Apparently, there may be a misconception that those protesting at the IMF/World Bank meetings in D.C. this weekend are necessarily calling for those organizations to be abolished. In fact, many protesters, including myself, are calling for IMF reform, not abolition; or we at least support the idea of an international lending institution that aims at promoting economic growth in developing nations, but are outraged and saddened by the actions and policies of the IMF/WB. Many are protesting not what the IMF/WB is intended to do or what it can do, but what it is actually doing.

According to your wespeak, Mr. Radosevich, you appear to be a proponent of IMF reform, as well. You recognize the IMF’s role in worsening the Asian Financial 
Crisis; and you state that "the biggest problem with the IMF is that its member nations are too strict with their loans - they give too little money combined with too many conditions - sometimes unhelpful ones," which appears to be a reference to the misery, poverty, and death inducing Structural Adjustment Programs. [The contrast in language is not intended to be obnoxious, but is meant to maintain focus upon the fact that these issues center around people’s suffering.]

In many movements or protests, while there exists a spectrum of opinions about which aim will produce the greatest good, most participants are united in agreement of what needs to be changed. Often the disagreement lies in how far we should go in an agreed direction. In the instance of the IMF/WB protests, some Wesleyan protesters favor liberal capitalism, others favor socialism. Though, both agree that the global proliferation of laissez-faire-like capitalism, that the IMF is spear-heading, is unethical. Some think that the IMF’s program of eliminating tariffs and re-orienting the economies of developing nations from a subsistence economy to an exporting economy is abhorrent. Others disagree. Though, both agree that the IMF’s program of gutting developing nations’ health and education programs is immoral and most be stopped.

Although I can not say for sure (since your wespeak, understandably, did not address your opinions on all the specific accusations against the IMF policies; and since I haven’t talked to you otherwise [which I would like to do]) it appears to me that your beliefs, though leaning heavily to one end of the spectrum, still reside within the spectrum of those protesting the actions and policies of the IMF/WB. It is my (possibly ignorant) impression that if you were to come to the IMF/WB protest in D.C. and demand to those institutions that health and education programs should not be gutted as a condition of the SAP’s, you would not only not be violating your beliefs, but you would be utilizing your democratic rights to stand up for what you believe in, to try and make a difference in the world and help alleviate the suffering of others, and to say to those who need to hear, that certain policies need to be changed because they are unethical, immoral and unjust.