Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

The Government, in my opinion, has been extremely dishonest in how it has presented the Bill. On Second and Committee Stages and whenever it has commented on the Bill, it has suggested it is purely a technical Bill. It is not a technical Bill. Its measures arise out of an intensely political response by the IMF to a crisis of legitimacy it has suffered since its disastrous policies in the Asian crisis at the end of the 1990s produced a huge reaction against the IMF by many of the Asian countries. As it had done in many Third World countries previously, the IMF slavishly enforced neoliberal dogma as a response to the Asian crisis, propelling Asia into a very serious recession by imposing its economic shock therapy on Asian countries, specifically lifting capital controls leading to a massive flight of money out of Asia which turned a crisis into a deep recession. The result was that many of those Asian countries boycotted the IMF, and the IMF was on the brink of falling apart. That produced a political rather than a technical debate within the IMF on the need to rebuild its legitimacy and credibility on the international stage or face extinction. There was a long period of debate, and gatherings took place in which the way they intended to address the deeply undemocratic nature of the IMF and its failing legitimacy was discussed. The thrust of the criticisms of the IMF at that time was that it was dominated entirely by the United States, the big European powers and the big industrial powers in the world such that the United States, for example, with 17% of the votes within the IMF, could block any proposal even if it was supported by all the remaining states because 85% of votes is needed to get a proposal through in the IMF. That has not changed.

This Bill, and these so-called reforms, purport to be recalibrating the IMF in a reformist or more democratic direction but it leaves the US veto intact and a situation where the 27 industrialised nations still have more than 60% of the votes in the IMF and completely dominate it. That contrasts with the poorest countries that far out-number the industrialised countries and have far bigger populations. In many cases their resources fuel the economy of the industrialised nations but are plundered in many cases by those industrial nations with the assistance of the IMF enforcing its structural adjustment programmes and its dogma about gearing up economies for export in the global markets that have devastated those countries. Their dominance, which is due to the undemocratic governance structures of the IMF, has meant they have been able to ram that stuff down the throats of African, Latin American and Asian countries. There was a huge reaction against that because of the Asian crisis. That was most dramatically seen through the 1990s and the early 2000s in the big demonstrations in Seattle and the anti-globalisation movement, which caused a major crisis of legitimacy for the IMF, and this is what they come up with - nothing.

Our Government is rubber stamping what is a con job, and it is not just left wingers or activists who are saying that. The Brookings Institution, a right wing think tank in the United States, described these so-called reforms as follows:

a decades-old building that is in need of major repairs and renovation. The plumbing is ancient and needs updating. The roof is leaking in places. Termites have been found in the joists in the basement. Yet the building owners recommend, as a first step in renovation, merely a fresh coat of paint in the entrance hallway and the fixing of some broken glass panes in the windows facing the street.

In other words, it is a purely cosmetic exercise with no attempt to address the substantial and deep democratic deficit within the IMF that allows it to be dominated by the United States and the major powers.

It is also worth putting on record again what Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel prize winning economist, said about the IMF. He stated:

When the IMF arrives in a country, they are interested in only one thing. How do we make sure the banks and financial institutions are paid? ... It is the IMF that keeps the [financial] speculators in business. They're not interested in development, or what helps a country to get out of poverty.

That is what Stiglitz said and that is the reality. Our Government is giving succour to this institution and is trying to give it the stamp of renewed legitimacy precisely at a time when its entire structures and modus operandi should be challenged in the most fundamental way.

In terms of the IMF's policies and the undemocratic nature of that institution, which remains unchanged, it is now trying to apply its witchcraft in this country and in Greece, with devastating consequences. This is a time when we should have a serious debate about the nature of the IMF. Of course we need a global financial institution that is genuinely acting in the interests of all states and the global economy but that is not what the IMF is; it is a creature of the United States and the big industrial powers which are trying to gain advantage from the misery of others. That is the reason it is vitally important to oppose this Bill and call for real democratic reform of the IMF and the other global financial institutions.

See this speech in context