Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- Begin Message ---
-Caveat Lector- My question is: What is the source of the "capital" provided as loans from one government to another? Why is it wasted and pushed on countries that don't really won't it but can't refuse it? Is it all a ploy to have an excuse to run the internal structure of those countries, to get "global" hands on the resources?Linda++++++++++One example of a recipient is Sudan.FOREIGN AID
Foreign capital has played a major role in development. The great reliance on it and the general ease with which it was acquired were major factors contributing to the severe financial problems that beset the country after the mid-1970s. Sudan obtained public sector loans for development from a wide variety of international agencies and individual governments. Until the mid-1970s, the largest single source had been the World Bank, including the International Development Association (IDA) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC). By 1975 the World Bank and its organs had furnished the equivalent of US$300 million. Excluding repayments, the outstanding amount had risen to US$786 million in 1981, as major commitments to projects including agriculture, transportation, and electric power were made (chiefly by IDA, which accounted by 1981 for more than US$594 million of the outstanding total).
The Arab oil-producing states, as their balance of payments surpluses grew in the 1970s following increases in world petroleum prices, also became significant suppliers of development capital through bilateral loans and Arab international institutions. The largest of the latter was the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD), through which was proposed the 1976 program to develop Sudan as a breadbasket for the Arab world. The implementing agency, the Arab Authority for Agricultural Investment and Development (AAAID), was established in Khartoum, based on an agreement signed in November 1976 by twelve Arab states. After the mid-1970s, Saudi Arabia, one of the founders of AAAID, through its Saudi Development Fund became the largest source of investment capital, apparently convinced that Sudan's development could complement its own, especially in making up its large food deficits. Unfortunately, the ambitious plans for Sudan's becoming the Arab world's major food source faded by the mid-1980s into an economic nightmare as agricultural production declined sharply.
In 1977 the United States resumed economic (and military) aid to Sudan. This aid followed a ten-year lapse beginning with a break in diplomatic relations between the two countries in 1967, with relations restored in July 1972 (see United States , ch. 4). In 1977 the United States had become concerned about geopolitical trends in the region, particularly potential Libyan or Marxist Ethiopian attempts to overthrow the pro-Western Nimeiri government. In the five-year period 1977-81, United States economic aid amounted to almost US$270 million, of which twothirds was in the form of grants. By 1984, when the United States had become Sudan's largest source of foreign aid, the country's worsening economic and political situation, particularly Nimeiri's domestic policies with regard to the south and the imposition of the sharia (Islamic law) on society, caused the United States to suspend US$194 million of aid. In 1985, following Nimeiri's visit to Washington, the United States provided Sudan with food aid, insecticides, and fertilizers. After Nimeiri's overthrow in April 1985 and Sudan's failure to make repayments on loans, the United States discontinued non-food aid. The aid had been administered by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). It not only included direct funds for projects and project assistance through commodity imports (mainly wheat under the Food for Peace Program), but also generated local currency that was used to support general development activities. USAID continued providing humanitarian relief assistance to distressed regions in Sudan through early 1991.
Britain also made substantial aid contributions to Sudan, notably the sum of US$140 million to the Power III Project in the 1980s (see Electric Power , this ch.). In January 1991, Britain suspended its development aid to Sudan, which had amounted to US$58 million in 1989, while continuing humanitarian aid. This policy change was caused by a number of factors, including alleged terrorist activities by Sudanese agents against Sudanese expatriates in Britain. In addition to Britain, France, West Germany, Norway and other countries, EC have provided significant economic or humanitarian aid to Sudan (Britain, Japan, West Germany, and the Netherlands also have been Sudan's main sources of imports). Japan is a major buyer of Sudanese cotton, while Sudan imports Japanese machinery. In early 1990, to ease Sudan's debt burden, the Danish government cancelled Sudan's outstanding debt totalling more than US$22.9 million. Other major financial assistance came from Arab countries, especially from Saudi Arabia (Sudan's largest importer) and Kuwait. By December 1982, Sudan owed the Persian Gulf states US$2 billion. Saudi Arabia's assistance after 1980 mainly took the form of balance of payments support and petroleum shipments, rather than project aid. The total amount of aid from Arab states dropped in 1988 to only US$127 million, the lowest figure since the late 1970s. Arab aid totaled US$215 million in 1985, US$208 million in 1986, and US$228 million in 1987. Sudan's support of Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf war alienated the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia, sharply curtailing their economic aid to Khartoum. The increasingly close ties between Sudan and Iran in the early 1990s also concerned the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia and was a factor in their diminished financial aid to Khartoum. Economic cooperation was initiated with Libya in the late 1980s, with Libya becoming Sudan's third largest supplier in 1989.
In mid-1991 the World Bank announced its decision to close its Khartoum office by December 31, 1991. The decision resulted from the deterioration in relations between Sudan and international monetary bodies following cessation of debt repayment by Khartoum to the World Bank and the IMF.
Among communist countries, prior to the collapse of communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, China had been the most important provider of development funds. By 1971 it had furnished loans equivalent to US$82 million, and through 1981 an additional US$300 million was reported to have been made available. Sudan valued these loans because they were interest free and had long grace periods before repayments started. Economic cooperation with China continued into the 1980s. Sudan and China signed a trade cooperation protocol in March 1989, with technical agreements also renewed. A commercial protocol between the two countries was signed in April 1990. China remained a significant importer of Sudanese cotton in the mid-1980s, while Sudan imported about US$76 million in goods from China in 1988. Relations between Sudan and the Soviet Union improved markedly following Nimeiri's overthrow in 1985, but the overthrow did not result, as Khartoum had hoped, in Soviet economic assistance, but rather in a decrease in United States aid.
Data as of June 1991
========
Waste alleged by Linda Shenwick
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/11_17/72274735/p1/article.jhtml
Linda Shenwick thought she was doing her duty when she informed Congress about U.N. mismanagement of funds. Madeleine Albright saw it as an attack on the world body.
A onetime U.N. employee who claims that former secretary of state Madeleine Albright had her fired for blowing the whistle on waste and mismanagement is hoping to get her job back now that George W. Bush is president. But nobody at State will comment.
Until June 1999, Linda Shenwick was earning $120,000 a year as counselor for resource management at the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, where she was the mission's expert on U.N. finance and management issues. Asked in the summer of 1999 to go on leave without pay, Shenwick finally was fired by the State Department the day after the 2000 elections. Her "crime," she says, was informing Congress about U.N. mismanagement of funds and the attendant cover-up by the U.S. mission.
"I thought it was important for Congress and the taxpayers to know how their money was being spent, so I told them," Shenwick tells Insight from New York, "but instead of working with me and the U.S. mission to help clean up the problem, [then-U.S. ambassador to the United Nations] Albright made it her mission to get rid of me."
Shenwick now is represented by Judicial Watch, the public-interest law firm. "She has suffered a great deal, and we are keeping every option open concerning getting her job back at the U.S. Mission," says Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Shenwick sighs as she discloses that the U.S. Mission under Albright was determined not to recognize problems for fear of losing U.N. funding from Congress and triggering a similar response by other U.N.-member nations.
In early February, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to President Bush asking that he reinstate Shenwick in New York. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas and Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Dan Burton, R-Ind., echoed the request, writing to Secretary of State Colin Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney and urging them to review her case. Grassley wrote, "In the spirit of sending a positive message to public servants who report wrongdoing in government, I urge you to consider restoring Ms. Shenwick to a position so the taxpayers can reap the benefits of her skills." The White House had not yet responded to Grassley when Insight went to press.
Shenwick's troubles began in 1992 when she was ordered to tell a Washington newspaper that there was no nepotism at the United Nations. When she told the reporter the truth, her superiors were not pleased.
The next year, she disclosed that the United Nations was wasting millions of dollars in cash in Somalia. She had seen photos of U.N. offices there. "On a desk were piles of rotting green stuff," she tells Insight. "Upon closer inspection, we learned that the rotting green stuff was U.S. dollars. When I reported this to U.N. Ambassador Albright, she laughed, dismissed the complaint and said I told a very good story!"
Shenwick says she was very concerned about cash management throughout her tenure. "There were no bank accounts, no internal controls or standardized procedures, so I wrote a memo. But instead of being praised for reporting this and taking time to change things, I suddenly found myself the culprit," she tells Insight.
============
What will happen in Iraq?
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/10_19/100962881/p1/article.jhtml
After Saddam, the real work begins: with the arrival of U.S. Marines in Baghdad, President Bush's plan for revitalizing Iraq now will be implemented--with the United Nations on the outside looking in. (The world: rebuilding Iraq).
Insight on the News, April 29, 2003, by James P. Lucier
President George W. Bush promised in his news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in Belfast that the United Nations would play a "vital role" in a post-Saddam Iraq. But he did not mean that the organization would be a significant agent in determining the governance or future of the country. Indeed, White House sources immediately made it clear that he meant no more than that the United Nations would be allowed to deliver humanitarian resources to the Iraqi people who have suffered from the economic failures of Ba'ath Party socialism, Saddam Hussein's successive wars, systematic tyranny and the misappropriation of resources for the construction of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs).
The president was not about to legitimize the United Nations as an engine of reconstruction. In a joint statement released by Bush and Blair at Hillsborough Castle, the two leaders said: "As early as possible, we seek the formation of an Iraqi Interim Authority, a transitional government run by Iraqis.... [It] will be established first and foremost by the Iraqi people with the help of members of the coalition, and working with the [U.N.] secretary-general." Clearly, the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, would work from the sidelines.
"The U.N. brings to the table a number of very important and useful functions, such as its expertise in child survival, refugee health, immunization, refugee assistance and the world food program, feeding centers and the like. That can be helpful to the Iraqi people," says House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.). "But on the governing side it becomes much more problematic," he tells INSIGHT. "Nobody who witnessed the events in the U.N. Security Council of the last three months can be very sanguine about a dominant role for the Security Council in the governing of Iraq. It is quite clear that the commercial conflicts of interest by France and Russia make Security Council participation in the interim governing structure problematic."
Nevertheless, Annan, French President Jacques Chirac, Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder moved immediately to try to undermine a dominant role for the coalition forces in Iraq's reconstruction. In New York City, Annan insisted, "I do expect the U.N. to play an important role, whether it is the issue of political facilitation leading to the emergence of a new or interim administration." Annan then appointed a Pakistani, Rafeeuddin Ahmed, as his special adviser on Iraq, with a portfolio including "political facilitation." As INSIGHT went to press, the contentious quartet was to meet in St. Petersburg with Blair to try to leverage its strategy against coalition policy.
In the United States, the controversy has been mirrored by a debate on whether the Department of Defense or the State Department should take the lead role. Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a liberal Republican on the committee, argued implicitly for Foggy Bottom to get the lead role. "We must internationalize our policies for rebuilding a postwar Iraq, even as we retain full control on the security side, ideally with the involvement of the U.N., NATO, the EU [European Union] and countries in the region. The best way to do that is through a new United Nations resolution authorizing the necessary security, humanitarian, reconstruction and political missions in post-conflict Iraq," they announced in an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
--- End Message ---
