Home » Archive

Articles in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) Category

Bretton Woods, China, Chomsky, Noam, Clinton, Bill, Corporate Malfeasance, Democracy, Economic Regulation, Economics, Germany, Imperialism, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Japan, Keynes, John Maynard, Marxism, McCain, John, Media, Mexico, Militarism, NAFTA, NATO, Neoliberal Economics, New Deal, Nuremberg Trials, Obama, Barack, Reagan, Ronald, Roosevelt, Franklin D., The Great Depression, United States, WWII, Washington Consensus, World Bank »

4 Dec 2008 | No Comment

Assaf Kfoury: The economic crisis is felt acutely in the US, but has now spread to the entire world, even to countries (in South America, for example) that initially thought they would be spared. And the American presidential campaign and elections cannot but concern people everywhere, given the dominant role of the US globally. The simultaneous unfolding of the two — the crisis and the presidential campaign — has naturally elicited considerable discussion outside the US. In the Middle East, in particular, there has been a kind of speculation, perhaps wishful thinking, be it from the left or from the right. Some Arab commentators have speculated that an Obama administration will follow less aggressive policies. Some other Arab commentators want to see the economic crisis as the sign of an imminent American global decline, and warn pro-American governments and parties to stop doing the bidding of a doomed North American hegemon. What is your response to this kind of thinking? More generally, in relation to the Middle East, what direction is US policy likely to take with the coming Obama administration in the wake of the economic crisis?

Noam Chomsky: I think that US hegemony will continue to decline as the world becomes more diverse. That process has been underway for a long time. US power peaked at the end of World War II, when it had literally half the world’s wealth and incomparable military power and security. By 1970, its share of global wealth had declined by about half, and it has remained fairly stable since then. In some important respects, US domination has weakened. One important illustration is Latin America, Washington’s traditional “backyard.” For the first time since European colonization 500 years ago, South America is making significant progress towards integration and independence, and is also establishing South-South relations independent of the US, specifically with China, but elsewhere as well. That is a serious matter for US planners. As it was discussing the transcendent importance of destroying Chilean democracy in 1971, Nixon’s National Security Council warned that if the US cannot control Latin America, it cannot expect “to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world” — that is, to control the rest of the world. Controlling Latin America has become far more difficult in recent years. (more…)

9/11, AIPAC, Afghanistan, Albright, Madeleine, Biden, Joe, Bush, George W., CIA, Cheney, Dick, Chomsky, Noam, Christopher, Warren, Clinton, Bill, Clinton, Hillary, Darfur, East Timor, Emanuel, Rahm, Extraordinary Rendition, Fox News, G-20, Gates, Robert, Genocide, Goodman, Amy, Great Britain, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, Haiti, Holbrooke, Richard, Hussein, Saddam, Imperialism, Indonesia, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Iran, Iran-Contra Scandal, Iraq, Israel, Israel Lobby, Jerusalem, Kissinger, Henry, Kosovo, Kurdistan, MI5, Military Occupation, NAFTA, NATO, Neoconservatism, Neoliberal Economics, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Barack, Pakistan, Palestine, Pentagon, Powell, Colin, Private Security, Ross, Dennis, Rumsfeld, Donald, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Serbia, Sudan, Torture, US Congress, US Foreign Policy, United Nations, United States, Vietnam, War on Drugs, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), Wolfowitz, Paul, World Bank, Yugoslavia, al-Qaeda »

21 Nov 2008 | One Comment

Barack ObamaU.S. policy is not about one individual, and no matter how much faith people place in President-elect Barack Obama, the policies he enacts will be fruit of a tree with many roots. Among them: his personal politics and views, the disastrous realities his administration will inherit, and, of course, unpredictable future crises. But the best immediate indicator of what an Obama administration might look like can be found in the people he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to his Cabinet. And, frankly, when it comes to foreign policy, it is not looking good.

Obama has a momentous opportunity to do what he repeatedly promised over the course of his campaign: bring actual change. But the more we learn about who Obama is considering for top positions in his administration, the more his inner circle resembles a staff reunion of President Bill Clinton’s White House. Although Obama brought some progressives on board early in his campaign, his foreign policy team is now dominated by the hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990s. This has been particularly true since Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the Democratic primary, freeing many of her top advisors to join Obama’s team.

"What happened to all this talk about change?" a member of the Clinton foreign policy team recently asked the Washington Post. "This isn’t lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."
(more…)

Development, Economics, Fatah, Gaza, Hamas, International Monetary Fund (IMF), Israel, Jewish Settlers, Military Occupation, Palestine, Sharon, Ariel, World Bank »

11 Nov 2007 | 7 Comments

UN food distribution in GazaTwo years ago, Israel completed a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. We all remember the intense media campaign shamelessly portraying the settlers as dispossessed victims of a bold move for peace. Among others, Harvard economist Sara Roy argued that Israel’s version of disengagement would bring disaster to an already desperate Gaza. Today, we are witnessing the emergence of an unparalleled economic catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and with it, the evaporation of the last remaining hopes for a Palestinian state. (more…)