't feed money to the Bank and the Fund. Rich countries do. To be specific, the G-8 throws billions of dollars every year to keep them running. Yes, that includes the U.S.; when people talk about the U.S. not paying their U.N. dues, they aren't referring to the Bank and Fund...even though these organizations are technically part of the U.N.

As a result, the World Bank and IMF make sure their policies dovetail with the policies of the world's richest nations to maintain the current economic world order. If you look at the agricultural and trade policies of the world's wealthiest countries, you can tell they aren't geared towards creating a level playing field for the poorer countries to have a fair crack at selling their own goods. The USA subsidizes their own farmers in order to make sure they can sell their goods cheaper than foreigners can. On top of that, the States has other artificial barriers to trade that serve to protect domestic markets.

The Bank and Fund are simply extensions of the economic hegemony of the world's top economies. And why wouldn't they be? These countries pay them to do it!

Here's what the hippies don't seem to get: the World Bank and IMF are never going to help poor countries get on their feet. It's not in their best interests to do so. That's why it doesn't matter who heads these organizations. Wolfowitz or Bono? In the end, it's a moot point. Nothing will change.

The biggest reason that Bush has been vilified by countries like France and Germany is that Bush broke the rules. Instead of continuing to operate through the standard channels of debt and financial repression, he broke the rules by using his army instead of relying on the Bank and Fund. Instead of simply being content with manipulating the economic playing field to keep poor countries subjugated and their people starving and dying of malaria and AIDS, he decided to invade another country to take what he thought the States needed. Apparently, it's much more 'barbaric' to invade another country and install a friendly government than it is to set up horrible economic conditions and watch those people die of starvation and disease. Personally, I can't really tell the difference.

I warned you that this would sound cynical. But I know I'm right, and anyone who is honest with themselves at those organizations would tell you the exact same thing off the record.

If people really want to make the world a better place, forget about protesting at the global trade conferences in Seattle. Instead, protest in front of the government offices of your own first-world countries. Lobby the powers-that-be in those nations to change their trade policies from the ground level up. Lay out an economic scenario that won't necessarily result in those politicians gettting voted out of office due to large spikes in unemployment and the near-dissolution of certain industries. Show the politicians and eecomomists what's in it for them. What Bono did with Falwell is a good start; unfortunately, Falwell is not in the right position to make a difference, and neither is Bono.

Trying to change the Fund and Bank is such a lost cause that Sisyphus is probably laughing from hell. Those institutions are merely symptoms of the disease.

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit