WASHINGTON: The massive $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill presented
to lawmakers Tuesday night contains provisions for new funding and governance
reforms at the International Monetary Fund. The House could vote as early as Thursday on the package, which is expected to pass.
Approval is also likely in the Senate and President Obama’s signature is
assured. The president pushed hard for the IMF deal, calling it vital to US
leadership and security.
The measure doubles to $670 billion the resources available
to the IMF to lend to countries in distress like Ukraine or Greece. The US contribution is put at $300 million.
The legislation gives key developing countries like China,
India and Brazil a bigger share of the weighted votes in the IMF while
preserving the sole veto power of the United States. The US has 16% of the
votes in the 188-member Washington-based IMF. China’s share rises from 4% to
6%.
The governance reforms date from 2010 but because 85% of IMF
votes are needed for implementation it has been blocked by US inaction. Former
treasury secretary Larry Summers blamed US delay for creating space for China
to create alternative institutions that challenge the IMF. Despite US opposition,
China this year led in the formation of a China-based Asia Infrastructure and
Investment Bank. Last year it joined other BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, and South Africa) in forming a new development bank as well as an
arrangement for mutual financial support should it be needed.
Despite being the dominant player in the IMF, which was
founded in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944, congressional support for the powerful
agency has always been lukewarm. In recent years some lawmakers have accused
the IMF of bailing out big banks that made loans that couldn’t be repaid.
Others argue that US sovereignty is diluted when US money is pooled into IMF lending.
Randall Henning, a professor at American University and
specialist on the IMF, rejects that critique saying, “the IMF reflects US
economic policy preferences more faithfully than perhaps any other
international organization.” Henning says the IMF promotes free markets and requires
borrowers to put in place appropriate, prudent economic policies. The IMF
played a central role in resolving the Latin American debt crisis in the 1980s
and the Asian crisis in the late 1990s.
Former IMF official and financial analyst Mohamed El Erian has argued that US approval was overdue. He says the recalibration of votes “better reflect
the realities of today’s global economy and entail neither new US funding
commitments nor any dilution of its power within the institution.” Economic
historian Liaquat Ahamed says it is absurd that tiny Belgium has had as many
IMF votes as Brazil, or that Belgium and Holland together had more votes than
China.
Policy makers including Chinese vice central bank governor
Yi Gang and British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne lamented the
long delay in US action. Yi called “failure to deliver this reform a threat to
IMF legitimacy.” Osborne said recently in New York that “it is a tragedy that
an agreement reached across all the members of the IMF was being blocked by the
US congress.”#
No comments:
Post a Comment