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