http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=269497
Chavez and the IMF: A Brief History of Money
By Tracy Dove, Ph.D
Editor, Russia Today
May 4, 2007

 
As self-proclaimed champion of the underdogs of capitalism, Hugo Chavez has 
built a makeshift Coalition of the Unwilling to Participate in the Capitalist 
System from among various capitals around the world, and the path to Mr Chavez' 
doorway in Caracas is lined with supporters who think that nationalization of 
Venezuelan oil was a good place to start a new socialist revolution. Chavez' 
recent debut as the Peoples' economist, however, is premature, and his populist 
calls for a withdrawal from the IMF and World Bank are leaving many confused 
grimaces on the faces of his ministers. Chavez himself, appears nonplussed in 
his rhetoric- and chances are good that he doesn't understand exactly what the 
IMF is.

If we assume the worst is true, then we can easily see that Hugo Chavez is 
actually angry at the "Washington Consensus" movement in the IMF, and not the 
IMF and the World Bank themselves. But we must give credit where credit is due, 
and certainly the IMF is not the same institution that it was back in the 
mid-40's, when world leaders were concerned with establishing an agency to that 
could intervene and stabilize broad swings in currency valuations that brought 
about political instability earlier in the century. But the IMF has evolved 
with the times, and the so-called "Quiet Revolution" of the 1980's 
institutionalized the lending of funds based on the borrower's good intention 
to reform its social state. Since then, the IMF has become adviser and lender 
at the same time, touching on the nerves of national sovereignty and giving a 
soap box to the likes of leaders like Chavez.

What the President of Venezuela has in mind this very linkage that Argentina, 
Mexico, Thailand agreed to when they borrowed funds back in the 1990's to build 
their economies. The Washington Consensus at the time was an opinion shared in 
Washington, DC government circles that the IMF should become an active player 
in reforming countries where either budget deficits or excessive social 
expenditures were sapping economic vitality or preventing large internationals 
from tapping that vitality themselves. Pressure was exercised on the borrowing 
nations to lower or entirely remove tariffs and customs duties, and once 
EU-subsidized Italian tomatoes hit the market in Tunisia, they sold for less 
than the domestic variety.

The anti-globalization movement peaked at about the time that the Washington 
Consensus ceased to be the flavor of the month at the IMF, and in hindsight we 
see that these policies didn't save Russia or Argentina from currency 
devaluations. Chavez sees IMF advice as yet more proof that the Americans are 
having their way with other nations' economies, and his call to withdraw from 
the IMF and the World Bank was intended to look like another nationalization- 
of sorts. What Mr. Chavez doesn't realize is that the debt that he has been 
issuing to finance his socialist revolution is ironically backed by and sold 
under the scrutiny of the IMF, and to withdraw would mean automatic default and 
many more problems than the President of Venezuela could solve within his own 
borders, which he would be financially constrained to if he went through with 
the promises in his speeches.

At this moment, Zimbabwe is about to be expelled from the IMF for catastrophic 
handling of its economy. If Mr. Chavez still believes that a withdrawal from 
these institutions can be weathered by high oil prices, he may find himself 
closer to Mr. Mugabe than he may care to be. 


Tracy Dove, editor of Russia Today, is a Professor of History and the 
Department Chair of International Relations at the University of New York in 
Prague.

See all previous articles by Tracy Dove here.

<<uspolitics_exclusive.jpg>>

Reply via email to