10.14.2021

 In the past few classes, we looked at the overarching concepts of international relations. Today though, we dived specifically into the economic hierarchy and actual examples of the World Systems Theory at work. We learned that the UN has two organizations that manage cross-border loans; the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Both were established during a conference at Bretton Woods by war-winning countries. However, this meant that the IMF and the World Bank are likely to take advantage of poor countries by producing a superficially win-win situation. This means that whenever poor countries ask for loans from the IMF/World Bank, they give a conditional offer that obliges them to invest their loans in privatized services from rich companies in return for transportation, water systems, and other new constructions that are only beneficial for developed countries. In addition, these periphery countries would need to reimburse, clocking up additional profit. In summary, the IMF and World Bank are essentially taking advantage of inferior countries' resources, and draining their wealth. An example of these wealthy countries taking control was Bolivia and its risky government scheme to privatize water. It was completely absurd and unheard of to restrict and control a natural commodity, but this showed the length that poor countries would take in order to secure money for themselves. Although it was fortunate to know that the protesters overruled their government, it made me worry about what would happen in the future when these natural resources become scarcer. 

I was shocked to know how the UN could be so one-sided. Moreover, I felt it was unfair for moneylenders to ask for payback that came from odious debt such as the military. Seeing the graph of debt comparisons in Latin American countries before and after the Junta rule, it was very apparent why it's difficult for poor countries to break its poverty chain. However, I also know that the World Bank is comprised of several smaller organizations, so I wonder if this adjustment program is applied to all institutions and if so if there is a difference in how much burden they place on these countries. I also want to know why the UN doesn't improve credit checks if it is immoral. Can they put their own organization to the stand if these adjustment programs go out of control? Or more so, how are they able to justify this program if there are numerous criticisms around it. Perhaps the supreme power of the P5 is making it difficult for nations to not cooperate with the IMF's rules, because the UN doesn't have any economic value at all, and so they need to keep their rich patreons in order to aim for good in the world. When I think of it that way, it is quite ironic that the UN is crossing lines to prevent others from crossing lines. I think it all comes down to finding a solution that would pose the least harm for beneficial returns when it comes to improving the loaning systems.