Read this article in:
12 December, 1999As most of the resources used for interventions by the "other" IMF -- the International Monetary Fund -- comes from workers' pension funds, why shouldn't workers' organisations have a say in how this IMF operates?
There are two IMF's in the world: one is more than 100 years old, and the other is only 50.
The older one represents workers and has been fighting for the underprivileged in society. It is a democratic organisation, controlled by all its members.
It is called the International Metalworkers' Federation.
It is open to discussion and criticism. In fact open debate and dialogue are the prerogative for its good functioning. Its Congress elects the entire leadership, including the president and general secretary.
The other IMF, the younger one, was set up by the richest countries in the world to avoid major economic and financial disasters which could endanger the capitalist system.
It is called the International Monetary Fund, and has the task of providing funds to governments in trouble. The nature of the government concerned is not important: it helps dictatorships as well as democratically-elected governments.
The primary goal of this IMF is to secure funds for somebody who might otherwise cause trouble for the banks and other owners of capital in the rich part of the world.
The owners of the Monetary Fund (more or less the governments of the G7) appoint the Managing Director. The present Managing Director has just resigned after 13 years in the job, and his successor will be appointed sometime after the New Year 2000.
Because of the unwritten "gentleman's agreement," this person will be a European again, in order to create a balance, as the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, is a North American.
Rumours have it that Michel Camdessus, the outgoing Managing Director of the Monetary Fund, is leaving after having been criticised over the failure of loans given to the Russian government. Some of the large amount of money granted to Russia never left the banks in New York but, instead, changed owners after being transferred to various accounts and then disappeared - most probably to fuel the extended system of corruption and the Mafia in Russia.
Obviously, when a scandal of this dimension blows up, there are reasons to ask the person having the highest responsibility to leave. But this will not solve the problem, which is to reform the so-called Bretton Woods institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The international trade union movement, with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions at the forefront, has been asking for reforms which aim at making these institutions transparent and open. Although the World Bank is more open for discussion today than it was in the past, more needs to be done.
Firstly, both organisations have to improve coordination between themselves, and their policies must be discussed and decided after consultation with all partners, including the trade unions. When projects are discussed and planned, then a round of consultation at national level should be started with all those concerned.
Funds from the IMF should not be used to apply pressure or impose a policy determined by the institutions but should be the result of a process which aims at securing democracy, economic and social stability, and respect for human and trade union rights and the environment.
The International Monetary Fund has failed in many countries; Russia is only the latest one. The fairly recent Asian crisis, especially in Indonesia, and the case of Mexico a few years earlier are other examples where it has failed.
The resources the IMF uses for its interventions are mostly coming from pension funds which belong to workers in the industrialised countries, however some comes from the developing countries as well.
So, why shouldn't the workers have a say?
The older one represents workers and has been fighting for the underprivileged in society. It is a democratic organisation, controlled by all its members.
It is called the International Metalworkers' Federation.
It is open to discussion and criticism. In fact open debate and dialogue are the prerogative for its good functioning. Its Congress elects the entire leadership, including the president and general secretary.
The other IMF, the younger one, was set up by the richest countries in the world to avoid major economic and financial disasters which could endanger the capitalist system.
It is called the International Monetary Fund, and has the task of providing funds to governments in trouble. The nature of the government concerned is not important: it helps dictatorships as well as democratically-elected governments.
The primary goal of this IMF is to secure funds for somebody who might otherwise cause trouble for the banks and other owners of capital in the rich part of the world.
The owners of the Monetary Fund (more or less the governments of the G7) appoint the Managing Director. The present Managing Director has just resigned after 13 years in the job, and his successor will be appointed sometime after the New Year 2000.
Because of the unwritten "gentleman's agreement," this person will be a European again, in order to create a balance, as the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, is a North American.
Rumours have it that Michel Camdessus, the outgoing Managing Director of the Monetary Fund, is leaving after having been criticised over the failure of loans given to the Russian government. Some of the large amount of money granted to Russia never left the banks in New York but, instead, changed owners after being transferred to various accounts and then disappeared - most probably to fuel the extended system of corruption and the Mafia in Russia.
Obviously, when a scandal of this dimension blows up, there are reasons to ask the person having the highest responsibility to leave. But this will not solve the problem, which is to reform the so-called Bretton Woods institutions, including the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
The international trade union movement, with the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions at the forefront, has been asking for reforms which aim at making these institutions transparent and open. Although the World Bank is more open for discussion today than it was in the past, more needs to be done.
Firstly, both organisations have to improve coordination between themselves, and their policies must be discussed and decided after consultation with all partners, including the trade unions. When projects are discussed and planned, then a round of consultation at national level should be started with all those concerned.
Funds from the IMF should not be used to apply pressure or impose a policy determined by the institutions but should be the result of a process which aims at securing democracy, economic and social stability, and respect for human and trade union rights and the environment.
The International Monetary Fund has failed in many countries; Russia is only the latest one. The fairly recent Asian crisis, especially in Indonesia, and the case of Mexico a few years earlier are other examples where it has failed.
The resources the IMF uses for its interventions are mostly coming from pension funds which belong to workers in the industrialised countries, however some comes from the developing countries as well.
So, why shouldn't the workers have a say?