[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
IMF Update/Alert (fwd)
>
>50 Years is Enough: U.S. Network for Global Economic Justice
>202/IMF-BANK (463-2265); fax 202/879-3186
>e-mail: <wb50years@igc.org>
>
> IMF Update / ALERT
>
> April 6, 1998
>
>Last week we asked 50 Years is Enough contacts in the U.S. to contact
>their Representatives in advance of an expected vote on IMF funding.
>We urged that members of Congress vote against the $18 billion
>appropriation, but also that they support an amendment to the
>legislation -- the Klink/Ros-Lehtinen Amendment -- which would
>condition any money that might be approved on the U.S. opposing a
>change in the IMF charter.
>
>The change in question would mandate that countries liberalize their
>capital accounts -- i.e. eliminate regulations on the movement of
>investment capital both within and between countries. It is seen as
>a "back door" method of implementing the provisions of the
>Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI), which is foundering at
>the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
>
>As it turns out, the House of Representatives never voted on the
>legislation. The official word is that it will be considered by the
>full body after the Spring Recess, which goes through April 20. It
>is possible that allies of the Clinton Administration will try to
>sneak it into a budget bill through a House/Senate Conference
>Committee, so as to avoid troublesome amendments like Klink/Ros-
>Lehtinen or Christopher Smith's efforts to attach anti-abortion
>provisions. But for now we are preparing for the matter to come
>before the full House, and for the Klink/Ros-Lehtinen Amendment to
>get its day in court.
>
>So what we're asking now is that people take advantage of the Congressional
recess to contact their legislator's district offices.
>We are still targeting *Representatives* (the Senate already approved
>a version of the funding bill). You might be able to arrange a
>meeting with the Representative or with key staffers. At the least, talk
to someone on the phone at the district office or mail or fax a letter. We
can help by providing phone numbers for district offices. Once again, the
more Representatives' offices you can contact (in adjacent districts,
elsewhere in your state, etc.), the better.
>
>We are attaching the letter to Representatives that we sent with our last
alert. Since the vote seems to have simply been postponed (though not
without lots of maneuvering by the various sides), the letter is as valid
now as it was then. Please use it as a model for any correspondence to
Representatives.
>
>We are also attaching a letter that the 50 Years is Enough Emergency
Response Network will be sending to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin this
week about moves at the upcoming Semi-Annual Meetings of the IMF and World
Bank to further propel the capital accounts amendment. Rubin is the U.S.'s
offical representative to these institutions, and has so far supported the
amendment. Please write to him as well. The meetings begin on April 13.
>
>==============================================
>
>Letter to Representatives:
>
>April ___, 1998
>
>Dear Representative _________:
>
>I am writing to urge you to support the Kink/Ros-Lehtinen Amendment to the
House FY98 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. This amendment requires the
Secretary of the Treasury to vote "no" to any changes in the IMF's Articles
of Agreement that would force member governments to eliminate restrictions
on capital flows and investments.
>
>Regulation of capital flows is one of the few tools we have to slow
speculation in the global economy. It would be an enormous mistake to allow
the IMF to force countries to do away with them. As the Chief Economist at
the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, said in a recent Financial Times article,
"As capital shifts rapidly across the globe, emerging markets are left
adrift. The answer is to regulate flows."
>
>In addition to supporting the Kink/Ros-Lehtinen Amendment, I urge you to
vote against the $18 billion appropriation for the IMF.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>==============================================
>
>
>Letter to Secretary Rubin:
>
>April ___, 1998
>
>Robert Rubin
>Secretary of the Treasury
>1500 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
>Washington, DC 20220
>FAX: 202/622-0073
>
>Dear Secretary Rubin:
>
> I understand that at its 1997 Annual General Meetings, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) initiated the process of amending its
Articles of Agreement. I am concerned about the potential effects of the
proposed amendment, which would mandate that all IMF member countries
liberalize their capital accounts. Any regulations would have to be
approved by the Fund.
>
> The IMF already encourages countries to eliminate restrictions on
trade and the movement of capital. To make such specific economic policies
conditions written into the IMF's charter, and to require all members to
accept a particular economic paradigm, would constitute unwarranted
intrusion into sovereign policy decisions by an international agency.
>
> Regulation of capital flows is one of the few tools we have to slow
speculation in the global economy. It would be an enormous mistake to allow
the IMF to force countries to do away with them. As the Chief Economist at
the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz, said in a recent Financial Times article,
"As capital shifts rapidly across the globe, emerging markets are left
adrift. The answer is to regulate flows."
>
> Mr. Stiglitz's position is based in part on evidence that the
financial crises in Mexico and East Asia were accelerated, or even largely
caused, by sudden outflows of capital in response to exaggerated investor
panics. Barring countries from retaining capital controls will increase the
vulnerability of people everywhere to the damage caused by volatile shifts
in investment capital.
>
> With the IMF undergoing more public scrutiny than ever, this would be
a particularly inappropriate moment to change the organization's charter.
>
> I urge you to withdraw U.S. support for this amendment at the Spring
Meeting of the IMF and at the May Summit of the G-7 (G-8) nations.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>