The International Monetary Fund is a specialized agency within the Bretton Woods Treaty system of the United Nations, established in 1945 to work to support the new global economy. Influence was divided between the two wings of the West. The World Bank was run by Jewish Americans, while the International Monetary Fund was run by European Jews, in order to ensure the continuation of colonial influence over the European colonies through economic methods.
History of the IMF
One year before the end of World War II, the International Monetary Conference was held at Bretton Woods in the United States of America, where it was agreed to withdraw gold from direct dealing from human hands and replace gold with banknotes. The United States of America pledged in the Bretton Woods Agreement to the countries of the world that whoever hands over thirty-five dollars will receive the dollar’s cover of gold, which is an ounce of gold. After this agreement, the dollar became called a hard currency, and the entire world, individuals and countries, began to trust the dollar as a currency for trading because it was reassured that the United States would deliver to it the equivalent of the dollar paper in gold upon request. The situation continued like this until President Nixon suddenly came out on the world and shocked the inhabitants of the globe – individuals, peoples and governments – that the United States would not hand over the holders of the dollar to its equivalent in gold, and that the dollar would float, that is, go down in the market under speculation, and its exchange rate was determined by supply and demand. At that time, they said that the window for America to exchange its dollars for its equivalent in gold had been closed. This major incident was called internationally the Nixon shock. Thus, the banknotes remained with the world’s population and could no longer be exchanged for gold, and the Jews who owned gold remained the richest and controlled the global economy, while they enslaved peoples and countries with papers whose monetary value they controlled up and down.
Violating the sovereignty of states
The International Monetary Fund performs its colonial tasks through three basic paths: 1- Lending: Giving short-, medium- and long-term loans to member states that are struggling to fulfill their international obligations. Loans or rescue packages are provided in exchange for the implementation of specific conditions for the Fund to allegedly help restore macroeconomic dynamism leading to sustainable growth. 2- Technical assistance: This is through practical support and targeted training such as providing advice on tax policy, expenditure management, monetary policy, exchange rate, regulation of the financial system, privatization, trade liberalization, etc. 3- Monitoring: It is a formal system that is a review that monitors the financial and economic policies of member countries to ensure that they are living within the limits of their means. Developments follow one another at the national, regional and global levels. In this process, Fund officials regularly consult with member countries and provide advice on economic and financial policies. This point is considered the Achilles’ heel of interference in the affairs of countries and violating their sovereignty.
The real face of the fund
Part of this monitoring takes place before granting the state the loan, which is related to watching the countries implement the reform packages that the bank requires to grant the loan, such as imposing more taxes, floating the local currency, raising subsidies, and offering public projects for sale to the private sector. The true face of the fund appears when the country is absolutely unable to pay; International organizations intervene to organize its finances and reform its economic system. The International Monetary Fund is concerned with adjustment programs and monetary and financial reform policies, and the World Bank is concerned with promoting development, and thus Western countries intervene in all of the developing country’s economic, educational, political, governmental, cultural and social affairs.
Fund victims
During the past thirty years, more than eighty severe economic and banking crises occurred in Third World countries. The common denominator in these crises was the International Monetary Fund and its conditions, tools, and advice, which exacerbated the countries’ crises, increased their suffering, and deteriorated their conditions in general. Among the most prominent victims of the Fund during this period were the most famous South American countries: First: Mexico: Mexico’s journey with the International Monetary Fund began in 1982 with a loan amounting to $3.9 billion, after the Mexican government complied with the “structural adjustment” programs carefully drawn up by the Fund. Then the situation went from bad to worse, and the Mexican peso collapsed in 1994, and the state of “the Fund’s addiction” prompted Mexico to demand assistance again. The Fund provided a loan of $75.7 billion in 1995 with the condition of implementing deeper structural measures, and Mexico implemented. Economic or social conditions did not improve, but were quite the opposite. This resulted in an economic meltdown that ate everything, and Mexico was on the verge of defaulting on its debts to the global financiers who were essentially the cause of this problem. Since then, the Mexican people have been suffering in extreme poverty, and one crisis after another. Last May, the Fund again approved a flexible credit line to Mexico worth $88 billion. From 1982 until now, the “model student” – as the International Monetary Fund described it in 1994, calling on Latin American countries to follow its example – has not succeeded in getting out of its successive crises, but rather has more problems and then borrows again. Some economists, including Professor Lester Thoreau, Dean of the School of Economics at the prestigious MIT University, believed that the option of stopping payments was better for Mexico than the option of the rescue package that the IMF had prepared for it. Second: Brazil: Brazil’s crisis – which continues to this day – with the World Bank began in the 1970s during the Brazilian military dictatorship, when the Brazilian government, represented by military personnel, resorted to borrowing from the World Bank under the pretext of establishing infrastructure projects, which the World Bank agreed to and granted billions of dollars to Brazil, and the loans were used to finance huge projects such as dams, many of which did not even meet the goals set by the World Bank based on its studies. With the accumulation of interest and debts on Brazil and the pressure exerted by the World Bank, the Brazilian government decided during the 1980s to borrow new money to pay off the interest on old loans. The period between 1985 and 1989 was called the “lost decade” of Brazil’s life when it witnessed that period. A massive transfer of national wealth outside the country, as the Brazilian government paid about $148 billion – including $90 billion in interest on foreign loans. In a World Bank report issued in 1991, the bank estimated that 55% of its projects in Brazil failed. In the 1990s, Brazil reached rock bottom with the accumulation of debt and pressure from the World Bank under a series of civilian governments. The World Bank forced Brazil to adopt austerity policies while lifting regulatory restrictions on industries, selling state institutions, and reducing government spending, in addition to raising taxes on citizens. In the late 1990s, Brazilian President Cardoso accelerated the World Bank’s reform vision. The profitable state telephone company and a profitable publicly owned mining company were sold to multinational corporations, and government spending on social services was reduced until poverty, falling incomes and rising prices burned citizens out. However, Brazil did not succeed in providing the huge amounts of interest on World Bank loans, so Cardoso was forced in November 1999 to place the administration of Brazil at the mercy of the International Monetary Fund to a greater extent when he approved a new loan package from the Fund amounting to $5.41 billion, which led to the World Bank intervening in the direct rule of Brazil, determining state policies, dividing its lands, raising the value of taxes, and devaluing the currency to catastrophic levels, until the Brazilian economy reached a stage of long-term recession, which led the country to Ruin. Third: Argentina: As for Argentina, the sale and privatization of basic state resources was the share of the eighth largest country in the world in terms of area. After implementing the World Bank’s plan without hesitation during the 1990s, Argentina reached the bottom. The World Bank’s plan consisted of several steps, the first of which was liberalizing the price of the Argentine currency, the peso, against the dollar. The second step was privatization and the sale of state resources. Throughout the 1990s, Argentina sold what the Argentines called “grandma’s jewelry,” oil, gas, water, electricity companies, and government banks, so that the rural water networks went to the French company “Vivendi,” and “Enron Texas” won the oil transportation pipelines, and an investment company from the American state, “Boston,” took over the local banks. With continued pressure from the World Bank, Argentina privatized even the social security system, and many of its allocations were transferred to private accounts. This step was followed by a rise in the unemployment rate, which the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund recognized as high unemployment in the capital. “Buenos Aires” from 17% to 22% – resulting from these decisions, the acts of violence and looting that shook the city in December of 2001. Not only that, but the Central Bank put pressure on Argentina to follow a new policy – the worst of its kind – which is the privatization of drinking water through a concession system in favor of major foreign companies – which are partners and financiers of the World Bank, so that drinking water prices rose by about 177%.
