The US Role in Global Poverty

The Role of the United States in Global Poverty

1:Abstract
2:Global Conditions
3:Global Monetary System
4:Loan Conditionality Examples: SAP and PRSP

Abstract

The following was assembled to substantiate the general conditions in the world and how these conditions primarily result from US policy including the world order maintained through US hegemony.

I begin by establishing facts related to the living conditions faced by most of the people in the world. I casually trace the history of US monetary policy as it directly relates to lending practices that led to US imposition on the economic policy of other nations through the IMF and World Bank.

Examples of the results and process of Structural Adjustment Programs and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers are cited.

This article cites another article that generally establishes a pattern of forceful imposition through sanctions, invasion, coups, and the support of despots who put the interests of the United States ahead of the interests of their people.

This article began as a note for the chapter on Christianity for a book I’ve since deconstructed called Liberty and Tyranny. The final two paragraphs remind people that the United States is a population that identifies a Christians, 75% of the population. There the actions of the United States are Christian results based on a supposed system of delegation of government to a few selected by the majority of the population. Even as I argue correctly that the system is not as advertised where the government consists of an untainted pool of representatives elected by the rest, it is still a nation where Christians lacking the proper motivating elements, provide consent for the myth and are still generally responsible for the policy and functions of the state. Again, this is because the original point of this note was to demonstrate the fruits of Christians.

Global Conditions

The listed facts associated with world poverty and sources are taken from the website dosomething.org. While I am unfamiliar with the website I presume it is a non-profit or linked to a non-profit dedicated to treating the symptoms of the statistics it cites, while being ignorant and indifferent to the causes. As a non-profit as are nearly all non-profits, it is the exploitation of social justice issues that is lucrative for the officers and administrators of the non-profits, having only a marginal impact on the lives of the people whose misery is exploited by these groups for their own selfish purposes. It also has the effect of allowing people who are rank and file involved as in serving in some volunteer capacity or writing a check to feel like they are good people, despite the fact that their indifference is largely the cause of the problems they credit themselves with doing something about. I’m quoting their compilation of statistics because they come from credible sources whom I would cite had I taken the time to look them up individually. The purpose is to establish the order, and then explain while pointing back to other notes how the United States is largely responsible for these results. Responsible directly through intervention and the support of leaders who maintain these conditions for the benefit of US and European corporations, and also indirectly by maintaining a world order that leaves people of nations trapped.

Nearly 1/2 of the world’s population — more than 3 billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. More than 1.3 billion live in extreme poverty — less than $1.25 a day. (United Nations Development Programme. “Sustaining Human Progress: Reducing Vulnerabilities and Building Resilience.” Human Development Report, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

1 billion children worldwide are living in poverty. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. (United Nations Inter-agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN IGME). “UNICEF: Committing to Child Survival: A promise renewed.” UNICEF, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat. (FAO, IFAD and WFP. “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2014. Strengthening the enabling environment for food security and nutrition.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN, 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)

More than 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water. Diarrhea caused by inadequate drinking water, sanitation, and hand hygiene kills an estimated 842,000 people every year globally, or approximately 2,300 people per day. (World Health Organization and UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP). “Progress on Drinking Water and Sanitation, 2014 Update.” 2014. Web Accessed February 25, 2015.)
Preventable diseases like diarrhea and pneumonia take the lives of 2 million children a year who are too poor to afford proper treatment. (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) . “Pneumonia and diarrhea Tackling the deadliest diseases for the world’s poorest children.” Web accessed February 25, 2014,)

80% of the world population lives on less than $10 a day(Ravallion, Martin, Shaohua Chen, and Prem Sangraula. Dollar a Day Revisited. Working paper no. 4620. The World Bank, May 2008. Web Accessed February 25, 2014.)

Examples of direct intervention that produce poverty can be found at

Another example of direct intervention is the use of international banks, chiefly, the IMF and the World Bank which allows the institutions who are dominated by the interest of the United States and Western Europe, to set the economic policy of other nations. The term was once known as Structural Adjustment Programs, used to describe the stipulations a nation had to agree to in order to access international credit for the purpose of repaying private lenders or for development. Due to studies, academic criticism, and the results experienced by those living in nations under SAPs, the name was changed and the process slightly modified but the ends achieved remained essentially the same.

Instead of Structural Adjustment Program, the name was changed to Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, which promised inclusion of stakeholders within the country to participate in the process of creating a set of economic policies to reduce poverty. From what I read, the process included many entrenched foreign interests who had already benefited from SAPs where mineral rights were privatized, basically purchased or leased to foreign multinational corporations at low rates, and also included professionals from or close to the institutions (IMF or World Bank). The people of the country can participate through their representatives, many of which as in the US are representative of elite interest at the exclusion of the public, or through other group organizations like churches or non-profits. The policies that are generally approved by the lending institutions are still those that are consistent with the Washington Consensus, as it was with the SAP.

Global Monetary System

The following is information to clarify and substantiate the previous paragraphs in terms of processes, definitions, as well as examples.

After WWII the United States benefited from being the only major industrial power that had not been ravaged by the war. Representing only 6% of the worlds population the United States possessed 50% of the worlds wealth(Memo PPS23 George F Keenan 1948 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Memo_PPS23_by_George_Kennan), and 3/4ths of the worlds gold. (http://www.federalreservehistory.org/Events/DetailView/3) The United States was in the driver’s seat moving forward, and at the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 a monetary system emerged that tied the dollar to gold, and all other currencies to the dollar. At this conference two international banks were created, the International Monetary Fund, and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development which would eventually become World Bank Group.

In the 60s deficit spending to finance the cold war, including weapons manufacturing and development, covert operations and war, as well as social spending domestically, created an abundance of dollars held by foreign nations. Since nations could convert their dollars into gold at a rate of 35 dollars per ounce, many countries began to redeem these surplus dollars for gold. To prevent the continued depletion of US gold reserves, president Nixon ended the convertibility of US dollars for gold. What happened next would actually strengthen the position of the dollar for the coming decades, although not immediately.

The United States made agreements with Saudi Arabia for military, diplomatic, and economic support in exchange for Saudi Arabia, to exercise it’s influence within the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries, to agree to sell their oil exclusively in dollars. Instead of dollars being tied to gold, dollars become tied to the demand for oil. Since all countries require oil, and oil is priced in dollars, then the demand for dollars is at least equal to the demand for oil, since oil cannot be purchased without dollars. Yet the demand for dollars is greater as a consequence, because one way to get dollars, is to price your exports in dollars, and this is primarily the reason why the United States can have an 18 trillion dollar debt, without the value of it’s currency decreasing proportionately, but also because the currency doesn’t circulate among the broader population, but instead remains abroad.

This was not the case immediately after the “Nixon Shock” in 1971, where Richard Nixon announced that the dollar would no longer be convertible for gold through the treasury. In the 70s inflation caused commodity prices to sore at the beginning of the decade, and this increase in the price of commodities was compounded by the fact, that the rise in prices was misread by the market as an issue with supply, causing many to “over invest and over produce”( “Commodities in the 1970s” http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2007/040107.htm “Just as the mistaken inflationary price signal confused the oil sector, it also confused commodity producers of all sorts, who over invested, overproduced, and caused collapsing values for their products”), which was a contributing factor to the fall of commodity prices towards the end of the decade. The reason this is significant is because when commodity prices are high, many developing countries whose economies depend on exports, benefit from receiving a higher price for these exports.

At the same time, middle eastern and other oil producing countries, are flush with more dollars than they know what to do with, as a result of the agreements with the United States to sell oil exclusively in dollars. They deposited their dollars with American and European banks, and the job of a bank is to invest that money to make a profit. Bankers began lining up at the doors of developing countries, and many were benefiting from an environment of high commodity prices. The loans they received were variable rate loans, meaning that while the initial interest rate was low, it was subject to change. At the tail end of the 1970s and the early 80s, the United States contracted the money supply and raised interest rates in order to slow the growth of inflation. As a result, commodity prices fell, and many of these countries who were benefiting from high prices, were now feeling the effects of lower prices; and in addition to decreased revenue, their floating interest rates were increasing. For many Americans, the debt crises of developing countries in the late 70s and 80s, could be understood through the sub-prime mortgage crisis, including the bank bail out. Americans were given adjustable rate mortgages, the interest rate changed increasing their payment, while many experienced a reduced income (loss of job or hours), producing a situation where they were unable to make the payments.

The IMF and World Bank

The IMF was created to remedy shortages in balance of payments. Balance of payments can be understood in terms of having bills that require immediate payment, and having money to pay them, but the money won’t be available in time to pay it. The IMF was intended to function almost as a payday loan provider for nations. Like if you had a payment to make on your mortgage due, but you didn’t get paid until the end of the week. You will have the money, just not when you need it. It became something of a lender of last resort, and was used as a tool to gain control over the economies of developing countries for the benefit of US and European corporations as well as ensuring repayment of loans provided by private lenders. To use the pay day loan parallel, imagine your mortgage payment was due or your home was going to go into foreclosure. You go to the payday loan store. They agree to loan you the money, but you have to agree to certain conditions. Before they give you the loan, you have to agree to spend less on food, less on your child’s education, you have to rent out your garden, and agree to hire contractors to do house work you would normally take care of yourself. Major policy decisions in both institutions require 85% approval, and the United States has a share greater than 15%, then all major policy is subject to US approval.

The IMF and the World Bank policies were governed by what is known as “the Washington Consensus”. The Washington consensus holds that the best way to reduce poverty is through economic growth, and as development takes place and the economy grows, what trickles down will reduce poverty; even though a rising GDP in itself does not correlate to reductions in poverty, and there are many examples where growth is achieved and poverty and inequality increase despite growth. To achieve economic growth, the Washington Consensus calls for reductions in state spending, including social spending (education, health care, food subsides), the privatization of public enterprises, relaxing regulations, lowering taxes, reducing royalties on raw materials mined, and overall, eliminating barriers that would prevent foreign corporations from exploiting the labor and resources of a country, even if the elimination of these barriers are detrimental to the well being of the people living in these countries. In some cases, nations are encouraged to sign free trade agreements, and free trade agreements exist for the purpose of protecting the investments of foreign companies from laws of the nations where these investments are made. The IMF loans during the debt crisis of the 80s are in a sense, similar to the bank bail outs after the mortgage backed securities crisis at the end of the 1st decade of the 20th century. While in the latter, banks sold each other bundles of loans that they should have known were bad, but were rated good, and as a result, there were many loans that were not going to be paid back. In the 70s and 80s, private banks made predatory loans that nations would not be able to pay back. In the United States the bail out came from the government and tax payers. Since the IMF gets its money from nations, and nations get their money from taxes, and the IMF loans to countries to pay back the banks, the flow of money is still tax payers to banks, even if there are intermediaries.

The IMF and World Bank loans were not simple agreements to loan money and for a country to repay. In a sense these were shotgun loans, as in the alternative to taking the loans would be the economic equivalent of being shot; as to default could cripple a country from securing credit for development and create a situation where trade becomes very difficult. If you are in a situation where there is one entity that can help you, then that entity is able to dictate the terms by which that help takes place. We also shouldn’t underestimate the willingness of leaders of developing countries, to sell their people out in order to gain favor with the United States. Before the IMF would provide a loan to service the debt, and basically bail out private lenders, the country lending had to agree to conditionality. These loans were called Structural Adjustment Programs and imposed the Washington Consensus on these countries.

Examples of Loan Conditionality: SAP and PRSP

In 1982, Mexico found itself in a situation where it was unable to pay even the interest on the 80 billion dollars owed to private and public creditors. The IMF offered Mexico a 4 billion dollar loan with SAP austerity conditionality attached to it. It included deep cuts in social spending, reduced protection for domestic industry that resulted in massive job loss, privatized state assets, as well as other reforms consistent with the Washington Consensus that decimated the Mexican economy and brought hardship to the Mexican people.

“In return for a $4 billion loan, the IMF required that the Mexican government impose an austerity program designed to produce cuts in every sector of state spending. As a consequence of these measures, investment fell, production in some sectors came to a complete standstill, factories closed and hundreds of thousands of workers were laid off. Oil exports declined, export earnings dropped, and as a result, the foreign debt reached more than 100 billion dollars by 1986…two-thirds of urban households had incomes below the official minimum wage. Even the official figures on unemployment show that joblessness doubled and, in rural zones, six million landless agricultural workers could find employment for only one-third of the year or less. In this process, the prices of goods consumed by low-income Mexicans, including the tortillas and beans that are still the staff of life for peasants and workers, rose steadily with dreadful consequences for the overall nutritional state of the rural and urban poor. By 1995 “sixty percent of agricultural workers now receive less than the minimum wage — a sum that comes to roughly US $3.00 per day.” (“Structural Adjustment in Mexico and the Dog that Didn’t Bark” 1997, Judith Adler Hellman, pp3,6)

As structural adjustment continued banks and public enterprises were privatized, Mexico included itself in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, eventually NAFTA, all of which served a purpose of further impoverishing the country in the interest of foreign domination. Communal land was privatized, protected by article 27 of the constitution, many farmers were forced to sell, unable to get loans they needed to tend the land, which was available from the government. Prior to the amending of article 27, landless workers could apply to receive a land grant from the government, which ended under the SAP carried out by the fraudulently elected Carlos Salinas.(Hellman 1997 pp4,5. Because I am drawing information from the paper as an example of SAP, the paper was about the opposition candidate who probably won the election, focusing his attention and the attention of the opposition party on the election results instead of the issues in the country resulting from the SAP as well as cooperation with the US agenda in Mexico)

The World Bank Group, consists of multiple lending organizations and contractors, but as mentioned earlier, it’s general purpose is longer term loans for development. World Bank loans usually consist of more specific conditions attached to the money itself. Instead of policy being attached to the money only, it will include specific items, like building infrastructure using private multinational corporation.

The following applies to Malwali “For growth to be achievable attention is given to physical infrastructure, (roads and transport, water supply, rural electrification and telecommunication); trade and investment arrangements; as well as review of the tax regime…for private sector development and economic growth… health care is essential for human capital to be productive”. Who will benefit from such infrastructure? Will the poor who die short of 40 years old due to impoverished conditions, or the people they work for who need the roads and transport to export the materials the poor mine; or the goods they farm, for the “trade and investment arrangements”? Will the poor suddenly have cars, electricity, and telephones?

Furthermore, even in the water supply, chances are it will be privatized water, and while all these things will be paid for through the money borrowed from (World Bank) IFIs, which will go to further in debt the country and give the IMF and World Bank more control over their economies, the beneficiaries, will largely be the wealthy in that country and multinational corporations. Which isn’t to say that development in this type of infrastructure isn’t important to the economic future of the country, only pointing out that the beneficiaries are generally not the population of the country.

I remember seeing a documentary about the privatization of water, where a business official was making a tour in a country probably like Malawi. A woman said “these people have no money, how will they pay for this water.” The man said “the people have to pay for what they consume”. And if people with no money and very limited means to get money cannot pay, then they cannot drink, or irrigate, or live.

Education and health care are essential not to ensure a better quality of life for the people of the country, but are “essential for human capital to be productive”, as it has been observed in the past, that sick people are less productive and therefore less valuable human capital.(“Poverty Reduction Strategy Process in Malawi and Zambia”, 2004, pp 10,11, Edgar Bwalya, Lise Rakner, Lars Svåsand, Arne Tostensen, Maxton Tsoka)

Bolivia after succumbing to pressure from the World Bank, privatized the state owned water company in the city of Cochabamba. The US corporation Bechtel was awarded a 40 year contract to manage and expand the water system. The corporation took control of all water sources in the area, the public infrastructure as well as local wells. Price hikes followed that doubled the cost of water for residents. While Bechtel maintained that the price increase was only 10% and went to improve the quality of services, the quality included increased pressure causing the residents of Cochabamba to use more water, the utility bills told a different story.

German Jaldin is classified as R-3 just barely above the very poorest in the area, meaning that his household income is between 60 to 80 dollars a month. Prior to the Bechtel rate increase, he paid 82 Bolivianos (about $13.67), for 35 cubic meters of water. After the rate increase, he paid 157.60 Bolivianos ($26.27) for the use of 38 cubic meters of water. Imagine if your water bill was 37 and a half percent of your income. If you make 50,000 dollars a year, it would be like paying $1562.50 a month for water.( Corp Watch, “Bechtel’s Water Wars”, 5/1/2003, by Pratap chatterjee http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6670) While this is an older example which has been reversed, it is cited to demonstrate the kind of situations the common and poor people of these countries are put into as a result of these policy.

Due to criticism of Structural Adjustment Programs and the disastrous results, the name has been changed and the process has been modified slightly, but overall the intended purposes remain the same. IMF and World Bank loans now attach what they call Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers to loans. The process is inclusive of other elements within the nation in creating the papers, but the stake holders (the people, groups, and sometimes even their representatives in government) are marginalized, while private interests and professionals employed by the lending institutions direct the process.( Poverty Reduction Strategy Process for Malawi and Zambia Edgar Bwalya, Lise Rakner, Lars Svåsand, Arne Tostensen, Maxton Tsoka, Christian Michelsen Institute: Development Studies and Human Rights, 2004. pg 1 “Key political institutions such as parliaments were marginalized..” pg9 “The fourth tier was the Thematic Working Groups…they included representatives from government, civil society, the private sector and donors. Pg 14 “parliamentarians generally, were rarely invited to PRSP meetings despite repeated requests.” pp15,16 “…A small group of professionals were brought in late in the process to form a task force to ensure the macro-economic framework was included in the third draft. There was a wide spread perception that the macro-economic framework was largely received from the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF/WB)…Hence it is inconceivable that the macro-economic frame work would depart appreciably from the precepts of the IMF and the World Bank”.) The IMF and World Bank, ultimately have the final say in whether or not the PRSPs, are viable. The other purpose of the PRSP process, is since it is marginally inclusive of elements from within the nations, when the strategy fails, the blame can be placed on the nation, instead of the IMF/WB, and private interests involved who benefit from the conditions.

“John Page of the World Bank “The PRSP is a compulsory process wherein the people with the money tell the people without the money how to get the money”. (“Impoverishing a Continent: The World Bank and IMF in Africa” Asad Ismi 2004 ISBN:0-88627-373-0 page 5-7, Outline of IMF and World Bank, explanation of structure, US veto, pay voting share system. Features of SAPs sourced from SAPRIN, The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty: A Multi-Country Participatory Assessment of Structural Adjustment, April 2002, Executive Summary, p. 21. pg 13 John Page Quote, Source: Halifax Initiative, “What is our position in regards to the World Bank” pg 6) Why didn’t the Structural Adjustment Programs and other conditionality terms, where the people with the money, told the people without the money, how to get the money, lead them to the money in the 50s to 90s? Or do we leave the intended interpretation and skip to the more accurate interpretation: the people with the money, are not telling the people without the money, how to get the money in terms of building a fortune, but what they must do to get more loans, and more debt, so the people with the money, will remain the people with the money? Mainly, selling off state assets, slashing social spending, deregulation, including modifying labor laws, increasing exports, making predetermined payments on debt, and overall creating optimal conditions for exploitation by western based multinational corporations.

The following are accounts from Ricardo Patino who has studied extensively the sovereign debt issue and dealt with the IMF and World Bank as Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister for the Economy in Ecuador, and Rafael Correa the President of Ecuador, which provides a first hand account concerning how these institutions function to serve the interests of western wealth.

Ricardo Patino: “Initially I thought the lenders acted in good faith, but now after having closely studied the debt mechanism I can assure you that they did not act in good faith. Many of the lenders, including international lending organizations were giving out the loans with a clear intention of controlling sovereignty, and economic policy of our government. The letters sent by the IMF to our government in 2002 stipulated that 80% of the oil revenues were to be used to pay back the debt. During the discussions with the IMF they asked me for details of our economic policy and I give them the details. Immediately they brought up the subject of debt. I told him it was illegal, that we wouldn’t pay! Then they started to give us “advice”, actually it was a form of black mail: if you refuse to pay, the international bank could take you to court, they could seize your tankers. IMF representatives come to see us with their “advice”. We should honor the debt, otherwise we could have problems. Their manipulations caused a lot of damage and they do this in every country that is why the IMF must die. There is no point in trying to change it, as some countries are suggesting; no the IMF is a dead body that we should bury along with the World Bank. We should create regional financing mechanisms which understand our countries and our needs for development without taking us for cash cows as if we were colonies.”

Rafael Correa: “To dominate the southern countries you don’t need an army, just dollars. Up to1976, you never saw international bankers here, but after that they were all lining up with their suitcases in front of government ministers, selling everything and anything, weapons during the dictatorship times, things like that. And when the country was laden with debt the IMF and World Bank lent us money to reimburse the private lenders. The funny thing is in 1970 when the oil boom started, when the country was rich national debt was 200 million, and at the end of the boom national debt was 4 billion. A 20-fold increase, caused by this aggressive debt policy. This is the reason for our national debt today. In 1980 national debt stood at 4 billion, we paid back 7 billion, but our debt stayed the same. So we got an audit done; the conclusions are clear; the debt is illegal and illegitimate.” (Doccumentary, Equador: Rainforest vs Globalization. Cinema Libre Studio 2011 Bloomberg “Equador’s Audit Commission Finds Illegality in debt (update 5) 11:20:2008, by Daniel Cancel and Lester Pimental.)

The following are more excerpts that provide a few more examples of the conditions and results of the PRSPs:

“In Zambia, the IMF has informed the government that unless it sells the State owned Zambia National Commercial Bank (ZNCB), Zambia will not be eligible for one billion US dollars in debt relief under the HIPC programme…The Zambian public, the parliament and President Mwanawasa have vehemently opposed the sale of the ZNCB on the grounds that the ZNCB is a successful enterprise and one of the few sources of credit for Zambian people. Selling the ZNCB would result in the loss of thousands of jobs and compromise the interests of the Zambian people, as has already been the case with past Bank-Fund led privatization programmes in the country.”( Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: A Poor Package for Poverty Reduction. Jenina Joy Chavez Malaluan and Shalmali Guttal Focus on the Global South, January 2003. The authors are with Focus on the Global South…This paper is based on and is an expansion of an earlier work, Structural Adjustment in the Name of the Poor: The PRSP Experience in the Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam, January 2002. pp3,4. Source citation: MPs Stop Zambia National Commercial Bank Privatization. December 5, 2002. The Post, Lusaka;Opposition MPs Against ZNCB Sale. December 6, 2002. The Times of Zambia; I Don’t Support Any Further Privatization, Declares Levy. December 6, 2002. The Post, Lusaka.)

“In Nicaragua, the Bank and Fund have demanded that the country privatize its water resources—including its hydroelectric dams—as a condition to further loans The condition comes in the wake of legislation passed by the Nicaraguan National Assembly in August 2002, suspending all water privatization plans until a national debate on the issue takes place. By insisting on such conditionality, the Fund is disregarding and undermining national democratic process in Nicaragua.”( Ibid, pg 4, Source citation: IMF Strong-Arming Debtors Despite New Lending Guidelines. Emad Mekay, Inter Press Service (IPS), December 10, 2002.)

“In the Solomon Islands, the IMF, supported by bilateral donors, refused to provide funds for the country’s National Economic Recovery Plan unless the country first agreed to reduce government spending and implement severe job cuts. The retrenchment will result in 1300 job losses—about 30 percent of an already downsized public sector work force—and along with other IMF prescribed austerity measures, will compound the country’s already severe economic and social crisis.” (Ibid, pg 4 Source citation: Solomon Islands begins implementing IMF demand for severe job cuts. Peter Byrne, World Socialist. November 21, 2002 The author of the paper who the above excerpts are taken goes on to explain “not much has changed in the modus operandi of the Bank and the Fund…Nor have the Bretton Woods Twins moved away from the Washington Consensus. In country after country, they continue to withhold crucial financial resources unless their deadlocked clients agree to impose their pet policies: trade and investment liberalization, privatization, deregulation, reducing government expenditure, restructuring of public services and sectors…”)

The US uses economic power to subjugate other nations around the world for the purpose of achieving policies that benefit western private interests, which are largely responsible for US policy. Much of the poverty and inequality the world over can be attributed to the polices of the United States, and international lending institutions are only one tool, in a chest full of tools used to accomplish this goal. What is important, is not how these institution were used, and were designed,( It can be argued that they were large designed to facilitate the reconstruction effort after the war, and the IMF used to correct balance of payment issues, the Soviet Union at the time, called the institutions “branches of wall street”. Which is not that far off, since US based multi-national corporations direct policy in the US, or ensure they can flourish abroad, and the IMF and World Bank are institutions that impose those policies. Quote comes from Edward S. Mason and Robert E. Asher, “The World Bank Since Bretton Woods: The Origins, Policies, Operations and Impact of the International Bank for Reconstruction.”) for a purpose of controlling the economic policies of other nations, but that these institutions, are still being used to accomplish the same objectives under the guise of assistance. And much of the American population is clueless about this aspect of policy.

In Chapter One, Section One , Note 6 we have examples of direct US imposition which includes sanctions, invasion, coup, supporting allies in these endeavors, as well as supporting cruel and repressive regimes that put the interest of the United States ahead of the interests of their own people. All of these actions contribute to the impoverishment, hardships, and poverty related death mentioned in the statistics above. Further imposition through the IMF and World Bank, imposing a set of economic policies that harms the people within these countries, and deprives them of economic self determination for the benefit of US and western European corporations, which is of benefit to the people in the United States and Western Europe is the responsibility of the people in this country.

But you didn’t know? You know there are children who starve, who die of treatable diseases, and who do not have access to clean water right? Did you ever ask why? No. You were just contented that you and your children were not born where they were born and went on with your business. Which tells me a lot about your motivation, and tells me a lot about Christians. These are your fruits. Without having to bring you before the measure of liberty, which recognizes your collective imposition on the rest of the world, we can bring you before the words of your false messiah: “If you love only those who love you how are you any better than the sinners”? The point is, the world that exists, exists because of the hegemony of a nation who are predominantly Christians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *