>CounterPunch Subscription Information: >One year, individual, $40 >One year, institution, $100 >One year, student/low income, $25 >Back issues, $3.00 each > >To subscribe, make checks payable to: CounterPunch. Return to: Institute for >Policy Studies, Attn: CounterPunch (Z), 1601 Connecticut Avenue, NW, >Washington, D.C. 20009. Add $10 for foreign subscriptions. > >>March 16-31, 1998 >>Ken Silverstein & Alexander Cockburn >> Counter Punch >>VOL. 5, NO. 6 >>IN THIS ISSUE Liberals Bail Out the IMF -IT's THOSE FIERY LIBERALS >>AGAIN, SHILLING FOR THE BIG BANKS >> >>* AFL-CIO, Dave Bonior and Maxine Waters Hoist White Flag >> *Bob Borosage's Slimy Role >> * Left Meets Right: Sanders Finds True Friends >> >> >>Just a few months ago, liberals and labor scored one of their biggest >>triumphs of the Clinton years when Congress voted against the "fast >>track" bill, which would have increased the president's ability to >>negotiate "free trade" agreements without detailed examination on >>Capitol Hill. Bolstered by that victory, critics of corporate rule >>were convinced that the Clinton administration's plan to increase the >>US contribution to that collection agency for the big banks, the >>International Monetary Fund, was dead in the water. It seemed that the >>forces of darkness, if not on the run, had at least been temporarily >>checked. >> >>That was then. Today, it seems likely that Congress will approve a >>bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa giving the IMF $18 billion in >>fresh funds from the US. It was not, as some of our readers might >>imagine, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and other Republican leaders who >>turned the tide in favor of the IMF. That distinction lies with >>organized labor, "progressive" intellectuals like Bob Borosage and >>Robert Reich, and liberal Democrats such as Richard Gephardt, David >>Bonior and Maxine Waters. Indeed, every Democrat on the House Banking >>Committee voted for the Leach bill. The only dissent came from eight >>right-wing Republicans and Rep. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. >> >>Unlike the case with fast track, when President Clinton helped doom the >>corporate cause with an ill-judged lobbying campaign, the >>administration has pressed hard and effectively for the IMF. Treasury >>Secretary Robert Rubin was dispatched to terrify lawmakers with >>doomsday scenarios of a global economic crisis if Congress doesn't >>cough up the $18 billion. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was >>also deployed. With a single phone call, he persuaded Rep. John >>Kasich, a key Republican who sometimes opposes corporate welfare, to >>tone down his criticism of the IMF. Still, the IMF replen s ment faced >>seemingly insurmountable obstacles. >> >>And then the tide began to turn. Perhaps the largest share of the >>blame for the collapse of anti-IMF forces lies with organized labor >>(with the notable exception of the United Auto Workers). Earlier this >>year, the AFL-CIO issued a pathetic statement saying that it would >>support niembets of Congress who tried to condition additional funding >>to the IMF on protection for workers' rights and the environment. >>This, despite the fact that such provisions-as seen in the fabled "side >>agreements" attached to NAFTA-invariably prove toothless unless there >>are strict enforcement mechanisms. >> >>Many Democrats took the AFL-CIO's statement as a signal that they could >>vote for IMF expansion without paying a political price. Since >>Democrats on the Banking Committee depend on Wall Street money for >>their campaigns they took the AFL's posture as a perfect opportunity to >>jump ship. Why did the labor federation cave on the IMF in the first >>place? A knowledgeable congressional staffer tells us the AFL-CIO >>didn't want to oppose President Clinton on the issue because it feared >>he would retaliate by refusing to help labor on issues of more >>immediate importance (such as the uses of union dues). >> >>Many liberal Democrats ran up the white flag of surrender even before >>the AFL-CIO made clear it would stay on the sidelines. Reps. Barney >>Frank and Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts indicated at a very early date >>that they would support the Leach bill. In December, Gephardt-who is >>furiously gearing up his presidential run and has nightmares about >>being labeled as an "isolationist" by the New York Times editorial >>board-wrote Robert Rubin to say that he- favored IMF expansion and >>would work for the cause. Jesse Jackson Jr. accompanied Leach on a >>junket to Asia last fall and came back pronouncing himself to be a >>believer in free trade. >> >>What really killed the anti-IMF forces was the defection of Bonior-a >>leader of the fight against NAFRA and fast trackand to a lesser extent >>Maxine Waters. "Bonior looked around and saw everyone cozying up to >>the administration", the congressional staffer says. "Since there was >>no crowd that he could leap out in front of, he decided that he better >>get in line too." >> >>Meanwhile, liberal intellectuals like Borosage-who sees his mission in >>life as presenting to the world the official line "Progressives" should >>espouse on any given subject-were criticizing the IMF while at the same >>time offering up assorted rationalizations for sell-out. In January, >>Borosage and William Greider put out a joint statement titled "The >>Global Crisis: A Progressive Response". The two made no mention of >>blocking more money for the fund-the position of a coalition led by >>Public Citizen and other groups-and suggested that criticism of the >>fund was a "conservative" position. Instead, Borosage and Greider >>proposed that Congress "insure that future funding for the IMF does not >>simply make things worse" by making the fund "focus on reviving real >>economies of production". Congress should also require that the >>speculators and bankers who would benefit from replenishment of the >>fund "bear some of the cost of their own folly". In healthy contrast >>to this spineless cop-out, George Schultz and Walter Wriston, the >>former head of Citibank, opposed any new money for the IMF and said >>that the speculators should bear all the costs of their follies. >> >>In a March 2 article in The Nation, Borosage offered up the same mush >>in a call to delay a vote on the IMF expansion. "Time is needed to >>educate Congress and the public about a serious reform agenda", wrote >>Borosage, known around TheNation's offices as "Boring Sausage" because >>of his prose style. "Washington should in sist that the IMF makes its >>assistance conditional on backing labor rights and environmental >>protections ... If the vote is delayed, the fund's follies can be >>exposed to the light of democratic debate." >> >>Former labor secretary Robert Reich offered more explicit support for >>the forces of darkness. Along with 80 corporate executives and members >>of the permanent government such as Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and >>Paul Volcker, he signed a pro-IMF ad in the New York Times. Reich >>explained in a note to Walker Todd, a former official at the Federal >>Reserve Bank of Cleveland who opposes the IMF expansion, that he signed >>because "I felt that we need to maintain a strong coatition in favor of >>open markets and global institutions, while at the same time investing >>in our people." (See sidebar.) >> >>Thus it was that "Progressives" like Borosage did their utmost to >>snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's possible that Congress >>will approve the Leach bill (or a similar version) by early April. >>Liberal Democrats backing the bill claim that it will protect worker >>rights through a clause that says the US will work to "ensure that IMF >>policies and procedures endeavor to support internationally recognized >>worker rights" and consider "labor market policy in the context of >>achieving macroeconomic stability and providing the foundation for >>sustainable growth." >> >>None of this flim-flam is enforceable or binding. Indeed, since IMF >>policies are intended to provoke recession it's hard to see what terms >>like "macroeconomic stability" and "sustainable growth" can mean in >>this context. >> Robert Naiman of Public Citizen says the Leach bill "will have no >>effect on the ability of workers to exercise their fundamental rights." >>What's truly bizarre is that the best hope for anti-IMFers now takes >>the form of Rep. Chtis Smith, a leader of Congressional anti-abortion >>forces. While the "dog-shit liberal faction"-as one observer puts >>it-flees at the first sight of combat, Smith is utterly fearless in >>promoting his cause. He's trying to attach an amendment to the IMF >>replenishment bill that would deny federal funding for family planning >>groups that lobby foreign governments to change their abortion laws. >>Since Clinton says he will veto such a provision, the Smith amendment >>could derail the whole IMF bill. One side or the other might blink. >>Our bet is that the first to blink won't be Smith. >> >> [Sidebar] >> >>Memo to Reich: What about the People? >> >>Conservatives rather than liberals have been the toughest critics of >>handing over another $18 billion to the IMF. Consider part of a >>message that Walker Todd Republican populist-sent to Robert Reich in >>response to the latter's signature on the New York Times ad's advocacy >>of more money for the fund:"The IMF has become nothing more than a debt >>collector for the international banks. Keynes would be the first to >>denounce what his own creation has become. It's not enough to 'reform' >>the IMF or even to hope that it would work better if only 'good men and >>women' were running It- it now has an entrenched bureaucracy that is >>good at politics, Renaissance Florence-style. It would consume and >>spit out good men like yourself even if you were running it. >> >>"A reasonable political agenda that might enable a Keynes to spread the >>free trade gospel to the Heartland today would include HONEST advocates >>(met any in Washington, Boston, or New York lately?) taking up these >>complaints in reverse order: Make it clear that, by God, the losers >>WILL be compensated even if the US Marines have to take over the New >>York Fed; establish and enforce minimum admission standards for any new >>nation seeking partnership in a US-led free trade regime (NAFTA would >>have to be renegotiated for this); make it clear that the slightest >>whiff of slave, coerced, prison, or child-labor produced goods will get >>one promptly thrown out of the regime. "If you tried honestly to >>analyze the costs [of free trade] to Heartlanders and had to explain >>them yourself, instead of sticking to the standard litany of 'There are >>no costs to you, only benefits, and even if there are costs, we're sure >>that somebody (admittedly, probably not the Northeastern Establishment >>personally) will compensate you adequately for them, 'then maybe you'd >>see why some of us are appropriately skeptical of the ad that you and >>80 corporate CEOs signed. >> >>"In the great globalist economy, why should Heartlanders don the >>military uniform or tax themselves to defend investments abroad of >>corporations that consider themselves 'globalist'-not tied to, say, the >>USA? Does that remind you of the old royalist privileges in any way, >>believing that an Establishment gets to dispose of the lives and >>fortunes of the people for the Establishment's principal benefit, >>regardless of the cost to the people?"
