Lending institution

At least The Jakarta Post now refers to the World Bank as a "lending institution" instead of donor. There is still something wrong though. Countries that provide funding to the World bank are still being called donors. Let's get this straight: When the U.S. provides funding for the Eximbank (informally known as the Boeing bank) it does not call itself a donor. However, when it provides funding -- also for export promotion -- to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (informally known as the World Bank) it does.

Regardless of export promotion having damaged some countries' competitiveness, it is the grease of trade because it creates purchase power. Nothing against that, but why doesn't the World Bank's president -- who is always an American -- call the U.S. an export promoter instead of "donor?" It may not sound so virtuous but it is closer to the truth.

It is profitable to be labeled a donor. According to Bretton Woods Committee, Banking Success' The World Bank, the United States and the Developing World, Washington D.C., 1988: "America's interests in the World Bank are often overlooked, its exports to World Bank projects exceeded US$1.6 billion in 1987, which is more than the $1.5 billion it has made in direct cash contributions over the institution's 40-year history."

OSALDO COELHO

Bandung, West Java