Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East

Just want to welcome IronLionZion to A2K and watch the debate.

betting for the lions or the christians, gez?

Well, Richard the Lionheart was a Christian, wasn't he?

yes - but the context was different - unless you consider him at war with his own heart?

Deb
I'm holding back on all bets at the moment ;-) Too tired for a debate right now, but I could jump in at any moment depending on my mood ;-)

Ok, now it's bugging me so I'll throw in just a tad of my input. I'm with the Lion on this one. I believe that America has no business dictating what goes on in other countries.

Re: Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East


Seems like a bit of a paradox there in your statements. If those middle-eastern countries don't value these concepts on their own then why would they be applying for loans and/or grants through the World Bank or IMF? They all know how the World Bank and IMF operate. They know the standards. If they don't want to meet those standards then they shouldn't be asking for handouts that have those strings attached.

First you say Western Civilization forces their values down the throats of those in the Middle-East, then when it's pointed out that we actually adopted those values FROM the Middle-East you steer the comment towards Sub-Saharan Africa and then try to slide the Middle-East back in under the guise of the World Bank and IMF. Your logic chain is broken hence, any premise based on the logic is flawed.

On a frivolous note, Richard Coeur de Lion was a sociopathic, murderous, pederast (he was also homosexual, but i'm not saying being a homosexual made him those other things). Therefore, i would say he was a perfect candidate to be a christian icon.

Perhaps.. But why does every UN Member nation and Humanitarian NGO run around asking others to intercede? The same people complaining about intervention had no problem setting up boycotts and demanding that governments around the world pressure South Africa into abandoning aparthid (or ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Serbia for that matter..).

Why is it that when the US is supporting the views of those who complain it's great yet when the US supports something they don't like it's none of the US's business? You can't have it both ways.

Why is it that when the world supports a US action it's great and when they don't they are irrelevant? You can't have it both ways.

Fishin
I never asked to have it both ways. I think the US should stay out of the business of other countries period. They can't support anyones views without stepping on someones toes, so why not just keep their nose out of it and let other countries deal with their own problem. In my opinion, the US has enough of their own problems to deal with and if they focused on their own afairs, then maybe they wouldn't be known as the big bully they are. Personally I'm sick to my stomache every time I hear this "Super Power" crap! I've never heard anything so arrogant in my life. I don't think that just because a country has more money than all other countries that they should go around calling themselves a "Super Power"! If that's not an insult to the rest of the world, then I don't know what is. Everytime I hear Bush make threats it reminds me of the bullies I went to school with and he is no more mature as they were. From where I sit it looks like the US is trying to govern the whole world and what we are seeing now is the world fighting back. Either way, it's not a good thing.

I knew I should have stayed out of this one, lol!

Re: Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East


Paradox?

You ask "If those Middle Eastern countries don't value these concepts on thier own they why would they be applying for loans and/or grants throiugh the World Bank and IMF?" I would have thought the answer to this question was obvious. First of all, they apply for the loans because they need the money. Many developing nations feel they need these loans, and because these organizations are heavily influenced by a handful of Western nations, those nations use that leverage to promote thier economic values and interests. Secondly, the IMF and World Bank are supposed to be international non-political organizations: meaning that they are not supposed to have any hidden agenda. So your premise that nations should only apply for loans if they agree with certain economic values is flawed, because the World Bank and IMF are not supposed to be involved in promoting economic values in the first place. In other words there are not supposed to be any "handouts" with economic values as "strings attached."

Of course, the IMF and World Bank are far from what they are supposed to be. America uses these organizations to reward or punish nations in accordance with its interests and uses the "development stratagies" of these organizations to impose Western economic values.

Now, unlike some people, I will actually support my opinion,

The IMF and the World bank are supposed to be international, non-political and purely economic organizations. Accordingly, they are supposed to choose leaders from around the world based on who is best qualified. But there has been a longstanding tradition that the leader of the IMF is chosen by America, and the leader of the World bank is chosen by Europe with the second-in-command position always going to an American. This continuing tradition ensures that both organizations stay within America's influence. The way that IMF and World Bank policies are shaped by America has led some people to describe it as a "Washington consensus policy." The United States often uses its influence to selectively give out loans as rewards and sanctions as punishment. For example, after the Gulf War the IMF cut Egypts outstanding debts in half. It was most likely a reward for the instrumental role Egypt played in the war. More recently, the IMF was extremely generous to Pakistan after its support of America in the weeks following September 11. Pakistan's one year loan of 596 million dollars was extended to a three year loan worth 3.5 billion dollars.

Even though it is general knowledge that the IMF and World Bank are influenced heavily by America, politicians like to uphold the idea that they are independent and non-political organizations. A minor lapse occurred in 1999 when American Treasury Secretary Laurence Summers said "By supporting these organizations we help to sustain American global economic leadership, and to promote changes overseas that reflect core American values like free markets, strong property rights, and open borders." In effect, the Treasury Secretary was admitting that America is using international non-political organizations to maintain its dominance of the global economy and to promote Western economic values.

The development strategies of the IMF and the World Bank are remarkably similar because they both rely on the same formula of Western economic values. They believe the Western economic model should become the universal economic model. When the World Bank scouts potential countries for loans it analyzes their economy and recommends a development strategy. The strategy invariably consists of the key American economic values of privatization, capital market liberalization, market based pricing, and free trade. The strategy is given to the leaders of the country, and they are given the option of ?'voluntarily' signing it. Of course, they always agree. This amounts to a policy of economic imperialism. Furthermore, even when it is obvious the development strategies don't work, the IMF and World Bank insist on pushing forward with them. Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel economics prize winner and former Chief Economist of the World Bank resigned in protest of their policies. "Countries find themselves having policies imposed on them" says Stiglitz, "It's all an all or nothing deal. Either you do it the Washington consensus way or we will exclude you."

There is no disputing that the World Bank and IMF have done a lot of good in the world. I do not mean to imply that America is in complete control of these organizations and is ruthlessly using them to promote its interests. But there is also no disputing that, at times, America has used these organizations as tools of foreign policy. At best they can be labelled as misguided and ineffective. At worst they can be considered, in the words of Russian official Georgi Arbotov, "neo-Bolsheviks who love expropriating other peoples money, imposing undemocratic and alien rules of economic and political conduct and stifling economic freedom."



You did not point out that we adopted these values FROM the Middle East, and if you did, then you are wrong. I can see where your coming from though and I admit that many of the economic values of modern Western civilization originated in, or were present in, historical Middle East. But surely you can see the difference between historical trade methods in the Middle East and modern economic values on an international scale. The bottom line is that they do not share some of our economic values and America is trying to impose them.

A word of advice, do not be so haughty as to dismiss someones arguments as disdainfully as you have. You give the impression that other peoples viewpoints are silly and stupid yet you do not support your opinion. Especially when you casually throw around accusations of paradoxes, say i am trying to slither out of debate, and make bold assumptions like "your logic chain is broken." I know that what i said isn't the definitive truth and I am open to changing my stance if i am persuaded otherwise. People will respect you more if you retain a little humility. :wink:

Brilliant analysis of IMF and World Bank realities I think, IronLionZion!

I wasn't pointing at you gezzy. I was speaking towards the larger issue of the actions of many people - not anyone in specific.

I agree with dlowan.

I know Fishin, I guess I just got carried away ;-) I hope I didn't offend you in any way sweetie ;-) I really do know better than to stick my foot into political questions. I was just sitting in the back, minding my own business and Deb came and pulled me out on stage, so it's all her fault, lol!

Thats what it all comes down to isn't it. Can't argue with that. It's sort of like the crux of all political issues.:wink:

Yes - but the trick is the decision about when to step and when not to...

It is, indeed.

Re: Arrogant American Universalism and the Middle East


If their preferred econimic system isn't under the same basic value system then they'd have no need for the money from the IMF or World Bank. They also have the option of going to other International (or private) bodies that have no such requirements.



Standard Catch 22. The countries are influenced by the World Bank and IMF which only has the ability to influence nations if those nations go to them. If those countries don't go to the IMF or World Bank then those institutions have no influence. Who makes the initial move? The nation seeking the money or the World Bank and IMF?



You had better go read up on the purpose of the IMF again. From the IMF's Homepage:

The purposes of the International Monetary Fund are:

(i) To promote international monetary cooperation through a permanent institution which provides the machinery for consultation and collaboration on international monetary problems.

(ii) To facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy.

(iii) To promote exchange stability, to maintain orderly exchange arrangements among members, and to avoid competitive exchange depreciation.

(iv) To assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments in respect of current transactions between members and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hamper the growth of world trade.

(v) To give confidence to members by making the general resources of the Fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards, thus providing them with opportunity to correct maladjustments in their balance of payments without resorting to measures destructive of national or international prosperity.

(vi) In accordance with the above, to shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances of payments of members.

Every one of those items from their statement of purpose is a statement of a value with overall values of free trade and global economic stablity and if there is anyone that believes that "monetary cooperation", "international trade", "employment", "development of the productive resources", etc.. aren't all political issues then I have a bridge to sell them.

The World Bank's purpose from their WWW site:

What is the World Bank

The World Bank Group is one of the world's largest sources of development assistance. In fiscal year 2002, the institution provided US$19.5 billion in loans to its client countries. It works in more than 100 developing economies with the primary focus of helping the poorest people and the poorest countries. For all its clients the Bank emphasizes the need for:

- Investing in people, particularly through basic health and education
- Focusing on social development, inclusion, governance, and institution-
building as key elements of poverty reduction
- Strengthening the ability of the governments to deliver quality services,
efficiently and transparently
- Protecting the environment
- Supporting and encouraging private business development
- Promoting reforms to create a stable macroeconomic environment,
conducive to investment and long-term planning

Again, each statment expresses a value towards economic policy and again, issues like "health", "education", goverenment delivery of services", "environment" and a "macroeconomic environment, conducive to investment and long-term planning" aren't political they are only fooling themselves.

All of this is straight off of both organizations Web sites. Where is the "hidden agenda"? It seems to be hiding in plain sight.



The purposes of both organizations clearly state otherwise. No where does either group claim to be a charity.



And as shown, your opinion is based on several false views of what the World Bank and IMF are.



Ummm.. Yeah.. So I'm wrong but you admit you can see where I'm right..



You are mixing issues here. I never said anything about METHODS. I addressed VALUES.



If you view someone referring to something you say as a "paradox" to be disdainful and are so thin-skinned as to take that as an insult then I have a bit of advice for you. Shut off your computer, get off the Internet and go hide in a closet. You asked for debate and I pointed out some weaknesses in your stated position. Claims of being attacked when someone presents any opposition to your stated opinion isn't debate or discussion. It's crying. If I choose to insult you it wouldn't be so pretty and you'll know it.