Right Cause, Wrong Reason

At The Dissident, Will Wilkinson writes (say that three times fast) about the real reason to oppose the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund:

The next time you get the chance, please protest against the IMF and the World Bank. But do it for the right reason. Do it not because they promote globalization and capitalism, but because they impede it.

Wilkinson notes:

The increases in prosperity in the Third World are largely due to the remarkable growth in the economies of Asia, where markets and global trade have been embraced with varying degrees of enthusiasm. However, in Africa, where markets and global trade have generally been repudiated, the people remain, by and large, in the throes of the most desperate poverty. The Bank and the Fund are trying to impose economic globalization through political globalization, and they are failing — indeed, making things worse.

Read the whole thing here.

[Link via Free-Market.net]

Comments

[Jason Ligon]

Very clear headed piece.

Question: If the Bank and the Fund create impediments to capitalism through the red tape required to ensure compliance with their policies, does that mean that the underlying principle is invalid?

Another way to ask this: Are Ethiopians better served by having no pressure applied to their governments to liberalize than they are with the market impediments created by a IMF policies? Can they have the pressure without the market impediments?

[Samwise Gamgee]

"The next time you get the chance, please >>>protest against the IMF and the World Bank. But do it for the right reason. Do it not because they promote globalization and capitalism, but because they impede it."

Good piece, stupid call for action. Face it, the Protest Culture has completely devalued this type of expression. You are better off writing to publications than being associated with the anti-global wackos.

[Grant Gould]

There is a strong case to be made against loaning -- even mutually voluntary loaning -- to unstable or undemocratic governments. Since the government may not bear the cost of repaying the loan (because it can pass the cost to its citizens or simply skip town with the money), it is arguably quite wrong to loan money to such a government. The elites negotiating the loan aren't the citizery who will have to pay it off, so any notion of mutual benefit or capitalist choice is a joke.
--G

[fyodor]

Grant Gould,

If someone is loaning their *own* money (or their organization's own money), I suspect they will likely take such considerations into account. But when you have a quasi-public institution that uses the appearance of helping developing countries to collect money from governments handing out taxpayers' monies, the incentives to genuinely do the right thing are distorted.

Also, I believe Julian Sanchez has made the point that citizenries should not be held accountable for debts made by governments that did not truly represent them. I wonder where the line could properly be drawn, but in principle it makes sense!

[Sandy]

Fina-freaking-ly.

When the WTO/World Bank/IMF protests started, my comment was, "Wow, there are many, many reasons to protest those organizations, and the protesters have identified none of them."

I agree with Samwise, though, those people have poisoned the well. I much prefer the creative counter-protests I've seen mentioned here previously.

The WTO protesters are also fairly uneducated on average--not in a college-student vs. laborer sense, but in the sense that they really don't seem to know anything beyond the slogans they chant. I really can't get excited about being even peripherally associated with them.

[Kevin Carson]

fyodor,

Unfortunately, many Third World countries, no matter how nominally democratic they may be, are governed by professionalized policy elites who are as insulated from genuine popular interference as are America's policy elites. And they work hand in glove with their counterparts in the World Bank and IMF to subsidize infrastructure needed by TNC's. Then these same elites act as overseers to extract interest payments out of the hides of the taxpaying population, and as enforcers of austerity measures when their economies are wrecked.

[Joanne McNeil]

Globalization has become a meaningless term. To the left it refers to multi-national political organizations like WTO or IMF. To us, it's simply "free trade." Let's clear up the confusion by just saying "free trade." We're never going to neutralize the word, so it should be abandoned rather than championed.

Secondly, the last time I checked only a slim number of anti-globos are anti-trade/capitalist. Most of them want Oxfam-esque "fair trade," that is, they want even more rules imposed on trade -- but on their own terms.

Anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) don't make up a majority of us liberarians, so why do we think they make up the majority of the left?

[fyodor]

Kevin, our conversation resumes!

Okay, I'm still foggy on this extraction of interest payment thing. Maybe you could illustrate by telling me how things would work differently if the WB/IMF were not involved but the TWC's still sought funds for infrastructure? They would still have government officials in charge, just as government agencies in the US build roads and such. From a purist libertarian POV, collecting taxes to do this is theft, okay, but I'd never think it ruins our economy and sets us up for some sort of extortion. AGain, I'm really trying to understand, but I still don't quite.....

[Kevin Carson]

Joanne McNeil,

The problem is, your solution begs the question of whether globalization is actually free trade; or for that matter, whether what neoliberal politicians and journalists like Tom Friedman call "free trade" is actually free trade. There are some free marketers who consider these things simply corporate mercantilism on a global scale--Joseph Stromberg comes to mind here.

[Kevin Carson]

fyodor,

State financing of loans is a subsidy. And subsidizing overseas capital investment, like all other subsidies, means that more of the subsidized thing is consumed. So the U.S. government is actively subsidizing the export of capital from this country and artificially increasing the rate of return on it. And the very need to export capital results from the fact that, in an economy cartelized by State intervention, new capital investments at home are less profitable than they otherwise would be.

Without help from the WB and IMF, the transnationals would either raise the money themselves, or TW countries would build infrastructure from their own domestic resources. Either way, there would be less infrastructure built, and less foreign investment by U.S. capital. The world economy would be more decentralized, and a greater amount of production everywhere would be for domestic use.

[fyodor]

Of course the World Bank and IMF cannot literally force third world countries to accept their strings-attached aid, so it still seems somewhat absurd to protest the institutions per se. But Wilkinson definitely makes a good case for dropping public funding for them. If they wanna invest their own money, far be it for me to get in their way, and they'll likely make better choices, as well.

Also, I like Wilkinson's distinction between political and economic globalization. I try to avoid using the g-word myself, as I often find it rather mysterious as to what people actually mean by it. I prefer to talk about lowering trade barriers.

[Phill]

That is a great point fyodor. No government is FORCED to accept aid, and many of the things the government does are directly harmful to the material well-being of its populace.

[Jason Ligon]

Kevin,

And everything would cost more.

[joe]

I'm with Samwise re: protests.

"Singing songs, and carrying signs.
Mostly say Hooray for our side."

[Ultari]

The Real Reason for the Impeachment

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Fractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

[Ultari]

The Real Reason for the Impeachment

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Fractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

You don't know. The world doesn't know, either. World news agencies including AP, UPI, Reuter and AFP have little knowledge of ins and outs of Korean politics.

Procedures leading to Parliament's impeachment bill (two thirds of majority votes) and the subsequent suspension of executive prerogatives are different from those of the United States and other Western countries. The Parliamentary impeachment bill is not final but subject to the verdict of the bill by the Constitutional Court. (also needs two thirds of nine justices)

Ramifications behind the real reason for the Impeachment procedures are complex. Infractions of pertinent laws (National Assembly Election Law, etc) are minor and trivial in a certain sense. The general mode of his administration is the matter at issue. Psychological rather than legal.

Shows of instability (repeated announcement of the need for confidence votes), Shows of lack of focus (I can't handle the Presidency!), Too evident favoritism (He attends his fan club Nosamo, addresses them, and asks for their support), his view of justice in terms of comparison (I am one tenth as corrupt as major Opposition Party!) might have been major factors which had driven 193 Parliamentarians to decide to impeach President the maverick President.

I wonder how other global pundits would think of our president who had "promised" and repudiated his public pledge, so often at that. Figuratively speaking, he had handled his people just like he had done his kids. After several confidence announcements he had declared solemnly that he would quit if slush funds from big businesses diverted into his party in the last Presidential election in the year 2002 would reach one- tenth limit of major Opposition GNP.

Once the amount had reached one eighth level he had had another excuse to use. "The calculation the media employed is different from that of Blue House," (the Presidential Palace of South Korea), he said. "The excess is not so big," he had declared at the same press conference. " "If the disparity would prove real big then I would quit," he had declared with finality.

P.S. Hi, thanks for this opportunity and pardon me for having posted the three identical messages. The reason for the first two was technical and the last one was typographical and semantic.

[ultari]

A Big Crater in a Weird State

A territorial entity passing for a sovereign state by the name of DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is a misnomer. It's shameful country. It's not been a bless to the people since it was born.

DPRK is not a republic because it has not been born of the people's general will. Despite the facade of a republic DPRK is but a hereditary monarchy and Kim Jong Il is a monarch. He has been a despotic ruler ever since his father Kim Il Sung died.

Kim Jong Il has been a failure as a ruler. Kim as well as his dead father Kim Il Sung had blown it. Their ballyhooed popular pledge of a decent life had turned out blank that would guarantee "a bellyful of rice and beef." He is alleged to have sent his one-million plus people staggering to death with

Hasn't there been a success at all? If anything which could be called a success it might have been his bent for terrorism and his passion for collections, though. The Kim junior has especially been notorious for the latter.

He is known to have collected items and appreciated them with gusto. What kinds of items? The list has not just been long which has spanned anthropological and aesthetic areas but also expensive, which has claimed a huge number of popular lives. He is also known to have had the world-class inventory of vintage wines.

He is alleged to have collected beauties. "Pleasure ladies" are reputed to have been in wait for his "disposal." Once they had not sufficed he himself had sent a hunting party to the South. Actress Choi Eun Hee had been abducted accordingly in the early 1980s.

North Korea has had a crater formed by a tremendous blast at Ryongchon Railroad Station in his own territory. Hundreds of deaths and thousands of the injured have been a subsequent result of the tragedy. A murky disaster, which is clandestinely known to have been an attempt at Kim junior's life, might be an omen to advance his life and liquidate the evil regime.

[Bradford Evonne Lack]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://web-hosting.1st-host.org
DATE: 01/20/2004 12:18:14
Against boredom even the gods contend in vain.