Voice of Revolution

Analyzing Where Obama is Headed

Obama Economic Advisors and Initial Appointments

As Barack Obama carries out his transition to the presidency, analyzing his advisors, transition team and appointments provide an indication of where he is headed. In this issue Buffalo Forum begins to provide information on Obama’s economic advisors and transition team and two of his appointments, Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff and Janet Napolitano for the Department of Homeland Security. It appears that Secretary of State will likely go to Hillary Clinton. For Attorney General, Obama has chosen Eric Holder, who served as deputy attorney general in the Bill Clinton administration. We will continue providing information as appointments are made and urge our readers to go to the Voice of Revolution website (usmlo.org) for more information.

Economic Advisors

Obama’s “economic advisory board” includes billionaire Warren Buffet, Lawrence H. Summers, who was Treasury Secretary under Clinton, Robert E. Rubin, also a former Clinton Treasury Secretary, Paul A. Volcker, former chairmen of the Federal Reserve, the private central bank, William Donaldson, former chairmen of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Xerox CEO Ann Mulcahy, and Eric E. Schmidt, chief executive of Google. Los Angles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa and Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm are also members.

Lawrence H. Summers, considered a candidate for Obama’s Treasury Secretary, was a member of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan from 1982-1983. He also served as an economic adviser to the Dukakis Presidential campaign in 1988. In 1991 he served as Chief Economist for the World Bank (1991–1993) and later in Clinton’s Treasury Department. He was President of Harvard University from 2001-2006.

Robert Rubin is currently Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup. He also worked for Goldman Sachs for many years. Volcker worked with Chase Manhattan Bank when not working either for the Treasury Department or the Federal Reserve.

Two other members are David Bonior and Robert Reich. Bonoir is a former member of the House of Representatives from Michigan. He is known for having opposed the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA). Reich was Labor Secretary under Clinton and is a former Harvard professor.

The full list for his advisory board is:

• David Bonior (member of House of Representatives, 1977-2003)
• Warren Buffett (chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway)
• Roel Campos (former commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC)
• William Daley (Midwest chairman of JPMorgan Chase; secretary of commerce, 1997-2000)
• William Donaldson (chairman of the SEC, 2003-2005)
• Roger Ferguson (president and CEO of TIAA-CREF; former vice chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve)
• Jennifer Granholm (governor of Michigan)
• Anne Mulcahy (chairman and CEO of Xerox)
• Richard Parsons (chairman of the board of Time Warner)
• Penny Pritzker (CEO of Classic Residence by Hyatt)
• Robert Reich (professor at the University of California-Berkeley; secretary of labor, 1993-1997)
• Robert Rubin (chairman and director of the Executive Committee at Citigroup; secretary of the Treasury, 1995-1999)
• Eric Schmidt (chairman and CEO of Google)
• Lawrence Summers (professor at Harvard University; managing director at D. E. Shaw; secretary of the Treasury, 1999-2001)
• Laura Tyson (professor at the Haas School of Business, University of California-Berkeley; chairman of the National Economic Council, 1995-1996; chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, 1993-1995)
• Antonio Villaraigosa (mayor of Los Angeles)
• Paul Volcker (chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, 1979-1987)

To oversee the Treasury Department transition, Obama has chosen two former Clinton officials, Joshua Gotbaum and Michael J. Warren. Gotbaum worked with investment banker Felix G Rohatyn at Lazard Freres. Under Clinton he was an assistant secretary of defense, assistant secretary of treasury and controller of the Office of Management and Budget. He also oversaw the restructuring of -bankrupt Hawaiian Airlines. He has utilized the federal funds provided by the No Child Left Behind Act to establish a company that provides tutoring services.

Warren was executive director of Clinton’s National Economic Council. He worked as a strategic consultant to technology and finance companies for McKinsey & Company. He is chief operating officer for Stonebridge International, a business consulting and government relations firm co-founded by Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security advisor. The firm’s website says it has helped a metals manufacturer navigate Russian politics, a retailer win approval for an acquisition in China and a chemical company with European safety and environmental regulations.

It now appears that Obama will choose Tim Geithner for Treasury Secretary. Geithner is currently head of the New York Federal Reserve, part of the private banking system under the Federal Reserve. As such he has played a major role in the government’s Wall Street bail out. He was also part of the Treasury Department under Clinton. At the International Monetary Fund he was director of the Policy Development and Review Department (2001-2003). He was also a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, where the ruling circles gathers as a class to work out the leading role of the U.S. in the world system of imperialist states.

[TOP]

Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff

Chief of staff for the president is one of the more significant jobs within the White House. While it is not on a par with cabinet positions such as Secretary of State, Defense, Treasury, Homeland Security or Attorney General, it is important in the strengthening of the role of the executive. Unlike cabinet posts, White House staff requires no approval from Congress. The job commonly includes being point man for the president’s legislative agenda and a buffer between the president and Congressional representatives when needed. In addition to organizing the White House staff, the chief of staff commonly has an influential role in the deal making with Congress members, orchestrating how and when the president’s legislative agenda is pushed through Congress. The role the chief of staff plays, or does not play, in policy making depends largely on the president. In appointing Rahm Emanuel to the position, Barack Obama said, “I announce this appointment first because the Chief of Staff is central to the ability of a President and Administration to accomplish an agenda. And no one I know is better at getting things done than Rahm Emanuel.

“During his seven years in the Clinton White House, Rahm was the point man on some of the most difficult issues, from the passage of landmark anti-crime legislation to the expansion of health care coverage for children. In just six years in Congress, he has risen to leadership, helping to craft myriad important pieces of legislation and guide them to passage. In between, Rahm spent several years in the private sector, where he worked on large and complicated financial transactions. That experience, combined with his service on the committees on Ways and Means and Banking, have given Rahm deep insights into the challenging economic issues that will be front and center for our Administration.”

Rahm Emanuel is a long-time Democratic Party functionary. In 1985 he was Midwest field director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He was a major fundraiser for Democrat Richard M. Daley in his successful run for mayor of Chicago in 1989, raising $7 million.

In 1991-92 he went to Little Rock, Arkansas to be a fundraiser for Bill Clinton. He ended up directing Clinton’s campaign finance committee. He earned the name Rahmbo in this period, for his take-no-prisoners approach to anyone he considered a “disloyal Democrat.” He has kept the name to this day.

In 1993 Emanuel was named President Clinton’s political director, with his office next to the president’s. He was part of Clinton’s “brain trust” and played an important role in negotiations between Israel and Palestine to secure the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993. He also was a major advocate for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and acted as point-man for the White House in getting it passed in Congress in 1993. NAFTA has served as an instrument of the monopolies against the peoples of the U.S., Canada and Mexico and is widely opposed in all three countries. Emanuel also helped Clinton secure his welfare bill, which forced millions of women and children off welfare, and his crime bill, where the death penalty was applied for the first time for charges of “terrorism.” Emanuel stayed in the Clinton administration until 1998.

After leaving the Clinton White House, Emanuel worked as an investment banker on Wall Street. He was on the board of directors for Freddie Mac, the mortgage company recently bailed out by the government.

In 2002, he ran for office and was elected to the House of Representatives for the 5th District of Illinois, which includes most of Chicago’s North Side from Lake Michigan into the western suburbs. The district includes Lakeview, Uptown, and Lincoln Park in Chicago and suburban Schiller Park, Franklin Park, River Grove, Elmwood Park, Northlake, and Melrose Park.

Emanuel voted for the 2002 authorization for use of force against Iraq and has been a strong supporter of the war. He voted for war funding bills in 2003 and 2005 and opposes any timetable for withdrawal.

In 2005, House leader Nancy Pelosi appointed Emanuel head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2006 elections. He played a main role in deciding the candidates nationwide. He organized to promote and fund pro-war Democrats, while attacking and refusing funds for candidates running as Democrats that were more anti-war. This included, for example, opposing “mildly anti-war” Democrat Christine Cegelis in the Illinois primaries, though she had been the candidate in the previous election for the 6 th District. Emanuel chose instead to promote a retired Illinois Army National Guard Major Tammy Duckworth, who at the time did not even live in the district. Emanuel raised $1 million for her campaign while blocking party funds for Cegelis. He also lined up Obama, Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Joe Lieberman to support Duckworth. Duckworth managed to win the primary, 44% to 40% for Cegelis, but then lost the election, with voters opposing her pro-war stand. Most of the candidates chosen and funded by Emanuel in the 45 closely contested House races in 2006 — 64 percent — opposed having a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. This was contrary to the large majority of Democratic voters, who were in favor of immediately ending the war. His efforts helped insure that, contrary to the anti-war vote of the people in 2006 giving Democrats a majority Congress remained pro-war.

Emanuel also published a book in 2006 along with the Democratic Leadership Council’s president Bruce Reed called: “The Plan: Big Ideas for America.” It included calls for a “tough new national security policy” and expanding the “war on terror” by fortifying the military’s presence worldwide and “adding to the U.S. Special Forces and the Marines, and by expanding the U.S. Army by 100,000 more troops.” This is now part of Barack Obama’s program.

As a politician Emanuel’s main funding, and source for fundraising, has been Wall Street, including hedge funds, private equity firms and banks. In 2008 he was the top House recipient of contributions from Wall Street securities and investment firms.

He also comes from a strongly pro-Israeli family. Emanuel volunteered with the Israeli Army in 1991 during the first Gulf War. His father was born in Israel and was part of the terrorist Zionist organization Irgun, which carried out massacres of the Palestinians in the 1940s. The Israeli press refers to him now as “our man in the White House.” He has been a strong defender of the Zionists through out his career. In June 2003, for example, he signed a letter criticizing Bush for being insufficiently supportive of Israel. “We are deeply dismayed to hear your criticism of Israel for fighting acts of terror,” the letter from Emanuel and 33 other Democrats said. The letter went on to support Israel’s policy of assassinating Palestinian political leaders saying it “was clearly justified as an application of Israel’s right to self-defense.” Emanuel supported the 2006 bombings of Palestine and Lebanon by Israel, which caused thousands of civilian deaths.

Emanuel has played a role in promoting anti-immigrant legislation, often joining the Republicans. He continues to call for increased border security and increasing the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

He also is a main proponent of uniting all in the “common purpose” of backing the executive rule of the White House. In accepting the appointment he said, “I want to say a special word about my Republican colleagues, who serve with dignity, decency and a deep sense of patriotism. We often disagree, but I respect their motives. Now is a time for unity, and Mr. President-elect, I will do everything in my power to help you stitch together the frayed fabric of our politics, and help summon Americans of both parties to unite in common purpose.

“It has been almost 150 years since Americans turned to a proud son of Illinois as their President. Early in his first term, Abraham Lincoln said, ‘The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.’

“Today, once again, our country is piled high with difficulty, and Americans have put their trust in President-elect Barack Obama and Vice-President-elect Joe Biden to think and act anew. And Mr. President-elect, I promise that your White House will do everything in our power to rise to the occasion.”

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal shortly after his appointment, Emanuel said, “Our challenge is to work to solve the actual problems that the country is facing, not work to satisfy any constituency or ideological wing of the party.” Speaking to the Democrats in Congress, he said, “Although committed to their philosophy, they are incredibly pragmatic. They have lived through an experience in the minority. And they know how they got to be in the minority. And they know one very important political principle. They know that if President-elect Obama succeeds, all of us succeed. And if he doesn’t succeed, his failures won’t be limited to him.” He said that it is necessary to “constantly be turning over the intellectual topsoil in order to stay fresh.” He concluded, “The economy demands it. The political system demands it. The country doesn’t want divided gov ernment. It wants progress.”

[TOP]

Janet Napolitano, Secretary for Homeland Security

President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Janet Napolitano, current Governor of Arizona, to head the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While still undergoing a vetting process by the Obama transition team, she has accepted the appointment and is expected to become Secretary of DHS. In choosing Napolitano, Obama is giving emphasis to border and immigration issues and to the use of raids by DHS’s Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) backed up by national guardsmen. As Governor in a border state, Napolitano is known for her demand in to have the National Guard patrol the border in Arizona. She also declared a state of emergency in Arizona in 2005 to secure more federal funds and policing forces for use against undocumented workers and their families on the border.

The DHS was created after September 11, is one of the largest departments and includes not only the various border agencies, ICE, Customs & Border Protection, and Citizenship & Immigration Services, but also the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for airports, the Secret Service, Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Napolitano, a lawyer, also brings her experience as a U.S. Attorney for Arizona (four years) and as the State Attorney General of Arizona (one year). She supports programs turning immigrant workers into indentured servants, known as “guest worker” programs. She has also used “identity theft” and “document counterfeiting” charges against immigrants. Use of “identity theft” charges is a main mechanism now being used by ICE across the country to target workers. While Napolitano also targeted some employers, the main impact, as is the case nationally, is to terrorize immigrants and their communities.

Napolitano is also a main backer of the Real ID Act, but has demanded that the federal government pay for it. The Real ID Act requires that everyone have and carry what is basically a national ID card, issued by the federal government or by the states, in the form of federally standardized driver’s license that meet federal government requirements. These requirements include both specific documentation to receive the card or license as well as biometric identifiers, like eye-scans or fingerprints, as part of the card. In order to work, vote, receive federal benefits, enter federal buildings, everyone is to have ID consistent with the Real ID Act. Implementation in some states has already meant that millions of people cannot receive the card or license as they lack the required documentation. Its full implementation nationwide will mean the federal government can determine who can and cannot work, or vote, or receive Medicare or other welfare benefits. As Secretary of DHS, she will be in a position to further expand such ID requirements and militarization of the border.

Napolitano was first elected Governor in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. She is currently a member of the Democratic Governors Association Executive Committee and has also served previously as Chair of the Western Governors Association, and the National Governors Association. She endorsed Obama for president in January of 2008 and is a member of his transition team.

[TOP]

Advocates Demand that Obama Stop Raids, Provide Legalization for All

Dozens of immigrant rights organizers a from across the country convened in Washington November 11 to call on President-elect Barack Obama to halt immigration raids and provide legalization now for all. They urged Obama to make passage of a just immigration law that defends the rights of immigrants and all workers a priority for his first year in office.

Participants included activists from Los Angeles, New York and the Washington area. They also announced plans to mobilize tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters for demonstrations December 12, Human Rights Day and again on January 21, the day after Obama’s inauguration.

“We voted in the millions and now we are going to demand progress in the millions,” said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles at a news conference to publicize the coalition’s efforts. Two-thirds of the Latino vote went to Obama, compared with barely more than half for Democratic nominee Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential race. And Hispanics, who tend to favor the path to legalization plan, proved particularly helpful to Obama and other Democrats in the three battleground states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado.

As one of the posters for actions December 12 is putting it: Yesterday We Voted, Today We March for Rights. The immigrant community and workers across the country are united in their stand that an attack on one is an attack on all. Attempts to divide the immigrants and pit them against other workers are being met with united actions defending the rights of all.

[TOP]

G-20 Statement on the Economic Crisis —

A Declaration of Monopoly Right

K.C. Adams

From beginning to end, the G-20 statement issued after the November 14-15 summit in Washington, DC is an assault on the rights of the people won in the victory over fascism and militarism during the heroic battles before, during and following World War II — the sacrifices and courageous battles of the people for their rights in the Spanish Civil War, against British colonialism in India, the defense of the Soviet Union from German invasion, the victories of the Korean, Vietnamese and Chinese peoples over Japanese and U.S. militarism and countless other battles waged by the working class, peasantry and anti-imperialists for their sovereignty and right to be. These developments were formalized in the recognition by the United Nations that people have rights by virtue of being human and governments have a social responsibility to guarantee those rights in law and practice, that peoples and nations have sovereign rights to live in peace and free from interference by other powers no matter how powerful, and that war and preparations for war, including propaganda for war, are crimes against humanity and should be severely punished. The progressive consciousness that emerged from the period of the anti-fascist, anti-militarist, anti-colonial upsurge of the world’s peoples was summed up in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly December 10, 1948.

The imperialists of the Triad (U.S., Europe and Japan) led by the monopoly capitalists of the United States never reconciled with the verdict that emerged from that heroic period and have sought in every manner possible to take the world back to fascism, militarism and colonialism. The G-20 statement of the Triad dictators expresses the confidence that monopoly right has become unassailable and can dictate its will on the peoples and nations of the world even in the midst of an economic crisis. Throughout the statement, the right of the owners of monopoly capital to protect and expand their social wealth with impunity is held as paramount. The right of the people to use the social wealth they have produced to guarantee the security and rights of all and the well-being of their nations and socialized economies is never mentioned.

The G-20 statement reads:

“Commitment to an Open Global Economy

“We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems.”

This is a universal declaration of monopoly right. The Triad dictators declare that peoples and nations of the world if they are to be recognized as legitimate must commit to “free market principles, respect for private property, and open trade and investment and competitive markets.” In practice, this means the hegemony of the U.S. dollar in international settlements and currency reserves, and the domination of world markets, raw materials and chattel labor by the most powerful monopolies backed up by their respective private and public militaries.

The monopolies of the Triad have usurped power and have accumulated social wealth by force. The accumulated social wealth usurped by force is defined as “capital,” which represents an unequal social relationship among human beings worldwide. “Capital” and its global movement represent a social relation among unequal social classes and nations.

Monopoly right through the force of its capital, established militaries and institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and WTO and other unequal trading regimes, seizes added-value produced by the people and transforms it into yet more unequal social relations called “capital.” Existing capital, an unequal social relation maintained by force, is used to overwhelm the working class, sovereign nations and their economies to capture even greater quantities of social wealth as “private property” of the rich and powerful punctuated repeatedly with economic crises and war.

The G-20 statement demands that “Definitions of capital should be harmonized in order to achieve consistent measures of capital and capital adequacy.” Dictating, defining and harmonizing the unequal social relation “capital to achieve consistent measures of capital and capital adequacy” negates social wealth as use-value that can be employed to guarantee the security and rights of the people and the well-being, independence, growth and stability of socialized economies.

The Triad dictators define capital not as an unequal social relation but as private property, primarily a fantastic variable representation of something real and material such as money or currency. They give this unequal social relation (capital) “rights” and declare it necessary for human development, and denounce and attack all those who may want to restrict its rights.

For monopoly capital to exist and have rights, the human rights of the people must be negated. For the human rights of people to flourish, the rights of capital have to be negated. This is the contradiction that is played out every hour of every day. It is the clash between the human rights of the people and monopoly right.

The negation of monopoly capital and its rights is what the Triad dictators of the G-20 want to avoid at all cost. They are deeply afraid that the economic crisis will awaken the people to the necessity to negate monopoly right. To divert attention from this necessity the G-20 statement raises the necessity of protecting capital, the unequal social relation: “Private sector bodies that have already developed best practices for private pools of capital and/or hedge funds should bring forward proposals for a set of unified best practices.... We should explore ways to restore emerging and developing countries’ access to credit and resume private capital flows which are critical for sustainable growth and development, including ongoing infrastructure investment.” The Triad dictators insist that the capturing of the people’s social wealth and its transformation and diversion into “private capital flows” is not the cause of the economic crisis, poverty, instability, insecurity and degradation of the social and natural environments. Contrary to all science and material evidence, they insist the maintenance of an unequal social relation called capital is “critical for sustainable growth and development.” The lords of the financial oligarchy can say and write whatever makes them feel self-satisfied about their archaic and criminal rule and domination of the socialized economies of the world but reality has a way of biting even aristocrats in the neck as they experienced during the French Revolution. Economic reality during this crisis and the fundamental contradiction between socialized production and private ownership are leading workers and anti-imperialists to organize to restrict monopoly right, affirm their human rights and sovereignty, and prepare themselves to take collective ownership of socialized production and its control and direction.

Annexation within the Imperialist System of States

The G-20 statement crudely demands adherence and servile allegiance to the imperialist system of states dominated by the monopolies of the Triad and their states. The G-20 statement declares: “To the extent countries or regions have not already done so, each country or region pledges to review and report on the structure and principles of its regulatory system to ensure it is compatible with a modern and increasingly globalized financial system.” According to the Triad dictators, national sovereignty and a self-reliant independent economy that upholds the rights of all by virtue of being human are not “compatible with a modern and increasingly globalized financial system.” This is more a political statement using neoliberal dogma than a serious analysis of the economic crisis. The Triad equates “a modern and increasingly globalized financial system” with the right of the most powerful monopolies to run roughshod over the sovereign nations and peoples of the world. To make this position clear, the G-20 statement warns all those nations and peoples who may try to exercise their sovereign rights within the imperialist system of states or worse remove their economies completely and have relations with the Triad from outside its dictate will be labeled failed states and subjected to blockades, boycotts or military invasion. This is not an idle threat, as Cuba, the DPRK, Iraq and many others can recount.

An aspect of this attack on sovereignty is the insistence on standards. The G-20 statement says: “The key global accounting standards bodies should work intensively toward the objective of creating a single high-quality global standard.” Free trade and other imperialist agreements always demand standardization to subsume the annexed territory into the authority of the imperialist power. Such is the case with Canada and Mexico within NAFTA, and the more recent TILMA executive decree between Alberta and BC that establishes the right of monopolies and investors to expect only the lowest standard, making it difficult for cities and municipalities to defend their own standards on such issues as environmental protection or social housing.

Along with imperialist standardization comes the threat of sanctions for those countries that fail to comply. The G-20 statement says: “National and regional authorities should work to promote information sharing about domestic and cross-border threats to market stability and ensure that national (or regional, where applicable) legal provisions are adequate to address these threats. National and regional authorities should also review business conduct rules to protect markets and investors... (and) to protect the international financial system In case of misconduct, there should be an appropriate sanctions regime.” The Triad dictators while ostensibly discussing an economic crisis of their own making use the occasion to forewarn all those who would deviate from the norms and standards of the imperialist system of states that: “National and regional authorities should implement national and international measures that protect the global financial system from uncooperative and non-transparent jurisdictions that pose risks of illicit financial activity.” The G-20 declaration of monopoly right is much like a wake-up call to the peoples of the world that relief from the present economic crisis will not come from the leaders of the Triad. Relief will only come from organized struggle for the rights of all and to re-establish on a modern basis the human rights won with much blood and tears before, during and after WWII in the heroic battles against fascism, militarism and colonialism. Those battles proved that another world is possible. The victory of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights must be reaffirmed in the here and now. National sovereignty, the guarantee of human rights and prohibition of war can be won by negating monopoly right.

The present economic crisis exposes the weakness of the U.S. Empire and the imperialist system of states. The Triad dictators should not be allowed to transfer the burden of the economic crisis onto the backs of the weaker countries and working class. The organized working class movement must assert itself as the leader in the battle to restrict monopoly right and for an alternative to fascism, militarism and imperialism.

Organized together in a mighty force, workers and their allies can negate monopoly right, defend the rights of all and build an alternative. Join and help organize the nation-building project for democratic renewal and to vest sovereignty in the people that has been undertaken by the committees for democratic renewal in Canada.

Annexation no, sovereignty yes!
Say yes to an alternative! Another world is possible!

K.C. Adams is a journalist for The Marxist-Leninist Daily, Canada, cpcml.ca

[TOP]

Reflections by Comrade Fidel Castro

The Birth of the Mount

November 16, 2008

Bush seemed happy to have Lula (of Brazil) sitting to his right during dinner on Friday. On the other hand, Hu Jintao, (China) whom he respects for the enormous market in his country, the capacity to produce consumer goods at low cost and the volume of his reserves in U.S. dollars and bonds was sitting to his left.

Medvedev (Russia), whom he offends with the threat of locating strategic radars and missiles not far from Moscow, was assigned a seat rather distant from the White House host.

The King of Saudi Arabia, a country that in a near future will produce 15 million tons of light oil at highly competitive prices was also sitting at his left, at Hu’s side.

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and his most faithful allie in Europe, could not be seen close to him in the pictures.

Nicolas Sarkozy (France) who is rather disappointed at the present architecture of the financial order, was far from him looking embittered.

The President of the Spanish Government, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, a victim of Bush’s personal resentment attending the conclave in Washington, I could not even see in the television images of the dinner.

That’s how those attending the banquet were sitting.

Anyone would have thought that the following day there would be a profound debate on the thorny issue.

On Saturday morning, the press agencies were reporting on the program that would unfold at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C. Every second was covered. There would be an analysis of the current crisis and the actions to be taken. It would start at 11:30 a.m. local time. First, there would be a photo op, or “family picture” a Bush called it, and twenty minutes later the first plenary session would start followed by a another one in the second half of the day. Everything was strictly planned, even the fine sanitary services.

The speeches and analysis would last approximately three hours and 30 minutes. Lunch would be at 3:25 local time, immediately followed by the final declaration at 5:05. One hour later, at 6:05, Bush would be leaving for Camp David to rest, have dinner and have a pleasant sleep.

Those following the event were impatient to see the day going by and trying to know how the problems of the earth and the human species would be dealt with in such a short time. A final declaration had been announced.

The fact is that the Summit’s final declaration was worked out by previously chosen economic advisors, very much in line with the neoliberal ideas, while Bush in his statements prior to the summit and after its conclusion claimed more power and more money for the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other world institutions under strict control of the United States and its closest allies. That country had decided to inject 700 billion dollars to bailout its banks and multinational corporations. Europe had offered an identical or even higher figure. Japan, its strongest pillar in Asia, has promised a 100 billion dollars contribution. In the case of the People’s Republic of China, which is developing increasing and convenient relations with Latin American countries, they are expecting another contribution of 100 billion dollars from its reserves.

Where would so many dollars, euros and pound sterling come from if not from the deep indebtedness of new generations? How can the structure of the new world economy be built on paper money, which is what is really circulating in the short run, when the country issuing it is suffering from an enormous fiscal deficit? Would it be worthwhile traveling by air to a place on the planet named Washington to meet with a president with only 60 more days left in government and signing a document previously designed to be adopted at the Washington Museum? Could the U.S. radio, TV and press be right not to pay special attention to this old imperialist game in the much-trumpeted meeting?

What is really incredible is the final declaration adopted by consensus in the conclave. It is obviously the participants’ full acceptance of Bush’s demands made before and during the summit. Some of the attending countries had no choice but to adopt it; in their desperate struggle for development, they did not want to be isolated from the richest and most powerful and their financial institutions, which are the majority in the G20.

Bush was really euphoric as he spoke. He used demagogic phrases that mirror the final declaration.

He said: “The first decision I had to make was who was coming to the meeting. And obviously I decided that we ought to have the G20 nations, as opposed to the G8 or the G13. But once you make the decision to have the G20 then the fundamental question is, with that many nations, from six different continents, who all represent different stages of economic development, would it be possible to reach agreements, and not only agreements, would it be possible to reach agreements that were substantive? And I’m pleased to report the answer to that question was, absolutely.”

“The United States has taken some extraordinary measures. Those of you who have followed my career know that I’m a free market person — until you are told that if you don’t take decisive measures then it’s conceivable that our country could go into a depression greater than the Great Depression.”

“[...] we just started on the $700 billion fund to start getting money out to our banks.”

“[...] we all understand the need to work on pro-growth economic policies.”

“Transparency is very important so that investors and regulators are able to know the truth.”

The rest of what Bush said goes more or less along this line.

The final declaration of the summit, which takes half an hour to read in public due to its length, is clearly defined in a number of selected paragraphs:

“We, the leaders of the G20 have held a first meeting in Washington, on November 15, in the light of serious challenges to the world economy and financial markets “

“[...] we should lay the foundations for a reform that will make this global crisis less likely to happen again in the future. Our work should be guided by the principles of the free market, free trade and investment....”

“[...] the market players sought to obtain more benefits failing to make an adequate assessment of the risks and they failed “

“The authorities, regulators and supervisors from some developed nations did not realize or adequately warned about the risks created in the financial markets “

“...insufficient and poorly coordinated macroeconomic policies as well as inadequate structure reforms, led to an unsustainable macroeconomic global result.”

“Many emerging economies, which have helped sustain the world economy, are increasingly suffering from the world brakes.”

“We note the important role of the IMF in response to the crisis; we salute the new short-term liquidity mechanism and urge the constant reviewing of its instruments to ensure flexibility.”

“We shall encourage the World Bank and other multilateral developing banks to use their full capacity in support of their agenda for assistance “

“We will make sure that the IMF, the World Bank and other multilateral developing banks have the necessary resources to continue playing their role in the solution of the crisis.”

“We shall exercise a strong monitoring of the credit agencies through the development of an international code of conduct.”

“We pledge to protect the integrity of the world financial markets by reinforcing protection to the investor and the consumer.”

“We are determined to advance in the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions so that they reflect the changes in the world economy to increase their legitimacy and effectiveness.”

“We shall meet again on April 30, 2009, to examine the implementation of the principles and decisions made today.”

“We concede that these reforms will only be successful if they are based on a serious commitment to the principles of free market, including the rule of law, respect for private property, free trade and investment, efficient and competitive markets and effectively regulated financial systems.”

“We shall refrain from erecting new barriers to investment and trade in goods and services.”

“We are aware of the impact of the current crisis on the developing nations, especially on those most vulnerable.”

“We are certain that as we advance through cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism we will overcome the challenges and restore stability and prosperity to the world economy.”

This technocratic language is beyond grasp of the masses.

The empire is treated courteously; its abusive methods are not criticized.

The IMF, the World Bank and the multilateral credit organizations are praised despite the fact that they generate debts, enormous bureaucratic expenses and investments while supplying raw materials to the large multinationals that are also responsible for the crisis.

This goes on like that until the last paragraph. It’s a boring declaration full of the usual rhetoric. It doesn’t say anything. It was signed by Bush, the champion of neoliberalism, the man responsible for genocidal wars and massacres, who has invested in his bloody adventures all the money that would have sufficed to change the economic face of the world.

The document does not have a word on the absurd policy promoted by the United States of turning food into fuel; or the unequal exchange of which the Third World countries are victims; or about the useless arms race, the production and trade of weapons, the breakup of the ecological balance and the extremely serious threats to peace that bring the world to the brink of annihilation.

Only a short four-word phrase in the long document mentions the need “to face climate change.”

The declaration reflects the demand of the countries attending the conclave to meet again in April 2009, in the United Kingdom, Japan or any other country that meets the necessary requirements — nobody knows which — to examine the situation of the world finances, dreaming that the cyclical crisis with their dramatic consequences never happen again.

Now is the time for the theoreticians from the left and the right to offer their passionate or dispassionate criteria on the document.

From my point of view the privileges of the empire were not even touched. Having the necessary patience to read it completely, one can see that it is simply a pious appeal to the ethic of the most powerful country on earth, both technologically and militarily, at the time of economic globalization; it’s like begging the wolf not to eat up little red riding hood.

[TOP]

For Your Information

Statement From G-20 Summit

November 15, 2008

Following is the text of the statement from the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy, as released on Saturday:

1. We, the Leaders of the Group of Twenty, held an initial meeting in Washington on November 15, 2008, amid serious challenges to the world economy and financial markets. We are determined to enhance our cooperation and work together to restore global growth and achieve needed reforms in the world's financial systems.

2. Over the past months our countries have taken urgent and exceptional measures to support the global economy and stabilize financial markets. These efforts must continue. At the same time, we must lay the foundation for reform to help to ensure that a global crisis, such as this one, does not happen again. Our work will be guided by a shared belief that market principles, open trade and investment regimes, and effectively regulated financial markets foster the dynamism, innovation, and entrepreneurship that are essential for economic growth, employment, and poverty reduction.

Root Causes of the Current Crisis

3. During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions.

4. Major underlying factors to the current situation were, among others, inconsistent and insufficiently coordinated macroeconomic policies, inadequate structural reforms, which led to unsustainable global macroeconomic outcomes. These developments, together, contributed to excesses and ultimately resulted in severe market disruption.

Actions Taken and to Be Taken

5. We have taken strong and significant actions to date to stimulate our economies, provide liquidity, strengthen the capital of financial institutions, protect savings and deposits, address regulatory deficiencies, unfreeze credit markets, and are working to ensure that international financial institutions (IFIs) can provide critical support for the global economy.

6. But more needs to be done to stabilize financial markets and support economic growth. Economic momentum is slowing substantially in major economies and the global outlook has weakened. Many emerging market economies, which helped sustain the world economy this decade, are still experiencing good growth but increasingly are being adversely impacted by the worldwide slowdown.

7. Against this background of deteriorating economic conditions worldwide, we agreed that a broader policy response is needed, based on closer macroeconomic cooperation, to restore growth, avoid negative spillovers and support emerging market economies and developing countries. As immediate steps to achieve these objectives, as well as to address longer-term challenges, we will:

• Continue our vigorous efforts and take whatever further actions are necessary to stabilize the financial system.

• Recognize the importance of monetary policy support, as deemed appropriate to domestic conditions.

• Use fiscal measures to stimulate domestic demand to rapid effect, as appropriate, while maintaining a policy framework conducive to fiscal sustainability.

• Help emerging and developing economies gain access to finance in current difficult financial conditions, including through liquidity facilities and program support. We stress the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) important role in crisis response, welcome its new short-term liquidity facility, and urge the ongoing review of its instruments and facilities to ensure flexibility.

• Encourage the World Bank and other multilateral development banks (MDBs) to use their full capacity in support of their development agenda, and we welcome the recent introduction of new facilities by the World Bank in the areas of infrastructure and trade finance.

• Ensure that the IMF, World Bank and other MDBs have sufficient resources to continue playing their role in overcoming the crisis.

Common Principles for Reform of Financial Markets

8. In addition to the actions taken above, we will implement reforms that will strengthen financial markets and regulatory regimes so as to avoid future crises. Regulation is first and foremost the responsibility of national regulators who constitute the first line of defense against market instability. However, our financial markets are global in scope, therefore, intensified international cooperation among regulators and strengthening of international standards, where necessary, and their consistent implementation is necessary to protect against adverse cross-border, regional and global developments affecting international financial stability. Regulators must ensure that their actions support market discipline, avoid potentially adverse impacts on other countries, including regulatory arbitrage, and support competition, dynamism and innovation in the marketplace. Financial institutions must also bear their responsibility for the turmoil and should do their part to overcome it including by recognizing losses, improving disclosure and strengthening their governance and risk management practices.

9. We commit to implementing policies consistent with the following common principles for reform.

• Strengthening Transparency and Accountability: We will strengthen financial market transparency, including by enhancing required disclosure on complex financial products and ensuring complete and accurate disclosure by firms of their financial conditions. Incentives should be aligned to avoid excessive risk-taking.

• Enhancing Sound Regulation: We pledge to strengthen our regulatory regimes, prudential oversight, and risk management, and ensure that all financial markets, products and participants are regulated or subject to oversight, as appropriate to their circumstances. We will exercise strong oversight over credit rating agencies, consistent with the agreed and strengthened international code of conduct. We will also make regulatory regimes more effective over the economic cycle, while ensuring that regulation is efficient, does not stifle innovation, and encourages expanded trade in financial products and services. We commit to transparent assessments of our national regulatory systems.

• Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets: We commit to protect the integrity of the world's financial markets by bolstering investor and consumer protection, avoiding conflicts of interest, preventing illegal market manipulation, fraudulent activities and abuse, and protecting against illicit finance risks arising from non-cooperative jurisdictions. We will also promote information sharing, including with respect to jurisdictions that have yet to commit to international standards with respect to bank secrecy and transparency.

• Reinforcing International Cooperation: We call upon our national and regional regulators to formulate their regulations and other measures in a consistent manner. Regulators should enhance their coordination and cooperation across all segments of financial markets, including with respect to cross-border capital flows. Regulators and other relevant authorities as a matter of priority should strengthen cooperation on crisis prevention, management, and resolution.

• Reforming International Financial Institutions: We are committed to advancing the reform of the Bretton Woods Institutions so that they can more adequately reflect changing economic weights in the world economy in order to increase their legitimacy and effectiveness. In this respect, emerging and developing economies, including the poorest countries, should have greater voice and representation. The Financial Stability Forum (FSF) must expand urgently to a broader membership of emerging economies, and other major standard setting bodies should promptly review their membership. The IMF, in collaboration with the expanded FSF and other bodies, should work to better identify vulnerabilities, anticipate potential stresses, and act swiftly to play a key role in crisis response.

Tasking of Ministers and Experts

10. We are committed to taking rapid action to implement these principles. We instruct our Finance Ministers, as coordinated by their 2009 G-20 leadership (Brazil, UK, Republic of Korea), to initiate processes and a timeline to do so. An initial list of specific measures is set forth in the attached Action Plan, including high priority actions to be completed prior to March 31, 2009. In consultation with other economies and existing bodies, drawing upon the recommendations of such eminent independent experts as they may appoint, we request our Finance Ministers to formulate additional recommendations, including in the following specific areas:

• Mitigating against pro-cyclicality in regulatory policy;

• Reviewing and aligning global accounting standards, particularly for complex securities in times of stress;

• Strengthening the resilience and transparency of credit derivatives markets and reducing their systemic risks, including by improving the infrastructure of over-the-counter markets;

• Reviewing compensation practices as they relate to incentives for risk taking and innovation;

• Reviewing the mandates, governance, and resource requirements of the IFIs; and

• Defining the scope of systemically important institutions and determining their appropriate regulation or oversight.

11. In view of the role of the G-20 in financial systems reform, we will meet again by April 30, 2009, to review the implementation of the principles and decisions agreed today.

Commitment to an Open Global Economy

12. We recognize that these reforms will only be successful if grounded in a commitment to free market principles, including the rule of law, respect for private property, open trade and investment, competitive markets, and efficient, effectively regulated financial systems. These principles are essential to economic growth and prosperity and have lifted millions out of poverty, and have significantly raised the global standard of living. Recognizing the necessity to improve financial sector regulation, we must avoid over-regulation that would hamper economic growth and exacerbate the contraction of capital flows, including to developing countries.

13. We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports. Further, we shall strive to reach agreement this year on modalities that leads to a successful conclusion to the WTO's Doha Development Agenda with an ambitious and balanced outcome. We instruct our Trade Ministers to achieve this objective and stand ready to assist directly, as necessary. We also agree that our countries have the largest stake in the global trading system and therefore each must make the positive contributions necessary to achieve such an outcome.

14. We are mindful of the impact of the current crisis on developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable. We reaffirm the importance of the Millennium Development Goals, the development assistance commitments we have made, and urge both developed and emerging economies to undertake commitments consistent with their capacities and roles in the global economy. In this regard, we reaffirm the development principles agreed at the 2002 United Nations Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, which emphasized country ownership and mobilizing all sources of financing for development.

15. We remain committed to addressing other critical challenges such as energy security and climate change, food security, the rule of law, and the fight against terrorism, poverty and disease.

16. As we move forward, we are confident that through continued partnership, cooperation, and multilateralism, we will overcome the challenges before us and restore stability and prosperity to the world economy.

Action Plan to Implement Principles for Reform

This Action Plan sets forth a comprehensive work plan to implement the five agreed principles for reform. Our finance ministers will work to ensure that the taskings set forth in this Action Plan are fully and vigorously implemented. They are responsible for the development and implementation of these recommendations drawing on the ongoing work of relevant bodies, including the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an expanded Financial Stability Forum (FSF), and standard setting bodies.

Strengthening Transparency and Accountability

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• The key global accounting standards bodies should work to enhance guidance for valuation of securities, also taking into account the valuation of complex, illiquid products, especially during times of stress.

• Accounting standard setters should significantly advance their work to address weaknesses in accounting and disclosure standards for off-balance sheet vehicles.

• Regulators and accounting standard setters should enhance the required disclosure of complex financial instruments by firms to market participants.

• With a view toward promoting financial stability, the governance of the international accounting standard setting body should be further enhanced, including by undertaking a review of its membership, in particular in order to ensure transparency, accountability, and an appropriate relationship between this independent body and the relevant authorities. Private sector bodies that have already developed best practices for private pools of capital and/or hedge funds should bring forward proposals for a set of unified best practices. Finance Ministers should assess the adequacy of these proposals, drawing upon the analysis of regulators, the expanded FSF, and other relevant bodies.

Medium-term actions

• The key global accounting standards bodies should work intensively toward the objective of creating a single high-quality global standard.

• Regulators, supervisors, and accounting standard setters, as appropriate, should work with each other and the private sector on an ongoing basis to ensure consistent application and enforcement of high-quality accounting standards.

• Financial institutions should provide enhanced risk disclosures in their reporting and disclose all losses on an ongoing basis, consistent with international best practice, as appropriate. Regulators should work to ensure that a financial institution' financial statements include a complete, accurate, and timely picture of the firm's activities (including off-balance sheet activities) and are reported on a consistent and regular basis.

Enhancing Sound Regulation

Regulatory Regimes

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• The IMF, expanded FSF, and other regulators and bodies should develop recommendations to mitigate pro-cyclicality, including the review of how valuation and leverage, bank capital, executive compensation, and provisioning practices may exacerbate cyclical trends.

Medium-term actions

• To the extent countries or regions have not already done so, each country or region pledges to review and report on the structure and principles of its regulatory system to ensure it is compatible with a modern and increasingly globalized financial system. To this end, all G-20 members commit to undertake a Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP) report and support the transparent assessments of countries' national regulatory systems.

• The appropriate bodies should review the differentiated nature of regulation in the banking, securities, and insurance sectors and provide a report outlining the issue and making recommendations on needed improvements. A review of the scope of financial regulation, with a special emphasis on institutions, instruments, and markets that are currently unregulated, along with ensuring that all systemically-important institutions are appropriately regulated, should also be undertaken.

• National and regional authorities should review resolution regimes and bankruptcy laws in light of recent experience to ensure that they permit an orderly wind-down of large complex cross-border financial institutions.

• Definitions of capital should be harmonized in order to achieve consistent measures of capital and capital adequacy.

Prudential Oversight

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• Regulators should take steps to ensure that credit rating agencies meet the highest standards of the international organization of securities regulators and that they avoid conflicts of interest, provide greater disclosure to investors and to issuers, and differentiate ratings for complex products. This will help ensure that credit rating agencies have the right incentives and appropriate oversight to enable them to perform their important role in providing unbiased information and assessments to markets.

• The international organization of securities regulators should review credit rating agencies' adoption of the standards and mechanisms for monitoring compliance.

• Authorities should ensure that financial institutions maintain adequate capital in amounts necessary to sustain confidence. International standard setters should set out strengthened capital requirements for banks' structured credit and securitization activities.

• Supervisors and regulators, building on the imminent launch of central counterparty services for credit default swaps (CDS) in some countries, should: speed efforts to reduce the systemic risks of CDS and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions; insist that market participants support exchange traded or electronic trading platforms for CDS contracts; expand OTC derivatives market transparency; and ensure that the infrastructure for OTC derivatives can support growing volumes.

Medium-term actions

• Credit Ratings Agencies that provide public ratings should be registered.

• Supervisors and central banks should develop robust and internationally consistent approaches for liquidity supervision of, and central bank liquidity operations for, cross-border banks.

Risk Management

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• Regulators should develop enhanced guidance to strengthen banks' risk management practices, in line with international best practices, and should encourage financial firms to reexamine their internal controls and implement strengthened policies for sound risk management.

• Regulators should develop and implement procedures to ensure that financial firms implement policies to better manage liquidity risk, including by creating strong liquidity cushions.

• Supervisors should ensure that financial firms develop processes that provide for timely and comprehensive measurement of risk concentrations and large counterparty risk positions across products and geographies.

• Firms should reassess their risk management models to guard against stress and report to supervisors on their efforts.

• The Basel Committee should study the need for and help develop firms' new stress testing models, as appropriate.

• Financial institutions should have clear internal incentives to promote stability, and action needs to be taken, through voluntary effort or regulatory action, to avoid compensation schemes which reward excessive short-term returns or risk taking.

• Banks should exercise effective risk management and due diligence over structured products and securitization.

Medium-term actions

• International standard setting bodies, working with a broad range of economies and other appropriate bodies, should ensure that regulatory policy makers are aware and able to respond rapidly to evolution and innovation in financial markets and products.

• Authorities should monitor substantial changes in asset prices and their implications for the macroeconomy and the financial system.

Promoting Integrity in Financial Markets

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• Our national and regional authorities should work together to enhance regulatory cooperation between jurisdictions on a regional and international level.

• National and regional authorities should work to promote information sharing about domestic and cross-border threats to market stability and ensure that national (or regional, where applicable) legal provisions are adequate to address these threats.

• National and regional authorities should also review business conduct rules to protect markets and investors, especially against market manipulation and fraud and strengthen their cross-border cooperation to protect the international financial system from illicit actors. In case of misconduct, there should be an appropriate sanctions regime.

Medium-term actions

• National and regional authorities should implement national and international measures that protect the global financial system from uncooperative and non-transparent jurisdictions that pose risks of illicit financial activity.

• The Financial Action Task Force should continue its important work against money laundering and terrorist financing, and we support the efforts of the World Bank - UN Stolen Asset Recovery (StAR) Initiative.

• Tax authorities, drawing upon the work of relevant bodies such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), should continue efforts to promote tax information exchange. Lack of transparency and a failure to exchange tax information should be vigorously addressed.

Reinforcing International Cooperation

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• Supervisors should collaborate to establish supervisory colleges for all major cross-border financial institutions, as part of efforts to strengthen the surveillance of cross-border firms. Major global banks should meet regularly with their supervisory college for comprehensive discussions of the firm's activities and assessment of the risks it faces.

• Regulators should take all steps necessary to strengthen cross-border crisis management arrangements, including on cooperation and communication with each other and with appropriate authorities, and develop comprehensive contact lists and conduct simulation exercises, as appropriate.

Medium-term actions

• Authorities, drawing especially on the work of regulators, should collect information on areas where convergence in regulatory practices such as accounting standards, auditing, and deposit insurance is making progress, is in need of accelerated progress, or where there may be potential for progress.

• Authorities should ensure that temporary measures to restore stability and confidence have minimal distortions and are unwound in a timely, well-sequenced and coordinated manner.

Reforming International Financial Institutions

Immediate Actions by March 31, 2009

• The FSF should expand to a broader membership of emerging economies.

• The IMF, with its focus on surveillance, and the expanded FSF, with its focus on standard setting, should strengthen their collaboration, enhancing efforts to better integrate regulatory and supervisory responses into the macro-prudential policy framework and conduct early warning exercises.

• The IMF, given its universal membership and core macro-financial expertise, should, in close coordination with the FSF and others, take a leading role in drawing lessons from the current crisis, consistent with its mandate.

• We should review the adequacy of the resources of the IMF, the World Bank Group and other multilateral development banks and stand ready to increase them where necessary. The IFIs should also continue to review and adapt their lending instruments to adequately meet their members' needs and revise their lending role in the light of the ongoing financial crisis.

• We should explore ways to restore emerging and developing countries' access to credit and resume private capital flows which are critical for sustainable growth and development, including ongoing infrastructure investment.

• In cases where severe market disruptions have limited access to the necessary financing for counter-cyclical fiscal policies, multilateral development banks must ensure arrangements are in place to support, as needed, those countries with a good track record and sound policies.

Medium-term actions

• We underscored that the Bretton Woods Institutions must be comprehensively reformed so that they can more adequately reflect changing economic weights in the world economy and be more responsive to future challenges. Emerging and developing economies should have greater voice and representation in these institutions.

• The IMF should conduct vigorous and even-handed surveillance reviews of all countries, as well as giving greater attention to their financial sectors and better integrating the reviews with the joint IMF/World Bank financial sector assessment programs. On this basis, the role of the IMF in providing macro-financial policy advice would be strengthened.

• Advanced economies, the IMF, and other international organizations should provide capacity-building programs for emerging market economies and developing countries on the formulation and the implementation of new major regulations, consistent with international standards.