Bretton Woods

Good Intentions III: A (Dis) United Nations

“We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.”

Vladimir Putin


As a beacon of what could be right with the world, an organisation that could lead by example and foster true and lasting human relationships, the ideology of the UN has proved almost impossible to put into practice. Some do say that the UN was never formed for any other reason than to control and divide; or as a long-term branch of a World government in the not-so-distant future. If the former is the case, the legacy of institutionalised corruption and sexual abuse as well as ineffectual presence during serious conflicts abroad has reduced its credibility to a rock bottom low.

Indeed, the phrase “peace-keeping” like the term “United Nations,” is fast becoming a less than palatable irony. From the rubber-stamping of the US intervention in 1950’s Korea which actually had no genuine Security Council clearance, right up to the same US-led invasion of Iraq, the UN is currently battling a serious indictment of its operations summarized by the grandiose title of “nation building.”

The organisation was founded in 1945 by 51 states, replacing The League of Nations. The building, built on land donated by the Rockefeller family and funded by  John D. Rockefeller, Jr., (which should tell us something right there) it led from an original 51 countries which were largely made up of the victors of World War II to a membership which presently stands at 191.

The UN describes itself as a “global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity.” The real source of power lies with the Security Council with each of the major powers maintaining the right of veto. Ostensibly, it was set up to avoid future conflicts, encouraging peaceful resolutions to global difficulties via its many affiliations and sub divisions. However, this right of veto has proved to be a recipe for future paralysis and a severe obstacle for the decision making process and thus the protection of humanitarian rights.

The General Assembly of the UN has proved to be a toothless tiger on many occasions. Rather like the G8, it has become an enormous leviathan spotted with good deeds, with genuinely beneficial humanitarian missions, while at the same time, harbouring corruption, nepotism, fraud, miss-management and sexual abuse on a formidable scale. A catalogue of interventions have proved disastrous, including the hopelessly ill-suited “peace keepers” that were let loose in Bosnia, Cambodia, Somali and Rwanda, the latter proving to be the most spectacular failure to save lives in its recorded history. [1]

A large part of this failure, though by no means the whole, stems from the historical influence of the United States. With hardly a whisper regarding their arrival the closely associated multilateral institutions arrived on the scene, listed as the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which was replaced by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1993. (See The Structural Adjustment Team) These three agencies function under the directives set up by The Bretton Woods meeting of 44 nation representatives that took place in Bretton Woods July 1st – 22nd 1944. This set in motion the framework by which a global economy could flourish, with the pre-eminence of the US secured.

The Bretton Woods agencies are said to be closely affiliated to the UN, seen as an intrinsic part of its incarnation yet they are wholly autonomous and shrouded in secrecy. The IMF and The World Bank have veto powers of their own and an undemocratic share of the vote on decision making that ensures an overall control of the agenda. [2] This agenda is inherently biased towards standard free-trade, free-market and corporate colonisation. Under the auspices of the United Nations these institutions have been brought to fruition by the US, causing untold, long-term damage to developing nations around the world which outweigh any successes which have taken place.

In many ways, the United Nations was the brain-child of America and therefore guided to act in its own interests which has produced a historical battle ever since, at least on the surface. In an uncharacteristically forthright attempt to assert its authority the General Assembly of 1975 carried out Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism. The US took great umbrage, marking the beginning of the end of an apparent “working relationship,” though by 1991 the resolution was put out to pasture after relentless hounding by Israeli lobbyists.

The constant vetoing in favour of Israel in the face of clear breaches in human rights were due to a powerful Zionist network in the US administration underpinned by an equally powerful lobby which still dominates the media and culture in America. It is thus easy to see why Israel and the US are inevitably joined at the hip.

unitednationsfragmented© infrakshun

An example of “stalling for time” is illustrated by the US taking extraordinary lengths of time to sign and ratify treaties. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is one such treaty which remains unratified. Somalia, the other country yet to fulfill its responsibilities regarding the convention with the excuse that it had, as yet, no recognizable government. Due to its strained relations with the UN, the US prefers to fall back on a tried and tested bureaucracy as a reason for not ratifying the treaty, where the very act of signing up to the principles contained within the Convention – which one would imagine to be the most clear-cut case available – took over six years. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide took more than 30 years to be ratified and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, signed by the United States 17 years ago, has, at the time of writing, still not been ratified.

For a nation that considers itself the bastion of democracy and a leader of the free world, it is strange indeed that the government will consider only one human rights treaty at a time. Strange, that is, if one is still clinging to an illusion and not so strange when we remember the US blocking the creation of a new Human Rights Council and its proposal which was advanced on February 23 by the president of the General Assembly, Jan Eliasson of Sweden.

The overwhelming majority of countries, including those of the European Union, Latin American democracies, Canada, India, South Africa, Japan, and most other so-called democracies and allies of the United States, have now said they support the proposal. It only becomes clear why the United States continues to block such a creation and the inevitable dilution of its mandate, when we realize that US secrecy and control might be at stake. One of the postulates states: “A new universal review procedure will scrutinize the records of even the most powerful countries – an important step toward redressing the double standards that the commission was often accused of applying.” [3] Naturally, at this stage, an open government is not something the current US administration is seeking, being counter-productive to its grand expansionist designs abroad and an emerging Police state at home.

With the United States holding the purse-strings of the UN and refusing to pay its dues as a means to control UN policy, it is little wonder that swords have frequently been drawn. The UN charter is clear that members should pay for expenses incurred but the actual collection mechanism of money is absent. It is assumed to be voluntary which sets up a further problem when forcing a member to cough up. It appears to be an effective tactic however, even while the US still owes a considerable financial debt to the International Body which had reached $1.246 billion (41 percent) by September 2005. This was hotly disputed by some policy and economic analysts, though mostly from republican commentators who bridle at any expenditure “for UN missions that contribute little or nothing to our national security” and for whom the failure to receive “proper credit” for their largesse is seen as nothing short of disrespectful. [4]  The Oil-for-Food (OFF) “scandal” is an example of genuine corruption for which the US remorselessly milked in order to force the UN into compliance, a tactic that is a normal part of the US intelligence armoury of Psychological Operations. After a spate of accusations that UN personnel were receiving vouchers from the Iraqi government to purchase oil and where Saddam Hussein was believed to have more than $10 billion in illicit funds, a crusade was mounted, with Congress leading the charge.

The CIA Duelfer Report (originally on the absence of weapons of mass destruction which nonetheless, led to the illegal invasion of Iraq) also said that the majority of these illicit transactions were “government to government agreements” [5] that were secret trade deals taking place outside the OFF program and which resulted in an income for Iraq to the tune of $7.5 billion. [6] If we look a little closer at some of the accusations of smuggling for example, we can see that the body called the UN Multinational Interception Force [7] made up of member nations tasked with the role to interdict Iraqi smuggling was in fact, largely made up of the US Navy. While Congress castigated UN personnel at every available opportunity they ignored illicit contracts on the ground which UN staff consistently reported to the Security Council 661 Committee where the US dominates. Even though “billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts –$5 billion were on hold as of July 2002–it never took action to stop kickbacks, even when they were obvious and well documented.” [8] (The fact that the US Navy was involved at all sets off warning signs from the beginning as we shall discover towards the end of this series).

Though the OFF program did save lives with the average daily calorie intake almost doubling in Iraq from 1996 to 2002, [9] corruption was flourishing. By September 2005 The Volcker Panel conducting the OFF UN inquiry released its final report where it condemned the “illicit, unethical and corrupt” behaviour during the scheme, and blamed the secretary general for mismanagement.[10] Certainly, several companies made a substantial profit from the $65 billion from the program. And it is certain that other UN financial corruption issues are being revealed with over 200 different reports of abuse, mostly in the U.N. supplies and services, both in the department of management and the department of peacekeeping operations which could run into “tens of millions of dollars.”[11] Halliburton, Bechtel and other US corporations with close connections to the Bush administration plundered what it is left of Iraqi resources and reshaped the country according to US “democracy” by effectively steering the UN rudder.  So much so, that it would certainly be in the US interests to foster corruption rather than prevent it.

Since 1991, these tensions have increased in tandem with the US led unilateralism which continues to destabilize the world still further. The UN is now seen as the only way to stop the expansion of US designs and to shore up its inevitable signs of decline. It is here that we see how compromised the UN has become. It has never regained its credibility after presiding over the one of the most appalling war crimes in recent times.

After the 1991 Gulf War, and sanctions in which saw Senior UN diplomats in Iraq resigned in protest, the genocide of children in Iraq continues. Consequently, most Iraqis see the UN as an effective tool of NATO-US foreign policy, and like it or not, that is exactly what it is. Accordingly, the state of the UN under the direct influence of American policy is revealing an undercurrent of financial and sexual abuse among some peacekeepers and UN staff, a practice, which after all the stone-walling on the scale of the Catholic Church – continues to this day, this time in Haiti. [12]

Whether the UN can embody the highest principles humanity has to offer or continue to be the arm of the current Neo-Liberal disaster of the Structural Adjustment Team remains to be seen. Like so many of our institutions they may have to be symbolically demolished in order to be rebuilt on solid ground before it can be an authentic vessel for global truth.


Notes

[1] Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda by Michael Barnett, published by Cornell University Press (2003). From the Synopsis: “[T]he UN culture recast the ethical commitments of well-intentioned individuals, arresting any duty to aid at the outset of the genocide. Barnett argues that the UN bears some moral responsibility for the genocide. Not only did the UN violate its moral responsibilities, but  many in New York believed that they were “doing the right thing”. Barnett addresses the ways in which the Rwandan genocide raises a warning about this age of humanitarianism and concludes by asking whether it is possible to build “moral institutions.”
[2] ‘Fifty Years of Political Meddling by the World Bank’ The Ecologist 24, No.1, 1994
[3] ‘U.N.: Intransigence of US Endangers Rights Council – Washington Should Work to Make New Body Effective’ Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org New York, March 9, 2006.
[4] ‘The US Debt Is Outrageous and Untrue,’ by Roscoe Bartlett, News Release, January 27, 1998.
[5] Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD September 2004, http://www.cia.gov/
[6] Ibid.
[7]  Maritime Interception Operations (MIO) http://www.globalsecurity.org/
[8] ‘UN Oil for Food ‘Scandal’’ by Joy Gordon November 18, 2004 The Nation, (December 6, 2004 issue) http://www.thenation.com
[9] United Nations web page http://www.un.org/ Oil for Food program Humanitarian relief page.
[10]  ‘Timeline: Oil-for-food scandal’ BBC News, 7 September 2005.
[11] ‘UN: Probe of Peacekeeping Fraud and Contracts Abuse’ by Thalif Deen, Inter Press Service January 24th, 2006.
[12] ‘UN releases report on sex abuse by peacekeepers’ Study found that troops commonly paid for sex with cash, dresses, jewellery, perfume, and mobile phones. Al-Jazeera, 16 Jun 2015.

The “Structural Adjustment” Team I

By M.K. Styllinski

“The causes of the sustained crisis of development in the Third World are extremely complex, but it is certain that excessive reliance on export-led growth in an unstable world economy creates major structural problems that all growth strategies must avoid. But exports are at the core of the IMF philosophy, and its guidance has gravely hindered the struggle of innumerable poor nations to escape their suffering.”

Gabriel Kolko


The World Bank, (WB) The International Monetary fund, (IMF) and The World Trade Organisation (WTO) are responsible for extending Official Culture on a macro-social scale. They are by default, a global cartel spreading a belief which has translated the true meaning of globalisation as a New International Economic order which has led to decades of social, economic and cultural decay for the world.  The unofficial goals of the IMF and World Bank was to always make sure that the consolidation of riches and power would remain in Elite hands and be expanded; fully aware that World War II gave them the opportunity to do just that.

As with so many institutions hastily created during the end and just after the Second World War, The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) were founded by US and British Governments at The Bretton Woods Conference in 1944 Hampshire, USA. The official line was to develop strong economies for those European countries most affected by the carnage of the War. What it also did was to firmly establish an overriding economic belief to the exclusion of any other. Both are closely allied with Wall Street bankers and the US Treasury so that economic policies that benefit private investors and financial speculators in the free-market are guaranteed to be implemented, come what may.

The best illustration of this is the “Washington Consensus” developed by the World Bank and IMF members in the early eighties and which finalised the process of large-scale outsourcing, financial deregulation, and privatisation. This paid huge dividends for multi-national corporations, the international banking industry, Wall St., and the world’s richest family dynasties but proved to be a social, cultural and ecological disaster for both the working and middle-class in the West and the developing world. It was finally eclipsed by the rise of China but the results live on.

Both the IMF and the World Bank decisions are based on 40 percent of the votes from the G8 countries which is not what you might call “representative.” Considering its toxic effects its more than ironic that the IMF is funded with taxpayer money, yet functions in a state of secrecy and legal immunity. Extraordinarily, the World Bank and the IMF are not accountable for their actions under law. It is therefore almost impossible to dismantle this vast banking entity holding so many countries to ransom with almost breath-taking hypocrisy that it is somehow acting as global saviour. At the same time, as with the United Nations, if the US sees something that threatens its interests then it merely has to veto the proposed action by the World Bank and sit back and puff on a cigar. This extends to the design and implementation of loan packages by international bankers and finance staff without any participation from civic society or government policy and most importantly, from those it will most affect.

At 18 percent of the vote the US straddles both institutions and makes sure that the power of their veto always conforms to US and G7 interests. This means the global economy stays within the narrow confines of what is possible and not possible which is defined by the very same institutions in the first place. This in turn, ensures that poorer nations are excluded from all talks despite being present at the meetings.

A flagship example of this reality-disconnect arrived in the form of the “Structural adjustment” policy replaced by the euphemistic “Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers” (PRSPs) in 1999. The latter sounded wonderfully altruistic but the framework and “solutions” remain exactly the same, namely, to determine other countries economic policies so that they fall into line with the dominant Capitalist model of the West. That means comprehensively trashing social welfare introducing austerity measures in order to pay for the “generous” loans to rebuild its infrastructure. With its headquarters in Washington, D.C., the IMF describes itself as “an organization of 188 countries working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty.”  The organisation’s stated objectives are to promote international economic cooperation, international trade, employment, and exchange rate stability, including by making financial resources available to member countries to meet balance of payments needs.

The sticking point in all this is that if you increase and promote Neo-Liberal economic policies which are, by nature, elitist and centralist then poverty can only be the end result. Hence the idea of the IMF reducing poverty will still produce large guffaws of incredulity at any self-respecting anti-globalisation gathering. Much like the World Bank, the IMF is better suited as a warden of a global apartheid as described by the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in 1980. The IMF and the World Bank have overseen the Structural Adjustment scam for decades and it only becomes comprehensible when one sees these giants as glorified loan sharks for the corporate, banking and military sphere as it is in these sectors that the institutions pay dividends.

When the country becomes the victim of a global economy that causes intolerable strains on its economic infrastructure, then it is persuaded to turn to the very institutions that are part of the problem in the first place. If economic catastrophe looms then the IMF is usually the first port of call. This is an open door not just to loans but the whole economic policy that requires a complete “re-adjustment” to their worldview. It is a Faustian bargain and one which leaves the social fabric of the country irrevocably torn. The prioritization of debt repayment overrides all and any other consideration, where GDP becomes the only measurable unit of human currency so that values, community and local business mean nothing.

In order to ensure that the debt remains viable and the corporations and bankers that oversee the privatization and liberalisation that ensues social welfare programs and other cultural initiatives are inevitably cut in order to feed the new black hole of intervention. Deregulating the markets of targeted countries opens them up to rampant speculation, corporate predators and the endemic corruption that goes with it. This means it is much easier to sell off a nation’s assets at sub-standard prices. Haiti is a case in point. In 2000 the IMF stepped in and carried out food terrorism by forcing the nation to accept highly subsidized genetically modified US rice while making sure that Haiti’s farmers did receive the same treatment. US corporations now have the monopoly on Haiti’s food production, distribution and exports with over 50 percent of rice being sold back to the Haitians. The indigenous farmers meanwhile have become yet more victims of the US monoculture and have ended up working in sweatshops for slave wages. [1]

Under structural adjustment, social spending from government budgets to programs and subsidies are all severely cut or reduced in order to quickly start repaying the debt. The whole way of life changes: hospitals, businesses and schools begin to be sucked into the dollar-sign mentality where materialism replaces values and a sense of community are extinguished. The cost of living rises exponentially while the quality of life plummets. Everything becomes a matter of survival as poverty arrives with a vengeance. Meanwhile, bankers and corporatists are upgrading their yachts and opening new off-shore tax accounts.

As we have seen in spectacular fashion, the IMF’s record of bailing out countries (which is really bailing out the Banksters) continued during the 2008 economic collapse up to the present time. IMF bailouts deepen, rather than solve, economic crises except when countries such as Iceland reject the IMF debt slavery and actually take Banksters to court. [2] Bailouts of billions of dollars amount to shoring up a financial system that favours the status quo rather than staving off collapse. South Korea, Thailand, Mexico, Brazil, Russia and others have all experienced the consequences of the IMF’s “helping hand” which led to severe economic instability to surface in other countries. Billions of dollars, pounds and euros have disappeared into a black hole which has meant that vast cuts in social systems under the banner of “austerity measures” have been secured so that the taxpayer actually foots the bill for reckless and criminal activities of the bankers themselves. It is no coincidence that large Anglo-American banking firms made billions of dollars of profit after governments showered them with bailouts while the general public in both Europe and America suffered a massive drop in their standard of living with unemployment soaring to levels unheard of. [3]

The number of Mexicans living in extreme poverty increased to over 50 percent during the 1995 IMF-imposed economic reforms and peso bailout and the national average minimum wage fell 20 percent. This is a familiar story and one which has now led to a severe global depression with the bankers kicking the bailout can further down the street in an attempt to cream as much hedge fund benefits from this financial disaster as they can. They knew it was coming as all good high-level speculators do. This is exactly what has happened in the past to some Asian, European and Latin American countries, most famously Argentina which suffered from a protracted and very serious economic collapse in 2001 after being considered a model of compliance from IMF and US treasury loan “largesse.” [4]

To allow an easy ride for foreign investors to plunder countries targeted by the Structural Adjustment Team restrictions to what can be bought, sold and owned is lifted. Interest rates are also increased in order to push up and maximize profitability for the corporate marauders who then syphon it off to their native countries. Meanwhile, local economies and their communities disappear to produce unemployment, immigration and the increase in the inner city slum quota.

Commensurate with this arrival of what is touted as an economic saviour is the dramatic reconfiguration of agriculture as one of the most important influences of the Structural Adjustment Team. Subsistence farming, community-based local produce and environmentally sustainable practices gives way to monoculture farming predicated on pesticides, herbicides, GM food-stuffs and genetically modified crops. The whole nature of a society and a nation are altered from the control of food and food production. Local competition is quickly eradicated as wealthy landowners and managers take over. The rise in famine and malnutrition surfaces rapidly in response to agribusiness, as does the level of environmental degradation from massive exploitation of resources.

Under the IMF’s take on reality, export production is king; a diversified domestic economy cannot work. At least, not if you are a bankers intent on reaping short term benefit. It literally pays to place the country into debt. Almost 80 percent of all malnourished children in the developing world live in countries where there is a food surplus and farmers have changed from local to intensive farming for the West. [5] Structural adjustments were a euphemism for turning a country inside out and having its insides picked clean by an economic model that was number-based rather than human-based. In summary, it is another form of global, economic imperialism.

In a desperate attempt to prop up the global financial and centralised government systems to which it owes its existence, the IMF released a report called “Taxing Times” in October 2013, outlining schemes to allow bankrupt governments to accrue more money through higher taxes and even confiscate money straight out of our bank accounts. This occurred in the 2012 financial fiasco in Cyprus which saw those with savings above £100,000 lose over 75 percent to government looting which will serve as a template for a more global enterprise enshrined in law.

Massive transfer of wealth to governments and corporations is what the Structural Adjustment Team do so well. Indeed, since people are very much more aware of the danger of having their pensions and savings stolen by this institution it means it must device more devious ways of preventing that resistance. Which is why the report warms to the European Union’s idea of taxing anyone with more assets than debt so that the global financial system remains tied to debt and fiat currency.

Without debt the IMF and its brothers cannot exist. Though the report is dressed up as targeting the tax–haven rich in reality, it is the middle classes who hold much of the proportionate savings thus offering a vast untapped source of revenue. Woe betide the average wage earner and the rich who are not enmeshed in the Establishment as they will become the targets of a new tax regime designed to continue the present iniquities rather than lose them. After all, the IMF realises that it cannot tax the assets of the 1 percent of its super-rich brethren as it wouldn’t be enough to service government needs. However, factor all those middle-class households with positive net wealth then it represents a bonanza of untapped taxation.  Taxes of 60 – 70 percent are being touted as a means to find new sources to both increase and feed the debt hole. As corporations and private businesses are also seen as a way to inaugurate a massive new global taxation scheme underpinned by regulatory enforcement it really means that the same centralised system will continue to funnel extortionate amounts of money into pointless government programs which underpin unceasing, infinite maw of debt as the arbiter of economic reality. And the IMF want to erect these new taxes in law before people have a chance to understand what it means: a further tightening of the screw of cartel capitalism where private property and personal assets are up for grabs. True structural reforms will remain absent under the IMF stewardship.

The IMF has a partner in crime.

The WTO acts as the oil between ‘free-trade’ nations encouraging global competition and the unrestricted flow of goods and services. But because globalisation means more and more trans-national companies taking a bigger and bigger slice of the pie then “competition” has come to mean “exploitation” rather than the now almost quaint notion of measured capitalism proposed by the Keynesian model. The WTO is therefore a tool of corporatism like its partners.

It must be considered the height of hypocrisy regarding the standards of these institutions who insist on countries adhering to democratic reforms as prerequisite to receiving their loans. It is clear however that neither the IMF, the WB, the WTO or for that matter the United Nations  come close to being examples of anything approaching democratic. While the WTO in particular, may be constitutionally democratic, its actions and net results are perfect examples of the opposite where corruption and financial misappropriation is highly damaging to any countries that fall under its influence.

The WTO is essentially a corporate enabler. It makes sure the small print is limited and regulations designed to protect the consumer and the ordinary man and woman in the street are so diluted as to be non-existent. Trade agreements are the WTO’s forte as is the continuing expansion of the corporate net. But to make sure these trans-nationals have unlimited market access, circumvention of the domestic laws, civil rights, access to natural resources and services of vulnerable countries must be carried out and the WTO trade agreements provide this opportunity, dressed up as benefits for all.

Some of the most important and influential agreements from the WTO include:

  • The 1994 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) This “general agreement” means that ways were found to remove any and all domestic restrictions and regulations to trade. It makes a nation’s right to govern itself i.e. its sovereignty is thrown out of the window under the pretext of free trade.
  • The Trade Related agreement on International Property Rights (TRIPS) is perhaps the most dangerous “agreement” formed at the Uruguay round of the WTO talks which permits intellectual property rights to include seeds and plants. It is the basis upon which corporations like Monsanto have held farmers to ransom and prosecuted many for planting unlicensed seeds which have already been genetically modified to have a limited life so that farmers must buy a new batch every year. Thousand year old ties to Nature and her knowledge have been tossed out of the window in a matter of a decade. Peter Drahos writes that “It was an accepted part of international commercial morality that states would design domestic intellectual property law to suit their own economic circumstances. States made sure that existing international intellectual property agreements gave them plenty of latitude to do so.” [6]
  • The Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMS) allows domestic finance to fall under the domination of corporate dictates while eroding a nation’s ability to have a say in their own policies regarding foreign investments domestic fiscal policy.

What all this means is that GATS, TRIPS and TRIMS are the means by which vulnerable countries are coerced into giving up their economic, social and cultural independence while their often unique resources are plundered – all under law.  They are able to do this because corporate lobbyists have direct access to government policy makers and spend billions of dollars making sure the WTO agreements stay firmly in the court of corporatism. Which is why most developing countries are never able to have a voice or stand up for their rights once they have been seduced by the false promises of loans which are only given on the agreement to implement Structural Adjustment Programs.

 


Notes

[1] Oxfam America Research Backgrounders: ‘Haiti Rice Value Chain Assessment: Rapid diagnosis and implications for program design’ By David C. Wilcock and Franco Jean-Pierren| http://www.files.meetup.com/1337582/Rice%20Value%20Chain%20Backgrounder%20.pdf
[2] ‘Iceland just sentenced its first bankster to prison’ by James http://www.12160.info, Social Network, December 28, 2012.
[3] ‘Eurozone Unemployment Soars to New High’ VOA News, April 2012. – http://www.voanews.com/content/eurozone-unemployment-reaches-record-high/1579633.html | ‘Youth unemployment soars, and it’s not just a phase’ By Heather Stewart, The Guardian, 13 April 2012 -www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/apr/13/youth-unemployment-rising-work-programme | ‘Gallup Finds Unemployment Rate Soars Following Presidential Election’ By Tyler Durden, http://www.zerohedge.com June 12, 2012.
[4] ‘Economic debacle in Argentina: The IMF strikes again’ – “Argentina’s economic policies during the 1990s were developed under the direction of the IMF. The following article analyses the fatal flaws in these policies.” By Arthur MacEwan, TWN Third World Network via http://www.fpif.org. | http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr137b.htm
[5] ‘Facts and Figures About the UN Millenium Goals’ http://www.gender-cawater-net / In its 2000 Millennium Declaration, the United Nations set 8 goals for development, called the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). These goals set an ambitious agenda for improving the human condition by 2015.
[6] p38; Information Feudalism, By Peter Drahos with John Braithwaite, New Press, 2003 | ISBN-10: 1565848047.