Between 1956 and May, 1964 a total of 34 Asian, African and Latin American countries received credits from the fund. Of the 18 countries borrowing foreign exchange from the I.M.F. during the year 1962-63, 17 were Asian, African and Latin American countries. Of the 21 countries which signed agreements with the fund for stand-by credits, 18 are Asian, African and Latin American countries, the remaining three being the United States, Britain and Japan. Before granting credits to Asian, African and Latin American countries, the I.C.F. would “investigate” into and meddle with the currency, finance and foreign exchange policy of the applicants. This is done in the name of helping and supporting them in carrying out the stabilisation programme. But actually it is to sweep aside obstacles in the way of the dumping of U.S. goods and export of U.S. capital. The credits sought will be granted only when the applicants promise to fulfil the I.M.F.’s conditions such as abolition of multiple foreign exchange rates and adoption of a single fixed rate, and abrogation of discriminating bilateral payment system and foreign exchange control. The Fund stipulates that interest on its loans shall be paid in gold— an onerous burden for the Asian, African and Latin American countries, the article continues. Gold thus obta‘ned was used to back the dollar. Since 1957, a total of 800 million dollars’ worth of gold was turned over to the United States as deposits. The dollars obtained have been invested in U.S. Government bonds. The article points out that the technical guidance and “assistance” given by the I.M.F. to its member nations often serve as a cover for U.S. interference in the internal affairs of these countries. The “stabilisation programme” imposed by the I.M.F. on the Latin American countries included the following aspects:
Jan, 27, 1965 — THE WEEK
One: to compel the “aid” recipient countries to give up the multiple rates of exchange beneficial to their national capital and practice a single _ free rate of exchange; this was aimed at devaluating the currency of the recipient, pushing it on to the road of inflation. Two: to abolish or relax the restriction on the import of commodities, thus paving the way for U.S. dumping. Three, to reduce the circulation of currency and restrict the granting of loans to local national business by the state or private banks of the Latin American countries, this hitting hard at the local medium and small enterprises. Four: to increase taxes, freeze wages, abolish price control and subsidies to consumer goods, reduce Government employees and raise public utility rates. Five: to implement policies and decrees beneficial to foreign investments. The I.M.F. loans which the Latin American countries obtained by accepting the “stabilisation programme” brought along growing financial and economic crises, stagnation, devaluation, soaring prices and marked deficits in international payments and state budgets, This gave U.S. imperialism an opportunity to intensify its penetration and control. The steady increase of “aid” provided by the I.M.F. and _ other organisations to the Asian, African and Latin American countries in the last few years failed to bring about any improvement in the international payments of these countries; indeed, it caused a deterioration in some of them. The root cause lies in the fact that these countries have been exploited by the imperialist states headed by the U.S. in the form of exchange of unequal values, The imperialist states have made fortunes from the Asian, African and Latin American countries by means of buying cheap and selling dear under the cloak of “aid”, then lending money to them at exorbitant interest rates. Under this double exploitation, the Asian, African and Latin American countries naturally cannot achieve equilibrium in their international payments, and their foreign debts snowballed.
:
: