There is an important matter that ought to be of dire interest to the Jamaican populace, currently of which The Gleaner of June 20 made mention. It is talk of the possibility of Jamaica returning to do business with the IMF.

The IMF was founded at the end of the second World War. It's original objective was simply and directly to augment the coffers of countries' foreign-exchange holdings or reserves, providing them with some sort of cushion to withstand any cyclical fluctuations, emanating out of imbalances in a country's imports compared to its exports.

Initial goal

In other words, its initial goal was basically one to foster an economic atmosphere that would ensure that imports of a given nation were not curtailed due to liquidity challenges. Facilitating trade on the part of these poor nations in the long run, would be a win-win situation for the host country of the lending institution and the recipients, was the IMF's outlook at that early stage of its existence.

However, the IMF has come to be known, by means of its stringent monetary and political policies evolved overtime, as an imperialistic oriented institution whose aim chiefly is to dictate to poorer nations and to prescribe stringent economic measures that ensure these nations rely on the powerful USA indefinitely. At least, this is the perception to many, at least not in the long past. The Gleaner's Ian Boyne's sudden and public endorsement of the IMF should not be followed merely because the veteran journalist thinks things have been positively changed with respect to this institution.

So-called Third World

Not withstanding Mr Boyne's support for a return to the IMF, the fact still remains that so-called Third-World nations, like Jamaica, have come to visualise any relationship with the IMF as one of constant suffering, especially by the poorer classes of its people. Its relationship with Third-World nations, for the most part, has come to signify public-sector salary freeze, layoffs, shortages of goods and services and high inflation, among other challenges.

This is why any talk of a possible return to the IMF will be expected to create jitters among many, even if not expressed overtly at this time.

The fact that there is not much hullabaloo to the pending talks in Parliament about a return to the fund should not be interpreted that the people are not wary of the IMF. The questions that many will be asking, or should be asking now, quietly, publicly, or in the security of their verandas are: Will a return, by Jamaica, to the IMF be helpful to the Jamaican economy, in the long-run? Is the current attempt and decision to return to the IMF not merely based on a short-term measure to fix or avoid any shortage in the foreign-exchange reserve? If our main goal to return to the IMF is just based on the latter reason, does it worth the component challenges that may emanate as a consequence?

Financial coffers

It is true that the IMF has recently pronounced a different approach to the way its relationship will be engaged with its debtors and those seeking to do business with it, but is this merely a temporary ploy to augment its financial coffers in the long run and to resort to its old ways, as the so-called recession normalises?

Jamaica, Dominica, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines apparently are among those Caribbean jurisdictions that have recently had a renewed hope in the IMF and may very well be obtaining loans in the near future.

The fact that these Caribbean islands have been affected by the global recession may not merely give them a genuine need to seek these IMF loans, but it has also granted these nations an excuse to do so as well.

While it may be true that these Caribbean jurisdictions are significantly dependent on tourism and that the global economic crisis has some adverse economic effects on them in this respect, had there not been a recession, would the Jamaican economy, for instance, be in a significantly, better shape? Would its employ-ment dilemma be more tenable and bearable? Would its public servants be much better paid and their condition of work more improved?

I am, etc.,

JOSHUA SPENCER

joshuaspencer@rogers.com

Toronto, Canada