Obama Exploiting Ukraine to Empower IMF and Dictatorships

11 March 2014
by  Alex Newman
Source: The New American

The globalist establishment, Russian authorities, and the Obama administration are pushing hard for a series of controversial “reforms” aimed at massively expanding the power and resources of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) while further scaling back U.S. influence at the institution. Using various pretexts — and especially the crisis in Ukraine — governments and dictatorships, including Vladimir Putin’s Russia, are even threatening to proceed with the radical plot to empower the IMF whether the U.S. Congress approves it or not. 

The most important and far-reaching elements of the “reform” agenda include a doubling of taxpayer resources available to the IMF. Member governments would have to supply twice as much taxpayer funding to meet their “quota” under the agreement. Even more important, the reforms would also dramatically reduce U.S. influence while handing more power to what propagandists refer to as “emerging markets.” In reality, “emerging markets” would continue to have no influence whatsoever at the powerful globalist institution. The dictators and governments that rule them, however, would be given far more authority to dictate IMF policy and decisions.

Chief among the regimes that would be empowered under the “reforms” is the communist dictatorship ruling over mainland China, which for years has been calling for the IMF to become a sort of planetary central bank in charge of a global currency. Other governments that would have more influence include those ruling over the rest of the so-called BRICS — primarily socialist and communist regimes in Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa. All of the “BRICS” regimes have been strongly pushing for more control over the IMF in recent years, even as they push to radically expand its mandate to include a planetary currency.

 “We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty,” the five BRICS regimes said in a joint 2013 declaration, calling for Third World dictators to have a greater say in the IMF and the emerging global monetary regime. “We welcome the discussion about the role of the [IMF’s] SDR [a proto-global currency known as Special Drawing Rights] in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR’s basket of currencies.”

The biggest barrier thus far to the IMF “reforms,” reportedly agreed to in 2010, has been the U.S. Congress, which is so far refusing to approve the funding. In a statement, however, the Obama administration said it was working on overcoming that obstacle. Among other demands, the administration wants lawmakers to approve a shift of some $63 billion from a “crisis” fund to the IMF’s general accounts to comply with the 2010 reform “commitments” made by the Obama administration and the IMF board.   
“We are working with Congress to approve the 2010 IMF quota legislation, which would support the IMF’s capacity to lend additional resources to Ukraine, while also helping to preserve continued U.S. leadership within this important institution,” the White House said in a “fact sheet” released last week, exploiting the ongoing fiasco in central Europe to advance the controversial agenda to empower the IMF and its less-than-friendly member regimes. The radically expanded U.S. “quota” would presumably be met going forward by borrowing from foreign governments or the Federal Reserve, which simply conjures currency into existence out of thin air and usuriously lends it to the Treasury at interest. 

Having apparently lost hope of getting the legislation through on its own, the administration is now trying to tie the IMF funding demands to a bill showering U.S. taxpayer funds on Ukraine’s new rulers. “It is imperative that we secure passage of IMF legislation now so we can show support for the IMF in this critical moment and preserve our leading influential voice in the institution,” Obama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said last week in a congressional hearing, just months after demanding a debt-ceiling hike. It remains unclear whether the GOP-controlled House will submit to the administration’s demands.

In a report from Reuters citing “sources,” however, the news agency reported that Russian officials are working to push ahead the drastic IMF reforms without the support of the U.S. government, which holds a controlling share of votes at the institution because U.S. taxpayers are its primary source of funds. If the Kremlin and its allies succeed in advancing the reforms without U.S. congressional approval, the news agency claimed, it could result in Washington, D.C., losing its veto even over major IMF decisions. Moving ahead without Congress, though, would reportedly require “complicated” changes to IMF rules.

The anonymous “sources” cited in the Reuters article claimed that the G20 governments — the regimes ruling China and Russia are both among the members — would give the U.S. government until IMF and World Bank meetings next month to obey. If Congress remains uncooperative, the “sources,” presumably speaking to the news agency in a bid to pressure U.S. lawmakers, said the G20 regimes would be “taking more aggressive measures” to ram through the reforms empowering the controversial global institution.

“It was agreed that in the absence of progress by the United States on the 2010 package by the April meeting of the IMF and G20, that there will be formulated a list of 'bad options,' which will allow [us] to move forward in this matter, excluding the opinions of the United States,” one of the three unnamed sources told Reuters. In other words, either the U.S. Congress does the bidding of foreign governments at the G20, or those regimes will advance the radical agenda anyway.

In an editorial, the establishment mouthpieces at the New York Times urged lawmakers to promptly obey, too. “As Congress moves forward with providing financial assistance to Ukraine in the form of loan guarantees, lawmakers should also ratify much-delayed reforms that would strengthen the International Monetary Fund and give it more resources to lend to troubled nations like Ukraine,” the Times editorial board argued on Monday, adding that the Obama administration had “led a global effort” to increase IMF funding to over $750 billion while curtailing U.S. power at the institution.

“Some Republicans in the House have steadfastly refused to let the reforms come to a vote, arguing unconvincingly that the fund doesn’t need the money,” the Times complained, presumably also suggesting that the IMF and the nations it shackles with debt need the money more than struggling U.S. taxpayers. “Ukraine’s troubles serve as evidence that it’s important to increase the fund’s resources.”

Ironically, the Times suggested that it was in “America’s interest” that authorities in Ukraine and other countries receive bailouts from U.S. taxpayers through organizations such as the IMF rather than from Russia directly. The claim is especially ridiculous considering that the Kremlin is leading the push to adopt the IMF “reforms” without approval from the U.S. Congress. The argument becomes even more absurd when realizing that Moscow is participating in the IMF bailouts agreement for Ukrainian officials. And it borders on lunacy when considering a New York Times report last week acknowledging that much of the “aid” to Ukraine will end up in Russian institutions anyway.

“Providing Ukraine with $1 billion in loan guarantees from the American government is a good start, but that will not be enough to get the country back on its feet,” the Times editorial concludes. “Congress needs to go one step further and give the I.M.F. the resources it needs to help troubled nations like Ukraine.”
The conservative-leaning Heritage Foundation, while claiming that the United States “clearly” benefits from the existence of the IMF, also conceded that, “many conservatives have rightly pointed to the IMF as an enabler of moral hazard.” Those critics, the group said, “are concerned that American tax dollars are being used for IMF programs that bail out bad decisions by other governments that follow reckless fiscal and monetary policies (e.g., the flawed policies that Ukraine pursued under Yanukovych until 2011 when the IMF ended its previous program for the country).”

In response to those concerns, Heritage Research Fellow for Economic Freedom James Roberts offered Congress some suggestions. “Refuse the Obama Administration’s attempt to link urgent assistance to Ukraine to approval of the IMF governance reform package that has been pending for three years,” he advised. “Insist that the 2010 reform package be revised so that the U.S. retains the unilateral right to appoint its own representative to the executive board; and demand the abolition of the NAB [New Arrangements to Borrow] supplemental facility so that it cannot be used in the future as an additional source of potentially morally hazardous lending during the next ‘crisis’.”

Critics of the IMF and the long-term agenda of the institution and its backers, however, suggest that a better solution would be for the U.S. government to withdraw from the controversial outfit altogether. Not only is Washington, D.C., foisting unfathomable levels of odious debt on the American people to fund such globalist institutions, the IMF is now openly proposing wholesale global wealth confiscation and plundering. As if that was not bad enough, the IMF and the globalist establishment that controls it are openly working to turn the institution into a global central bank in charge of a planetary fiat currency if and when the U.S. dollar loses its status as international reserve.

For Americans, Ukrainians, and indeed, humanity, the IMF represents nothing but expensive trouble — and it is only going to get worse if current trends continue. U.S. lawmakers who take their oath of office seriously must refuse to submit.  

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, is normally based in Europe. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. 

Link:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/17817-obama-exploiting-ukraine-to-empower-imf-and-dictatorships.

Myanmar president approves law on central bank autonomy

Jul 11, 2013
Source: Reuters

(Reuters) - Myanmar's president has signed a law giving the central bank more autonomy from the Finance Ministry and opening the way for development of the fledgling banking sector.

State-owned MRTV television reported the enactment by President Thein Sein late on Thursday and said details would be published in newspapers on Friday.

But there was nothing in any of Friday's papers, including the New Light ofMyanmar, a state daily that carries official announcements.

The law is part of a series of economic and political reforms pushed through by the quasi-civilian government of Thein Sein, in office since nearly half a century of military rule ended in March 2011.

Rules governing the central bank have to be adopted within three months of the law coming into force.

"In fact, rules and regulations have already been drawn up. So we can expect them to emerge very soon," Win Hteik, a senior central bank official, told Reuters.

He said the governor and three deputy-governors would in future be nominated by the president and approved by parliament.

He also said the regulations could include details of how joint-venturebanks could be set up with foreign lenders.

Foreign banks are not allowed to operate in Myanmar at present, and when they are allowed in, they will initially only be able to run joint ventures with local banks.

The date for their entry has not been set, although more than 30 foreign banks already have representative offices.

The website of the existing Central Bank of Myanmar, which is part of the Finance Ministry, says its aim is "to preserve the internal and external value of the Myanmar currency".

Helped by the International Monetary Fund, the central bank introduced a managed float of the kyat in April 2012 as part of the unification of the exchange rate system.

It first floated at 818 per dollar, a level in line with the black market at the time but which the IMF and economists said was overvalued. Since then, the kyat has fallen and the central bank's daily reference rate was set at 980 on Thursday. (Reporting by Aung Hla Tun; Writing by Alan Raybould; Editing by Nick Macfie)

Link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/myanmar-economy-idUSL4N0FI0MB20130712?feedType=RSS&feedName=rbssFinancialServicesAndRealEstateNews&rpc=43

Egypt election to begin April 28: adviser

47 minutes ago
By Marwa Awad and Yasmine Saleh | Reuters

CAIRO (Reuters) - Egyptian President Mohamed Mursi will call a parliamentary election starting April 28, a presidential legal adviser told Reuters on Thursday, saying the vote would be held in four stages.

Mursi and his Muslim Brotherhood backers hope the election will mark an end to a turbulent political transition punctuated by spasms of violence that have thwarted his efforts to revive an economy in deep crisis.

But the vote will take place in a country more divided than ever between Islamist parties that have come out on top in all the elections held since Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011 and a more secular-minded opposition that has struggled to organize.

Earlier in the day the Shura Council, the upper house of parliament, adopted an electoral law as amended by the Constitutional Court, clearing the way for Mursi to set a date for the lower house election.

"Parliamentary elections for 2013 will begin on April 28, over four stages," Mohamed Gadallah, a legal adviser to Mursi, told Reuters. A presidential source had earlier told Reuters Mursi would call the election starting in April.

The vote would be held in phases in different regions because of a shortage of poll supervisors. The last lower house election, which was won by Islamists, lasted from late November 2011 until January the following year.

Mursi had been expected to ratify the electoral law by February 25. The lower house was dissolved last year after the court ruled the original law used to elect it was unfair.

The new chamber is likely to have to decide on tough economic measures that the International Monetary Fund is demanding in return for a $4.8 billion loan which Egypt needs to tackle an economic crisis.

On Monday the Constitutional Court demanded changes to five articles of the revised electoral law. The Shura Council accepted this ruling and adopted the legislation without a vote on Thursday.

"The decision of the Constitutional Court is binding and we have no right to vote on it. It must be carried out," said Ahmed Fahmy, the Council's speaker.

The new law bars members of parliament from changing their political affiliation once elected. Under ousted president Hosni Mubarak, independents were often cajoled into joining the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which monopolized parliament and political life before the 2011 revolution.

The law also stipulates that one third of the lower house should be designated for independents and bans former members of the now defunct NDP from participating in politics for at least 10 years.

(Editing by David Stamp, Tom Perry and Michael Roddy)

Egypt Islamists say clerics must approve IMF loan

Feb 12, 2013
By Tom Perry | Reuters
Source: Yahoo News

Comment:  In Islam usury of any amount is totally unacceptable. Anyone, anyone who is involved in usury in any way, to any degree is an enemy of The Creator.  No Muslim country in any way should be involved in usury.  If  I was involved in writing a constitution for a Muslim country I would insist that it would ban all usury of any amount.  Some liberal Egyptians may think that the new constitution is Islamic. I have news for everyone, the new Egyptian constitution is far from being Islamic!  What the new Egyptian constitution is, is a product of compromise between:  "Islamists", Christians and Liberals.  I am upset with both President Morsi and the Egyptian Government for acting like they want to get a loan from the IMF. I  think that it is stupid of them.  Both provision and security are with Allah.  Any involvement with the IMF is provoking Allah's anger. Yet this government which is led by President Morsi is insisting on being involved with the IMF.  President Morsi is my brother in Allah, yet he is involving himself and Egypt in something which he should understand is dangerous. Why is it dangerous? Because anyone who involves themselves in usury is an enemy of The Creator. That is why!

Here is the article:
"CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt's main hardline Islamist party says an IMF loan agreement requires the approval of a body of Muslim scholars under the new constitution and it is considering legal action to make sure the government sticks to the law.

The case could set a marker on the extent to which clerics will have a say over state affairs according to the Islamist-tinged constitution that was signed into law in December following its approval in a referendum.

The Salafist Nour Party says the loan agreement, seen as vital to easing a deep economic crisis, must be approved by a body of senior scholars at Al-Azhar, a religious institution whose new role is embedded in the constitution.

Such a challenge could complicate the Muslim Brotherhood-led administration's effort to finalize the International Monetary Fund deal that was tentatively agreed last year but shelved following political unrest in Cairo.

Abdullah Badran, head of the Nour Party's bloc in the upper house of parliament, told Reuters the move was intended to "activate the role of the Senior Scholars' Authority in all matters pertaining to sharia (Islamic law)". He said the party was studying its legal options.

The Nour Party believes the IMF agreement must be vetted by the scholars because it includes a loan on which Egypt will pay interest - something that is forbidden under Islamic law.

The constitution states that the opinion of Al-Azhar's Senior Scholars' Authority must be sought "on matters pertaining to Islamic sharia". It does not say whether their opinion is binding on government nor make clear the scope of Al-Azhar's role.

The article is one of several written into the constitution by the Islamist-dominated committee that finalized the document in December, fast-tracking it into law despite the objections of liberals, leftists, feminists and Christians, among others.

The party has previously signaled it would not oppose such a loan on principle, citing arguments that allow Muslims flexibility in interpreting Islamic law when they have no alternative or face severe conditions.

The interest on any IMF loan is expected to be around 1.1 percent, far below market rates.

Badran said the party's main concern was to make the government apply the new constitution. "There are many reasons which must be researched for either taking the loan or not," he said.

"Our request is that the opinion of the Senior Scholars' Association be taken, on this agreement or other agreements (related to sharia)," he said.

The government has said IMF negotiators are due in Cairo soon to complete talks on the loan agreement, which would require Egypt to agree to a set of economic reforms including tax increases and cuts in subsidy spending.

Many economists, however, believe final ratification of the agreement could be pushed back to mid-year as the politicians try to avoid upsetting voters ahead of parliamentary elections due in April.

(Editing by Paul Taylor)"

Sources In Washington Say IMF’s Pot Of Cash Could Be Expanded From $350 Billion To $3.5 Trillion

Oct 5, 2011
Source:The Daily Bail

It is no secret that IMF head Christine Lagarde wants a massive increase in the size of the IMF's bailout fund. She's been lobbying publicly along those lines for the past month. What is new is the dollar figure now being floated. Keep in mind as you read this story that U.S. taxpayers contribute roughly 18% of all IMF funds, so the $3.5 trillion headline figure means $700 billion from the United States.

Any IMF funding increase would have to be approved by Congress, and judging by the blistering response below from Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rogers (the leading U.S. anti-IMF advocate), it will not be an easy sell.

---

NOTE - In the excerpt below we have changed all figures to U.S. dollars.

Source - Daily Mail

Sources in Washington said the IMF’s pot of cash could be expanded to $3.5 trillion.

Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the IMF, said the current war chest of around $350 billion ‘pales in comparison with the potential financing needs of vulnerable countries’ and needs to be expanded to deal with ‘worst-case scenarios’.

Following crisis talks in Washington at the weekend, Mrs Lagarde said: ‘The Fund’s credibility, and hence effectiveness, rests on its perceived capacity to cope with worst-case scenarios. Our lending capacity looks comfortable today but pales in comparison with the potential financing needs of vulnerable countries and crisis bystanders. It will be useful to discuss, soon, the needs and contingency options.’

---

Now for some sanity on this issue:

U.S. Has Already Contributed $100 Billion + to Bailouts

“We Cannot Take the ‘Too Big to Fail’ Philosophy to a Global Level”

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference, released the following statement today after International Monetary Fund (IMF) Director Christine Lagarde distributed a document at an IMF steering committee meeting warning that the IMF’s growing participation in European bailouts means the organization will likely need to increase its global bailout fund – a fund to which U.S. taxpayers have already contributed over $100 billion:

“At a time when the federal government is borrowing $5 billion every day on top of a $14 trillion national debt, we should not be funneling billions of dollars through the IMF to bail out Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and other European countries. The European Union was set up to be an economic competitor to the United States, and therefore, any bailout funds should come from the E.U., not the U.S.

The global debt crisis was caused by too much spending and borrowing and that crisis will not be solved by more spending and borrowing. We cannot take the ‘too big to fail’ philosophy to a global level. The only thing ‘too big to fail’ is America itself.”

The U.S. is the leading contributor to the IMF, providing the organization with 17.3 percent of its funding.

Bancor: The Name Of The Global Currency That A Shocking IMF Report Is Proposing

August 24th, 2010
Source: The Economic Collapse


Sometimes there are things that are so shocking that you just do not want to report them unless they can be completely and totally documented. Over the past few years, there have been many rumors about a coming global currency, but at times it has been difficult to pin down evidence that plans for such a currency are actually in the works. Not anymore. A paper entitled "Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability" by the Strategy, Policy and Review Department of the IMF recommends that the world adopt a global currency called the "Bancor" and that a global central bank be established to administer that currency. The report is dated April 13, 2010 and a full copy can be read here. Unfortunately this is not hype and it is not a rumor. This is a very serious proposal in an official document from one of the mega-powerful institutions that is actually running the world economy. Anyone who follows the IMF knows that what the IMF wants, the IMF usually gets. So could a global currency known as the "Bancor" be on the horizon? That is now a legitimate question.

So where in the world did the name "Bancor" come from? Well, it turns out that "Bancor" is the name of a hypothetical world currency unit once suggested by John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was a world famous British economist who headed the World Banking Commission that created the IMF during the Breton Woods negotiations.

The Wikipedia entry for "Bancor" puts it this way....

The bancor was a World Currency Unit of clearing that was proposed by John Maynard Keynes, as leader of the British delegation and chairman of the World Bank commission, in the negotiations that established the Bretton Woods system, but has not been implemented.

The IMF report referenced above proposed naming the coming world currency unit the "Bancor" in honor of Keynes.

So what about Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)? Over the past couple of years, SDRs have been touted as the coming global currency. Well, the report does envision making SDRs "the principal reserve asset" as we move towards a global currency unit....

"As a complement to a multi-polar system, or even—more ambitiously—its logical end point, a greater role could be considered for the SDR."

However, the report also acknowledges that SDRs do have some serious limitations. Since the value of SDRs are closely tied to national currencies, anything affecting those currencies will affect SDRs as well.

Right now, SDRs are made up of a basket of currencies. The following is a breakdown of the components of an SDR....

*U.S. Dollar (44 percent)

*Euro (34 percent)

*Yen (11 percent)

*Pound (11 percent)

The IMF report recognizes that moving to SDRs is only a partial move away from the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency and urges the adoption of a currency unit that would be truly international. The truth is that SDRs are clumsy and cumbersome. For now, SDRs must still be reconverted back into a national currency before they can be used, and that really limits their usefulness according to the report....

"A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries."

So what is the answer?

Well, the IMF report believes that the adoption of a true global currency administered by a global central bank is the answer.

The authors of the report believe that it would be ideal if the "Bancor" would immediately be used as currency by many nations throughout the world, but they also acknowledge that a more "realistic" approach would be for the "Bancor" to circulate alongside national currencies at first....

"One option is for bancor to be adopted by fiat as a common currency (like the euro was), an approach that would result immediately in widespread use and eliminate exchange rate volatility among adopters (comparable, for instance, to Cooper 1984, 2006 and the Economist, 1988). A somewhat less ambitious (and more realistic) option would be for bancor to circulate alongside national currencies, though it would need to be adopted by fiat by at least some (not necessarily systemic) countries in order for an exchange market to develop."

So who would print and administer the "Bancor"?

Well, a global central bank of course. It would be something like the Federal Reserve, only completely outside the control of any particular national government....

"A global currency, bancor, issued by a global central bank (see Supplement 1, section V) would be designed as a stable store of value that is not tied exclusively to the conditions of any particular economy. As trade and finance continue to grow rapidly and global integration increases, the importance of this broader perspective is expected to continue growing."

In fact, at one point the IMF report specifically compares the proposed global central bank to the Federal Reserve....

"The global central bank could serve as a lender of last resort, providing needed systemic liquidity in the event of adverse shocks and more automatically than at present. Such liquidity was provided in the most recent crisis mainly by the U.S. Federal Reserve, which however may not always provide such liquidity."

So is that what we really need?

A world currency administered by an international central bank modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Not at all.

As I have written about previously, the Federal Reserve has devalued the U.S. dollar by over 95 percent since it was created and the U.S. government has accumulated the largest debt in the history of the world under this system.

So now we want to impose such a system on the entire globe?

The truth is that a global currency (whether it be called the "Bancor" or given a different name entirely) would be a major blow to national sovereignty and would represent a major move towards global government.

Considering how disastrous the Federal Reserve system and other central banking systems around the world have been, why would anyone suggest that we go to a global central banking system modeled after the Federal Reserve?

Let us hope that the "Bancor" never sees the light of day.

However, the truth is that there are some very powerful interests that are absolutely determined to create a global currency and a global central bank for the global economy that we now live in.

It would be a major mistake to think that it can't happen.