[B][SIZE=4]South Africa snubs IMF’s Christine Lagarde! [/SIZE][/B]


January 20, 2012


Zuma snubs Lagarde

NewsRescue- According to CNN, IMF (International Monetary Fund) boss, Christine Lagarde received a rather chilly welcome from the South African government, when she visited this January. The global recession and a lack of growth in the North (western nations), has resulted in debt-laden North now looking to the emerging market economies in the south for assistance. Portugal recently directly asked Angola for help. And the IMF has sojourned round Africa seeking to impose policies to bring about the same aid.

Emerging nations coerced to help ailing richer western economies

The article further said:

    The reasons for the South Africans lukewarm response to her visit are now more clear. The headline of the Johannesburg-based Business Day newspaper reads, “IMF taps BRICS to fund $1 billion crisis gap.”

    The article said, “Emerging nations asked to help bail out ailing richer economies.”

It will be recalled from our article on January 1st, 2012 {IMF Forces African Nations to Remove Fuel Subsidies}, that Nigeria joined Guinea, Cameroon, Ghana and Chad, on New Years day to remove fuel subsidies in accordance with an order from the IMF, purportedly delivered by Christine Lagarde during her December visit to Nigeria. This created a jump in the price of automobile fuel from about 65 Naira per liter to 140Naira per liter overnight, Sunday. This brought fuel/gas prices in Nigeria to about the same price it is in the US, though lower than many European nations. The crushing economic crises has resulted in the famous “occupy” wall street riots in the US, that have resulted so far in 5,800 arrests and cases of police brutality; also the “Robin-hood” August riots of the UK. Greece is also hard hit and at the point of economic failure as are other western nations.

IMf Boss, Ngozi Iweala, and Lamido Sanusi in Nigeria

There was resulting chaos, with strikes from the Nigerian Labor Unions and all businesses, markets, sea and air ports and other operations in Nigeria were halted  for over a week January, in what resulted in a massive, paralyzing civilian revolution against the Government. Over 20 people died as a result of this rejection of the IMF guided, abrupt government unilateral decision. The Nigerian Government on Monday, 16th January, again unilaterally acted to return normality by decreasing gas pump prices to 50% above pre-subsidy removal costs, and unleashing the army to prevent further peaceful gathering and protest.

Related: NewsRescue- World protests against IMF, World Bank and Nigeria subsidy removal

South Africa acts differently

It is apparent that South Africa, unlike Nigeria and the other West African Nations took another option: Reject IMF forceful European debt crises sharing unto African, better thriving and actually growing economies. The South Africans, who were also some of the only governments in Africa to stand by president Gaddafi against the NATO led invasion to the very end, snubbed the IMF leader on her visit.

CNN article further describes:

    The South Africans, despite knowing about her visit for more than a month, had not scheduled any meetings with the Finance Minister, the Reserve Bank governor or any other key economic advisors. Crucially, no meeting was lined up with President Jacob Zuma.

    It seemed that IMF staff were scrambling to pin down the South Africans even after Lagarde had arrived in the country.

    In the end, Lagarde had ad hoc meetings in Pretoria with the country’s economic teams the morning after she arrived. It is unclear if they apologized, but I understand that one minister told her she visiting at a bad time; most South African government employees were still on their long Christmas holiday and the ruling ANC was holding it’s 100th birthday celebrations in Bloemfontein, a four-hour drive away from Pretoria.

    The arrival of one of the world’s most powerful women in southern Africa was clearly not a priority, it seemed.

    At one stage it was suggested she would meet South African president Jacob Zuma the following Wednesday – five days away – and the only time he would be able to fit her into his schedule.

    From what I understand, it was becomingly increasingly clear to the IMF folks that Zuma was not going to make the effort to meet Lagarde. She would have to go to him.

    When we sat down for a wide-ranging interview in a Pretoria hotel, I asked Lagarde if she had managed to pin down Zuma yet? Lagarde smiled wryly to me and said she would be flying to Bloemfontein to meet Zuma the following day.

    Deeply tanned and beautifully groomed in that indomitable French way, Lagarde appeared pragmatic, gracious and seemingly unfazed by this apparent snub.



CNN further described Lagarde as apparently arriving with a ‘begging-bowl’.

    South Africa is the newest, most controversial member of BRICS, a club of new financial powerhouses originally made up of Brazil, Russia, India and China. South Africa’s economy is a minnow compared to their BRIC brothers but the country is Africa’s largest economy and seen as a gateway into the continent’s lucrative and growing markets.

    South Africa likes to think of itself as a global political heavyweight, a player on the multilateral stage and leading member of the South. The crisis in Europe and the U.S. has shifted the balance with the debt-laden North now looking to the emerging market economies for assistance.

    This dynamic perhaps explains the cool South African response to Lagarde’s trip.

    Perhaps the South Africans viewed Lagarde has arriving with a “begging bowl” in hand? She is reportedly looking to expand the IMF’s war chest to $500 billion, asking for contributions from emerging economies to help fund possible bailouts.

It is left to our imagination why Nigeria and other West African nations did not put the urgent development and progress of their nations ahead of Northern nations, but went head to implement pro-west survival, crushing financial policies on their citizenry.

Related: NewsRescue- Nigeria Targeted For Destruction: Gordon Duff, US

http://www.newsrescue.com/2012/01/south-africa-snubs-imfs-christine-lagarde/

The hood rats called,

modes please send this to the front page!

South Africa is the only country in Africa that can defy the West's bullying ways. It has strongly critisized the US over the Iraq war, they have continued to do so over the western orchastrated vandalism in Libya. I am convinced that South Africa will continue persuing an African Agenda as the cornerstone of its Foreign Policy. Remember OR Tambo? South Africa's forefather,

Unfortunetely South Africa is in this 'war' alone,some of our African brothers will do anything to protect the interest of the west,even if it means going over their own countrymen to achieve their objectives.

South Africa has always had the culture of standing against the west,putting justice and freedom before business and friendship.

In 2003 he said America is the threat to world peace,below is the interview he did with Newsweek

NEWSWEEK: Why are you speaking out on Iraq? Do you want to mediate, as you tried to on the Mideast a couple of years ago? It seems you are reentering the fray now.

Nelson Mandela: If I am asked, by credible organizations, to mediate, I will consider that very seriously. But a situation of this nature does not need an individual, it needs an organization like the United Nations to mediate. We must understand the seriousness of this situation. The United States has made serious mistakes in the conduct of its foreign affairs, which have had unfortunate repercussions long after the decisions were taken. Unqualified support of the Shah of Iran led directly to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Then the United States chose to arm and finance the [Islamic] mujahedin in Afghanistan instead of supporting and encouraging the moderate wing of the government of Afghanistan. That is what led to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the most catastrophic action of the United States was to sabotage the decision that was painstakingly stitched together by the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace. Because what [America] is saying is that if you are afraid of a veto in the Security Council, you can go outside and take action and violate the sovereignty of other countries. That is the message they are sending to the world. That must be condemned in the strongest terms. And you will notice that France, Germany Russia, China are against this decision. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W. Bush's desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America. If you look at those factors, you'll see that an individual like myself, a man who has lost power and influence, can never be a suitable mediator.


What about the argument that's being made about the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and Saddam's efforts to build a nuclear weapons. After all, he has invaded other countries, he has fired missiles at Israel. On Thursday, President Bush is going to stand up in front of the United Nations and point to what he says is evidence of ,

,  Scott Ritter, a former United Nations arms inspector who is in Baghdad, has said that there is no evidence whatsoever of [development of weapons of] mass destruction. Neither Bush nor [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair has provided any evidence that such weapons exist. But what we know is that Israel has weapons of mass destruction. Nobody talks about that. Why should there be one standard for one country, especially because it is black, and another one for another country, Israel, that is white.

So you see this as a racial question?

Well, that element is there. In fact, many people say quietly, but they don't have the courage to stand up and say publicly, that when there were white secretary generals you didn't find this question of the United States and Britain going out of the United Nations. But now that you've had black secretary generals like Boutros Boutros Ghali, like Kofi Annan, they do not respect the United Nations. They have contempt for it. This is not my view, but that is what is being said by many people.

What kind of compromise can you see that might avoid the coming confrontation?

There is one compromise and one only, and that is the United Nations. If the United States and Britain go to the United Nations and the United Nations says we have concrete evidence of the existence of these weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we feel that we must do something about it, we would all support it.

Do you think that the Bush administration's U.N. diplomatic effort now is genuine, or is the President just looking for political cover by speaking to the U.N. even as he remains intent on forging ahead unilaterally?

Well, there is no doubt that the United States now feels that they are the only superpower in the world and they can do what they like. And of course we must consider the men and the women around the president. Gen. Colin Powell commanded the United States army in peacetime and in wartime during the Gulf war. He knows the disastrous effect of international tension and war, when innocent people are going to die, young men are going to die. He knows and he showed this after September 11 last year. He went around briefing the allies of the United States of America and asking for their support for the war in Afghanistan. But people like D. Cheney ,  I see yesterday there was an article that said he is the real president of the United States of America, I don't know how true that is. D. Cheney, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld, they are people who are unfortunately misleading the president. Because my impression of the president is that this is a man with whom you can do business. But it is the men who around him who are dinosaurs, who do not want him to belong to the modern age. The only man, the only person who wants to help Bush move to the modern era is Gen. Colin Powell, the secretary of State.

I gather you are particularly concerned about Vice President Cheney?

Well, there is no doubt. He opposed the decision to release me from prison [laughs]. The majority of the U.S. Congress was in favor of my release, and he opposed it. But it's not because of that. Quite clearly we are dealing with an arch-conservative in D. Cheney.
I'm interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, "I'm going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest." Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you've been very active.
I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it's difficult to say no.


I'm interested in your decision to speak out now about Iraq. When you left office, you said, "I'm going to go down to Transkei, and have a rest." Now maybe that was a joke at the time. But you've been very active.

I really wanted to retire and rest and spend more time with my children, my grandchildren and of course with my wife. But the problems are such that for anybody with a conscience who can use whatever influence he may have to try to bring about peace, it's difficult to say no.