Dominique Strauss-Kahn calls himself a free-market Socialist. He spoke with CNN’s Jim Bittermann.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/business/2007/10/02/bitterman.strauss.kahn.intv.cnn

Le nouveau directeur général du Fonds monétaire international fait part de ses projets pour réformer une institution qui connaît une crise identitaire

Vous avez été élu directeur général du Fonds monétaire international (FMI), vendredi 28 septembre. Pourquoi cette réorientation qui vous tiendra éloigné des joutes politiques françaises ?

Qu’est-ce que la politique, pour moi ? Défendre les convictions auxquelles on croit et les mettre en application lorsqu’on le peut. Cela fait des années que je dis qu’il est nécessaire et possible de réguler la mondialisation pour en réduire les aspects négatifs. Là, j’ai l’occasion de ne pas seulement le dire, mais de pouvoir le faire, bref, de mettre la main à la pâte.

Cette occasion, je l’ai saisie. J’ai été candidat, d’abord soutenu par les pays européens. Puis, au terme d’une campagne de 100 000 kilomètres, j’ai été élu par consensus rassemblant aussi - et j’en suis très heureux - les pays émergents et les pays pauvres. Maintenant, je veux relever ce défi ; il mérite que je m’y investisse totalement.

Les modalités de votre élection ont été contestées par les Russes et des Latino-Américains. Ont-ils raison ?

Mon élection n’a pas été si contestée que cela, si l’on s’en tient aux résultats ! Mais, c’est vrai, les modalités de l’élection l’ont été et, peut-être vais-je vous surprendre, je considère que c’est normal. L’accord tacite entre les Américains, qui se réservent la direction de la Banque mondiale, et les Européens, qui placent un des leurs à la tête du FMI, n’a plus de raison d’être. Un ressortissant de n’importe lequel des 185 Etats membres doit pouvoir diriger le Fonds, dès lors qu’il en a les compétences. J’aurais pu passer l’été en vacances et espérer être désigné simplement parce que j’étais européen. J’ai voulu rassembler et convaincre autour d’un projet de réforme.

Pourquoi le FMI est-il en crise ?

Après la seconde guerre mondiale, le FMI a été créé pour favoriser la croissance et le développement du commerce grâce à la stabilité financière. Les souvenirs de la crise des années 1930 étaient encore vifs. Cette mission n’a rien perdu de sa raison d’être, mais elle ne pourra être accomplie que si le FMI s’adapte aux réalités du monde. Il ne peut plus se contenter d’être un ” gendarme ” qui prête de l’argent en contrepartie de règles très dures pour les pays en difficulté. Le Fonds est confronté à un monde plus complexe, comme le prouve la crise des crédits hypothécaires à risques partie des Etats-Unis. Comment maîtriser, en effet, un système qui interconnecte les marchés et diffuse les crises à grande vitesse ?

Deuxième exemple : les rapports de force géopolitiques ont changé. Les pays émergents - la Chine, l’Inde, le Brésil, l’Afrique du Sud ou le Mexique - veulent peser davantage. Ils ont raison !

Troisième exemple : ces pays et d’autres ne veulent plus que la stabilité financière soit acquise au détriment des équilibres sociaux. Ils ont encore raison !

Dernier exemple, les ressources du FMI. Depuis cinq ans, il n’y a pas eu une seule crise de change - et le FMI n’y est pas pour rien. Ce faisant, le Fonds voit tarir ses ressources, puisqu’il vit des intérêts des prêts qu’il consent aux pays en crise.

Faut-il vendre une partie des 3 217 tonnes d’or du FMI et placer le produit de cette vente pour avoir des recettes ?

La plupart des banquiers centraux que j’ai consultés n’y sont pas hostiles. Mais cette réforme suppose un large consensus.

Quelles seront vos priorités ?

Le FMI doit avoir une vision plus vaste de sa mission, mais il faut aussi renforcer sa légitimité. La représentation de chaque pays au sein du FMI doit refléter les évolutions récentes de l’économie mondiale. C’est ce que l’on appelle la question des quotes-parts, que mon prédécesseur Rodrigo Rato a déjà bien traitée. Avancer vers une solution acceptable par tous constitue une de mes priorités. Une telle réforme est difficile, évidemment nécessaire, mais évidemment insuffisante. C’est pourquoi j’ai lancé l’idée qu’une double majorité soit requise pour les questions cruciales : on pourrait prendre en compte à la fois le nombre de membres du conseil d’administration et le poids de chacun de ces membres.

Parmi les dons que Keynes entendait placer dans le berceau du Fonds, figurait un ” manteau multicolore pour rappeler que le Fonds appartient au monde entier “. Oui, tout le monde doit s’y sentir chez lui et cela doit se voir dans la composition de son personnel où l’Afrique, l’Asie et l’Amérique latine ne sont pas assez représentées. Pour trouver les remèdes appropriés, il faut connaître l’histoire et la culture d’un pays. L’apport d’hommes et de femmes venus de tous les horizons géographiques est donc essentiel.

Etes-vous d’accord avec ceux qui disent : ” Au FMI les prêts aux pays émergents et à la Banque mondiale les dons aux pays pauvres ” ?

Ce n’est pas ma vision des choses. Les déséquilibres macro-économiques génèrent des problèmes sociaux - et vice-versa - aussi bien dans les pays à revenus intermédiaires que dans les économies les plus défavorisées. On ne peut développer un pays sans prendre en compte le court et le long terme, sa démographie et son agriculture autant que son cadre budgétaire et sa balance des paiements. Il faut en finir avec l’image d’une Banque mondiale ” bonne maman ” et d’un FMI maniant le ” gros bâton ” ! Avec Robert Zoellick, le nouveau président de la Banque, nous avons décidé de travailler de concert. Nous pourrions travailler aussi avec d’autres institutions comme le Programme des Nations unies pour le développement - PNUD - et l’Organisation mondiale du commerce - OMC - . Chacun doit remplir sa propre mission mais, quand les problèmes sont globaux, les solutions doivent être globales.

Propos recueillis par Alain Faujas

« Le Conseil d’administration du Fonds Monétaire International vient de me choisir pour succéder à Rodrigo de Rato au poste de Directeur général.

C’est pour moi une joie, un honneur et une responsabilité. Je veux remercier Jean-Claude Juncker, grâce à qui tout a commencé ; Nicolas Sarkozy, qui au nom de la France a appuyé avec force ma candidature ; les ministres de l’Union Européenne qui m’ont fait confiance et plus largement tous ceux qui m’ont apporté leur voix.

Fort de la puissante légitimité que me donne le très large soutien dont j’ai bénéficié, notamment dans les pays émergents et les pays à bas revenus, je suis déterminé à engager sans tarder les réformes dont le FMI a besoin pour mettre la stabilité financière au service des peuples en favorisant la croissance et l’emploi ».

 Dominique Strauss-Kahn

“The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund has just chosen me to succeed Rodrigo de Rato in the role of Managing Director.

This is a pleasure, an honour and a responsibility for me. I would like to thank Jean-Claude Juncker, who set everything going at the beginning; Nicolas Sarkozy, who on behalf of France strongly supported my candidacy; the ministers of the European Union who showed their confidence in me and generally, all those who gave me their support.

Backed by the powerful credibility reflected in the very broad support for my candidacy, particularly from emerging market and low-income countries, I am determined to launch promptly the process of reforms that the IMF needs to ensure that financial stability serves the world’s people focusing on growth and jobs.”

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Press Release No. 07/211 _ September 28, 2007

The Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) today selected Dominique Strauss-Kahn to serve as IMF Managing Director and Chairman of the Executive Board for a five-year term starting on November 1, 2007. Mr. Strauss-Kahn will succeed Mr. Rodrigo de Rato.

The 24-member Executive Board selected Mr. Strauss-Kahn based on the candidate profile and the selection procedure established by the IMF’s Executive Board on July 12, 2007 (see Press Release No. 07/159). Following interviews with the two candidates for the position, Executive Directors considered the strengths of the candidates and proceeded to select Mr. Strauss-Kahn formally by consensus.

The Managing Director is the chief of the IMF’s operating staff and Chairman of the Executive Board. He is assisted by three Deputy Managing Directors. The IMF has 185 member countries and staff from more than 140 countries.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 58, a national of France, has been a member of the National Assembly and is Professor of Economics at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris. He served as Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry from June 1997 to November 1999. He also served as Minister of Industry and International Trade from 1991-1993. Between 1993 and 1997, Mr. Strauss-Kahn joined the private sector as a corporate lawyer. Since 2000, Mr. Strauss-Kahn has taught economics at the Institut d’Etudes Politiques de Paris and he has been a visiting professor at Stanford University. Mr. Strauss-Kahn holds a PhD in economics from the University of Paris.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva expressed his support for the candidature of the former French Finance Minister, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, to head the International Monetary Fund.

Press release of the Brasilian government :

“As governor representative for Brazil and eight others countries of our region, at the IMF, I hereby announce the intention of the Brazilian government to support the candidacy of Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the position of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. This means Mr. Strauss-Kahn is the preferred candidate rather than the Czech Josef Tosovsky.

Although both the candidates are highly qualified, Mr. Strauss-Kahn has clearly manifested his commitment to promote a reform of the IMF aimed at changing the system of voting and representation, while at the same time democratising decision-making procedures thereby bringing a significant increase in the participation of and other developing countries.

In addition, Mr. Strauss-Kahn has demonstrated his conviction that the traditional ongoing, but unwritten procedures for choosing the President of the World Bank and the Managing Director of the IMF are indefensible and should be abandoned. He also shows that he appreciates the need to overhaul the procedures of the IMF so that they allow for better reconciliation between the fund’s change and stabilisation programs and the economic development targets of the members countries themselves, particularly those with low growth rates.”

The government of Chile announced in Santiago its support to the candidacy of DSK for the position of IMF Managing Director.

«This support is based on the consideration that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is highly qualified» for the job, Chile’s Finance Minister Andres Velasco and Central Bank President Vittorio Corbo said in a joint statement.

They said that during a visit the Chile, Strauss-Kahn made clear he is committed to advancing institutional reforms «related to the representation of quotas and the voice of emerging and developing countries”.

Le gouvernement du Chili a annoncé à Santiago son soutien à la candidature de DSK à la tête du Fonds monétaire international (FMI).

“Ce soutien se base sur le fait que nous considérons que M. Strauss-Kahn est hautement qualifié” pour le poste de directeur général du FMI, ont déclaré le Ministre chilien des Finances Andres Velasco et le président de la Banque centrale Vittorio Corbo dans un communiqué commun.

The Argentine government announced its formal support for the candidacy of Dominque Strauss-Kahn for the top job of the International Monetary Fund.

The support was announced by Argentina’s Economy Ministry in a statement that described Strauss-Kahn as combining “excellent technical and leadership skills, with a desire to change (the IMF)”.

Washington, D.C., September 20, 2007

“Ladies and gentlemen, members of the Board,

First, let me thank you, Mr. Dean and Directors, for having invited me to give formal consideration to my candidacy.  Since our last informal meeting I have made public declarations and, more recently, I published an article in the Wall Street Journal, in which I summarized my key ideas. I would like to come back in a more detailed and comprehensive way on some points.

Following the decision of the Board to allow a long period of candidacy with a view to having an open and transparent process of selection based on merits and regardless of nationality, I decided to visit as many members as possible. I tried to focus on emerging, developing and less developed countries in order to collect information, complaints and wishes about the future of the IMF. After a 60,000-mile long journey, I was struck by the realization of the extent to which the institution is at a crossroads. Indeed, what might be at stake today is the very existence of the IMF as the major institution providing financial stability to the world, a global public good. In sum, the two main issues are relevance and legitimacy.
 
Let’s start with relevance.

The IMF’s mandate has not changed much since the 1940s. Its mission, as always, is to facilitate growth and to promote employment by ensuring the world’s financial stability. But the context has changed, and at a time of rapid globalization such as ours, its role is more essential than ever.  The IMF was founded to deal with current account crises, in which exchange rate problems appeared to play a crucial role. Since the 1990s, however, a new kind of crisis emerged, linked to capital account weaknesses. Nowadays, exchange rates still have a considerable impact on financial stability but this impact is much more complex and any attempts to ensure financial stability cannot be considered in isolation from other essential factors, such as the role of investment flows, emerging new actors or new structured products. In our world, financial stability and macroeconomic stability are closely interlinked, as they also are a key determinant of the broad concept of security. All of this means that the IMF should retain a central role in a context that is completely different from the one which prevailed when it was created.

A lot has already been done in the last years to reform and adapt the Fund. Still, the task of the next MD is to go on rebuilding the credibility and the efficiency of the Fund.

Surveillance first (i). Some progress has been achieved to enhance the effectiveness of the Fund’s surveillance on sustainability of balance of payments positions and on disruptive exchange rate movements. The revision of the 1977 decision rightly adapts the framework of surveillance to a world of diversified exchange rate regimes and narrow integration of domestic and international stability, and we have to implement it in a consensual and fair manner.

Beyond balance of payments positions and exchange rates, the whole notion of financial risks has to be reconsidered, including their nature, distribution and backing. Some progress can be highlighted in that domain too : standards and codes initiative, international code of good practices, etc.. But this is not enough.

We need to make strides on the work initiated within the Medium- Term Strategy to increase synergies among all kinds of surveillance activities and include where relevant, at the heart of the article IV, an analysis of financial sector stability and of the impact of financial sector stability on macro performance. We also need to place greater focus on our multilateral surveillance of financial sector issues and of the spillovers of market instability episodes among countries. To achieve this, generalizing the FSAP is certainly a first step. Beyond that, we need to pursue current initiatives to better integrate multilateral and bilateral surveillance, namely by taking into account the balance sheet linkages. This, consequently, leads us to consolidate the recent merger of the monetary and capital markets departments in order to strengthen the MCM department.

The different lending instruments (ii) the IMF uses when needed have to be modernized and the crucial question of conditionality, which has been at the center of many polemics, needs to be reconsidered focusing on what is really relevant for the success of a program. In this respect, the RAL appears to be an interesting instrument to be looked at.

As a Frenchman, I will not surprise you by saying that the Fund should remain committed in low-income countries. By LICs, I mean of course Africa, but also other parts of the world, including in Latin America and in Asia. Obviously, poverty is a complex phenomenon and the Fund alone cannot address this issue. That is why more than ever, the Fund needs to work very closely with other partners, and especially the World Bank. This is the condition of the Fund’s relevance vis-a-vis the poorest countries: a focused expertise and targeted tools to deal with the specific challenges in LICs. In particular, I was struck in my meetings with representatives from developing countries by their request for technical assistance which they do appreciate, even though some improvements are always possible, especially in connection with the World Bank.

At least point (i) and to a certain extent point (ii) imply a better connection of the IMF with countries of systemic importance. In the coming years, financial stability may depend as much on what is done in those countries (including industrialized countries) as on imbalances in the rest of the world.

Last but not least, the staff, which is obviously the Fund’s main asset, has to adapt to the changing world. I would like to share a few questions for your consideration: can we continue to have a staff that spends its whole career in the Fund? Or should we promote a more diverse career for the staff by encouraging mobility outside of the headquarters and enhancing the program of hiring of mid-career professionals, including those with market and policy-making experiences? We should also look at the question of those regions that are largely underrepresented in the staff. This of course cannot be done at the expense of the quality of staff.

To rebuild the Fund along these lines implies to renew the income model of the Fund. In my view, most of what has been recommended by the Crockett report is sensible, it means changes on the income side. Two of the Committee’s recommendations could by themselves help us deal with the Fund’s income challenge in a sustainable way, while taking into account its renewed role as provider of global public goods : the proposal to invest part of the quotas and the proceeds of a limited part of gold assets of the Fund.

Increase in revenue cannot obviously be the only solution; the remedy to current difficulties in the Fund will equally rely on a more efficient budgetary system ensuring that we have a better control of expenditures.

Of course, these recommendations must be discussed carefully by the Board. If I am selected, this is the kind of decision that I will take in full partnership. I will need all your support and consent. Let me tell you that it is my intention to lead the institution as a consensus builder with full respect of the Board. All these changes cannot happen overnight. Part of this has already been undertaken, a lot remains to be done. But regaining a role of leadership in providing financial stability to the world in a context in which the risks are totally new, adapting our lending tools and programs to a changing world taking into account the new balance of power, improving our technical assistance, and putting the staff in a better position to be fully able to do its duty, are the conditions for the IMF not only to thrive but even to survive.

Relevance is obviously necessary, so is legitimacy.

At his first meeting to the Fund, Keynes called the Bretton Woods twins, Master Fund and Miss Bank. He said they would receive three gifts the first of which was a many-colored coat “as a perpetual reminder that they belong to the whole world”.

Most emerging, developing and less developed countries do question the legitimacy of the Fund. Part of the problem is the highly debated question of quotas. But solving the quota question, even if absolutely necessary, will not solve the whole question of representation. Who can believe that a change in some percentage points will be enough to rebuild the legitimacy of the Fund? In no way should this argument be used to delay reform. But reform cannot stop with a change in quotas. Voice and representation of most countries in a changing world have to be better taken into account by the Board, but also by the Staff - the diversity of which has to improve, as well as by Management.

I have given the example of a double majority system (quotas and chairs) as a way to better ensure that key decisions command the appropriate level of consensus. While I don’t think any institutional change is mandatory, I can nevertheless make a commitment to consider that any decision not likely to obtain the support of a qualified majority of chairs should be delayed by the MD.

The question of legitimacy is at the core of the different proposals of regional institutions. I am convinced that the key to understanding the economic and financial debates which currently dominate the news is that we must find a multilateral approach to our problems.  This renewed approach towards multilateralism does not mean that other approaches are to be turned down, and indeed, as an unflagging instigator of the euro, I welcome the various initiatives aimed at promoting regional integration. But these initiatives will be even more successful if they maintain a strong link with the IMF itself, which remains a central institution regarding crisis prevention and resolution, even if much can be improved, such as enhancing the cooperation of the Fund with other multilateral institutions.

The last point with legitimacy is the legitimacy of the MD.
I have said that all these changes cannot take place overnight. It is a fascinating task to give the Fund its right place. This task needs at least a five-year term to which I commit myself.

The MD is the voice of the organization and needs to represent organization as a whole. Everybody here is aware of the debate on the so-called agreement between the US and Europe. This agreement is probably less and less defensible and the MD has to be chosen on merits without any reference to his or her nationality, as you pointed out in July. From this point of view, isn’t it ironic that both candidates today are Europeans ? It is because the next MD has to be backed by the whole organization that I decided to travel around, visiting a lot a members, listening to them and learning from them. This is also the reason why I am asking for broad support from the Board. I don’t want to be the candidate from the North against the South or from the wealthy against the poor. First of all because it is not what I believe in. And second, and more important, because the Fund would be doomed to fail.

Let me say clearly to conclude, that if you select me as the next Managing Director, I intend to fulfill the three key duties of the MD: to chair the Board and ensure that the MD is a consensus builder, to work with the staff and to lead it, and to represent the institution as best I can.

In a nutshell, the decades to come will bring numerous new financial risks. I believe in multilateralism and I think that to help the world to benefit from globalization we need a more influential IMF not a less influential one.
Such an institution may provide the public good of a dispassionate and independent analysis of the spill-over effects of one country’s policies on others. As countries are reluctant to cede any control over their economic policies, the IMF must have as instruments the power of analysis and persuasion, and, in Keynes’ own words, ruthless truth-telling.
It will be a hard task for all of us to rebuild both the relevance and the legitimacy of this organization. But I am prepared to do that and I ask you to be prepared as well. An institution like the IMF is priceless. It would probably be impossible to create such an institution today. The IMF is a gift of the past; let’s make the IMF a promise for the future.”

Dominique Strauss-Kahn

Secretary Paulson Supports Strauss-Kahn for Managing Director of IMF

Washington, DC– Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. made the following statement today in support of the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn for Managing Director at the International Monetary Fund:

“I urge the Board to positively consider the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn to succeed Rodrigo de Rato. The U.S. is supporting Mr. Strauss-Kahn because we believe he will work to make the bold reforms necessary to lead a strong and relevant Fund into the future. Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s experience and drive have prepared him well to vigorously pursue reform of the IMF, including implementation of the Fund’s new decision on exchange rate policies and giving a greater voice to emerging market countries.”

Le Secrétaire du Trésor, Monsieur Henry M. Paulson, soutient la candidature de Dominique Strauss-Kahn au poste de Directeur Général du FMI<

Washington, DC — Le Secrétaire du Trésor, Monsieur Henry M. Paulson Jr, a fait aujourd’hui la déclaration suivante en faveur de la candidature de Dominique Strauss-Kahn au poste de Directeur Général du Fonds Monétaire International.

“Je conseille vivement au Conseil d’accueillir favorablement la candidature de Dominique Strauss-Kahn à la succession de Rodrigo de Rato. Les États-Unis soutiennent M. Strauss-Kahn, car nous sommes convaincus qu’il saura faire les réformes audacieuses nécessaires pour préparer à l’avenir un Fonds plus fort et pertinent. L’expérience et le dynamisme de M. Strauss-Kahn l’ont bien préparé à poursuivre avec vigueur la réforme du FMI, ce qui implique de mettre en œuvre la récente décision du Fonds sur les politiques des taux de change et de faire une place plus grande aux pays émergents.”

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Islamabad informed the French government that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan will support Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s candidacy.

Le Ministère des Affaires étrangères à Islamabad a informé le gouvernement français que le Pakistan soutiendra la candidature de DSK.

Press release of Mr. Antenor Rosales Bolaños, Governor of the Nicaragua Central Bank:

“The government of Nicaragua has announced its support for the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

This announcement was confirmed today by Antenor Rosales Bolaños, governor of the Nicaragua Central Bank (NCB) and the country’s governor representative at the IMF.

Nicaragua hopes that the election of Strauss-Kahn as Managing Director of the IMF will have a positive impact in galvanising a greater effort on the part of this financial body towards supporting national efforts at increasing economic growth, producing more wealth and reducing poverty levels in the country.

At a meeting with Strauss-Kahn, held in Mexico City together with the governors of the central banks of Mexico, Central America, The Dominican Republic and Haiti, the governor of the NCB raised the issues of the role of poor countries in international organisations, the mechanisms for ensuring representation of Central America in the IMF, the need to strengthen bilateral communication and greater democracy in the election of officials to the organisation.”

Communiqué de Mr. Antenor Rosales Bolaños, Président de la Banque Centrale du Nicaragua:

“Le Nicaragua soutien la candidature de Dominique Strauss-Kahn à la direction du Fonds monétaire international (FMI). Nous espérons qu’il permettra au Nicaragua d’obtenir un soutien plus important du FMI aux efforts nationaux pour relancer la croissance et réduire la pauvreté. Le Nicaragua souhaite discuter du rôle des pays pauvres au sein des organismes internationaux et la nécessité de démocratiser la nomination des fonctionnaires”

Mr. Paulson, Secretary of the US Treasury :

“I met Mr. Strauss-Kahn in Washington (…). I really appreciated his vision, he’s very strong. I’m very positive on Strauss-Kahn’s candidacy”

“We share the same vision of the IMF”

M. Pauslon, Secrétaire américain au Trésor:

 ”Je l’ai rencontré à Washington (…) J’ai beaucoup apprécié sa vision des choses, il est très fort. Je suis très positif au sujet de Dominique Strauss-Kahn”

“Nous avons une vision similaire sur le FMI”.

Published on the official website of the President of Ukraine - 16:52 - 12 September 2007.

“Ukraine will support the candidature of the French economist Dominique Strauss-Kahn for the post of Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. This was stated at the briefing today by Oleksandr Chaliy, the Deputy Head of the President’s Office.

Ukraine will support the candidature of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. He is a representative of France, the former Minister of Finance’,- he stated. O.Chaliy also stated that had visited Ukraine several times and has good contacts with senior officials of the country, including V. Yuschenko, the President.

According to Oleksandr Chaliy, the candidature of D.Strauss-Kahn has won broad support from all the countries of the European Union.”

Site officiel du Président ukrainien - 16h52, le 12 septembre 2007

“L’Ukraine soutient la candidature de l’économiste français Dominique Strauss-Kahn au poste de directeur général du Fonds monétaire international. Cette déclaration a été faite aujourd’hui lors d’une conférence par Oleksandr Chaliy, directeur adjoint du Cabinet du président.

L’Ukraine soutient la candidature de Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Il est le représentant de la France et ancien ministre des Finances. » O. Chaliy a également ajouté que D. Strauss-Kahn s’était rendu plusieurs fois en Ukraine et qu’il avait eu de bons contacts avec de hauts fonctionnaires, ainsi qu’avec le président V. Yuschenko.

Selon Oleksandr Chaliy, la candidature de D. Strauss-Kahn bénéficie d’un large soutien de la part de tous les pays de l’Union européenne.”

Deputy Head Oleksandr Chaly of the President’s office declared that Ukraine would support Dominique Strauss Kahn’s candidature for the post of the International Monetary Fund Chairman.

“On the issue, we’ll associate our position with the European Union’s one”

 Published by the Wall Street Journal

 ”In the weeks to come, the executive board of the International Monetary Fund will have the responsibility of appointing its managing director for the next five years. Regardless of nationality, what truly matters is that whoever is selected to run the IMF should embrace a number of vital changes within the organization. That is why, as the candidate of reform, I have recently embarked on an extensive tour of world capitals, listening to points of views of all IMF members, not just the largest, and building consensus on the need for change.

More than ever, we need the IMF to help us face the challenges of our times. Our world is very different from what it was when the founding fathers met at Bretton Woods. International trade and capital flows have grown exponentially, contributing to our prosperity and, at the same time, making our economies increasingly dependent on each other. Exchange rate regimes have diversified. Capital markets have developed, both domestically and internationally. And, last but not least, a new economic geography has arisen, with emerging economies becoming major actors in the world economy, a fact which has yet to be reflected in their voting power in the Fund.

However, it seems to me that the fundamental purpose and mission of the IMF remain the same: to enable all countries, whether rich or poor, big or small, to fully embrace the process of globalization and reap the benefits of an open international economic and financial system. Of course, our environment has changed, and the IMF methods and tools should adapt accordingly. Interdependence has increased the spill-over effects of our national policies. That is why we should build on progress made in recent years in developing new approaches to multilateral surveillance.

Recent events have shown furthermore that domestic and international financial stability cannot be taken for granted. It is very encouraging to see how emerging economies have withstood current episodes of market turbulences, thus reaping the benefits of past efforts to strengthen domestic financial systems and implement sound macroeconomic policies. Nevertheless, the Fund should stand ready to play its role and bring necessary assistance, if needed, to countries hit by external financial shocks. Its mission remains, as ever, to ensure world financial stability and promote sound domestic policies.

Finally, poor countries should be encouraged in their endeavors to better integrate in the world economy and must be able to count on the Fund’s support. The Fund’s role is not to substitute development agencies. But, in light of how important macroeconomic stability is to poverty reduction, there is no doubt in my mind that the IMF should remain active in low-income countries. I discussed this issue in depth with the African governors in Maputo in July and with Latin American governors in August, together with the ways to improve the coordination between the IMF and development agencies, first and foremost the World Bank.

A key issue in the current debates is that we must find a multilateral approach to our problems. This renewed approach towards multilateralism does not mean that other approaches are to be turned down, and indeed, as an unflagging champion of the introduction of the euro, I welcome the various initiatives to promote regional integration. But these initiatives will be even more successful if there is a place where common rules can be discussed and agreed upon.

The main asset of the Fund to be that place is the exceptional dedication and quality of its staff, which helps it provide adequate intellectual impetus and state-of-the art analysis. There is certainly scope to include more diversity in the staff, in order to ensure that the Fund develops the right expertise on countries to which it gives advice.

Another key issue is legitimacy. Let us be clear: The emerging and developing world does not feel sufficient ownership in the Fund. In order to reassert the legitimacy of the IMF, these countries must be granted a greater voice and more effective representation. This is linked to the so-called “quota issue,” on which some progress has been achieved at the annual meetings in Singapore last September. We should go much further and aim to agree swiftly on significant further increases for those countries whose dynamism and growing role in the world economy is not appropriately reflected in the quota distribution, while ensuring that all categories of countries are given sufficient voice.

But quota reform may not be enough. I believe the dynamic of decision making has to be changed in order to decisively increase the input of developing and emerging economies. To achieve that, new voting rules may be worth considering. For example, for a handful of crucial decisions, a double majority of quotas and countries could be required, thus ensuring that those decisions affecting key aspects of the institution command unquestionable support. A system of double majority voting would entail two sets of criteria for assessing a majority, for example possibly using the existing “quotas” — the IMF votes weighted by size of the economy — as well as a single vote per country.

Lastly, the IMF needs both a resource-efficient budgetary framework and a more sustainable income model. In that respect, I find most of the recommendations of the recent Crockett report, which contained various suggestions on how to establish sustainable revenue sources for the IMF, to be eminently sensible.

As the candidate of reform, I would aim to steer the IMF on a path to confront and surmount its major challenges: adapting the institution to a changing world while reflecting the views and needs of all members.

In a welcome break with past practice, the IMF executive board said on July 12 that all candidates should be assessed on their merits rather than on nationality. Although I was invited by the European Union to stand for the job, I believe it has been crucial to ensure the broader international support for this vital position. During my recent world tour, I have learned much and I feel confident that, if appointed, I would find the necessary support to implement an ambitious reform program to ensure the enduring relevance of the IMF in a rapidly changing world economy.”

Publié par le Wall Street Journal 

“Dans les semaines à venir, le conseil d’administration du FMI aura la responsabilité de choisir son directeur général pour les cinq prochaines années. Quelle que soit la nationalité de la personne choisie pour diriger le FMI, ce qui importe vraiment est que celle-ci embrasse un certain nombre de changements fondamentaux au sein de cet organisme. C’est pourquoi, en tant que candidat de la réforme, je me suis récemment rendu dans de nombreuses capitales. J’ai écouté les points de vue de tous les membres du FMI, pas seulement des plus grands, et forgé un consensus sur la nécessité d’un changement.

Plus que jamais, nous avons besoin du FMI pour relever les défis de notre époque. Notre monde est très différent de ce qu’il était lorsque ses pères fondateurs se sont réunis à Bretton Woods. Le commerce international et les mouvements de capitaux ont augmenté de façon exponentielle, ce qui a contribué à notre prospérité et, en même temps, a rendu nos économies toujours plus dépendantes les unes des autres. Les régimes de taux de change se sont diversifiés. Les marchés des capitaux se sont développés, à l’intérieur des frontières nationales et internationalement. Enfin, et ce n’est pas le moindre, une nouvelle géographie économique s’est dessinée. Les économies émergentes sont devenues des acteurs incontournables de l’économie mondiale, un fait qui peine encore à se refléter dans leur droit de vote au Fonds Monétaire International.

Néanmoins, il me semble que le but et la mission fondamentale du FMI sont restés les mêmes : permettre à tous les pays, riches ou pauvres, grands ou petits, de s’engager pleinement dans le processus de mondialisation et de recueillir les fruits d’un système économique et financier international ouvert. Évidemment, notre environnement a changé, et les méthodes et les instruments du FMI doivent s’adapter en conséquence. L’interdépendance a amplifié les retombées  internationales de nos politiques économiques nationales. C’est pourquoi nous devons approfondir les nouvelles approches en matière de surveillance multilatérale développée ces dernières années.

De récents événements ont en outre démontré que la stabilité financière nationale et internationale ne doit pas être tenue pour acquise. Il est très encourageant de voir la façon dont les économies émergentes ont résisté aux dernières turbulences du marché et recueilli à cette occasion les bénéfices des efforts passés pour renforcer les systèmes financiers nationaux et mettre en œuvre des politiques macroéconomiques adaptées. Néanmoins, le Fond doit se tenir prêt à jouer son rôle et offrir, si besoin, son assistance aux pays frappés par des chocs financiers extérieurs. Sa mission demeure, comme elle l’a toujours été, d’assurer la stabilité financière mondiale et de promouvoir la mis en œuvre des politiques nationales saines.

Enfin, les efforts des pays pauvres pour mieux s’intégrer à l’économie mondiale doivent être encouragés ; ces pays doivent pouvoir compter sur le soutien du Fonds avec des instruments adaptés à leur situation. Le rôle du Fonds n’est certes pas de se substituer aux agences de développement. Cependant, étant donné l’importance de la stabilité macroéconomique pour la réduction de la pauvreté, il ne fait aucun doute pour moi que le FMI doit rester actif dans les pays à faibles revenus. J’ai discuté en profondeur de cette question avec les gouverneurs africains à Maputo en juillet et avec les gouverneurs latino-américains en août. Nous avons aussi recherché des moyens d’améliorer la coordination entre le Fonds et les agences de développement, particulièrement avec la Banque mondiale.

Une dimension centrale des débats en cours est que nous devons trouver une approche multilatérale à nos problèmes. Cette nouvelle impulsion en faveur du multilatéralisme ne signifie pas qu’il faille renoncer aux autres approches. En tant que champion indéfectible de l’introduction de l’euro, je me réjouis des différentes initiatives pour promouvoir l’intégration régionale. Cependant, ces initiatives auront plus de chance de réussir s’il existe un lieu où discuter et convenir de règles communes.

Le principal atout du Fonds pour être ce lieu, réside dans le dévouement exceptionnel et la qualité de son personnel, qui lui procure l’impulsion intellectuelle et la qualité d’analyse nécessaire. Il demeure certainement possible d’introduire davantage de diversité dans son personnel pour faire en sorte que le Fonds développe toute l’expertise nécessaire sur les pays à qui il dispense ses conseils.

Une autre question essentielle est la légitimité du FMI. Soyons clair : le monde émergent et en voie de développement ne se sent pas suffisamment inclus dans le Fond. Dans le but de rétablir la pleine légitimité du FMI, il faut donner à ces pays une voix plus forte au sein de l’institution. C’est la question connue sous le nom des « quotes-parts », sur laquelle certains progrès ont été accomplis lors de l’assemblée annuelle du FMI à Singapour, en septembre dernier. Mais nous devons aller beaucoup plus loin et nous accorder rapidement sur une réforme ambitieuse au bénéfice des pays dont le dynamisme et le rôle croissant dans l’économie mondiale ne sont pas adéquatement reflétés dans la répartition des quotes-parts, tout en veillant à donner aux autres pays une voix suffisante.

Toutefois, la réforme des quotes-parts ne suffira probablement pas. Pour accroître sérieusement l’apport des économies émergentes et en voie de développement, je pense qu’il faut modifier la dynamique du processus de décision. Pour y parvenir, il peut être utile de réfléchir à de nouvelles règles de vote au sein du conseil d’administration du Fonds. Une double majorité de quotes-parts et de pays pourrait, par exemple, être exigée pour un petit nombre de décisions cruciales, ce qui garantirait un soutien incontestable aux décisions affectant les principaux aspects de l’institution.

Enfin, le FMI a besoin d’un cadre budgétaire rénové, économe des ressources des Etats membres, ainsi que d’un modèle de financement plus viable. À cet égard, j’adhère à la plupart des recommandations du rapport Crockett, paru en début d’année, sur le financement du FMI.

En tant que candidat de la réforme, je chercherai à placer le FMI sur une voie lui permettant de relever et de surmonter ses principaux défis : adapter l’institution à un monde en pleine évolution et refléter les points de vue et les besoins de tous ses membres.

Dans une rupture heureuse avec les pratiques passées, le conseil d’administration du FMI a annoncé, le 12 juillet 2007, que les candidats seraient jugés sur leurs mérites et non sur leur nationalité. Bien que j’aie été invité par l’Union européenne à me présenter à cette fonction, je crois que pour occuper un poste aussi primordial, il faut bénéficier du soutien international le plus large. J’ai beaucoup appris au cours de mon récent tour du monde, et je suis persuadé que, si j’étais nommé, je saurais trouver les appuis nécessaires à la mise en œuvre d’un ambitieux programme de réformes assurant au FMI de recouvrer durablement sa pleine pertinence dans une économie mondiale en rapide évolution.”

Mrs Maria Antioneta de Bonilla, President of the Central Bank of Guatemala, issued an official statement that her country is supporting DSK’s candidacy to be managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

“DSK has an excellent professional background, knowledge in economic policies and leadership qualities to manage such an institution”, said Mrs de Bonilla.

Mme Maria Antioneta de Bonilla, Présidente de la Banque Centrale du Guatemala a annoncé officiellement le soutien de son pays à la candidature de DSK à la direction générale du Fonds monétaire international (FMI)

“DSK possède une excellente formation professionnelle, les connaissances en matière de politiques économiques et les capacités de leadership pour conduire une telle institution”, a indiqué Mme de Bonilla.