CIVICUS

FROM THE DESK OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Reflections on a meeting with U.S political leaders responsible for the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund
By Kumi Naidoo, CIVICUS Secretary General

Issued Date: 28 March 2008

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

It is often the case that when civil society actors mention the words World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and, increasingly, the current United States Government, it is to highlight failed policies affecting millions of people around the world. For this week’s column of e-CIVICUS, I would like to give a short report on a recent meeting in South Africa between a delegation from CIVICUS and GCAP and a delegation from the United States House Financial Services Committee, which has jurisdiction over the US Treasury Department’s engagement with both the WB and IMF.

On 25 March CIVICUS, along with the Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP), met with a nine member delegation of U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen to discuss the United States’ aid and debt policies, with a particular focus on the impact of the WB and IMF. In preparing for the meeting we consulted with a broad range of grassroots movements and NGOs to ensure that our points reflected both Northern and Southern concerns and amplified the voices of campaigners around the world. In particular, we drew on the demands made by GCAP during last year’s annual meetings of the WB and IMF: www.whiteband.org/about-gcap/reports/gcap-policy-guidelines-for-october-17-2007.

In consulting with our partners it came as no surprise that there is a significant range of criticisms of the World Bank, IMF and the United States policies towards international development. These criticisms include concerns about the disproportionate US focus on military spending over aid and the fact that whatever bilateral aid is provided is more often than not tied to restrictive conditionalities. There are also concerns about the pace, procedures and conditionalities associated with debt relief for poor countries.

We shared our concerns with regard to the US posture during the current World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) current round of negotiations that was supposed to be a “development” round. The idea was supposedly that the world needs a trade deal that would help support the development efforts of poor countries. We pointed out that what the US government offers to US cotton farmers through trade distorting subsidies is more than the entire US aid package to Africa.

We also pointed out that the US was far behind on the aid obligations first touted in 1970, which obligated rich nations to offer 0.7% of their gross national income to support poor countries. The US committed 1% of its gross national income as part of the Marshall Plan to help with the reconstruction and development of Europe after the Second World War. Today, the US is one of the worst performers with only 0.19% being offered for aid. We pointed out to the delegation that studies in the US have shown that more than 65% of the American people believe that the US government contributes between 10-16% of its gross national income to developing countries; with this statistic in mind, surely they would be comfortable with the US meeting its obligations of 0.7%.

We also pointed out that the WB and IMF remain fundamentally undemocratic organisations in desperate need of reform. These global public institutions, which make decisions that affect the lives of ordinary people around the world, are governed on a one dollar one vote basis. More galling is the fact that there is a “gentlemen’s” agreement which dictates that the head of the World Bank has to be a US citizen and the head of the IMF a citizen of a European country. We urged them to move to an open, transparent and inclusive recruitment process for the senior m ana gement positions at these institutions, and that issues such as nationality, political allegiance and so on are scrapped in favour of competency.

The meeting itself proved to be a positive opportunity for an open and frank discussion. While the US delegation recognised many of the structural issues hindering effective international development, such as the need for fair trade policies, more democratic international financial institutions and re-structuring the broader US. aid architecture, they were explicitly interested in identifying concrete actions they could take immediately. To this end they are currently pushing the Jubilee Act as a positive step towards expanding eligibility for 100 percent debt cancellation without harmful conditions to countries in the global South. We encouraged their plan to pass the Jubilee Act and to intensify their efforts on debt cancellation.

The committee also highlighted its stance that the sale of IMF gold reserves should be contingent on the money only being used for debt relief and alleviating poverty, not exclusively maintaining IMF staff and core operating costs. We urged them to ensure that this process was transparent and accountable, and to ensure that this is accompanied by democratic reforms needed at the IMF.

While the meeting will by no means result in a drastic restructuring of the US’s current development policies, it did provide an opportunity for engagement with congressional decision makers who are keen to see positive incremental change.

There is no question that unless there is a democratisation of international financial institutions and a radical restructuring of US aid, trade and debt policies, millions of people around the world will continue to suffer. Some people would say that it is inappropriate for one government and one committee to have such a disproportionate influence on the operation of multilateral organisations and that we should therefore not engage in private meetings with such groupings. However, we believe that in the interest of building momentum for greater change and affecting action on immediate issues we must at times work with and lobby the US and other decision makers who have disproportionate power. Effecting incremental change may not be our long-term goal, but we value its role in continuing the struggle for a more just world.

Sadly, we live in a world where still close to 50 000 men, women and children die every day from preventable causes relating to poverty. I have previously described this as a silent tsunami or a passive genocide. Humanity can be better than this. The failure of governments from rich and poor countries to act with urgency, decisiveness and courage is not only a betrayal of the poor; it is also a betrayal of their own citizens. For all of us involved in trying to make a difference to these continuing injustices, particularly in a world of such affluence and wealth, we have to fight both incremental struggles that deliver short term relief on the one hand, while continuing to focus on the long term struggle of ensuring that all global public institutions are governed democratically and fairly, such that their policies and actions equitably benefit men, women and children in every country around the world.

In solidarity,

Kumi Naidoo .

To send you comments, suggestions or contributions of articles, e-mail editor@civicus.org.

Below you will find all previous columns published.

• Let civil society be heard in Zimbabwe

• United States: Legitimising Torture

• GCAP celebrates International Women's Day calling for Gender Equality to End Poverty

• CIVICUS issues call for statements of interest for the implementation of the Civil Society Index (2008-2009 phase)

• Why civil society should support the Call to Action for Decent Work

• Reflections from the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland

• Civil society heroes languish in prison for over two years

• Civil society seeking collective reponses for the year 2008

• A time for peace, reflections and rededication

• 10 December - Human Rights Day

• International Volunteer Day: A Day for recognition and reflection

• The crossroads at Bali -- Choosing our destiny