|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Miscellaneous |
|
IMF admits it will NOT obey basic Human Rights |
Current rating: 0 |
by Gustavo Capdevila
Email: rowden (nospam) action.org (unverified!) |
15 Aug 2001
|
|
IMF Deems Itself Above Certain Values, Say UN Experts |
GENEVA, Aug 9 (IPS) - The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has declared that it is not obligated to promote human rights around the world, responding to accusations that the institution has shown indifference to such principles. Grant B. Taplin, assistant director at the IMF\'s Geneva office, stated before the United Nations Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that the Fund, in a strict sense, does not have a mandate to promote human rights.
Nor is the IMF \'\'bound by various human rights declarations and conventions,\'\' Taplin stressed.
The discussion in the Subcommission - an advisory body of the UN Commission on Human Rights that is to wrap up its three-week sessions Aug 17 - arose from a specialised study that indicated international financial institutions \'\'dedicated scant time and space\'\' to the matters of fundamental rights and other social values.
This assertion - made by jurists Joseph Oloka-Onyango, of Uganda, and Deepika Udagama, of Sri Lanka - alludes to the IMF, but also to the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The Subcommission-sponsored study maintains that IMF and World Bank measures for debt reduction and the WTO\'s dispute settlement body do not take into account the human rights difficulties of developing countries.
The defence of the IMF delegation at the Subcommission sessions was based on the international accord that created the financial institution on Jan 1, 1946. \'\'Human rights were not mentioned in the articles of agreement,\'\' said Taplin.
Furthermore, he said, the autonomy of the IMF in the UN system was established in an accord with this international forum. However, the IMF was \'\'doing many things through many channels\'\' to promote human rights, such as its new poverty-fighting programmes.
Jurist Udagama countered that the IMF\'s plans for reducing poverty were limited to the same conditionality for credits but dressed in different clothing.
One of the oldest criticisms against the IMF takes aim at the strictness of its requirements for the authorisation of loans.
But Taplin pointed out that IMF rules impede the institution from approving financial aid without imposing certain conditions.
Most of the 26 independent experts serving on the Subcommission expressed surprise and frustration with the distance the IMF has taken from the matter of respect for human rights.
Fisseha Yimer, Subcommission expert from Ethiopia, described the Fund\'s assertions as \'\'quite blunt\'\' in that it \'\'did not have to follow human rights,\'\' but conceded the institution \'\'took steps that in any case promoted human rights.\'\'
Yozo Yokota, of Japan, stressed that human rights are \'\'peremptory norms\'\' that cannot be ignored \'\'even by agreements between states or in the operations of international financial institutions.\'\'
El-Hadji Guissé, meanwhile, Subcommission expert from Senegal, said the statement from the IMF, an entity with 183 member- nations, was cause for worry. \'\'Since its inception in 1945, it has only served as a debt collector for the developed (industrialised) countries.\'\'
Guissé accused the IMF and World Bank of carrying out protectionist policies and of protecting the economy of the industrialised nations, which is \'\'closed to the rest of the world.\'\'
Norway\'s expert on the Subcommission, Asbjorn Eide, said \'\'it appears at this stage that dialogue is not possible\'\' with the IMF, but asserted that the multilateral institution is bound by human rights law.
Brazilian Paulho Sergio Pinherio alluded to the \'\'splendid isolation\'\' of the IMF and in an ironic tone proposed that the transcriptions of the Subcommission debates be presented before the specialised bodies of the UN so that \'\'everyone could benefit from this bold and intriguing doctrine of the IMF on human rights.\'\'
In contrast, Fried Van Hoof, of the Netherlands, commented that \'\'the statement presented by (the IMF) representative was well- reasoned and cogent.\'\'
Louis Joinet, expert from France, agreed with Van Hoof, saying he did not think the phrase in question had the resonance it had been given by the Subcommission during Wednesday\'s sessions.
Mexico\'s Alonso Gómez-Robledo said the IMF, as well as the World Bank and WTO, lack international accountability due to the fact that they are not subject to international law.
To fill in this void, Gómez-Robledo proposed the creation of a framework agreement or convention among multilateral financial institutions.
The Mexican delegate to the Subcommission suggested that to achieve such an objective would require systematic pressure and coordination of the international community and civil society opinion, which \'\'in these arenas is a truly powerful weapon.\'\' (END/IPS/wd/if hd/tra-so ld/pc/dm/01)
|
See also:
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=59000&group=webcast
|
