1.Why did IMF decided to sanction Nigeria during Abacha regime, was it because of the Inhumanity perpetuated by the regime on activist or what?
2.On what ground was it able to carry out the sanction?
3. Who were the actor member states that carried out the order? Where the Big Five Members amongst them?
4. What are their roles in the international commnunity systems and in globalization?
5. What interest do they have that are not in other countries’ economy?
6. In what ways have they acted to better the lives of those they gave the aid?
7. what was their motives to given this Aid, and what policy was put on ground to acutualize the purpose of the load?
8. Why was the sanction necessary upon asking them to back off Nigerian Economy by the abacha’ military administration?
9. To this end was there anytime that programmes to which the Aid was granted, was directly monitored by IMF? And if yes on one hand, why was there flaws in completeness in most of the programme agenda if their interest in the Nigerian Economy was not get what they had contributed and nothing else? And if no on the other hand, to what motive was the AID granted?
10. Are there any possibilities that the IMF belongs to the UN, or that UN has an upper hand in decision making in terms of granting AID? If yes why the intimidation to subdue most majority of the 185-member nations to advance post economic slavery? What are the criterias that must be followed to be beneficiaries of the IMF AID?
11. Can the IMF answer the Question “How has the IMF worked with nations to actualize their Debt repayment”? If yes, how? And if no, Why?
These are just common areas that UN and the IMF has committed international moral felony against member nation, and they should look into their chronicles of establishment and foundation back in 1945, which can attest to my aforementioned statements. And they are the only bodies that can answer these questions if the UN is to strive long and maintain its existence. This in fact identifies the so many clause in managerial problems the UN has been facing. Until the Big five ‘first come and first being’ ego syndrome is dropped for the progressive exsitence of the UN can there be Unity and advancement in globalization, international understanding and complete eradication of Terrorism and War. The Big Five should be call to international Order, and admonish them to follow their vows to maintain world peace and not to deliberately intimidate member states with low level economic growth; or pursue selfish economic second class interest.
As if to convince Washington further Annan paraphrases what Winston Churchill said to Franklin Roosevelt: “Give us the tools and we will do the job.”
I could not agree more.
If. the US was right to insist that a piece of paper signed by Iraq could not be taken on trust, can the international community also not believe what the president of the United States says? Bush has already promised Five times that the US would settle its debts. The comparison may not be very compelling, still the end result is the same: non-compliance on one hand and non-payment on the other. Contrary to what many believe, Annan does not have an enviable job; agreed it is a great honour and, prestigious. While he has to work hard for world peace he has also to work equally hard to recover the money from the US which Washington is obliged to pay unless it does not consider the agreement which all states agreed to abide by in any consequence.
While, on 14 March 1997, Clinton gave credit to Annan for the Iraq deal, the American chief could only promise he would press the Congress harder to pay the U$1.3 billion Washington owes the UN. I believe the UN is not going to get the money any sooner because Conservative legislators continue to insist on linking the release of the money to abortion restriction which Clinton rightly and adamantly opposes.
As one Congressional source told me: “It is either pandering to the pro-abortion interest and lobby for paying the UN arrears. If paying the UN is a major American policy interest as Clinton claims, he knows what he must do”.
The abortion curbs can be vetoed by Clinton but the prospect of a fight on abortion could be politically and diplomatically sensitive in the midst of the continuing financial turmoil and economic meltdown in Asia, Africa and the middle east. The US will lose its voting rights in the UN the moment it does not pay at least US$600 million (RM 2.4 billion) before New Year’s Day, 10, so says Joseph Connor, the American Under Secretary-General for Management and Budget.
Besides, where is the American moral and political obligation to the international community? It is exasperating and disgraceful that unrelated domestic political difference over abortion is withholding Congressional approval of funds to pay UN debts and other funds for international purposes such as to enable the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help troubled Asian economies which, among other things, includes buying American goods which can only help the US economy. Meanwhile, the IMF on one hand is being parachuted to help fund most US self centred aspirations. In Africa this has been glaring in their involvement with governments to waste fund, yet they – IMF claim to proffer economic solutions while they have not done their home work in paying back their dues, or perhaps debt they owe the UN.
In Heaven’s name, why should an American domestic political fight overstep Washington’s international commitment? Congressmen should realize that by their amendment to include the “abortion clause” they are interfering with other nations’ domestic domain. The Clinton administration is right in not embracing the amendment which compromises the freedom of personal choices open to women abroad. The amendment deserves defeat. The irony and the sad thing is that despite this the UN and the International Monetary Fund, on the whole, are rightly or wrongly perceived to be instruments of American policy. It can be argued therefore from various perspective. Whatever angle we deem it fit to view it from. The elevation is such of a dorsal one.
Washington has unfortunately allowed issues irrelevant to American commitment to the UN to intrude. The US must pay its debts just like any other nations. Congress must immediately stop hectoring the UN.
The UN, as the Washington Post said, was ordered to reform itself. It has and is delivering. It is the turn of the US to deliver (the money it legally owes). I am shocked to read from past new-york times what Senate Majority leader Trent Lott said: “I am a lot more interested in what the United Nations is doing or not doing in Iraq than I am in talking with (Annan) about United States arrears.” This is an absurd, callous, offensive and undiplomatic statement to make. Annan has delivered what Washington and the Security Council wanted and saved the US a bombing expedition which might not have been a great success.
He has been universally credited with bringing peace closer-even temporarily in the Middle East. Annan’s effort may lead to the eventual disappearance of proscribed weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. But this is just the ball game here, and I pray that Annah and the 185-member states reason out the managerial problem in the UN as fast as possible which is resulting to the lukewarmness of the Big Five to crack their naughty heads towards world peace and not power tussles.
While the paper signed by Annan and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz may be vague on several critical points, the obligation of the Americans to pay their debts is crystal clear. In the middle of
1997, Clinton has asked Congress to pay and it has hitherto not only refused to act but has added irrelevant subjects in order to delay fulfilling its obligation. I don’t expect him to confront Congress with all the troubles, legal or otherwise, on his hands. However, all this is discouraging and disappointing.
The US Congress and Americans like Senator Trent Lott may be adding to a political cost they may regret. But so far, the Bush Administration has not been saying anything as concern their Debt repayment. However the cowboy president has been concerned with american-self ego enthusiasm to mobilise forces in sluming the war zone afhganistan and Iraq for something better describes as family business crusade, and not the American dreams to sublimate their solidarity and vows they owe the world.