PREFACE/XXVIIFor the 400 million inhabitants of the former Asian 'dragons' and
'tigers', IMF has come to mean 'I'M Fired'. Across the planet,
including in Europe, a sizeable share of the population has begun to
challenge neo-liberal policies. In some cases, this has taken on con
tradictory and confused forms. In most countries, the weakness of the
radical Left and the slavish submission of the traditional Left to the
dictates of the market (that is, of holders of capital) have created an
opening for parties and movements that redirect the population's
consciousness and will to act against a series of scapegoats, be they
foreigners or followers of a different faith.
Successful resistance to the ongoing neo-liberal offensive is no easy
matter; but those engaged in struggle have a number of points in
their favour, including partial victories. The October 1998 decision
by the French government of Lionel Jospin to withdraw from negoti
ations on the Multilateral Accord on Investments (MAI) came about
in response to a broad campaign of opposition organised by an array
of movements, trade unions and parties in France, the USA, Canada,
the Third World and across Europe. To be sure, multinational corpo
rations and the US government will again attempt to push through
the MAI's objectives of total freedom for holders of capital. For the
moment, though, they have suffered a major reversal. It is indeed
possible to roll back such government and corporate initiatives
through campaigns and mobilisation.
Another sign of the changing times was the UNCTAD statement of
September 1998 in favour of the right of countries to declare a
moratorium on foreign-debt payments. UNCTAD said: 'A country
which is attacked can decide to declare a moratorium on debt-
servicing payments in order to dissuade "predators" and have some
"breathing room" within which to set out a debt restructuring plan.
Article VIII of the IMF's Statutes could provide the necessary legal
basis for declaring a moratorium on debt-servicing payments. The
decision to declare such a moratorium can be taken unilaterally by a
country in the face of an attack on its currency' (UNCTAD press
release, 28 August 1998).
Of course, UNCTAD is a small player in comparison to the G7, the
IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). But
this forthright defiance of the so-called inalienable rights of money
lenders reveals that governments in the periphery are finding it
increasingly difficult to j ustify their support for the neo-liberal global
isation project.