Since the latest push for IMF expansion began in January, opponents have been arguing that the IMF should not receive any more money from the U.S. at this time, certainly not a $14.5 billion increase in the U.S. quota to the IMF. The disastrous track record of the IMF, including its handling of the Asian financial crisis and the recent developments in Russia, suggest that the IMF continues to implement policies that hurt the countries that it is supposed to be helping.

We have demanded fundamental reform of the IMF in many areas. One of our demands has been an overhaul of how the IMF handles the issue of debt relief for poor countries. The 50 Years Is Enough platform calls for immediate cancellation of the debt owed by the poorest countries to the IMF and the World Bank. While the IMF and World Bank hold a fifth of poor countries’ external debt, they claim half of poor countries’ debt service.

As part of our campaign against the IMF’s policies on debt relief, we have asked for legislation which would bar new U.S. funds to the IMF until its debt relief policies have changed. Representative Cynthia McKinney is offering an amendment to the Foreign Appropriations bill which would require the IMF to limit the external debt service payments of poor countries to no

more than 10% of export earnings before the IMF can get any more money from the U.S.

Currently Mozambique, by many measures the world’s poorest country, is paying a quarter of its export earnings on debt service. An analysis by Jubilee 2000 UK, using UNDP figures, estimates that if Mozambique were allowed to spend just half of the money it now spends on external debt service on health care and education instead, it could save the lives of 100,000 children every year.

There is a good historical precedent for the idea of limiting external debt service as a percentage of export earnings. After World War II, Germany was able to negotiate with its creditors such a cap on its external debt service. As a result, Germany was required to pay less than 3.5% of its export earnings on foreign debt service. Ironically, today the German government, representing German banks, is the most obstinate of G-7 countries about providing real debt relief.

The failure of the HIPC [Highly Indebted Poor Countries] initiative to bring about a significant reduction in the actual debt service paid by poor countries illustrates once again the hollowness of the Administration claim that the IMF is an institution which helps developing countries.

We hope that the ideas generated by our campaign against the IMF will spread, not only in the U.S., but around the world. We hope that more organizations and countries will oppose the granting of new funds to the IMF, and will support the implementation of real restrictions on the IMF, such as the debt relief amendment we have proposed