Is IMF aid really 'aid'?By Victor PerloThis article was reprinted from the October 3, 1998 issue of the People's Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights reserved - may be used with PWW credits. 
On television last week I watched Washington gurus holding forth on the world economic and financial crisis. Answering questions of Congressional members were Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve Bank, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and his deputy, Lawrence Summers. All three gave a virtuoso performance of the double-talk for which Greenspan is known. Indeed, in a recent interview Greenspan actually boasted of his ability to talk without saying anything. Although I have some knowledge of economics and finance, I couldn't make heads or tails of what they were saying. But what was more disturbing, the Congressmen were just as mixed up, as was shown by their confused, extended remarks and their questions. That was true of the liberals like Joseph Kennedy as well as the right-wingers. Things changed when Rep. Bernie Sanders spoke up and cut through the nonsense with an attack on the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After Sanders spoke, Greenspan, Rubin and Summers - who had listened with smirks on their faces - ignored what he had said, and went on with their double-talk. Sanders' comments are well worth study. A condensed version follows: In my opinion ... giving more money to the IMF will only make a bad situation worse. Four years ago when Mexico was in dire economic circumstances, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Greenspan, President Clinton, Mr. Gingrich, Corporate America ... told us that we would have to pony-up and bail out investors who had lost money in that country... But the plight of workers was not improved ... wages are way down, unemployment and child labor are way up ... and again Mexico is in crisis. Last year, when Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea suffered their economic meltdown, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Greenspan, Newt Gingrich, President Clinton, and Corporate America, were chanting their mantra again. And in unison they cried out "Let's bailout the banks and financial investors who lost money doing business in Asia because if we don't the contagion will spread." And, against my vote and my strong opposition, the IMF bailed out Asia. And then the meltdown in Russia began. Poor Russia. It is incredible that a great country with such a tragic history has got to suffer again. When communism fell in 1991, the Russian government received the attention and the guidance of the IMF and all of their brilliant policy advisors, and tragically the Russian government listened to them and took their advice. It is fair to argue that never before in modern history has a major industrialized nation experienced the kind of decline in a seven-year period as Russia has under IMF guidance, and with $20 billion dollars of IMF loans. In Russia today millions of workers are unpaid, old people do not receive their pensions, and hunger and malnutrition are very serious concerns. Russia's GDP has fallen by at least 50 percent, capital investment by 90 percent, and meat and dairy livestock herds by 75 percent. Meanwhile, in Russia a handful of people who have accumulated billions of dollars, much of it illegally and through swindles, have enormous power over that country which is rampant with corruption... Given the horrendous record of the IMF in making life worse for the people of Mexico, worse for the people of Asia, worse for the people of Russia - not to mention all of the suffering that "austerity programs" have caused in Africa and Latin America - why in God's name would anyone want to continue along the incredible path of failure that has been developed by the IMF? "Our goal must be to make the United States an ally of the poor and hungry, not a spokesman for the rich, the powerful, and the corrupt."
PEOPLE BEFORE PROFITS! |
Sub info: