April, 08 2021, 12:00am EDT
"Don't Feed the Greed Kristalina": Citizen Call for Debt Reform (or Revolt) at IMF/WBG Spring Meetings
To mark the start of two important days of debt negotiations, the international campaigning group Avaaz has invited a special guest to perform in front of IMF headquarters at the spring meetings: Evita Peron.
Singing in English, an activist dressed as Evita performed a debt-restructured version of the hit "Don't Cry for me Argentina," which includes the refrain: Don't feed the greed, Argentina / The truth is you give them Nature / All through your wildlife / Your green resilience /Just keep your glaciers / And save the planet!
WASHINGTON
To mark the start of two important days of debt negotiations, the international campaigning group Avaaz has invited a special guest to perform in front of IMF headquarters at the spring meetings: Evita Peron.
Singing in English, an activist dressed as Evita performed a debt-restructured version of the hit "Don't Cry for me Argentina," which includes the refrain: Don't feed the greed, Argentina / The truth is you give them Nature / All through your wildlife / Your green resilience /Just keep your glaciers / And save the planet!
Evita's composition is intended to draw attention to the fact that while Argentina holds a significant IMF debt, it also shares crucial climate and biodiversity wealth, free of charge. A similar imbalance (of monetary poverty despite biodiversity wealth) exists in the majority of highly-indebted poor countries (HIPC) whose IMF debts are set to be renegotiated to allow for additional urgent needs resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The lyrics highlight the fact that Argentina has one of the biggest environmental surpluses in the world, in contrast to its financial creditors, the majority of whom have a green deficit.
Avaaz is calling upon Argentina to start an international debt rebellion which would take into account contributions of climate and biodiversity wealth in overall debt calculations. This would allow poor countries to stop paying money to rich countries and invest instead in the well-being if their people and the protection of their natural wealth, with a benefit for all of us. Avaaz also calls upon the IMF's Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva to stand her ground in negotiations towards a radical debt reform.
Oscar Soria, Campaign Director at Avaaz, said in a press conference at the front of IMF HQ:
"To mark the start of these crucial spring meetings, Avaaz brought an Argentine icon to call for social inclusion and ecological justice in the current debt negotiations. The ecological debt should be considered in any further negotiations between rich and poor nations."
"Given the emerging global recognition of the need to include nature in economic models it is time that debt calculations take into account the biodiversity and climate protections provided by many developing countries, usually for little or no financial reward. By rethinking who is indebted to whom we will establish a new green economy that protects our planet while tackling debt through a sustainable and equitable lens
The perpetual renegotiation of sovereign debt between rich and poor countries is a cruel feature of a colonial mindset that believes it is fine for the wealthy to profit from the natural riches and resources of the poor, with little concern for helping them out of poverty. As a result, too many governments, especially in the Global South, find themselves stuck in spirals of indebtedness that prohibit them from investing in the health and well-being of their citizens. We fear this will only be exacerbated by the social and economic blows of the Covid-19 pandemic."
What Avaaz would like to see happen at the IMF/WB Spring Meetings:
Special Drawing Rights (SDRs): The world's wealthiest countries (primarily G7 and G20) should be called upon to:
* Reallocate a significant proportion of
their SDRs to support rapid access to liquidity for vulnerable countries. A collective target of 90% of SDR allocation to G20 countries should be reallocated to vulnerable countries.
* Put these new SDRs to good use: whether the new SDRs remain at the IMF or are poured into a new "SDRs Trust Fund" to make grants and concessional lending, the actual use of the money should be aligned with recipient countries' development priorities, and always be fully aligned with fulfilling the SDGs and the Paris Climate Agreement objectives.
Modernizing the Role of the IMF: The IMF should seize the opportunity of the ongoing Comprehensive Surveillance Review (CSR) (which will reform the IMF's surveillance for the next decade) to implement steps that ensure it is up to the challenge of supporting a more resilient and sustainable global economy. These steps could include:
* Strengthen the IMF's surveillance mechanisms and funding to recognize and avoid increasing risks posed by climate change and biodiversity loss. Despite the emerging threats they pose to macro-stability, the IMF has yet to include such risks into Article IV surveillance. Several publications (including from Carbon Tracker, IRENA, Mark Carney) show increasing "transition risks" due to the rapid transition to a net zero economy, including the growing risks of stranded assets estimated between $3-7 trillion by IRENA.
* The Fund's debt policies should be tailored to the challenge of addressing climate change. The joint World Bank-IMF Debt Sustainability Analysis Framework (DSA) should include climate related risks (including transition risks) and better assess the fiscal multipliers associated with green investments. With a longer term time horizon, the DSA must recognize the benefits of green (and blue) over grey investments, as recommended by the Joint V20-IMF Action Agenda, and the increasing risks of investing in unsustainable fossil-based infrastructures. Key points to support from the V20-IMF Joint Action Agenda are:
1. Mainstreaming systematic and transparent assessments of climate-related financial risks in all IMF operations.
2. Consistent, systematic, and universal appraisal and treatment of physical climate risks and transition risks for all countries in Article IV consultations and Financial Sector Assessment Programs.
3. Advancing disclosure of climate-related financial risks and promoting sustainable finance and investment practices.
4. Exploring synergies between fiscal and monetary policies.
5. Mainstreaming of climate risk analysis in public financial management and supporting the development of a climate disaster risk financing and insurance architecture.
6. Supporting climate vulnerable countries with debt sustainability problems.
7. Developing the IMF toolkit for climate emergency financing.
8. Exploring options to use Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to support climate vulnerable countries.
9. Supporting the design and implementation of carbon pricing mechanisms.
10. Institutionalizing collaboration between the Fund and the V20.
Avaaz.org is a new global web movement with a simple democratic mission: to close the gap between the world we have, and the world most people everywhere want. "Avaaz" means "Voice" in many Asian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European languages. Across the world, most people want stronger protections for the environment, greater respect for human rights, and concerted efforts to end poverty, corruption and war. Yet globalization faces a huge democratic deficit as international decisions are shaped by political elites and unaccountable corporations -- not the views and values of the world's people.
LATEST NEWS
Rights Groups Argue Trump Orders Have 'Murdered Over 210 Civilians With No Sound Legal or Moral Basis'
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law."
Jun 25, 2026
Civil rights groups squared off against the Trump administration in a New York federal court on Wednesday, with the former seeking to compel the release of a secret Department of Justice memo being used to justify illegal bombings of alleged narco-trafficking boats and the latter claiming executive privilege in a bid to avert the document's disclosure.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term designating drug cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and then reportedly signed a secret order directing the Pentagon to use military force against them. Last July, the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a classified opinion providing the legal rationale for the strikes, which international law experts around the world contend are illegal acts of murder and possibly war crimes or even crimes against humanity.
The ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York that the Trump administration cannot conceal its legal justification for boat strikes from the American people while repeatedly referring to it.
“People across the country, politicians across the aisle, and the families of victims have been demanding answers as to how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians,” ACLU National Security Project staff attorney Jeffrey Stein said in a statement. “The Trump administration has murdered over 210 civilians with no sound legal or moral basis. At a minimum, the administration must disclose to the American people why it thinks this killing spree is lawful.”
The DOJ, which is seeking a summary judgment, claimed that the memo contains classified and highly sensitive information that, if disclosed, would compromise intelligence operations and sources. DOJ attorneys argued that executive privilege shields the memo from disclosure.
“Wouldn’t that be true of any OLC memo?f” US District Judge Paul Engelmayer countered, according to Courthouse News Service. “Is it the government’s position that any presidential communications privilege cannot be waived?"
Stein asserted that the boat strikes are being carried out "on the basis of secret law" that "has no place in a democratic society" and dismissed the government's claim as “contrary to the foundational presidential communications privileges" in Freedom of Information Act cases.
CCR legal director Baher Azmy accused the Trump administration of "displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat."
“If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up the obvious illegality of these serial homicides in legalese in order to provide cover, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name," he added.
CCR said that the OLC memo "supposedly validates the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged 'armed conflict' with unspecified 'drug cartels.'"
"Reportedly, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides," the group added.
As CCR said Wednesday:
Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the US is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a nonstate actor exists only if the nonstate actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-à-vis the United States.
Even if the OLC does release the memo, it doesn't mean that its arguments are actually legal under international law. OLC lawyers have notoriously written opinions that affirm the purported legality of their administration's policies, from John Yoo positing during former President George W. Bush's War on Terror that detainee abuse only crossed the threshold of torture when the pain inflicted upon the victim was equal to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death," to the Obama-era OLC determining that the president could order the extrajudicial assassination of US citizens under certain circumstances.
Since last September, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has publicly disclosed 66 strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean that it has claimed—without providing evidence—were involved in "narco-trafficking operations." The bombings have killed 215 people and left around a dozen survivors, according to a strike tracker published by The Intercept. In the first of the attacks, a special operations commander ordered a second strike that killed two survivors, reportedly on orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to "kill everybody."
Relatives of people killed in previous US boat bombings, as well as officials in Venezuela and Colombia, have said that numerous victims were fishers who were not involved in the illicit drug trade. In January, relatives of two Trinidadian fishers killed in the strikes filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit in Massachusetts.
NYCLU staff attorney Ify Chikezie said Wednesday that "the public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the killing of civilians."
“By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, President Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law," Chikezie added. "The court must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Blocks 'Unconstitutional and Dangerous' Trump Order Designed to Derail Mail-In Voting
"The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state."
Jun 25, 2026
On the heels of a federal judge in the District of Massachusetts siding with Democratic state attorneys general who challenged President Donald Trump's executive order requiring Americans to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote, another judge in the same district on Thursday blocked key portions of a second Trump order attacking US elections.
In the latest decision, District Judge Indira Talwani struck down Section 2, which orders the US Department of Homeland Security to create "confirmed citizen lists" of eligible voters, as well as Section 3, which directs the US Postal Service to create rules to limit the mailing of ballots to voters not included on its own lists.
"The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections. Broadly, the Constitution vests the president with 'executive power' and commands him to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed,'" wrote Talwani, an appointee of former President Barack Obama. "Sections 2 and 3... are legally void as they are ultra vires and unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers."
The judge also struck down Section 5, which requires the US Deparment of Justicee and all other executive agencies "with relevant authority" to "take all lawful steps to deter and address noncompliance with federal law," plus mandates that states and localities "preserve, for a five-year-period, all records and materials—excluding ballots cast—evidencing participation in any federal election (e.g., ballot envelopes, regardless of carriers)." She found that this portion of the order "is merely precatory."
Several state attorneys general were involved in both of this week's cases, including New York Democrat Letitia James, who called Thursday's decision a "major victory" as well as a "critical step in defending the foundation of our democracy and protecting the sacred right to vote."
California Attorney General Rob Bonta on Thursday also cheered the back-to-back wins against the Republican president.
"Just yesterday, President Trump's first elections-related Executive Order was blocked. Now, his second elections-related executive Order has suffered the same fate, and rightfully so. As the federal judge wrote in today's decision, 'The Constitution does not grant the president any specific powers over elections.' Those powers are reserved to the states and Congress," Bonta said. "Democracy doesn't work on its own—it requires constant vigilance. And that's what my fellow attorneys general and I will continue to provide."
The AGs weren't alone in challenging Trump's order. The Association of Americans Resident Overseas, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, League of Women Voters, LWV of Massachusetts, OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates, and US Vote Foundation also filed suit, represented by the national and Massachusetts arms of the ACLU as well as Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Brennan Center for Justice, Legal Defense Fund, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.
The attorneys and plaintiffs in that case said in a joint statement that as Thursday's decision "makes clear, President Trump's executive order from March 2026 attempting to seize control of elections is unconstitutional and dangerous."
"This ruling is a critical step in preserving free and fair elections," they said. "The court rightly recognized that the president and the executive branch lack both the legal authority and the capacity to compile a complete and accurate list of US citizens or eligible voters in every state. The ruling also rightly recognizes that the US Postal Service has no authority to limit the distribution of mail ballots."
"The court has yet to rule on our request to block the executive order's provisions on mail voting on behalf of a nonpartisan coalition of voting rights groups," they noted. "The same reasoning underpinning today's decision should hold in our case. President Trump's unlawful executive order violates the separation of powers, threatens the integrity of our elections, and must be enjoined from taking effect in the upcoming primary and midterm elections."
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson signaled the administration will continue the fight, telling multiple media outlets that "President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of our elections. The president's executive order lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation."
Jackson also reiterated the administration's support for the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, saying that "President Trump has also urged Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and other legislative proposals that would establish a uniform standard of photo ID for voting, prohibit no-excuse mail-in voting, and end the practice of ballot harvesting to secure our elections for generations to come."
Trump on Wednesday canceled his planned signing ceremony for the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act "until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency."
In response, US Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) summarized: "Congress overwhelmingly passed a housing bill to bring down costs. But Trump just threw a tantrum. He's refusing to sign bipartisan legislation to make housing more affordable in a bizarre effort to try to rig the elections."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congress Urged to Reject Trump's $88 Billion Request for Iran War That ‘Everyone Hates’
"This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Jun 25, 2026
The Trump administration is facing pushback after it formally asked the US Congress to approve $88 billion in supplemental funding that will primarily be used to pay for President Donald Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran.
In a letter sent to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought said that most of the requested funding "will address urgent needs related to Operation Epic Fury (OEF), in addition to other critical needs such as responding to the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa and supporting hardworking American farmers."
Many congressional Democrats, however, were not eager to go along with the administration's $88 billion request.
"Trump and [Defense Secretary Pete] Hegseth are now asking for $88 BILLION more for their illegal war in Iran," wrote Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in a Thursday social media post. "Just as I predicted, they are pairing this money with other priorities to buy votes for this war. The American people shouldn't backfill this blunder. Not another dime!"
Van Hollen was joined in his opposition to further war funding by his colleague Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Senate Democrats' top appropriator, who said she would not "rubber-(stamp tens of billions more for this disastrous war of choice."
Murray also highlighted the opportunity cost of the president's war.
"This president is telling the American people there’s no money for healthcare, housing, or childcare," the Washington Democrat said, "but there should be endless taxpayer dollars to fund wars they don’t support."
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, similarly noted that "the tens of billions in military spending requested by the Trump administration could be used to protect Americans’ healthcare, feed hungry children, and help working families afford everyday life."
Elected officials aren't the only ones signaling opposition to the Trump administration's request.
Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, noted that Trump is asking Congress for more money even though he completely bypassed the legislature when launching the war in late February.
"About six weeks ago, the Pentagon put the cost of the Iran War at $29 billion," Ellis said. "Now they want more than twice that? Either the administration wasn’t being honest about the costs then, or they aren’t being honest about the costs now."
Ellis also pointed out that the US Department of Defense is still sitting on roughly $100 billion in unobligated funds it could tap to replenish the munitions used in the illegal war.
"The need to address certain munitions shortfalls resulting from the war is real, but the Pentagon already has plenty of funds to do so," he explained, "and any future investments beyond that should happen through the regular budget process, not through a partisan reconciliation bill or a slapdash supplemental."
Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, said it appeared Trump was making this supplemental funding request because he knew Congress would not approve the unprecedented $1.5 trillion defense budget he proposed.
"Hegseth and Trump are circling back to their first deeply unpopular option for increasing the Pentagon budget—a supplemental funding bill for an illegal war on Iran that nobody asked for and everyone hates," said Weissman. "This effort, like the others, will fail."
Weissman warned members of Congress against supporting any additional funding requested by the administration, which he said Trump and Hegseth would likely take as approval for "launching more illegal and unconstitutional wars and military actions."
"And no so-called sweetener should make any difference whatsoever," he emphasized. "This is a bitter Pentagon potion that no one should swallow."
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, urged Democrats to uniformly reject Trump's request.
"No Democratic lawmaker should bow to Trump’s demand that working Americans pay even more for his disastrous war on Iran," Williams said. "Funds to replenish stockpiles can come from elsewhere in the already bloated, record-high Pentagon budget—or tax the oil and arms investors who made a killing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


