With each new resignation at the helm of the IMF or of the WB (and these are increasingly frequent: KÃ¶hler in 2004, Wolfowitz in 2007, De Rato in 2007), the issue of the famous tacit agreement that the WB's Chair should go to the US and the IMF's Director should belong to the EU is raised again.
There is no written text to support this intolerable rule that has, however, been implemented since the twin institutions were created in 1944. During the talks that led to the appointment of Robert Zoellick as president of the WB last May it is well known that the principle of this outrageous division was reasserted.
This means that Dominique Strauss-Kahn's candidacy for managing director of the IMF, supported as it is by the EU, stands good chances of being accepted even though names from other continents can be put forward as diversions. The EU has in fact responded with great alacrity and reached a unanimous agreement within a very short time to avoid accusations of antidemocratic dealings.
The CADTM would like to remind people that the IMF is an institution that for over 60 years has been demanding with the utmost brutality that leaders of so-called developing countries implement economic measures serving the interests of rich creditors and TNCs. To this end, over the last decades the IMF has given crucial support to several corrupt and dictatorial regimes, from Pinochet in Chile to Suharto in Indonesia, from Mobutu in Zaire to Videla in Argentina, and still currently from Sassou Nguesso in Congo-Brazzaville to DÃ©by in the Chad, and ever so many others. Since the crisis of the debt in the early 1980s the IMF has enforced structural adjustment programs with tragic consequences for peoples in the South: drastic reduction of social budgets and of subsidies for essential survival commodities; opening up of markets, thus introducing unfair competition between small producers and TNCs; export-geared production and relinquishing of the principle of food sovereignty; massive privatisations, taxes that deepen social inequalities, etc.
This is why many countries now refuse the tutelage of the IMF since its tainted remedies no longer deceive third-world peoples who know all too well the sufferings they entail and have bled themselves dry to pay back an immoral and largely odious debt. In such conditions the CADTM demands a democratic debate on the international financial architecture that is needed to provide fair and sustainable solutions to the hundreds of thousands of people who are stuck in utter poverty because of the economic orientations the IMF has decided on. Of course choosing an IMF director from a country of the South would not in itself provide any assurance that things would change. But for us, choosing Dominique Strauss-Kahn, or indeed any other executive who would run the institution on the same ultraliberal basis, is in no way acceptable. For the CADTM the priority is to abolish the current IMF that has largely proved that it could only fail in terms of human development, and to replace it with a transparent and democratic institution, whose main mission would be the guarantee of fundamental rights. Its director's nationality would then be irrelevant.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)