For better or for worse?

This entry is based upon the following posting on Greg Sargent's blog: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/economy/robert-gates-and-hillary-to-republicans-youre-putting-our-security-at-risk/ To sum it up: Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are accusing Congress of putting the country at a security risk by not providing the International Monetary Fund with capital.

The Executive Branch has a point. Failing to contribute to the IMF is a bad political move. Originally born out of the Bretton-Woods convention, the IMF is a global lender created to provide liquidity to nations who are deemed to be "uncreditworthy", but who desperately need money for important social projects. Considering that the IMF is a legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, it would seem to be controversial for the United States to not support an organization that it has helped to establish. Further, the lack of United States support would erode international confidence in the ability of the IMF to provide needed funds to desperate countries. However, the lack of support might actually cause the international community to support the United States, and increase its reputation.

Clearly, neither Secretary Gates nor Secretary Clinton spent time in Seattle in 1999. Neither of them are aware of the global and national unrest with regard to international organizations born out of Bretton-Woods, like the WTO (although that came about later), the IMF, or the World Bank. Neither of them are aware of the general international discontent with regard to the policies pushed by the IMF as conditions of loans. Neither of them are aware that the IMF has, historically, caused greater damage to the international economy than it has healed, and that many countries have learned that the IMF is not to be trusted, the IMF is just an imperialist wing of the United States government, and the IMF is a tool of corporate interests. For more information, you should check out Joseph Stiglitz scathing criticism, Globalization and its Discontents.

Financial hardship breeds global discontent, but that discontent is often directed at the IMF. The Republicans may block it because they think the money may be spent on countries that foster terrorism, and the Democrats may block it because ... well, let's face it, Pelosi and Reid aren't exactly the best spokespeople for the Democratic Party. The funding should be blocked because the United States needs to reverse direction with regard to its imperialistic tendencies if it wishes to continue to repair its international reputation. The IMF has long been an instrument of corporate interests that have ruined economies, and the United States must recognize that the only way to effectuate policy change in the IMF's practices is to cut their supply lines. Or, in a twist of irony, place conditions upon the funds to force the IMF to change its practices.

If you're interested in learning more, you should read Stiglitz's book, or see the documentary This is What Democracy Looks Like.