Russia did not allow the Americans to fool themselves
On April 21, World Bank member countries decided to increase the bank’s capital by $ 13 billion. Of these funds, $ 7,5 billion should go to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and $ 5,5 billion to the International Finance Corporation. Russia refused to participate in the recapitalization of the World Bank. There is nothing surprising. As stressed by the Deputy Minister of Finance of the Russian Federation Sergey Storchak, the current policy Bank may lead to its financial instability.
As you know, the United States plays the “first fiddle” at the World Bank. From the point of view of Washington, if a country has international reserves in US dollars, then it can no longer be called poor, therefore, it should not borrow money from the World Bank. But the World Bank is a financial, not a charitable organization. Calling to invest in the development of various projects in the most backward countries of the world, the World Bank is digging a hole for itself. After all, most of these projects are unprofitable. Nobody argues - underdeveloped countries need help, but WB projects in Honduras or Sierra Leone, Malawi or Lesotho can hardly be called income-oriented. Rather, it is precisely charity, and after all, a financial organization must take care of replenishing its own reserves and strengthening its position.
Now, deciding on the maximum generation of its funds in the most backward countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the World Bank is opposed to the interests of middle-income countries - China, India or Russia. By the way, it is the World Bank's projects implemented in these countries that contribute to the replenishment of its reserves. India is now the largest borrower of the World Bank with the volume of attracted loans of 2-4 billion dollars a year, another about 2 billion dollars a year attracts China - the second borrower of the World Bank. By redistributing World Bank funds in favor of the “weakest,” the United States and the European Union, which are behind the financial institution, actually want to withdraw obligations to help backward countries from themselves and shift them to India, China, and Russia.
But is this necessary for our country? The World Bank is now controlled by the United States, which has a 20% blocking stake. At the same time, Washington has long been openly declaring that it is not going to give money to the International Finance Corporation, and it keeps the package in order to influence its decisions. And this is being done quite successfully. The bank has become an instrument of US political pressure on objectionable countries. For example, the World Bank refused to finance projects in the Russian Federation. Why should Russia invest in this financial institution?
As you know, the United States plays the “first fiddle” at the World Bank. From the point of view of Washington, if a country has international reserves in US dollars, then it can no longer be called poor, therefore, it should not borrow money from the World Bank. But the World Bank is a financial, not a charitable organization. Calling to invest in the development of various projects in the most backward countries of the world, the World Bank is digging a hole for itself. After all, most of these projects are unprofitable. Nobody argues - underdeveloped countries need help, but WB projects in Honduras or Sierra Leone, Malawi or Lesotho can hardly be called income-oriented. Rather, it is precisely charity, and after all, a financial organization must take care of replenishing its own reserves and strengthening its position.
Now, deciding on the maximum generation of its funds in the most backward countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, the World Bank is opposed to the interests of middle-income countries - China, India or Russia. By the way, it is the World Bank's projects implemented in these countries that contribute to the replenishment of its reserves. India is now the largest borrower of the World Bank with the volume of attracted loans of 2-4 billion dollars a year, another about 2 billion dollars a year attracts China - the second borrower of the World Bank. By redistributing World Bank funds in favor of the “weakest,” the United States and the European Union, which are behind the financial institution, actually want to withdraw obligations to help backward countries from themselves and shift them to India, China, and Russia.
But is this necessary for our country? The World Bank is now controlled by the United States, which has a 20% blocking stake. At the same time, Washington has long been openly declaring that it is not going to give money to the International Finance Corporation, and it keeps the package in order to influence its decisions. And this is being done quite successfully. The bank has become an instrument of US political pressure on objectionable countries. For example, the World Bank refused to finance projects in the Russian Federation. Why should Russia invest in this financial institution?
- P P 'SЊSЏ RџRѕR "RѕRЅSЃRєRёR№
- http://goldenfront.ru/
Information