The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has started looking at financial combatants to cut off ISIL’s income source. As debate has just commenced, not every nation’s stance has been clarified. Certain larger nations, however, have made up their minds, some in favour of sanctions, while others in favour of further aid.
For example, different ideas that have been brainstormed include the restraint of resources to ISIL controlled areas, and sanctions against “ a country starting with t and ending with y” (The Delegation of Germany) which is apparently a well know supplier to the Islamic State. Also. this nation that “smells pretty delicious… especially around thanksgiving” (The Delegation of Sweden) seems to be battling the rest of the committee in terms of its stance on ISIL’s implications on international economies as it is, at present, purchasing over one million USD of oil a day from ISIL controlled oil regions . To add to the complexity of this situation, oil price fluctuation, directly as a result of ISIL’s occupation of various Middle Eastern oil fields, can affect the IMF and world economy. Thus, it is the IMF’s duty to minimize any negative consequences that will result from the spread of ISIL.
Currently, it appears that the situation is Turkey and Greece, vs. the world. After these two nations wanted to cut-off aid to the nations in which refugees are fleeing, Syria and Iraq, Turkey and Greece have been regarded as monetary heretics to the IMF. Some implementations that the committee has discussed against these two nations includes the removal of Turkey and Greece from the IMF as they appear to create more problems than they solve, especially with Greece’s disgraceful excuse for an economy.
According to certain sources, there are “way too many refugees, and thus, the world’s economies are dropping” (The Delegation of New Zealand). This ideal is supported by many industrialized nations including, but certainly not limited to, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Argentina, Austria, Portugal, Australia and obviously New Zealand. To counteract these economic impacts from ISIL’s reign of terror in the Levant, it is imperative that aid be sent to neighbouring nations such as Jordan and Lebanon as they accommodate for a vast majority of the refugees from this crisis. One benefit from this solution was that “the economy will diversify” (The Delegation of Austria). This result will not only benefit global economies, but also the IMF.
For example, different ideas that have been brainstormed include the restraint of resources to ISIL controlled areas, and sanctions against “ a country starting with t and ending with y” (The Delegation of Germany) which is apparently a well know supplier to the Islamic State. Also. this nation that “smells pretty delicious… especially around thanksgiving” (The Delegation of Sweden) seems to be battling the rest of the committee in terms of its stance on ISIL’s implications on international economies as it is, at present, purchasing over one million USD of oil a day from ISIL controlled oil regions . To add to the complexity of this situation, oil price fluctuation, directly as a result of ISIL’s occupation of various Middle Eastern oil fields, can affect the IMF and world economy. Thus, it is the IMF’s duty to minimize any negative consequences that will result from the spread of ISIL.
Currently, it appears that the situation is Turkey and Greece, vs. the world. After these two nations wanted to cut-off aid to the nations in which refugees are fleeing, Syria and Iraq, Turkey and Greece have been regarded as monetary heretics to the IMF. Some implementations that the committee has discussed against these two nations includes the removal of Turkey and Greece from the IMF as they appear to create more problems than they solve, especially with Greece’s disgraceful excuse for an economy.
According to certain sources, there are “way too many refugees, and thus, the world’s economies are dropping” (The Delegation of New Zealand). This ideal is supported by many industrialized nations including, but certainly not limited to, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Argentina, Austria, Portugal, Australia and obviously New Zealand. To counteract these economic impacts from ISIL’s reign of terror in the Levant, it is imperative that aid be sent to neighbouring nations such as Jordan and Lebanon as they accommodate for a vast majority of the refugees from this crisis. One benefit from this solution was that “the economy will diversify” (The Delegation of Austria). This result will not only benefit global economies, but also the IMF.