Your Money or Your Life!

236/YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIFE!

THE IMF BAILS OUT THE SPECULATORS AND

STRENGTHENS THE AMERICAN HAND

On 22 January 1998 Stanley Fischer, an American citizen and
number two at the IMF, gave a report to US bankers on the IMF
response to the crisis. He said there were two possible responses.

When the crisis hit, we could have let it deepen and given a lesson

to international lenders. The alternative is to try to moderate the

effects of the crisis on a regional and global level in a way that

spreads the burden between borrowers and lenders. However, we

cannot rule out undesirable side-effects. This latter approach

makes more sense. The general interest, and therefore the interest

of the United States, is reliant upon a strong Asia that can import

and export in a way that drives world growth. ('The Asian Crisis:

A View from the IMF', IMF press release, 22 January 1998)

Although a little more subtle than is usually the case, the
statement clearly reveals how the IMF has once again played the role
of protector of the interests of the big international financiers. The
IMF refused to teach them a well-deserved lesson. Furthermore,
Fischer leaves no doubt that, in the IMF's view, what is good for the
United States is good for the world.

SOME FINAL QUESTIONS

1. The Asian model, often described as the Asian 'miracle', no longer
   exists. Michel Camdessus and others have declared this publicly. Did
   this model - in particular that of the four 'dragons' - ever create the
   conditions for long-term human development in the countries of the
   periphery? Or rather, did it not reproduce in its own way the charac­
   teristics of dependent countries, dominated by the capitalist centre?
   If the Asian model is 'out of fashion', to quote Michel Camdessus,
   what do the high priests of the IMF and World Bank, and the plethora
   of neo-liberal development experts, have in mind as a replacement?
   What is the way forward for poor countries now?


2. As far as the IMF, the World Bank and 99 per cent of the world's
   governments are concerned, the worst thing to do would be to limit
   the free flow of capital. On the contrary, it should be freed up even