Vojna v Ukrajini pomeni lakoto v Afriki

V intervjuju za Der Spiegel Kristalina Georgieva, direktorica IMF, pojasnjuje, zakaj vojna v Ukrajini pomeni za Nemčijo velike potencialne težave, zakaj to pomeni lakoto v Afriki, kako pomagati tem državam, da ne bodo stradale, zakaj je potrebna fiskalna podpora držav v času povišanih cen energentov in zakaj Nemčija ne bi smela ovirati drugih EU držav pri tem s predčasnim prenehanjem odstopne klavzule glede fiskalnega pravila.

DER SPIEGEL: Is the international community doing enough to stop the war?

Georgieva: Europe and the world have stepped up to the challenge. If there is any silver lining, it is the recognition that we can no longer close our eyes to developments elsewhere: War in Ukraine means hunger in Africa. A virus from Wuhan is causing a pandemic around the world. And CO2 emissions in one place are driving climate change across the planet.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you believe the hunger crisis you mentioned can still be prevented?

Georgieva: Only if we do more. First, we need to oppose export restrictions on food, which almost 30 countries have already enacted. I understand that governments want to protect their own populations from shortages. But in doing so, we prolong the suffering of others. Second, we need to use the food we have more efficiently. And third, we need to give poor countries in particular the financial resources they need to secure supplies.

DER SPIEGEL: What does that mean in concrete terms?

Georgieva: Take a country in Africa that is dependent on the world market for food, where prices have risen massively. We need to help such countries so that they can secure supplies for their people. We need a rapid international response so that people don’t starve.

DER SPIEGEL: What should this response look like?

Georgieva: Almost 30 countries are experiencing severe problems with their balance of payments because of food prices. Some of them have asked us for support. We are helping them with a special trust fund for poor countries with a zero percent interest rate. We are also looking very closely at what international institutions can do to make food production more efficient. Supply has to be increased.

DER SPIEGEL: Helping Ukraine and the countries that are particularly affected is one thing. But what can we do to end the war? Germany has been arguing internally for months about a possible natural gas embargo. In its new report on Germany, the IMF has warned of risks. Why?

Georgieva: Germany has a problem because it cannot quickly free itself from its dependence on Russian gas imports. The impact is uncertain, but likely to be sizable. According to calculations by some economists, the German economy could shrink by up to 6 percent if Russia abruptly decides to stop gas supplies. So Germany has to be thoughtful about how it uses its fiscal space.

DER SPIEGEL: Germany’s fiscal space is also restricted by the country’s constitutionally anchored debt ceiling, which Finance Minister Christian Lindner would like to return to as early as next year. Do you think that will work?

Georgieva: Under our baseline scenario, yes. Germany is already preparing to withdraw some of the support measures implemented during the corona crisis. Also, many support measures with regards to the high energy prices are only temporary. If energy prices continue to fall, the debt brake target is realistic.

DER SPIEGEL: And if energy prices rise?

Georgieva: Then it would be wiser for Germany to take further steps to support the economy. I would like to explicitly praise Germany for not blocking EU plans to suspend the Stability and Growth Pact until the end of 2023. If conditions deteriorate, Germany should also reconsider the timing for the return to the debt brake.

DER SPIEGEL: Have you said as much to the German finance minister?

Georgieva: I have met Mr. Lindner a couple of times and our conversations are always very productive. We both believe in an old idea of Adam Smith on how to make countries prosperous: through peace, low taxes and the rule of law. This applies in modern times as well. Germany has shown impressive leadership in the group of G-7 countries.

DER SPIEGEL: But even among their, members there are disputes. At the spring meetings of the IMF, some members walked out of the room in protest against Russia. Are you worried that the institutions might not work as well as they used to because of such conflicts?

Georgieva: There’s a story that is rarely told: Despite the tensions at the spring meetings, participants agreed on all discussion points in the concluding statement – with the exception of one passage on the war in Ukraine. Our mandate as the IMF is macroeconomic and financial stability, growth and employment. And these goals can only be achieved with international cooperation.

DER SPIEGEL: Critics have accused you of expanding the IMF’s mandate. Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff says the IMF should not try to be an aid organization. Is he right?

Georgieva: I respectfully disagree. The world is changing, and that means we have to reinterpret our goals. The pandemic and the war are exogenous shocks. Countries that have been hit by them did nothing wrong. How should we respond? Obviously not by relying on our traditional instruments of adjustment programs. We need to provide countries with the fiscal space they lack to cushion against these shocks.

DER SPIEGEL: Your critics have said that you are overshooting the mark.

Georgieva: In fact, out of the $270 billion in total lending commitments, we have extended only about $34 billion as emergency financing – the rest has come through our more traditional credit facilities. I told Ken Rogoff that as well, and he was surprised. Some people may have the impression that the Fund is running around the world throwing money around unconditionally, but that’s not the case. Take Ghana – a country that is usually reluctant to borrow money from us. It came to us during the pandemic. Later, the president called me to thank us. After all, how else was the country supposed to pay its bills when its revenues suddenly disappeared?

DER SPIEGEL: International cooperation doesn’t seem to be very high on the agenda at the moment, though …

Georgieva: … and that is a big problem. In the past three decades, the global economy has tripled in size – and that was only possible through ever deeper global integration. Developing countries in particular have benefited from this. Today, 1.3 billion fewer people live in poverty than 30 years ago. If we deprive these countries of the benefits from an integrated global economy, a bleak future looms.

DER SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, the U.S. and China want to disentangle themselves economically from each other. Many companies are also trying to reorganize their supply chains and produce critical goods themselves.

Georgieva: We learned during the coronavirus shutdowns and the Ukraine war that our supply chains have to become more secure, which implies rising costs. That means the days in which globalization automatically provided cheaper products and lowered inflation may be over. But that doesn’t mean we should divide the world into separate blocs. We should not take this to the extreme in which we would all be poorer. We must not go back to the days of the Cold War, when people were denied their freedom. I myself have experienced what that means – and I don’t want to go back to those times.

Vir: Der Spiegel

One response

  1. Še ena pametna ženska (poleg Lagardove, šefinje ECB in Yelenove, finančne ministrice ZDA) na čelu ključnih mednarodnih finančnih inštitucij. Era vladavine čikaške šole in Goldmann Sachsovih zlatih dečkov je dokončno mimo. Očitno se tudi redefinira vloga strateških financ (na čelu s centralnim bankami) v modernih kapitalističnih družbah. Ni več glavni cilj delovanja vseh finančnih inštitucij ohranjanje vrednosti obstoječega premoženja pred nevarnostmi inflacije in drugih načinov razvrednotenja ob maksimalni neodvisnosti od politike, ampak je njihovo delovanje vsebinsko in operativno vedno bolj prepleteno z družbenimi/političnimi akterji in ustanovami pri reševanju socialnih in razvojnih problemov človeške družbe, pred kratkim Covid krize, tokrat lakote v Afriki, jutri obnove Ukrajine.
    Nova ekonomija, ali le vračanje Keynesa? Ali socializem?
    P. S. : Vse lepo in prav, če ne bi imeli na drugi strani trop (mačističnih) hujskačev, ki so nam zakuhali vojno v Ukrajini in nam bodo še kakšno. In v tem tropu je bila zelo aktivna veleposlanica ZDA v Ukrajini, Nulandova, tako da ni vse rešljivo z ženskimi kvotami. Problem je v glavah, ne v spolu.

%d bloggers like this: