Sidi,
    Thanks for sharing your inputs on this very salient issue. I have argued
elsewhere that most of the post world war international institutions be it
financial and political [from the UN to the World Bank] are in need of much
reform in order not to look anachronistic for that's what they are really;
representing the geopolitics of a polarised cold war era. Reform is crucial
to restore confidence in these institutions. And it is just not reform that
targets the bloated bureaucracy of these institutions as the likes of Jesse
Helms seem to advocate for; but reform that also targets the sacrosanct
intrinsic pillars that are wobbly holding these institutions together. The
danger with dragging our feet on real reforms is that ultra Right Wing
populists like Helms and his Senate boys would seek to obfuscate issues by
directing their moribund rhetoric against a somewhat lackadaisical and
bloated UN and other international institutions' bureaucracies [often too
exaggerated] and by extension it's concomitant red tape, which to be sure are
in much need of trimming, but hardly where energies need be reinvigorated.
Take the issue of the UN. Reform of the UN especially the Security Council
[where the EU and the US currently hold sway] has always been high on the
agenda of progressive Universalist Liberals, but sniffing that this is
something that couldn't be driven under the rug, Helms and his Senate boys
picked on the theme of reform but insisted on that it has all got to do with
the bloated UN bureaucracy. And even resorted to blackmail of withholding
vital long overdue and outstanding US contributions and debts if they don't
get their way with the reform agenda. As a result, Annan was installed in the
place of the independent minded Ghali as part of the backroom horse trading
that ensued from the diplomatic fracas of the Reform agenda that Senate
Republicans had managed to hijacked. To his credit, Annan has managed to trim
the bloated UN bureaucracy but has got nowhere near real reforms that would
target the intrinsic structures of the UN primarily the anachronistic
Security Council. And most importantly, the US is still withholding long over
due vital contributions and debts that they agreed to pay soon as reforms get
under way.
    My guess is that Helms and his Senate boys are using the same manoeuvring
to botch any real attempts to reform the wobbly intrinsic structures of the
IMF and The World Bank. They are using the same 'strike first' tactics to
deviate attention from these institutions real problems. And to think that
refined academics like Sachs and Meltzer are willing to play along is a
monstrous travesty of conscience. The likes of Helms, Pat Robertson,
Buchanan, Kissinger, et al are what I find revulsive about good Ole Uncle
Sam. To be sure, America is a great nation proned to forming disastrous
foreign policy consensus. What I certainly find ironic about America is the
maturity of her domestic politics and the immaturity that is often embedded
in the philosophy of her foreign policy especially the post world war era
which unfortunately has been largely infleunced/dominated by GOP consensus.
Perhaps the motto of this consensus is that: scrounge as much as we possibly
can from foreign lands whilst all attempts conceivable are applied to ensure
none ever scrounges off our backs. Ironic isn't? Most of this shouldn't be
that much surprising considering the fact that, at any rate, the average
American is ignorant about the world outside good Ole Uncle Sam. For these
average Americans, the world starts at the Belt Way circumnavigating the East
and the West coasts whilst straddling the North and South, if you see what I
mean. And the tragedy is that populist politicians like Helms easily prey on
this ignorance to make political capital out of. What a pity! Considering the
fact that America is the first modern nation state wholly made up of
foreigners and migrants. What a pity indeed!
    On the Sachs and Meltzer article, in my view the, one of the crucial
things that have been ignored in the debate of IMF and World Reform, is the
election/succession of the post of the Managing Director of the Fund. Look at
the clumsy fiasco of the selection procedure of the top at the IMF with the
Berlin and Washington slugging it out as to who will succeed Camdessus. For
the life in me, I can't still fully fathom why this outdated informal
methodology of saying that the IMF head would come from the Europeans and the
World Bank from the Americans. This rule though informal, reeks of the stench
of Western neo colonialism, domination and very myopic indeed. For it renders
the Fund and the World Bank with undesirable and lacklustre candidates who in
the very end makes a mess of things as Camdessus certainly did. And the
candidature of individuals who do fit the bill might be sidelined simply
because of this outdated and anachronistic informal rule mentioned above.
Indeed it is because of this that a very suitable candidate had to be
sidelined. The nomination of Stanley Fischer, the first deputy Managing
Director of the Fund, brilliant economist, loads of experience with good
relationship with Fund staff; had to be botched or became problematic simply
because he was born in Zambia of Latvian-Jewish extraction but later
naturalised as an American. Fischer was the nominee of some 20 African
countries and the clever gambit of Fischer's African-Ness was paraded to win
him the nomination but eventually had to given in to the equally clever
obstacle/gambit of his American citizenship. Thanks to an outdated informal
rule agreed upon by the Western powers when these institutions came into
being this suitable candidate is ruled out of the race to succeed Camdessus.
The Fund and The World Bank are not the only international institutions
suffering from these outdated rules. The UN and most of it's 'metasizing'
agencies has also to put up with such rules as the Secretary/Director
Generals having to come from a 'neutral' background whatever that is suppose
to mean. Reform of these bodies in every sense of that word are long over
due. To procrastinate would only play into the hands of the likes of Helms
who would frustrate and hijack any genuine attempts to make these bodies to
be in sync with today's geopolitical order, however much untidy, undesirable
and flawed that is. A good Clinton/Summers legacy would be to challenge the
arrogacy of the likes of Jesse Helms and spur into the fore genuine and much
needed reform that all these international institutions are badly in need of.
    On my preferred candidate, you know it's gotta be Gordon Brown. It is
only tragic that he so desperately desires to be the next British Premier and
wouldn't leave politics because there is a wafer thin chance of him
succeeding Blair. He or Britain did more than any other nation to further the
agenda of total debt cancellation. It would be a blessing indeed for him to
take up the challenge of the next Managing Director of the Fund.
    Next I hope we could explore the Sachs and Meltzer idea that the
"starting point for reform is for the fund to
return to its original purpose: short-term, emergency lending."

Till then have a great day Sidi and bless you.

Hamjatta Kanteh

hkanteh

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------------