On keeping the peace and what goes unsaid

By Sydney Rice, University of Melbourne Faculty of Business and Economics, IMF/World Bank AGM, 2024

Walter Mondale, former U.S. Vice President, was eulogised by Senator Amy Klobuchar as having "told the truth... obeyed the law... [and] kept the peace” (Klobuchar, 2022). This ideal of keeping the peace is often praised as a pinnacle of leadership and symbol of moral authority not only within the United States but on the international stage. However, “peace-keeping” in practice - so often celebrated as a virtue of leadership - can also mask the exclusions and tensions embedded within global systems of power. This selective framing of peace-keeping resonated deeply with me during my experience at the 2024 IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings in Washington, D.C., where the language of economic stability and cooperation often coexisted uneasily with discussions of inequality and climate vulnerability.

A recurring theme throughout the Meetings was the pursuit of neutrality, "peace-keeping" high-level discussions to reflect universal views. While this approach engenders the neutrality that is essential in international discussions, it also comes with sacrifices. From my perspective, the prioritisation of neutrality in international forums often requires downplaying or even bypassing contentious issues. In prioritising unity, difficult and uncomfortable topics can be sidelined, compromising meaningful progress.

One pressing example was how this neutrality manifested in references to the (then) ongoing U.S. election. While IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva refrained from addressing the election directly, her words spoke to the complexities it raised: “We live in a mistrustful, fragmented world where national security has risen to the top of the list of concerns for many countries. This has happened before—but never in a time of such high economic co-dependence. My argument is that we must not allow this reality to become an excuse to do nothing to prevent a further fracturing of the global economy” (We Can Do Better, 2024). This caution highlighted a tension in the IMF's role; balancing non-interference with an awareness of how political shifts in a single nation - especially one as influential as the U.S. - can impact global economic stability. 

Analysis points to the severe consequences of potential U.S. policy changes, noting that isolationist economic policies, like higher tariffs and restricted immigration, would lead to stagflationary effects, at a detriment to the U.S. GDP and, by extension, the global economy (Bhatt et al., 2024). Yet, the veiled nature of these concerns demonstrates the limits of maintaining neutrality when clear, impactful decisions by member states may warrant direct response, as the election outcomes will undoubtedly impact IMF member states. 

Another aspect to these discussions, and the foundational mandates of the IMF and World Bank, is the relationship between the development mandates of Bretton Woods institutions and the consideration of human rights. Whilst the IMF’s founding mission was to provide financial stability, it has often faced pressure to explicitly incorporate human rights considerations. In the 2003 Tilburg Guiding Principles, experts sought to outline the IMF and World Bank’s obligations under international human rights law, but little has changed since then; the IMF maintains that its mandate is confined to monetary concerns, while critics argue that this is a choice that reinforces the status quo (Genugten et al., 2003). The closest to an official IMF stance on human rights is a 2005 paper by former IMF General Counsel François Gianviti, who argued that international human rights laws like the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights do not apply to the IMF, as it is a monetary, not human rights, agency (Gianviti, 2005). This view contends that IMF policies should prioritise financial stability and developments, leaving human rights considerations to other organisations, even as many see the IMF’s influence over national economies as intrinsically linked to these issues. 

Contrary to this prioritisation of neutrality, it was inspirational to see the facilitation of conflicting views through civil society organisation (CSO) participation in the Meetings. Attending the Annual Meetings, where I was able to hear from various human rights advocacy organisations, it became clear that this “lack of a human rights mandate” was a decision that was consistently challenged. Amongst CSOs, a shared frustration emerged regarding the IMF’s static stance on human rights, a policy seen as outdated and increasingly inadequate for addressing the economic dimensions of social welfare. Of particular relevance was the session: Civil Society Policy Forum: Beyond Austerity: Feminist Perspectives on the Role of Bretton Woods Institutions, where the impact of GDP-focused economic policies on Global South nations, particularly under IMF and World Bank austerity measures (government spending cuts and tax increases designed to reduce debt), were discussed. The case studies of Argentina, Egypt and Bangladesh, as well as input from the experience of CSO attendees, highlighted a concerning trend - austerity measures in accordance with monetary-focused mandates from the IMF and World Bank had disproportionate and negative impacts on women, the working class, and the environment, with detrimental implications of austerity measures with no human rights mandates including the dismantling of Argentina's Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity - a downgrade from a ministry to an undersecretariat. This occurred via the IMF setting economic conditions for loans that prioritise fiscal discipline over social investment. The facilitation of these direct challenges to IMF and World Bank measures is a positive signal to ensure that equitable development will be actualised. 

While peace and neutrality serve as foundational principles, “keeping the peace” in these high-stakes settings often requires avoiding critical discussions. I believe progress in international forums requires the prioritisation of open dialogue on contentious issues at the highest possible levels, especially where economic policies intersect with pressing socio-political concerns. Disagreement must continue to be not only facilitated but prioritised in high-level forums such as the IMF/World Bank AGM, where these discussions are what is ultimately necessary to engender the "Progress and Ambition" the global economy needs to see.

Bibliography

Bhatt, A. V., Hogan, M., McKibbin, W. J., & Noland, M. (2024, October 21). Trump’s policies would hurt the US while boosting most other economies. PIIE. https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2024/trumps-policies-would-hurt-us-while-boosting-most-other-economies

Genugten, V., Hunt, P., & Mathews, S. (2003). World Bank, IMF and human rights : including the Tilburg Guiding Principles on World Bank, IMF and human rights. Wolf Legal Publishers.

GIANVITI, F. (2005). Current Developments in Monetary and Financial Law, Vol. 3. INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781589063341.072

Klobuchar, A. (2022). Klobuchar Delivers Remarks At Memorial Service for Former Vice President Walter Mondale. U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar. https://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/5/klobuchar-delivers-remarks-at-memorial-service-for-former-vice-president-walter-mondale

McCrisken, T. B. (2003). American Exceptionalism and the Legacy of Vietnam. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403948175

Office of the Historian. (2000). Carter’s Foreign Policy - Short History - Department History - Office of the Historian. State.gov. https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/carter

We Can Do Better. (2024, October 17). IMF. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2024/10/17/sp101724-annual-meetings-2024-curtain-raiser

-------

The views and opinions expressed by Global Voices Fellows do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation or its staff.