*{ http://www.attac.org/fra/list/doc/massiah2en.htm 16 aout 2002 The Regulation of the International System: Where does the IMF stand? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gustave Massiah President of AITEC Seminar organized by Aitec, Agir ici et le CRID, with the collaboration of the Gresea, on 22nd-23rd June 2001 – French National Assembly Published in collaboration with AITEC website http://www.globenet.org/aitec/ PDF document: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- } The objective of the past two days was to tackle the question of regulating the international system starting from criticisms of the International Monetary Fund’s role. In both its preparation and during the course of the two days, the seminar relied on the works of numerous groups active in opposing the world’s economic system. We should mention in particular Bretton Woods Project in Great Britain, 50 Years is Enough in the United States, COCAD in Belgium, Focus on the Global South in Asia, Jubilee South in Africa, and the international ATTAC movement. The seminar was part of the campaign for the reform of the International Financial Institutions which, at the initiative of Aitec, Agir ici and CRID, has been pursued in France by various international solidarity associations for several years. It has been received and backed by two Members of Parliament at the National Assembly, Jean Claude Lefort and Yves Tavernier. Numerous analyses and proposals, which have been examined during the two days work, are currently shared by the different movements in the South and North. This convergence shows the extent of an increasing awareness of the intolerable character of the dominating world economic order. I hope that this seminar will allow us to forge ahead together with the entire world citizen movement which is concerned with international system regulation. This conclusion, which covers the main lessons we have learnt during the two days of debate, will cover six points. This is one way of regrouping the ideas put forward by different people. *partie=titre What method should we refer to? *partie=nil To begin with, we wanted to think for and with the social movement, with the citizen movement concerned by the evolution and nature of globalisation. This is what we tried to do during the seminar, without losing sight of the fact that our sociological composition creates a clear bias, or that we are located in the National Assembly building, which is certainly a prestigious place, but also one which is slightly removed from us. We continually took the proposals, claims and ways of protest which are emerging from the movement into account. We used the social movement as a tool of analysis, which allowed us to understand the nature of both the institutions and the international system and to explore its dark corners – which affect the social outcasts and pariahs of the system. We also considered that part of the proposals or ideas that we have put forward have been confirmed in regard to the social movement and not only in regard to theory or political debate. From this point of view, we considered that we were not talking about the International Financial Institutions as such, but about the international system. And that within this international system there are the International Financial Institutions and the dominating powers, but that there is also the citizen movement and its reactions which are changing the system. This method allows for a better understanding of the question of official reclamation of our ideas. Often within the movement, the question of whether or not our ideas have been reclaimed by officials is raised - only the good ideas would be those which would not be reclaimable. In our discussions we tried, instead, to evaluate the validity of a question with regard to its relevance and the goals we have attributed to the movement. In evaluating the danger of, and attempts at, reclamation, the nature of the proposals cannot be separated from an analysis of the situation. From a method point of view, we put the emphasis on the diagnosis and current state of affairs, from which the goals and orientations were then able to be defined. As Angela Wood (Bretton Woods Project) proposes, it is better to discuss the goals than the techniques. The movement should highlight the goals and orientations and it is on this basis that we can build the mobilisation. The question of techniques and means is a second problem. This does not mean that it is a secondary problem, but it signifies that we should not make it a priority. Of course, we should take into account the technical dimensions – which is, moreover, one way of responding to objections raised during debates which are aimed at making us seem idealistic and unrealistic. But, above all, it is necessary for demonstration purposes and in order to oppose the legitimacy of the technical word which the International Financial Institutions and the technocrats are trying to monopolise. It is one dimension of the political battle, particularly within international debate and in regard to the media. It is a means and not a goal. During the discussion, we insisted a great deal on the questions asked at the movement level: the question of the different scales of regulation (local, national, global), the question of choosing between rupture and reform, abolition or radical reform; the question of the ideological battle and the political battle as well as the question of legitimacy and the crisis of legitimacy. *partie=titre What do we expect from the regulation of the international system? *partie=nil If we consider the following questions, it is possible to envisage or formulate some proposals. What do we think the International Financial Institutions should be? What do we expect from the regulation of the international system? Taking Pierre Galland’s (Forum Nord-Sud, Belgium) remarks, what do we anticipate, what prospective can we put in place and what discourse do we want to hold in today’s difficult situation in order to have a better vision and gain freedom? One orientation is essential: to oppose economic, trade and financial liberalisation with respect for human rights – civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural. Such anticipation opens up a basic scene for, and line of action and so it allows us to have a real historical perspective. We want to invent and we are inventing a new world in which respect for human rights will dominate. It is in this perspective that we think regulation of the international system is needed. In this perspective, regulation of the existing world market is far from being the best solution. Therefore, we consider that International Financial Institutions are necessary to act in the long term, but we have no confidence in the orientations of current institutions or the way in which they function. Very specifically, what we expect of the institutions is monetary system stability, the prevention of financial crises AND a financial system which favours a development which respects human rights and that we call, for the sake of simplicity, sustainable development. In addition, we expect the institutions to function democratically. These three concrete and digestible goals will be relevant for our movements in the international political debate. The international system should allow monetary stability and financial crisis prevention to be ensured. In order that the monetary system is stable and allows financial and monetary crises to be avoided, a certain number of guidelines can be retained: National sovereignty should be won back in monetary and development matters including fiscal, wage, financial and social policies. Such national sovereignty is a precondition, as underlined by Pierre Salama (GREITD, France), and it should be able to use the international monetary system in order to avoid hyper-inflation increases. However, this does not imply that economic, social and monetary policies are pre-determined by the struggle against all inflation. Regionalisation can offer interesting prospects in terms of development, economic policies and even monetary affairs as long as it corresponds to a wider political vision which includes the reality of building production sites, regional exchange markets and democratic agreements. And, that for each regionalisation, there are the corresponding political negotiations in which social movements play their role. The three regionalisations brought up during our work – the Latino-American regionalisation clarified by Alberto Acosta (Foro Ecuador Alternativo, Ecuador) and Ceci Juera Vieira (PACS, Brazil), the Asian regionalisation for which the basis of a possible political negotiation was explained to us by Chan Keun Lee (University of Inchon, Korea), and the European regionalisation analysed by Suzanne de Brunhoff (ATTAC, France) – shows that regionalisation is not an end in itself, but can be one of the scenes for political debate and for debating proposals. Ghazi Hidouci (AITEC, France) insisted that, if it is to be credible, the exchange rate system must be founded on commercial exchanges and not determined by capital flows. The control of capital flows is imperative as much on an international level as on a national level. The Chilean, Malaysian and Chinese experiences, amongst others, have shown the necessity and the possibility for such control. This control is structured around the necessity to fight against fiscal paradises, financial laundering and crime, as explained by Dominique Plihon (ATTAC, France). Taxes, like the Tobin Tax or other taxes, can help in monetary system regulation. The proposal of a universal currency, defended by Keynes during the first Bretton Woods negotiations remains, despite its utopian character, a perspective to explore. These are the proposals which prefigure the international monetary system architecture and the institutions which would have the responsibility of ensuring the stability of the monetary system. The international system should favour a sustainable development which respects human rights. It should be recognised that every population has the right to define its own development model, as emphasised by René de Schutter (GRESEA, Belgium). This does not mean that there is no internal responsibility for regimes and nation states. On the contrary, we consider that their responsibility is bound, in relation to their people, on the choice of models and development tendencies, especially concerning the respect for human rights. In regard to development and its financing, several points deserve to be brought to the forefront. Debt cancellation remains the priority, as Eric Toussaint (COCAD, Belgium) emphasised. Internal evolutions of the institutions, power games and contradictions should not be neglected, especially, as Christian Chavagneux (Alternatives Economiques, France) remarks, since conditionalities are all becoming structural ones and, therefore, make the content of interventions more political. Financing development implies access to improved credits and specific credits with no other condition but the possibility of reimbursement. In the long term, a judicial system of economic, social and cultural rights should be established at both a national and international level and appeal mechanisms should be put in place. In particular, this implies the recognition of creditors’ and debtors’ co-responsibility for debt creation and decisions. Discussion should be open on the necessity and the means of making exchange terms more balanced, especially concerning raw material prices and commercial exchanges. Priority should be given to building domestic markets as well as to ensuring equal access to basic services. It is equal access to basic services which allows respect for human rights to be guaranteed. It allows the fight against poverty to be founded on the refusal of increasing inequalities and discriminations. The principle of world redistribution is inescapable if we want to ensure all countries with access to financing for development. Several modalities are conceivable in terms of redistribution, like using a tax system, or the making exchange terms more balanced. *partie=titre What could the function of the institutions who have to put international regulation in place be? *partie=nil In the immediate future, we must insist that democracy and transparency are a necessary basis for the operation of all the international institutions. The institutions’ sphere of competency should also be limited to their mission and they should be refused the role of poor countries’ tutor which has been attributed to them by rich countries and by the group of world economy shareholders who currently run the institutions. These institutions, as pointed out by Njoki Njoroge Njehu (50 Years is Enough, United States), should be integrated in the United Nations system which has the double advantage, in terms of principles, to not be based on a voting system of one dollar, one vote, but of one country, one vote and to have as its founder chart the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, evaluation and appeal units should be created, as previously mentioned, and the evaluation of the institutions and their policies should be entrusted to one of the United Nations’ agencies. How should the resistance and proposals be formulated? What are the movement’s current prospects? How should opposition and proposals, which could be taken on board by a citizen movement concerned by the nature and evolution of globalisation, be formulated? In the first place, it is necessary to affirm the goals of a citizen movement which focuses on the international system in today’s times. This will then allow us to define the elements of the movement. The movement’s two goals are: - the transformation of the balance of powers between capital and work, - the transformation of the balance of powers between the North and the South. Anyone who considers that there is currently a worrying situation, in terms of jobs, poverty and income distribution between capital and labour, as well as a dramatic imbalance between North/South relations including on military questions and conflicts, should be called upon to take part in this movement. These two elements determine the quality of the international order: in order for it to be less unjust, the balance between capital and labour and between North and South must also be less unjust. There are clearly other questions on an international level, but it is these two which should be brought to the forefront. Chan Keun Lee insisted on the problem of the ideological battle against liberal facts. As for Pierre Salama, he reaffirmed the necessity to struggle against the liberal idea which maintains that all states are inevitably corrupt, bureaucratic and ineffective. This makes the struggle that we have to lead against bureaucratic, technocratic and authoritarian deviance all the more urgent. The IMF, like the World Bank, are organising their legitimisation as Elsa Assidon (Paris University IX, France) has analysed. The proposed consensus is to link trade and financial liberalisation. We are in a period of ideological and institutional hardening. Faced with such logic, we should advance the power of employees in relation to shareholders, democracy within businesses and the boycott of banks which use casino economy practices. As for the question of slogans, there is currently a discussion between those who consider that we are in a period in which we should ask for the abolition - a temporary shutdown in order to create new institutions - and those who think that the current crisis offers an opportunity to obtain evolution by imposing structural reform. It is not a dogmatic or theological question, but consists of an analysis of the situation and its current political opportunities. The debate is open and each movement should appreciate how progression is to be made in regard to the common goals. There are currently four active campaigns launched on an international level, but which all rely on national mobilisation and citizen commitment without which they would have no sense: - Campaign against the World Trade Organisation (WTO), - Campaign against financial speculation and for the Tobin Tax, - Campaign for debt cancellation, - Campaign for the reform of the International Financial Institutions. Two other campaigns should be strengthened or launched: - Campaign on transnational companies as stressed by Ghazi Hidouci. - Peace Campaign, as noted by Pierre Galland. These six campaigns represent, for the moment, what we should develop in the South and the North, in each of our countries and on an international level. *{ 22/08/01 }