When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Enjoy unlimited access to quality journalism.

Limited time offer

Get your 30-day free trial!
InterNations -Your expat community
Geopolitics

The Folly Of American Isolationism, Revisited

The International Monetary Fund could be crucial providing aid in Ukraine and elsewhere, but much is on hold as the U.S. Congress blocks much needed IMF reforms.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde
IMF chief Christine Lagarde

-Editorial-

SAO PAULO — It’s been a sad spectacle in the U.S. Congress, as the body has refused to ratify the statutes of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which the country’s own government proposed three years ago.

All other IMF member states have already ratified the reforms, which give more power to emerging countries and double the contributions paid by the 188 member states, increasing the fund’s ability to extend credits to countries facing problems.

The IMF’s financing capacity is significant. The fund is, after all, considering a $15 billion loan to Ukraine, which would strengthen the country economically and help it fend off Russian President Vladimir Putin’s imperialist harrassment. The IMF loan is seven times bigger than the one from Europe and 15 times more than the $1 billion the United States has earmarked for the embattled Eastern European nation.

And during the financial crisis of 2008-9, the IMF practically reached its lending ceiling with the credit lines it extended to several developing countries.

Since its creation 70 years ago, the IMF has been the world’s greatest source of massive emergency funds and of rapid payments to countries facing economic or financial crisis. The IMF has allowed these countries to recover growth while returning to fiscal equilibrium, ordering their finances and curbing inflation with cautious monetary policies — everything the U.S. asks them to do. It is no coincidence that the IMF is based in Washington, DC.

In this context, the refusal by the U.S. Congress to approve IMF reforms is all the more shortsighted. The effect is that Washington’s natural allies are increasingly disinclined to back its foreign policy initiatives.

Isolationist rhetoric by the Tea Party movement, whose arguments are ignorant at best, has unfortunately taken the Republican Party hostage, while the Democrats and the Obama Administration have failed to take the issue seriously enough.

One Republican argument for opposing the IMF reforms is that the United States would lose its veto power. A 6% increase in voting power for emerging nations would come at the expense of the relative weight of European states, which would lose two seats on the fund’s board of directors. The United States would maintain its current veto right after reforms.

Another argument against the reforms is that they would increase the financial burden on U.S. taxpayers. False again: Congress allocated these funds to the IMF five years ago. They would merely go from being a temporary fund to becoming permanent resources of the IMF.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde has explained the absolute need for the reforms, even as the United States’ own allies echo the calls. Britian’s Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne most recently urged the American Congress to approve the reform as soon as possible.

And the time to do that is now. IMF members walked away disappointed and frustrated from last week’s annual meeting, by which point Congress still had not acted. The U.S. is abdicating its leadership role and revealing an isolationist streak. Another sign that this will not be a great American century.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in
Green

Good COP, Bad COP? How Sharm El-Sheik Failed On The Planet's Big Question

The week-long climate summit in Egypt managed to a backsliding that looked possible at some point, it still failed to deliver on significant change to reverse the effects of global warming.

Photo of a potted tree lying overturned on the ground in Sharm el-Sheikh as the COP27 summit concludes.

A potted tree lies overturned on the ground in Sharm el-Sheikh as the COP27 summit concludes.

Matt McDonald*

For 30 years, developing nations have fought to establish an international fund to pay for the “loss and damage” they suffer as a result of climate change. As the COP27 climate summit in Egypt wrapped up over the weekend, they finally succeeded.

While it’s a historic moment, the agreement of loss and damage financing left many details yet to be sorted out. What’s more, many critics have lamented the overall outcome of COP27, saying it falls well short of a sufficient response to the climate crisis. As Alok Sharma, president of COP26 in Glasgow, noted:

"Friends, I said in Glasgow that the pulse of 1.5 °C was weak. Unfortunately it remains on life support."

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in

The latest

InterNations