International Monetary Fund

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
"IMF" redirects here. For other uses, see IMF (disambiguation).

Coordinates: 38°54′00″N 77°2′39″W / 38.9°N 77.04417°W

International Monetary Fund

IMF member states in green[1]

Headquarters Washington, D.C., USA
Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn
Currency Special Drawing Rights
ISO 4217 Code XDR
Base borrowing rate 3.49% for SDRs[2]
Website www.imf.org

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is the intergovernmental organization that

oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its
member countries, in particular those with an impact on exchange rate and the balance of
payments. It is an organization formed with a stated objective of stabilizing international
exchange rates and facilitating development through the enforcement of liberalising
economic policies[3][4] on other countries as a condition for loans, restructuring or aid.[5] It
also offers highly leveraged loans, mainly to poorer countries. Its headquarters is in
Washington, D.C., United States.

Contents
[hide]
 • 1 Organization and purpose
• 2 History
• 3 Data dissemination systems
• 4 Members
o 4.1 Membership qualifications
o 4.2 Members' quotas and voting power, and board of governors
• 5 Assistance and reforms
• 6 Support of military dictatorships
• 7 Effectiveness
o 7.1 Impact on access to food
o 7.2 Impact on public health
o 7.3 Impact on environment
o 7.4 Criticism from free-market advocates
• 8 Managing director
• 9 In the media
• 10 References

• 11 External links

[edit] Organization and purpose

IMF "Headquarters 1" in Washington, D.C.

The International Monetary Fund was created in July 1944, originally with 45 members,
[6]
with a goal to stabilize exchange rates and assist the reconstruction of the world's
international payment system. Countries contributed to a pool which could be borrowed
from, on a temporary basis, by countries with payment imbalances (Condon, 2007). The
IMF was important when it was first created because it helped the world stabilize the
economic system. The IMF works to improve the economies of its member countries.[7]

The IMF describes itself as "an organization of 187 countries (as of July 2010),[8][9]
working to foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate
international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and
reduce poverty". With the exception of Cuba (left in 1964),[10] Taiwan (expelled in 1980),
[11]
North Korea, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, Tuvalu and Nauru, all UN member
states participate directly in the IMF. Member states are represented on a 24-member
Executive Board (five Executive Directors are appointed by the five members with the
largest quotas, nineteen Executive Directors are elected by the remaining members), and
all members appoint a Governor to the IMF's Board of Governors.[12]

[edit] History

IMF "Headquarters 2" in Washington, D.C.

The International Monetary Fund was conceived in July 1944 during the United Nations
Monetary and Financial Conference. The representatives of 45 governments met in the
Mount Washington Hotel in the area of Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States,
with the delegates to the conference agreeing on a framework for international economic
cooperation.[13] The IMF was formally organized on December 27, 1945, when the first
29 countries signed its Articles of Agreement. The statutory purposes of the IMF today
are the same as when they were formulated in 1943 (see #Assistance and reforms).

The IMF's influence in the global economy steadily increased as it accumulated more
members. The number of IMF member countries has more than quadrupled from the 44
states involved in its establishment, reflecting in particular the attainment of political
independence by many developing countries and more recently the collapse of the Soviet
bloc. The expansion of the IMF's membership, together with the changes in the world
economy, have required the IMF to adapt in a variety of ways to continue serving its
purposes effectively.

In 2008, faced with a shortfall in revenue, the International Monetary Fund's executive
board agreed to sell part of the IMF's gold reserves. On April 27, 2008, IMF Managing
Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn welcomed the board's decision of April 7, 2008 to
propose a new framework for the fund, designed to close a projected $400 million budget
deficit over the next few years. The budget proposal includes sharp spending cuts of $100
million until 2011 that will include up to 380 staff dismissals.[14]

At the 2009 G-20 London summit, it was decided that the IMF would require additional
financial resources to meet prospective needs of its member countries during the ongoing
global financial crisis. As part of that decision, the G-20 leaders pledged to increase the
IMF's supplemental cash tenfold to $500 billion, and to allocate to member countries
another $250 billion via Special Drawing Rights.[15][16]
As of August 2010 Romania ($13.9 billion), Ukraine ($12.66 billion) and Hungary ($11,7
billion) are the largest borrowers of the fund.[17]

[edit] Data dissemination systems

IMF Data Dissemination Systems participants: IMF member using SDDS IMF
member, using GDDS IMF member, not using any of the DDSystems non-IMF entity
using SDDS non-IMF entity using GDDS no interaction with the IMF

In 1995, the International Monetary Fund began work on data dissemination standards
with the view of guiding IMF member countries to disseminate their economic and
financial data to the public. The International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC)
endorsed the guidelines for the dissemination standards and they were split into two tiers:
The GDDS and the SDDS .

The International Monetary Fund executive board approved the SDDS and GDDS in
1996 and 1997 respectively and subsequent amendments were published in a revised
"Guide to the General Data Dissemination System". The system is aimed primarily at
statisticians and aims to improve many aspects of statistical systems in a country. It is
also part of the World Bank Millennium Development Goals and Poverty Reduction
Strategic Papers.

The IMF established a system and standard to guide members in the dissemination to the
public of their economic and financial data. Currently there are two such systems:
General Data Dissemination System (GDDS) and its superset Special Data Dissemination
System (SDDS), for those member countries having or seeking access to international
capital markets.

The primary objective of the GDDS is to encourage IMF member countries to build a
framework to improve data quality and increase statistical capacity building. This will
involve the preparation of meta data describing current statistical collection practices and
setting improvement plans. Upon building a framework, a country can evaluate statistical
needs, set priorities in improving the timeliness, transparency, reliability and accessibility
of financial and economic data.
Some countries initially used the GDDS, but lately upgraded to SDDS.

Some entities that are not themselves IMF members also contribute statistical data to the
systems:

• Palestinian Authority – GDDS

• Hong Kong – SDDS
• European Union institutions:
o the European Central Bank for the Eurozone – SDDS
o Eurostat for the whole EU – SDDS, thus providing data from Cyprus
(not using any DDSystem on its own) and Malta (using only GDDS
on its own)

[edit] Members
[edit] Membership qualifications

The application will be considered first by the IMF's Executive Board. After its
consideration, the Executive Board will submit a report to the Board of Governors of the
IMF with recommendations in the form of a "Membership Resolution." These
recommendations cover the amount of quota in the IMF, the form of payment of the
subscription, and other customary terms and conditions of membership. After the Board
of Governors has adopted the "Membership Resolution," the applicant state needs to take
the legal steps required under its own law to enable it to sign the IMF's Articles of
Agreement and to fulfill the obligations of IMF membership. Similarly, any member
country can withdraw from the Fund, although that is rare. For example, in April 2007,
the president of Ecuador, Rafael Correa announced the expulsion of the World Bank
representative in the country. A few days later, at the end of April, Venezuelan president
Hugo Chavez announced that the country would withdraw from the IMF and the World
Bank. Chavez dubbed both organizations as "the tools of the empire" that "serve the
interests of the North".[18] As of June 2009, both countries remain as members of both
organizations. Venezuela was forced to back down because a withdrawal would have
triggered default clauses in the country's sovereign bonds.

A member's quota in the IMF determines the amount of its subscription, its voting
weight, its access to IMF financing, and its allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).
A member state cannot unilaterally increase its quota—increases must be approved by the
Executive Board of IMF and are linked to formulas that include many variables such as
the size of a country in the world economy. For example, in 2001, China was prevented
from increasing its quota as high as it wished, ensuring it remained at the level of the
smallest G7 economy (Canada).[19] In September 2005, the IMF's member countries
agreed to the first round of ad hoc quota increases for four countries, including China. On
March 28, 2008, the IMF's Executive Board ended a period of extensive discussion and
negotiation over a major package of reforms to enhance the institution's governance that
would shift quota and voting shares from advanced to emerging markets and developing
countries. Under existing arrangements, the industrialised countries hold 57 per cent of
the IMF votes. But the financial crisis has tilted control away from heavily indebted
mature economies, such as the US and the UK, in favour of the fast-growing, cash-rich,
so-called “BRICS ” economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Since the US has by
far the largest share of votes (approx. 17%) amongst IMF members (see table below), it
has little to lose relative to the Europeans. At the Pittsburgh G-20 Summit, the US raised
the possibility that some European countries would reduce their votes in favour of
increasing the votes for emerging economies. However, both France and Britain were
particularly reluctant as an increase in China's votes would mean China now has more
votes than the UK and France. At a subsequent IMF meeting in Istanbul Turkey the same
month as the Pittsburgh Summit, IMF managing director Jean Claude Trichet then
highlighted that "If we don't correct them, we'll have the recipe for the next major
crisis."[20] Citing the seriousness of the issue to be tackled.

[edit] Members' quotas and voting power, and board of governors

Major decisions require an 85% supermajority.[21] The United States has always been the
only country able to block a supermajority on its own.[22] Table showing the top 20
member countries in terms of voting power (2,220,817 votes in total):[23]

Members' quotas and voting power, and board of governors

IMF Quota: Quota: Votes:
Alternate Votes:
member millions percentage Governor percentage
Governor number
country of SDRs of total of total
United Timothy F. Ben
37149.3 17.09 371743 16.74
States Geithner Bernanke
Masaaki
Japan 13312.8 6.12 Naoto Kan 133378 6.01
Shirakawa
Axel A. Wolfgang
Germany 13008.2 5.98 130332 5.87
Weber Schäuble
United George Mervyn
10738.5 4.94 107635 4.85
Kingdom Osbourne King
Christine Christian
France 10738.5 4.94 107635 4.85
Lagarde Noyer
Zhou
China 8090.1 3.72 Hu Xiaolian 81151 3.66
Xiaochuan
Giulio Mario
Italy 7055.5 3.24 70805 3.19
Tremonti Draghi
Saudi Ibrahim A. Hamad Al-
6985.5 3.21 70105 3.16
Arabia Al-Assaf Sayari
Mark
Canada 6369.2 2.93 Jim Flaherty 63942 2.88
Carney
Aleksei Sergey
Russia 5945.4 2.73 59704 2.69
Kudrin Ignatyev
Netherlan Nout L.B.J. van
5162.4 2.37 51874 2.34
ds Wellink Geest
 Guy Jean-Pierre
Belgium 4605.2 2.12 46302 2.08
Quaden Arnoldi
Pranab Duvvuri
India 4158.2 1.91 41832 1.88
Mukherjee Subbarao
Switzerlan 3458.5 Jean-Pierre Hans-Rudolf
1.59 34835 1.57
d Roth Merz
Wayne
Australia 3236.4 1.49 Ken Henry 32614 1.47
Swan
Agustín Guillermo
Mexico 3152.8 1.45 31778 1.43
Carstens Ortiz
Miguel
Elena
Spain 3048.9 1.40 Fernández 30739 1.38
Salgado
Ordóñez
Guido Henrique
Brazil 3036.1 1.40 30611 1.38
Mantega Meirelles
South Seong Tae
2927.3 1.35 Okyu Kwon 29523 1.33
Korea Lee
Gastón Rodrigo
Venezuela 2659.1 1.22 Parra Cabeza 26841 1.21
Luzardo Morales
remaining
62593.8 28.79 respective respective 667438 30.05
166 countries

[edit] Assistance and reforms

Main articles: Washington consensus and Structural adjustment program

The primary mission of the IMF is to provide financial assistance to countries that
experience serious financial and economic difficulties using funds deposited with the
IMF from the institution's 186 member countries. Member states with balance of
payments problems, which often arise from these difficulties, may request loans to help
fill gaps between what countries earn and/or are able to borrow from other official
lenders and what countries must spend to operate, including to cover the cost of
importing basic goods and services. In return, countries are usually required to launch
certain reforms, which have often been dubbed the "Washington Consensus". These
reforms are thought to be beneficial to countries with fixed exchange rate policies that
may engage in fiscal, monetary, and political practices which may lead to the crisis itself.
For example, nations with severe budget deficits, rampant inflation, strict price controls,
or significantly over-valued or under-valued currencies run the risk of facing balance of
payment crises. Thus, the structural adjustment programs are at least ostensibly intended
to ensure that the IMF is actually helping to prevent financial crises rather than merely
funding financial recklessness.

[edit] Support of military dictatorships

The role of the Bretton Woods institutions has been controversial since the late Cold War
period, as the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American
and European corporations. Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or
hostile to their views of democracy, human rights, and labor rights. The controversy has
helped spark the Anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that
economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various
examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.[24]

In the 1960s, the IMF and the World Bank supported the government of Brazil’s military
dictator Castello Branco with tens of millions of dollars of loans and credit that were
denied to previous democratically elected governments.[25]

Countries that were or are under a military dictatorship whilst being members of the
IMF/World Bank (support from various sources in $Billion):[26]

[show]Support of military dictatorships

Notes: Debt at takeover by dictatorship; earliest data published by the World Bank is for
1970. Debt at end of dictatorship (or 1996, most recent date for World Bank data).

[edit] Effectiveness
Two criticisms from economists have been that financial aid is always bound to so-called
"Conditionalities", including Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP). It is claimed that
conditionalities (economic performance targets established as a precondition for IMF
loans) retard social stability and hence inhibit the stated goals of the IMF, while
Structural Adjustment Programs lead to an increase in poverty in recipient countries.[27]

The IMF sometimes advocates "austerity programmes," increasing taxes even when the
economy is weak, in order to generate government revenue and bring budgets closer to a
balance, thus reducing budget deficits. Countries are often advised to lower their
corporate tax rate. These policies were criticized by Joseph E. Stiglitz, former chief
economist and Senior Vice President at the World Bank, in his book Globalization and
Its Discontents.[28] He argued that by converting to a more Monetarist approach, the fund
no longer had a valid purpose, as it was designed to provide funds for countries to carry
out Keynesian reflations, and that the IMF "was not participating in a conspiracy, but it
was reflecting the interests and ideology of the Western financial community".[29]

Argentina, which had been considered by the IMF to be a model country in its
compliance to policy proposals by the Bretton Woods institutions, experienced a
catastrophic economic crisis in 2001,[30] which some believe to have been caused by IMF-
induced budget restrictions — which undercut the government's ability to sustain national
infrastructure even in crucial areas such as health, education, and security — and
privatization of strategically vital national resources.[31] Others attribute the crisis to
Argentina's misdesigned fiscal federalism, which caused subnational spending to increase
rapidly.[32] The crisis added to widespread hatred of this institution in Argentina and other
South American countries, with many blaming the IMF for the region's economic
problems.[33] The current — as of early 2006 — trend towards moderate left-wing
governments in the region and a growing concern with the development of a regional
economic policy largely independent of big business pressures has been ascribed to this
crisis.

Another example of where IMF Structural Adjustment Programmes aggravated the

problem was in Kenya. Before the IMF got involved in the country, the Kenyan central
bank oversaw all currency movements in and out of the country. The IMF mandated that
the Kenyan central bank had to allow easier currency movement. However, the
adjustment resulted in very little foreign investment, but allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal
Damji Pattni, with the help of corrupt government officials, to siphon off billions of
Kenyan shillings in what came to be known as the Goldenberg scandal, leaving the
country worse off than it was before the IMF reforms were implemented.[citation needed] In an
interview, the former Romanian Prime Minister Tăriceanu stated that "Since 2005, IMF
is constantly making mistakes when it appreciates the country's economic performances".
[34]

In September 2007, the IMF said "given the Irish economy's strong fundamentals and the
authorities' commitment to sound policies, the Directors expected economic growth to
remain robust over the medium term".[35] Seventeen months later in April 2009 the New
York Times quoted Nobel prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman, who identified
Ireland as a model for the worst-case scenario for the global economy.[36]

Overall, the IMF success record is perceived as limited.[citation needed] While it was created to
help stabilize the global economy, since 1980 critics claim over 100 countries (or
reputedly most of the Fund's membership) have experienced a banking collapse that they
claim have reduced GDP by four percent or more, far more than at any time in Post-
Depression history.[citation needed] The considerable delay in the IMF's response to any crisis,
and the fact that it tends to only respond to them (or even create them)[37] rather than
prevent them, has led many economists to argue for reform. In 2006, an IMF reform
agenda called the Medium Term Strategy was widely endorsed by the institution's
member countries. The agenda includes changes in IMF governance to enhance the role
of developing countries in the institution's decision-making process and steps to deepen
the effectiveness of its core mandate, which is known as economic surveillance or
helping member countries adopt macroeconomic policies that will sustain global growth
and reduce poverty. On June 15, 2007, the Executive Board of the IMF adopted the 2007
Decision on Bilateral Surveillance, a landmark measure that replaced a 30-year-old
decision of the Fund's member countries on how the IMF should analyse economic
outcomes at the country level.

[edit] Impact on access to food

A number of civil society organizations[38] have criticized the IMF's policies for their
impact on peoples' access to food, particularly in developing countries. In October 2008,
former US President Bill Clinton joined this chorus in a speech to the United Nations
World Food Day, which criticized the World Bank and IMF for their policies on food and
agriculture:

We need the World Bank, the IMF, all the big foundations, and all the governments to
admit that, for 30 years, we all blew it, including me when I was President. We were
wrong to believe that food was like some other product in international trade, and we all
have to go back to a more responsible and sustainable form of agriculture.
—Former US President Bill Clinton, Speech at United Nations World Food Day,
October 16, 2008[39]

[edit] Impact on public health

In 2008, a study by analysts from Cambridge and Yale universities published on the
open-access Public Library of Science concluded that strict conditions on the
international loans by the IMF resulted in thousands of deaths in Eastern Europe by
tuberculosis as public health care had to be weakened. In the 21 countries to which the
IMF had given loans, tuberculosis deaths rose by 16.6%.[40]

In 2009, a book by Rick Rowden titled, The Deadly Ideas of Neoliberalism: How the
IMF has Undermined Public Health and the Fight Against Aids, claimed that the IMF's
monetarist approach towards prioritizing price stability (low inflation) and fiscal restraint
(low budget deficits) was unnecessarily restrictive and has prevented developing
countries from being able to scale up long-term public investment as a percent of GDP in
the underlying public health infrastructure. The book claimed the consequences have
been chronically underfunded public health systems, leading to dilapidated health
infrastructure, inadequate numbers of health personnel, and demoralizing working
conditions that have fueled the "push factors" driving the brain drain of nurses migrating
from poor countries to rich ones, all of which has undermined public health systems and
the fight against HIV/AIDS in developing countries.[41]

[edit] Impact on environment

IMF policies have been repeatedly criticized for making it difficult for indebted countries
to avoid ecosystem-damaging projects that generate cash flow, in particular oil, coal and
forest-destroying lumber and agriculture projects. Ecuador for example had to defy IMF
advice repeatedly in order to pursue the protection of its rain forests, though
paradoxically this need was cited in IMF argument to support that country. The IMF
acknowledged this paradox in a March 2010 staff position report [42] which proposed the
IMF Green Fund, a mechanism to issue Special Drawing Rights directly to pay for
climate harm prevention and potentially other ecological protection as pursued generally
by other environmental finance.
While the response to these moves was generally positive [43] possibly because ecological
protection and energy and infrastructure transformation are more politically neutral than
pressures to change social policy. Some experts voiced concern that the IMF was not
representative, and that the IMF proposals to generate only 200 billion dollars/year by
2020 with the SDRs as seed funds, did not go far enough to undo the general incentive to
pursue destructive projects inherent in the world commodity trading and banking systems
- criticisms often levelled at the WTO and large global banking institutions.

In the context of the May 2010 European banking crisis, some observers also noted that
Spain and California, two troubled economies within Europe and the US respectively,
and also Germany, the primary and politically most fragile supporter of a Euro currency
bailout would benefit from IMF recognition of their leadership in green technology, and
directly from Green-Fund generated demand for their exports, which might also improve
their credit standing with international bankers.

[edit] Criticism from free-market advocates

Typically the IMF and its supporters advocate a monetarist approach. As such, adherents
of supply-side economics generally find themselves in open disagreement with the IMF.
The IMF frequently advocates currency devaluation, criticized by proponents of supply-
side economics as inflationary. Secondly they link higher taxes under "austerity
programmes" with economic contraction.

Currency devaluation is recommended by the IMF to the governments of poor nations

with struggling economies. Some economists claim these IMF policies are destructive to
economic prosperity.[citation needed]

Complaints have also been directed toward the International Monetary Fund gold reserve
being undervalued. At its inception in 1945, the IMF pegged gold at US$35 per Troy
ounce of gold. In 1973, the Nixon administration lifted the fixed asset value of gold in
favor of a world market price. This need to lift the fixed asset value of gold had largely
come about because Petrodollars outside the United States were worth more than could
be backed by the gold at Fort Knox under the fixed exchange rate system.[citation needed]
Following this, the fixed exchange rates of currencies tied to gold were switched to a
floating rate, also based on market price and exchange. The fixed rate system had only
served to limit the nominal amount of assistance the organization could provide to debt-
ridden countries.

[edit] Managing director

Historically the IMF's managing director has been European and the president of the
World Bank has been from the United States. However, this standard is increasingly
being questioned and competition for these two posts may soon open up to include other
qualified candidates from any part of the world. Executive Directors, who confirm the
managing director, are voted in by Finance Ministers from countries they represent. The
First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF, the second-in-command, has traditionally
been (and is today) an American.

The IMF is for the most part controlled by the major Western Powers, with voting rights
on the Executive board based on a quota derived from the relative size of a country in the
global economy. Critics claim that the board rarely votes and passes issues contradicting
the will of the US or Europeans, which combined represent the largest bloc of
shareholders in the Fund. On the other hand, Executive Directors that represent emerging
and developing countries have many times strongly defended the group of nations in their
constituency. Alexandre Kafka, who represented several Latin American countries for 32
years as Executive Director (including 21 as the dean of the Board, is a prime example.

Rodrigo Rato became the ninth Managing Director of the IMF on June 7, 2004 and
resigned his post at the end of October 2007.

EU ministers agreed on the candidacy of Dominique Strauss-Kahn as managing director

of the IMF at the
[http://www.consilium.europa.eu/cms3_applications/applications/newsroom/loadDocume
nt.ASP?cmsID=221&LANG=en&directory=en/ecofin/&fileName=95233.pdf Economic
and Financial Affairs Council meeting in Brussels on July 10, 2007. On September 28,
2007, the International Monetary Fund's 24 executive directors elected Mr. Strauss-Kahn
as new managing director, with broad support including from the United States and the
27-nation European Union. Strauss-Kahn succeeded Spain's Rodrigo de Rato, who retired
on October 31, 2007.[44] The only other nominee was Josef Tošovský, a late candidate
proposed by Russia. Strauss-Kahn said: "I am determined to pursue without delay the
reforms needed for the IMF to make financial stability serve the international
community, while fostering growth and employment."[45]

Dates Name Country

May 6, 1946 – May 5, 1951 Camille Gutt Belgium
August 3, 1951 – October 3, 1956 Ivar Rooth Sweden
November 21, 1956 – May 5, 1963 Per Jacobsson Sweden
September 1, 1963 – August 31, 1973 Pierre-Paul Schweitzer France
September 1, 1973 – June 16, 1978 Johannes Witteveen Netherlands
June 17, 1978 – January 15, 1987 Jacques de Larosière France
January 16, 1987 – February 14, 2000 Michel Camdessus France
May 1, 2000 – March 4, 2004 Horst Köhler Germany
June 7, 2004 – October 31, 2007 Rodrigo Rato Spain
November 1, 2007 – present Dominique Strauss-Kahn France

[edit] In the media

Life and Debt, a documentary film, deals with the IMF's policies' influence on Jamaica
and its economy from a critical point of view. In 1978, one year after Jamaica first
entered a borrowing relationship with the IMF, the Jamaican dollar was still worth more
on the open exchange than the US dollar; by 1995, when Jamaica terminated that
relationship, the Jamaican dollar had eroded to less than 2 cents US. Such observations
lead to skepticism that IMF involvement is not necessarily helpful to a third world
economy.

The Debt of Dictators[46] explores the lending of billions of dollars by the IMF, World
Bank multinational banks and other international financial institutions to brutal dictators
throughout the world. (see IMF/World Bank support of military dictatorships)

Radiohead mentions the IMF in their song "Electioneering" on their 1997 release, OK
Computer. The lyrics state, "It's just business/Cattle prods and the IMF/I trust I can rely
on your vote". Bruce Cockburn mentions the IMF in his song "Call It Democracy". The
lyrics state "IMF dirty MF/takes away everything it can get/always making certain that
there's one thing left/keep them on the hook with insupportable debt". Rage Against The
Machine in "Wind Below" from Evil Empire makes reference to IMF with the lyrics
"Flip this capital eclipse/ Them bury life with IMF shifts, and poison lips". Thievery
Corporation mention the IMF in their song "Vampires" on their album Radio Retaliation:
the lyrics are "Lies and theft/ Guns and debt/ Life and death/ IMF". Billy Bragg mentions
the IMF in his song "N.P.W.A. (No Power Without Accountability): the lyrics are "IMF,
WTO/ I hear these words just every place I go/ Who are these people? Who elected
them?/ And how do I replace them with some of my friends?"

Federal government of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The U.S. federal government dates from 1790 and is considered to be the first modern
national federation in the world.[citation needed] Even so, the details of American federalism
have been debated since the establishment and ordination of the Constitution, with some
parties arguing for expansive national powers, while others have interpreted the
Constitution's enumeration of the national government's powers literally.

Since the U.S. Civil War, the powers of the Federal Government have generally
expanded greatly, although there have been periods when states' rights proponents have
succeeded in limiting federal power through legislative action, executive prerogative or
by constitutional interpretation of the courts.[1][2]

The seat of the Federal Government is in Washington, D.C. This has led to "Washington"
commonly being used as a metonym for the federal government.[citation needed]

Contents
[hide]
 • 1 The Legislative Branch
o 1.1 Powers of Congress
o 1.2 Congressional oversight
• 2 Executive branch
o 2.1 President
o 2.2 Vice President
o 2.3 Secretary of State
o 2.4 Attorney General of the United States
o 2.5 Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies
• 3 Judicial branch
• 4 Elections and voting
• 5 State, tribal and local governments
• 6 See also
• 7 Notes

• 8 External links

[edit] The Legislative Branch

Main article: United States Congress

Congress is the legislative branch of the Federal Government. It is bicameral, comprising

the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives consists of
435 voting members, each of whom represents a congressional district and serves for a
two-year term. In addition to the 435 voting members, there are five non-voting
members, consisting of four delegates and one resident commissioner. There is one
delegate each from the District of Columbia, Guam, Virgin Islands, and American
Samoa, and the resident commissioner is from Puerto Rico.[3] House seats are apportioned
among the states by population; in contrast, each state has two senators, regardless of
population. There are a total of 100 senators (as there are currently 50 states), who serve
six-year terms (one third of the Senate stands for election every two years). Each
congressional chamber (House or Senate) has particular exclusive powers—the Senate
must give "advice and consent" to many important Presidential appointments, and the
House must introduce any bills for the purpose of raising revenue. The consent of both
chambers is required to pass any legislation, which then may only become law by being
signed by the President; if the President vetoes such legislation, however, both houses of
Congress must then re-pass the legislation, but by a two-thirds majority of each chamber,
in order to make such legislation law without the need for the President's signature. The
powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers
are reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution also includes the "Necessary
and Proper Clause", which grants Congress the power to "make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers." Members of the
House and Senate are elected by first-past-the-post voting in every state except Louisiana
and Washington, which have runoffs.

Article I, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives each chamber the power
to "determine the rules of its proceedings." From this provision were created
congressional committees, which do the work of drafting legislation and conducting
congressional investigations into national matters. The 108th Congress (2003–2005) had
19 standing committees in the House and 17 in the Senate, plus four joint permanent
committees with members from both houses overseeing the Library of Congress,
printing, taxation, and the economy. In addition, each house may name special, or select,
committees to study specific problems. Today, much of the congressional workload is
borne by subcommittees, of which there are some 150.

[edit] Powers of Congress

Main article: Article One of the United States Constitution

The United States Capitol is the seat of government for Congress.

The Constitution grants numerous powers to Congress. Enumerated in Article I, Section

8, these include the powers to levy and collect taxes; to coin money and regulate its
value; provide for punishment for counterfeiting; establish post offices and roads,
promote progress of science by issuing patents, create federal courts inferior to the
Supreme Court, define and punish piracies and felonies, declare war, raise and support
armies, provide and maintain a navy, make rules for the regulation of land and naval
forces, provide for, arm, and discipline the militia, exercise exclusive legislation in the
District of Columbia, and to make laws necessary to properly execute these powers.

[edit] Congressional oversight

Main article: Congressional oversight

Congressional oversight is intended to prevent waste and fraud, protect civil liberties and
individual rights, ensure executive compliance with the law, gather information for
making laws and educating the public, and evaluate executive performance.[4]

It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the

presidency. Congress's oversight function takes many forms:

• Committee inquiries and hearings

• Formal consultations with and reports from the President
• Senate advice and consent for presidential nominations and for treaties
• House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials
• House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the
President becomes disabled or the office of the Vice President falls vacant.
• Informal meetings between legislators and executive officials
• Congressional membership: each state is allocated a number of seats based on its
representation (or ostensible representation, in the case of D.C.) in the House of
Representatives. Each state is allocated two Senators regardless of its population.
As of January 2010, the District of Columbia elects a non-voting representative to
the House of Representatives along with American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[edit] Executive branch

The executive power in the Federal Government is vested in the President of the United
States,[5] although power is often delegated to the Cabinet members and other officials.[6]
[7]
The President and Vice President are elected as running mates for a maximum of two[8]
four-year terms[5] by the Electoral College, for which each state, as well as the District of
Columbia, is allocated a number of seats based on its representation (or ostensible
representation, in the case of D.C.) in both houses of Congress.[5][9]

[edit] President

Main article: President of the United States

The executive branch consists of the President and delegates. The President is both the
head of state and government, as well as the military commander-in-chief and chief
diplomat. The President, according to the Constitution, must "take care that the laws be
faithfully executed", and "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution". The President
presides over the executive branch of the Federal Government, a vast organization
numbering about 4 million people, including 1 million active-duty military personnel.
The forty-fourth and current president is Barack Obama, the first African American
president of the United States.

The President may sign legislation passed by Congress into law or may veto it,
preventing it from becoming law unless two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to
override the veto. The President may, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate, make
treaties with foreign nations. The President may be impeached by a majority in the House
and removed from office by a two-thirds majority in the Senate for "treason, bribery, or
other high crimes and misdemeanors". The President may not dissolve Congress or call
special elections but does have the power to pardon, or release, criminals convicted of
offenses against the Federal Government (except in cases of impeachment), enact
executive orders, and (with the consent of the Senate) appoint Supreme Court justices and
federal judges.

[edit] Vice President

Main article: Vice President of the United States

The Vice President is the second-highest executive official of the government. As first in
the U.S. presidential line of succession, the Vice President becomes President upon the
death, resignation, or removal of the President, which has happened nine times in U.S.
history. Under the Constitution, the Vice President is President of the Senate. By virtue of
this role, he or she is the nominal head of the Senate. In that capacity, the Vice President
is allowed to vote in the Senate, but only when necessary to break a tied vote. Pursuant to
the Twelfth Amendment, the Vice President presides over the joint session of Congress
when it convenes to count the vote of the Electoral College. While the Vice President's
only constitutionally prescribed functions, aside from presidential succession, relate to his
role as President of the Senate, the office is now commonly viewed as a member of the
executive branch of the Federal Government. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly
assign the office to any one branch, causing scholars to dispute whether it belongs to the
executive branch, the legislative branch, or both.[10][11]

[edit] Secretary of State

Main article: United States Secretary of State

The Secretary of State is the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Department of
State, the most senior of all federal executive departments. The Secretary of State is the
third-highest official of the executive branch of the Federal Government of the United
States, after the President and Vice President. The Secretary is a member of the
President's Cabinet and the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in the presidential line
of succession and order of precedence. The Secretary has many duties and
responsibilities. The Secretary serves as the President's chief adviser on U.S. foreign
policy and as such negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements,
personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences,
organizations, and agencies, conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs, and is
responsible for the administration and management of foreign embassies and consulate
offices. Foreign trade missions and intelligence assets report directly to the Secretary of
State. The Secretary is also responsible for overall direction, coordination, and
supervision of interdepartmental activities of the U.S. Government overseas. The
Secretary answers directly to the President of the United States.

[edit] Attorney General of the United States

Main article: United States Attorney General

The office of Attorney General was established by Congress by the Judiciary Act of
1789. The original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits in the
Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and
opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States, or
when requested by the heads of any of the departments."[12] Only in 1870 was the
Department of Justice established to support the Attorney General in the discharge of his
responsibilities. The United States Attorney General is now the head of the United
States Department of Justice (see 28 U.S.C. § 503) concerned with legal affairs and is the
chief law enforcement officer of the United States Government. The Attorney General is
considered to be the chief lawyer of the People of the United States of America, not only
the U.S. government, nor simply of the Executive Branch. The Attorney General serves
as a member of the President's Cabinet, but is the only department head who is not given
the title Secretary.

To assist the Attorney General in carrying out justice in the 94 jurisdictions of the United
States district court system; he/she is in charge of the United States Marshal Service,
including each U.S. Marshal of the 94 Districts; and the 93 United States Attorneys
encompassing 94 offices (as Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands has a single U.S.
Attorney for both districts). In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Solicitor
General of the United States carries out the duties first entrusted to the office. To carry
out the general duties of enforcement of laws concerning federal crimes and to
investigate the commission of crimes where United States Citizens, officials, property or
interests are concerned, domestically or abroad, the Federal Bureau of Investigation acts
on the Attorney General's behalf.

The Attorney General is nominated by the President of the United States and takes office
after confirmation by the United States Senate. He or she serves at the pleasure of the
President and can be removed by the President at any time; the Attorney General is also
subject to impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial in the Senate for
"treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors."

[edit] Cabinet, executive departments, and agencies

Main article: United States Cabinet

Main article: List of United States federal agencies

The day-to-day enforcement and administration of federal laws is in the hands of the
various federal executive departments, created by Congress to deal with specific areas of
national and international affairs. The heads of the 15 departments, chosen by the
President and approved with the "advice and consent" of the U.S. Senate, form a council
of advisers generally known as the President's "Cabinet". In addition to departments,
there are a number of staff organizations grouped into the Executive Office of the
President. These include the White House staff, the National Security Council, the Office
of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers, the Council on
Environmental Quality, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy and the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The
employees in these United States government agencies are called federal civil servants.

There are also independent agencies such as the United States Postal Service, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the United States Agency for
International Development. In addition, there are government-owned corporations such
as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation.
[edit] Judicial branch
Main article: United States federal courts

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal court system. The court deals with
matters pertaining to the Federal Government, disputes between states, and interpretation
of the United States Constitution, and can declare legislation or executive action made at
any level of the government as unconstitutional, nullifying the law and creating precedent
for future law and decisions. Below the Supreme Court are the courts of appeals, and
below them in turn are the district courts, which are the general trial courts for federal
law.

Separate from, but not entirely independent of, this federal court system are the
individual court systems of each state, each dealing with its own laws and having its own
court rules and procedures.

The supreme court of each state is the final authority on the interpretation of that state's
laws and constitution. A case may be appealed from a state court to the U.S. Supreme
Court only if there is a federal question (an issue arising under the U.S. Constitution, or
laws/treaties of the United States). The relationship between federal and state laws is
extremely complex and confusing as a result of the unique nature of American
federalism. For example, a state supreme court is bound only by the U.S. Supreme
Court's interpretation of federal law, but is not bound by interpretation of federal law by
the federal court of appeals for the circuit in which the state sits, or even the federal
district courts located in the state. Conversely, a federal district court hearing a matter
involving only a question of state law (usually through diversity jurisdiction) must apply
the substantive law of the state in which the court sits, as if the federal court were a court
of that state (but at the same time, the case is heard under the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure instead of local rules, which may be quite different). Together the laws of the
federal and state governments form U.S. law.

The federal judiciary consists of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose justices are appointed
for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and various "lower" or "inferior
courts," among which are the courts of appeals and district courts.

The first Congress divided the nation into judicial districts and created federal courts for
each district. From that beginning has evolved the present structure: the Supreme Court,
13 courts of appeals, 94 district courts, and two courts of special jurisdiction. Congress
retains the power to create and abolish federal courts, as well as to determine the number
of judges in the federal judiciary system. It cannot, however, abolish the Supreme Court.

There are three levels of federal courts with general jurisdiction, meaning that these
courts handle criminal cases and civil law suits between individuals. The other courts,
such as the bankruptcy courts and the tax court, are specialized courts handling only
certain kinds of cases. The bankruptcy courts are branches of the district courts, but
technically are not considered part of the "Article III" judiciary because their judges do
not have lifetime tenure. Similarly, the tax court is not an Article III court.

The U.S. district courts are the "trial courts" where cases are filed and decided. The
United States courts of appeals are "appellate courts" that hear appeals of cases decided
by the district courts, and some direct appeals from administrative agencies. The Supreme
Court hears appeals from the decisions of the courts of appeals or state supreme courts
(on constitutional matters), as well as having original jurisdiction over a very small
number of cases.

The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, an Act of Congress, or
a U.S. treaty; cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, and consuls of foreign countries in
the U.S.; controversies in which the U.S. government is a party; controversies between
states (or their citizens) and foreign nations (or their citizens or subjects); and bankruptcy
cases. The Eleventh Amendment removed from federal jurisdiction cases in which
citizens of one state were the plaintiffs and the government of another state was the
defendant. It did not disturb federal jurisdiction in cases in which a state government is a
plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant.

The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other
redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. Article III has resulted in a
complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Federal courts can
sometimes hear cases arising under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, state
courts can decide certain matters involving federal law, and a handful of federal claims
are primarily reserved to the state courts (for example, those arising from the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991). Both court systems thus have exclusive jurisdiction in
some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.

The Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall
hold office "during good behaviour"; in practice, this usually means they serve until they
die, retire, or resign. A judge who commits an offence while in office may be impeached
in the same way as the President or other officials of the Federal Government. U.S.
judges are appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. Another
Constitutional provision prohibits Congress from reducing the pay of any judge.
Congress is able to set a lower salary for all future judges that take office after the
reduction, but may not decrease the rate of pay for judges already in office.

[edit] Elections and voting

Main article: Elections in the United States

Suffrage, commonly known as the ability to vote, has changed significantly over time. In
the early years of the United States, voting was considered a matter for state
governments, and was commonly restricted to white men who owned land. Direct
elections were mostly held only for the U.S. House of Representatives and state
legislatures, although what specific bodies were elected by the electorate varied from
state to state. Under this original system, both senators representing each state in the U.S.
Senate were chosen by a majority vote of the state legislature. Since the ratification of the
Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, members of both houses of Congress have been
directly elected.

Today, partially due to the Twenty-sixth Amendment, U.S. citizens have almost universal
suffrage from the age of 18, regardless of race, gender, or wealth, and both Houses of
Congress are directly elected. The only exception to this is the disenfranchisement of
convicted felons, and in some states former felons as well.

Currently, the national representation of territories and the federal district of Washington,
D.C., in Congress is limited: residents of the District of Columbia are subject to federal
laws and federal taxes, but their only congressional representative is a non-voting
delegate. Residents of U.S. territories have varying rights; for example, only some
residents of Puerto Rico pay federal income taxes (though all residents must pay all other
federal taxes, including import/export taxes, federal commodity taxes, and federal payroll
taxes, including Social Security and Medicare).[13]

[edit] State, tribal and local governments

United States, showing states, divided into counties (parishes in Louisiana; boroughs in
Alaska). Note that Alaska and Hawaii are shown at different scales, and that the Aleutian
Islands and the uninhabited Northwestern Hawaiian Islands are omitted from this map.
Main articles: State governments of the United States and Local government in the
United States

The state governments tend to have the greatest influence over most Americans' daily
lives. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the Federal
Government from exercising any power not delegated to it by the States in the
Constitution; as a result, states handle the majority of issues most relevant to individuals
within their jurisdiction. Because state governments lack the power to print currency,
they must raise revenue either through taxes or bonds (both of which are politically
unpopular due to the extensive national levies provided by the federal personal income
tax ). As a result, state governments tend to impose severe budget cuts at any time the
economy is faltering, which are strongly felt by the public for which they are responsible.
[14]

Each state has its own written constitution, government, and code of laws. There are
sometimes great differences in law and procedure between individual states, concerning
issues such as property, crime, health, and education. The highest elected official of each
state is the Governor. Each state also has an elected state legislature (bicameralism is a
feature of every state except Nebraska), whose members represent the voters of the state.
Each state maintains its own state court system. In some states, supreme and lower court
justices are elected by the people; in others, they are appointed, as they are in the federal
system.

As a result of the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia, Indian tribes are considered
"domestic dependent nations" that operate as sovereign governments subject to federal
authority but, generally and where possible, outside of the influence of state
governments. Hundreds of laws, executive orders, and court cases have modified the
governmental status of tribes vis-à-vis individual states, but the two have continued to be
recognised as separate bodies. Tribal capacity to operate robust governments varies, from
a simple council used to manage all aspects of tribal affairs, to large and complex
bureaucracies with several branches of government. Tribes are empowered to form their
own governments, with power resting in elected tribal councils, elected tribal
chairpersons, or religiously appointed leaders (as is the case with pueblos). Tribal
citizenship (and voting rights) is generally restricted to individuals of native descent, but
tribes are free to set whatever membership requirements they wish.

The institutions that are responsible for local government within states are typically town,
city, or county boards, water management districts, fire management districts, library
districts, and other similar governmental units which make laws that affect their
particular area. These laws concern issues such as traffic, the sale of alcohol, and the
keeping of animals. The highest elected official of a town or city is usually the mayor. In
New England, towns operate in a direct democratic fashion, and in some states, such as
Rhode Island and Connecticut, counties have little or no power, existing only as
geographic distinctions. In other areas, county governments have more power, such as to
collect taxes and maintain law enforcement agencies.

World Bank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
World Bank
 World Bank logo
Type International organization
Legal status Treaty
Purpose/focus Crediting
Membership 186 countries
President Robert B. Zoellick
Main organ Board of Directors[1]
Parent organization World Bank Group
Website http://www.worldbank.org/

World Bank is a term used to describe an international financial institution that provides
leveraged loans[2] to developing countries for capital programs. The World Bank has a
stated goal of reducing poverty.

The World Bank differs from the World Bank Group, in that the World Bank comprises
only two institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA), whereas the latter
incorporates these two in addition to three more:[3] International Finance Corporation
(IFC), Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA), and International Centre for
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

Contents
[hide]

• 1 History
o 1.1 1945–1968
o 1.2 1968–1980
o 1.3 1980–1989
o 1.4 1989–present
o 1.5 Millennium Development Goals
  1.5.1 Key Factors
 1.5.2 Criteria
• 2 Leadership
• 3 Members
• 4 Voting power
• 5 Poverty reduction strategies
• 6 Clean Technology Fund management
• 7 Clean Air Initiative
• 8 Country assistance strategies
• 9 Visiting
• 10 Criticism
o 10.1 Knowledge production
o 10.2 Structural adjustment
o 10.3 Water privatization
o 10.4 Sovereign immunity
o 10.5 Environmental strategy
• 11 References

• 12 External links

[edit] History

John Maynard Keynes (right) represented the United Kingdom at the conference, and
Harry Dexter White (left) represented the United States.

The World Bank is one of five institutions created at the Bretton Woods Conference in
1944. The International Monetary Fund, a related institution, is the second. Delegates
from many countries attended the Bretton Woods Conference. The most powerful
countries in attendance were the United States and United Kingdom which dominated
negotiations.[4]
Although both are based in Washington, D.C., the World Bank is by custom headed by
an American, while the IMF is led by a European.

[edit] 1945–1968

From its conception until 1967 the bank undertook a relatively low level of lending.
Fiscal conservatism and careful screening of loan applications was common. Bank staff
attempted to balance the priorities of providing loans for reconstruction and development
with the need to instill confidence in the bank.[5]

Bank president John McCloy selected France to be the first recipient of World Bank aid;
two other applications from Poland and Chile were rejected. The loan was for $987
million, half the amount requested and came with strict conditions. Staff from the World
Bank monitored the use of the funds, ensuring that the French government would present
a balanced budget and give priority of debt repayment to the World Bank over other
governments. The United States State Department told the French government that
communist elements within the Cabinet needed to be removed. The French Government
complied with this diktat and removed the Communist coalition government. Within
hours the loan to France was approved.[6]

The Marshall Plan of 1947 caused lending by the bank to change as many European
countries received aid that competed with World Bank loans. Emphasis was shifted to
non-European countries and until 1968, loans were earmarked for projects that would
enable a borrower country to repay loans (such projects as ports, highway systems, and
power plants).

[edit] 1968–1980

From 1968 to 1980, the bank concentrated on meeting the basic needs of people in the
developing world.[citation needed] The size and number of loans to borrowers was greatly
increased as loan targets expanded from infrastructure into social services and other
sectors.[citation needed]

These changes can be attributed to Robert McNamara who was appointed to the
presidency in 1968 by Lyndon B. Johnson.[7] McNamara imported a technocratic
managerial style to the Bank that he had used as United States Secretary of Defense and
President of the Ford Motor Company.[8] McNamara shifted bank policy toward measures
such as building schools and hospitals, improving literacy and agricultural reform.
McNamara created a new system of gathering information from potential borrower
nations that enabled the bank to process loan applications much faster. To finance more
loans, McNamara told bank treasurer Eugene Rotberg to seek out new sources of capital
outside of the northern banks that had been the primary sources of bank funding. Rotberg
used the global bond market to increase the capital available to the bank.[9] One
consequence of the period of poverty alleviation lending was the rapid rise of third world
debt. From 1976 to 1980 developing world debt rose at an average annual rate of 20%.[10]
[11]
[edit] 1980–1989

In 1980, A.W. Clausen replaced McNamara after being nominated by US President

Jimmy Carter. Clausen replaced a large number of bank staffers from the McNamara era
and instituted a new ideological focus in the bank. The replacement of Chief Economist
Hollis B. Chenery by Anne Krueger in 1982 marked a notable policy shift at the bank.
Krueger was known for her criticism of development funding as well as third world
governments as rent-seeking states.

Lending to service third world debt marked the period of 1980–1989. Structural
adjustment policies aimed at streamlining the economies of developing nations (at the
expense of health and social services) were also a large part of World Bank policy during
this period. UNICEF reported in the late 1980s that the structural adjustment programs of
the World Bank were responsible for the "reduced health, nutritional and educational
levels for tens of millions of children in Asia, Latin America, and Africa".[12]

[edit] 1989–present

From 1989, World Bank policy changed in response to criticism from many groups.
Environmental groups and NGOs were incorporated in the lending of the bank in order to
mitigate the effects of the past that prompted such harsh criticism.[13] Bank projects
"include" green concerns.

The World Bank headquarters in Washington, D.C.

[edit] Millennium Development Goals

The World Bank's current focus is on the achievement of the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs), lending primarily to "middle-income countries" at interest rates which
reflect a small mark-up over its own (AAA-rated) borrowings from capital markets; while
the IDA provides low or no interest loans and grants to low income countries with little
or no access to international credit markets. The IBRD is a market-based nonprofit
organization, using its high credit rating to make up for the relatively low interest rate on
its loans, while the IDA is funded primarily by periodic "replenishments" (grants) voted
to the institution by its more affluent member countries. The Bank's mission is to aid
developing countries and their inhabitants to achieve development and the reduction of
poverty, including achievement of the MDGs, by helping countries develop an
environment for investment, jobs and sustainable growth, thus promoting economic
growth through investment and enabling the poor to share the fruits of economic growth.

[edit] Key Factors

The World Bank sees the five key factors necessary for economic growth and the creation
of an enabling business environment as:

1. Build capacity: Strengthening governments and educating government officials.

2. Infrastructure creation: implementation of legal and judicial systems for the
encouragement of business, the protection of individual and property rights and
the honoring of contracts.
3. Development of Financial Systems: the establishment of strong systems capable
of supporting endeavors from micro credit to the financing of larger corporate
ventures.
4. Combating corruption: Support for countries' efforts at eradicating corruption.
5. Research, Consultancy and Training: the World Bank provides platform for
research on development issues, consultancy and conduct training programs (web
based, on line, tele-/video conferencing and class room based) open for those who
are interested from academia, students, government and non-governmental
organization (NGO) officers etc.

The Bank obtains funding for its operations primarily through the IBRD's sale of AAA-
rated bonds in the world's financial markets. The IBRD's income is generated from its
lending activities, with its borrowings leveraging its own paid-in capital, plus the
investment of its "float". The IDA obtains the majority of its funds from forty donor
countries who replenish the bank's funds every three years, and from loan repayments,
which then become available for re-lending.

[edit] Criteria

Many achievements have brought the MDG targets for 2015 within reach in some cases.
For the goals to be realized, six criteria must be met: stronger and more inclusive growth
in Africa and fragile states, more effort in health and education, integration of the
development and environment agendas, more and better aid, movement on trade
negotiations, and stronger and more focused support from multilateral institutions like the
World Bank.

1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger: From 1990 through 2004, the
proportion of people living in extreme poverty fell from almost a third to less than
a fifth. Although results vary widely within regions and countries, the trend
indicates that the world as a whole can meet the goal of halving the percentage of
people living in poverty. Africa's poverty, however, is expected to rise, and most
of the 36 countries where 90% of the world's undernourished children live are in
 Africa. Less than a quarter of countries are on track for achieving the goal of
halving under-nutrition.
2. Achieve Universal Primary Education: The number of children in school in
developing countries increased from 80% in 1991 to 88% in 2005. Still, about 72
million children of primary school age, 57% of them girls, were not being
educated as of 2005.
3. Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women: The tide is turning slowly
for women in the labor market, yet far more women than men- worldwide more
than 60% - are contributing but unpaid family workers. The World Bank Group
Gender Action Plan was created to advance women's economic empowerment and
promote shared growth.
4. Reduce Child Mortality: There is some improvement in survival rates globally;
accelerated improvements are needed most urgently in South Asia and Sub-
Saharan Africa. An estimated 10 million-plus children under five died in 2005;
most of their deaths were from preventable causes.
5. Improve Maternal Health: Almost all of the half million women who die during
pregnancy or childbirth every year live in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. There are
numerous causes of maternal death that require a variety of health care
interventions to be made widely accessible.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases: Annual numbers of new
HIV infections and AIDS deaths have fallen, but the number of people living with
HIV continues to grow. In the eight worst-hit southern African countries,
prevalence is above 15 percent. Treatment has increased globally, but still meets
only 30 percent of needs (with wide variations across countries). AIDS remains
the leading cause of death in Sub-Saharan Africa (1.6 million deaths in 2007).
There are 300 to 500 million cases of malaria each year, leading to more than 1
million deaths. Nearly all the cases and more than 95 percent of the deaths occur
in Sub-Saharan Africa.
7. Ensure Environmental Sustainability: Deforestation remains a critical problem,
particularly in regions of biological diversity, which continues to decline.
Greenhouse gas emissions are increasing faster than energy technology
advancement.
8. Develop a Global Partnership for Development: Donor countries have renewed
their commitment. Donors have to fulfill their pledges to match the current rate of
core program development. Emphasis is being placed on the Bank Group's
collaboration with multilateral and local partners to quicken progress toward the
MDGs' realization.

[edit] Leadership
The President of the Bank, currently Robert B. Zoellick, is responsible for chairing the
meetings of the Boards of Directors and for overall management of the Bank.
Traditionally, the Bank President has always been a US citizen nominated by the United
States, the largest shareholder in the bank. The nominee is subject to confirmation by the
Board of Governors, to serve for a five-year, renewable term.[14]
The Executive Directors, representing the Bank's member countries, make up the Board
of Directors, usually meeting twice a week to oversee activities such as the approval of
loans and guarantees, new policies, the administrative budget, country assistance
strategies and borrowing and financing decisions.

The Vice Presidents of the Bank are its principal managers, in charge of regions, sectors,
networks and functions. There are 24 Vice-Presidents, three Senior Vice Presidents and
two Executive Vice Presidents.

[edit] Members
Main article: List of World Bank members

The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) has 186 member
countries, while the International Development Association (IDA) has 168 members.[15]
Each member state of IBRD should be also a member of the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and only members of IBRD are allowed to join other institutions within the Bank
(such as IDA).[16]

[edit] Voting power

In 2010, voting powers at the World Bank were revised to increase the voice of
developing countries, notably China. The countries with most voting power are now the
United States (15.85%), Japan (6.84%), China (4.42%), Germany (4.00%), the United
Kingdom (3.75%), and France (3.75%). Under the changes, known as 'Voice Reform -
Phase 2', other countries that saw significant gains included Brazil, India, South Korea
and Mexico. Most developed countries' voting power was reduced. Russia's voting power
was unchanged.[17][18]

[edit] Poverty reduction strategies

For the poorest developing countries in the world, the bank's assistance plans are based
on poverty reduction strategies; by combining a cross-section of local groups with an
extensive analysis of the country's financial and economic situation the World Bank
develops a strategy pertaining uniquely to the country in question. The government then
identifies the country's priorities and targets for the reduction of poverty, and the World
Bank aligns its aid efforts correspondingly.

Forty-five countries pledged US$25.1 billion in "aid for the world's poorest countries",
aid that goes to the World Bank International Development Association (IDA) which
distributes the gifts to eighty poorer countries. While wealthier nations sometimes fund
their own aid projects, including those for diseases, and although IDA is the recipient of
criticism, Robert B. Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, said when the gifts were
announced on December 15, 2007, that IDA money "is the core funding that the poorest
developing countries rely on".[19]
[edit] Clean Technology Fund management
The World Bank has been assigned temporary management responsibility of the Clean
Technology Fund (CTF), focused on making renewable energy cost-competitive with
coal-fired power as quickly as possible, but this may not continue after UN's Copenhagen
climate change conference in December, 2009, because of the Bank's continued
investment in coal-fired power plants.[20]

[edit] Clean Air Initiative

Clean Air Initiative (CAI)[21] is a World Bank initiative to advance innovative ways to
improve air quality in cities through partnerships in selected regions of the world by
sharing knowledge and experiences. It includes electric vehicles.

[edit] Country assistance strategies

As a guideline to the World Bank's operations in any particular country, a Country
Assistance Strategy is produced, in cooperation with the local government and any
interested stakeholders and may rely on analytical work performed by the Bank or other
parties.

[edit] Visiting
While a security badge is required to enter World Bank headquarters in Washington DC,
guests are welcome to visit InfoShop, the Public Information Center (PIC) and retail
bookstore. Groups of 20 or more can arrange for in-person briefings by contacting the
World Bank Speakers Bureau. The Bank also has a network of PICs around the world,
which are open to the public during regular business hours.[22]

[edit] Criticism
The World Bank has long been criticized by non-governmental organizations, such as the
indigenous rights group Survival International, and academics, including its former Chief
Economist Joseph Stiglitz who is equally critical of the International Monetary Fund, the
US Treasury Department, US and other developed country trade negotiators.[23] Critics
argue that the so-called free market reform policies which the Bank advocates are often
harmful to economic development if implemented badly, too quickly ("shock therapy"),
in the wrong sequence or in weak, uncompetitive economies.[23][24]

In Masters of Illusion: The World Bank and the Poverty of Nations (1996), Catherine
Caufield argued that the assumptions and structure of the World Bank harms southern
nations. Caufield criticized its formulaic recipes of "development". To the World Bank,
different nations and regions are indistinguishable and ready to receive the "uniform
remedy of development". She argued that to attain even modest success, Western
practices are adopted and traditional economic structures and values abandoned. A
second assumption is that poor countries cannot modernize without money and advice
from abroad.

A number of intellectuals in developing countries have argued that the World Bank is
deeply implicated in contemporary modes of donor and NGO imperialism, and that its
intellectual contributions function to blame the poor for their condition.[25]

One of the strongest criticisms of the World Bank has been the way in which it is
governed. While the World Bank represents 186 countries, it is run by a small number of
economically powerful countries. These countries choose the leadership and senior
management of the World Bank, and so their interests dominate the bank.[26]

The World Bank has dual roles that are contradictory: that of a political organization and
that of a practical organization. As a political organization, the World Bank must meet
the demands of donor and borrowing governments, private capital markets, and other
international organizations. As an action-oriented organization, it must be neutral,
specializing in development aid, technical assistance, and loans. The World Bank's
obligations to donor countries and private capital markets have caused it to adopt policies
which dictate that poverty is best alleviated by the implementation of "market" policies.
[27]

In the 1990s, the World Bank and the IMF forged the Washington Consensus, policies
which included deregulation and liberalization of markets, privatization and the
downscaling of government. Though the Washington Consensus was conceived as a
policy that would best promote development, it was criticized for ignoring equity,
employment and how reforms like privatization were carried out. Many now agree[citation
needed]
that the Washington Consensus placed too much emphasis on the growth of GDP,
and not enough on the permanence of growth or on whether growth contributed to better
living standards.[28]

Some analysis shows that the World Bank has increased poverty and been detrimental to
the environment, public health and cultural diversity.[29] Some critics also claim that the
World Bank has consistently pushed a neoliberal agenda, imposing policies on
developing countries which have been damaging, destructive and anti-developmental.[30]
[31]

It has also been suggested that the World Bank is an instrument for the promotion of US
or Western interests in certain regions of the world. Even South American nations have
established the Bank of the South in order to reduce US influence in the region.[32]
Criticism of the bank, that the President is always a citizen of the United States,
nominated by the President of the United States (though subject to the "approval" of the
other member countries). There have been accusations that the decision-making structure
is undemocratic as the US has a veto on some constitutional decisions with just over 16%
of the shares in the bank;[33] Decisions can only be passed with votes from countries
whose shares total more than 85% of the bank's shares.[34] A further criticism concerns
internal management and the manner in which the World Bank is said to lack
accountability.[35]

Criticism of the World Bank often takes the form of protesting as seen in recent events
such as the World Bank Oslo 2002 Protests,[36] the October Rebellion,[37] and the Battle of
Seattle.[38] Such demonstrations have occurred all over the world, even amongst the
Brazilian Kayapo people.[39]

In 2008, a World Bank report which found that biofuels had driven food prices up 75%
was not published. Officials confided that they believed it was suppressed to avoid
embarrassing the then-President of the United States, George W. Bush.[40]

The World Bank has also been criticized for not publishing reports related to the
Palestinian economic situation in the West Bank and Gaza. Economists in the region have
often written damning reports of the Israeli occupation and its effects on the economy,
but these reports remain internal and are not published.

Although controversial and far from proven, there is criticism that World Bank and IMF
are used as a means to fulfill business (interests of large corporations to enter the natural
resource markets of the country and obtain the legal guarantees that it can stay there) or
political needs of the main IMF donors (mostly USA), that were previously historically
obtained by more direct activity - war, economic blockade, espionage. See for example
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

[edit] Knowledge production

The World Bank has been criticised for the manner in which it engages in "the
production, accumulation, circulation and functioning" of knowledge. The Bank's
production of knowledge has become integral to the funding and justification of large
capital projects. The Bank relies on "a growing network of translocal scientists,
technocrats, NGOs, and empowered citizens to help generate data and construct
discursive strategies".[41] Its capacity to produce authoritative knowledge is a response to
intense scrutiny of Bank projects resulting from the successes of growing anti-Bank and
alternative-development movements.[42] "Development has relied exclusively on one
knowledge system, namely, the modern Western one. The dominance of this knowledge
system has dictated the marginalization and disqualification of non-Western knowledge
systems".[43] It has been remarked that in these alternative knowledge systems, researchers
and activists might find alternative rationales to guide interventionist action away from
Western (Bank-produced) ways of thinking. Knowledge production has become an asset
to the Bank, and "it is generated and used in highly strategic ways"[42] to provide
justifications for development.

[edit] Structural adjustment

The effect of structural adjustment policies on poor countries has been one of the most
significant criticisms of the World Bank. The 1979 energy crisis plunged many countries
into economic crises.[44] The World Bank responded with structural adjustment loans
which distributed aid to struggling countries while enforcing policy changes in order to
reduce inflation and fiscal imbalance. Some of these policies included encouraging
production, investment and labour-intensive manufacturing, changing real exchange rates
and altering the distribution of government resources.[45] Structural adjustment policies
were most effective in countries with an institutional framework that allowed these
policies to be implemented easily.[45] For some countries, particularly in Sub-Saharan
Africa, economic growth regressed and inflation worsened.[45] The alleviation of poverty
was not a goal of structural adjustment loans, and the circumstances of the poor often
worsened, due to a reduction in social spending and an increase in the price of food, as
subsidies were lifted.[45]

By the late 1980s, international organizations began to admit that structural adjustment
policies were worsening life for the world's poor. The World Bank changed structural
adjustment loans, allowing for social spending to be maintained, and encouraging a
slower change to policies such as transfer of subsidies and price rises.[46] In 1999, the
World Bank and the IMF introduced the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach to
replace structural adjustment loans.[47] The Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper approach
has been interpreted as an extension of structural adjustment policies as it continues to
reinforce and legitimize global inequities.[48] Neither approach has addressed the inherent
flaws within the global economy that contribute to economic and social inequities within
developing countries.[49] By reinforcing the relationship between lending and client states,
many believe that the World Bank has usurped indebted countries' power to determine
their own economic policy.[50]

[edit] Water privatization

Sociologist Michael Goldman has argued that "Industry analysts predict that private
water will soon be a capitalized market as precious, and as war-provoking, as oil".[51]
Goldman says "These days, an indebted country cannot borrow capital from the World
Bank or IMF without a domestic water privatization policy as a precondition".[51] The
Bank is utilizing "the 'Washington Consensus' model of "development" to promote water
privatization. Following this model, the World Bank is forcing many countries to
commodify their water resources, rather than using their expertise in the public sector to
acknowledge water as a universal human right and an essential public service".[51] The
push for water privatization development plays upon "the shocking tragedy that much of
the world lacks affordable clean water". This image creates "new opportunities in
development, though it may have little to do with ultimately quenching" the needs of
impoverished countries. "The problem of water scarcity for the world's poor has been
analyzed by the World Bank as one in which the public sector has failed to deliver, and
has therefore prevented development from "taking off", and the economy from
modernizing. If the state cannot deliver something as basic as water and sanitation, the
argument goes, it is a strong indication of a general failure of public-sector capacity".[51]
However, "with the sale or lease of a public good comes more than simply a privatized
service; alongside it comes a wide set of postcolonial institutional forces that intervene in
state-citizen relations and North-South dynamics".[52] One notable example is the
privatation of water forced upon Bolivians by the World Bank which led to multiple
protests including the 2000 Cochabamba protests.

[edit] Sovereign immunity

Despite claiming goals of "good governance and anti-corruption″[53] the World Bank
requires sovereign immunity from countries it deals with.[54][55][56][57][58] Sovereign
immunity waives a holder from all legal liability for their actions. It is proposed that this
immunity from responsibility is a "shield which [The World Bank] wants resort to, for
escaping accountability and security by the people."[54] As the United States has veto
power, it can prevent the World Bank from taking action against its interests.[54]

[edit] Environmental strategy

The World Bank's ongoing work to develop a strategy on climate change and
environmental threats has been criticized for (i) lacking of a proper overall vision and
purpose, (ii) having a limited focus on its own role in global and regional governance,
and (iii) having limited recognition of specific regional issues, e.g. issues of rights to food
and land, and sustainable land use. Critics have also commented that only 1% of the
World Bank's lending goes to the environmental sector, narrowly defined.[59]

Environmentalists are urging the Bank to stop worldwide support for the development of
coal plants and other large emitters of greenhouse gas and operations that are proven to
pollute or damage the environment. For instance, protesters in South Africa and abroad
have criticized the 2010 decision of the World Bank's approval for a $3.75 billion loan to
build the world's 4th largest coal-fired power plant in South Africa. The plant will greatly
increase the demand for coal mining and corresponding harmful environmental effects of
coal.[60]

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"GATT" redirects here. For other uses, see GATT (disambiguation).

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (typically abbreviated GATT) was
negotiated during the UN Conference on Trade and Employment and was the outcome of
the failure of negotiating governments to create the International Trade Organization
(ITO). GATT was formed in 1949 and lasted until 1993, when it was replaced by the
World Trade Organization in 1995. The original GATT text (GATT 1947) is still in
effect under the WTO framework, subject to the modifications of GATT 1994.[1]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Rounds
o 1.1 Annecy Round - 1949
o 1.2 Torquay Round - 1951
o 1.3 Geneva Round - 1955-1956
o 1.4 Dillon Round - 1960-1962
o 1.5 Kennedy Round - 1964-1967
o 1.6 Tokyo Round - 1973-1979
o 1.7 Uruguay Round - 1986-1993
• 2 GATT and the World Trade Organization
• 3 References

• 4 External links

[edit] Rounds
GATT held a total of 8 rounds.

[hide]GATT and WTO trade rounds[2]

Subjects
Name Start Duration Countries Achievements
covered
Signing of
GATT, 45,000
tariff
Geneva April 1947 7 months 23 Tariffs
concessions
affecting $10
billion of trade
Countries
exchanged
Annecy April 1949 5 months 13 Tariffs some 5,000
tariff
concessions
Countries
exchanged
some 8,700
September tariff
Torquay 8 months 38 Tariffs
1950 concessions,
cutting the
1948 tariff
levels by 25%
Tariffs, $2.5 billion in
Geneva II January 1956 5 months 26 admission of tariff
Japan reductions
Dillon September 11 months 26 Tariffs Tariff
1960 concessions
worth $4.9
 billion of
world trade
Tariff
concessions
Tariffs, Anti-
Kennedy May 1964 37 months 62 worth $40
dumping
billion of
world trade
Tariff
Tariffs, non-
reductions
tariff
September worth more
Tokyo 74 months 102 measures,
1973 than $300
"framework"
billion dollars
agreements
achieved
The round led
to the creation
of WTO, and
extended the
range of trade
negotiations,
Tariffs, non-
leading to
tariff
major
measures,
reductions in
rules,
tariffs (about
services,
40%) and
intellectual
September agricultural
Uruguay 87 months 123 property,
1986 subsidies, an
dispute
agreement to
settlement,
allow full
textiles,
access for
agriculture,
textiles and
creation of
clothing from
WTO, etc
developing
countries, and
an extension of
intellectual
property
rights.
Tariffs, non-
tariff
measures,
agriculture,
labor The round is
November
Doha ? 141 standards, not yet
2001
environment, concluded.
competition,
investment,
transparency,
patents etc

[edit] Annecy Round - 1949

The second round took place in 1949 in Annecy, France. 13 countries took part in the
round. The main focus of the talks was more tariff reductions, around 5000 in total.

[edit] Torquay Round - 1951

The third round occurred in Torquay, England in 1950. Thirty-eight countries took part in
the round. 8,700 tariff concessions were made totaling the remaining amount of tariffs to
¾ of the tariffs which were in effect in 1948. The contemporaneous rejection by the U.S.
of the Havana Charter signified the establishment of the GATT as a governing world
body.[3]

[edit] Geneva Round - 1955-1956

The fourth round returned to Geneva in 1955 and lasted until May 1956. Twenty-six
countries took part in the round. $2.5 billion in tariffs were eliminated or reduced.

[edit] Dillon Round - 1960-1962

The fifth round occurred once more in Geneva and lasted from 1960-1962. The talks
were named after U.S. Treasury Secretary and former Under Secretary of State, Douglas
Dillon, who first proposed the talks. Twenty-six countries took part in the round. Along
with reducing over $4.9 billion in tariffs, it also yielded discussion relating to the creation
of the European Economic Community (EEC).

[edit] Kennedy Round - 1964-1967

Kennedy Round took place from 1964-1967.

[edit] Tokyo Round - 1973-1979

Reduced tariffs and established new regulations aimed at controlling the proliferation of
non-tariff barriers and voluntary export restrictions. 102 countries took part in the round.
Concessions were made on $190 billion worth.

[edit] Uruguay Round - 1986-1993

The Uruguay Round began in 1986. It was the most ambitious round to date, hoping to
expand the competence of the GATT to important new areas such as services, capital,
intellectual property, textiles, and agriculture. 123 countries took part in the round.

Agriculture was essentially exempted from previous agreements as it was given special
status in the areas of import quotas and export subsidies, with only mild caveats.
However, by the time of the Uruguay round, many countries considered the exception of
agriculture to be sufficiently glaring that they refused to sign a new deal without some
movement on agricultural products. These fourteen countries came to be known as the
"Cairns Group", and included mostly small and medium sized agricultural exporters such
as Australia, Brazil, Canada, Indonesia, and New Zealand.

The Agreement on Agriculture of the Uruguay Round continues to be the most

substantial trade liberalization agreement in agricultural products in the history of trade
negotiations. The goals of the agreement were to improve market access for agricultural
products, reduce domestic support of agriculture in the form of price-distorting subsidies
and quotas, eliminate over time export subsidies on agricultural products and to
harmonize to the extent possible sanitary and phytosanitary measures between member
countries.

[edit] GATT and the World Trade Organization

Main article: Uruguay Round

In 1993, the GATT was updated (GATT 1994) to include new obligations upon its
signatories. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the World Trade
Organization (WTO). The 75 existing GATT members and the European Communities
became the founding members of the WTO on 1 January 1995. The other 52 GATT
members rejoined the WTO in the following two years (the last being Congo in 1997).
Since the founding of the WTO, 21 new non-GATT members have joined and 29 are
currently negotiating membership. There are a total of 153 member countries in the
WTO.

Of the original GATT members, Syria[4][5] and the SFR Yugoslavia has not rejoined the
WTO. Since FR Yugoslavia, (renamed to Serbia and Montenegro and with membership
negotiations later split in two), is not recognised as a direct SFRY successor state;
therefore, its application is considered a new (non-GATT) one. The General Council of
WTO, on 4 May 2010, agreed to establish a working party to examine the request of
Syria for WTO membership[6][7]. The contracting parties who founded the WTO ended
official agreement of the "GATT 1947" terms on 31 December 1995.

Whereas GATT was a set of rules agreed upon by nations, the WTO is an institutional
body. The WTO expanded its scope from traded goods to trade within the service sector
and intellectual property rights. Although it was designed to serve multilateral
agreements, during several rounds of GATT negotiations (particularly the Tokyo Round)
plurilateral agreements created selective trading and caused fragmentation among
members. WTO arrangements are generally a multilateral agreement settlement
mechanism of GATT.[8]

Politics of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (October 2008)

United States

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
the United States

Federal government[show]
Legislature[show]
Presidency[show]
Judiciary[show]
Elections[show]
Political parties[show]
Federalism[show]
Other countries · Atlas
US Government Portal
view • talk • edit

The United States is a federal constitutional republic, in which the President of the
United States (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share
powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares
sovereignty with the state governments. Federal and state elections generally take place
within a two-party system, although this is not enshrined in law.

The executive branch is headed by a President and is independent of the legislature.

Legislative power is vested in the two chambers of Congress, the Senate and the House of
Representatives. The judicial branch (or judiciary), composed of the Supreme Court and
lower federal courts, exercises judicial power (or judiciary). The judiciary's function is to
interpret the United States Constitution and federal laws and regulations. This includes
resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches. The federal
government of the United States was established by the Constitution. Two parties, the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party, have dominated American politics since the
American Civil War, although other parties have also existed.
There are major differences between the political system of the United States and that of
most other developed democracies. These include increased power of the upper house of
the legislature, a wider scope of power held by the Supreme Court, the separation of
powers between the legislature and the executive, and the dominance of only two main
parties. The United States is one of the world's developed democracies where third
parties have the least political influence.

The federal entity created by the Constitution is the dominant feature of the American
governmental system. However, some people are also subject to a state government, and
all are subject to various units of local government. The latter include counties,
municipalities, and special districts.

This multiplicity of jurisdictions reflects the country's history. The federal government
was created by the states, which as colonies were established separately and governed
themselves independently of the others. Units of local government were created by the
colonies to efficiently carry out various state functions. As the country expanded, it
admitted new states modeled on the existing ones.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 State government
o 1.1 Local government
o 1.2 County government
o 1.3 Town and village government
• 2 Campaign finance
• 3 Political culture
• 4 Political parties and elections
o 4.1 Political parties
o 4.2 Elections
o 4.3 Organization of American political parties
• 5 Political pressure groups
o 5.1 General developments
o 5.2 Development of the two-party system in the United States
o 5.3 Political spectrum of the two major parties
• 6 See also
• 7 Bibliography
• 8 References

• 9 External links

[edit] State government

States governments have the power to make laws on all subjects that are not granted to
the federal government or denied to the states in the U.S. Constitution. These include
education, family law, contract law, and most crimes. Unlike the federal government,
which only has those powers granted to it in the Constitution, a state government has
inherent powers allowing it to act unless limited by a provision of the state or national
constitution.

Like the federal government, state governments have three branches: executive,
legislative, and judicial. The chief executive of a state is its popularly elected governor,
who typically holds office for a four-year term (although in a some states the term is two
years). Except for Nebraska, which has unicameral legislature, all states have a bicameral
legislature, with the upper house usually called the Senate and the lower house called the
House of Representatives, the House of Delegates, Assembly or something similar. In
most states, senators serve four-year terms, and members of the lower house serve two-
year terms.

The constitutions of the various states differ in some details but generally follow a pattern
similar to that of the federal Constitution, including a statement of the rights of the people
and a plan for organizing the government. State constitutions are generally more detailed,
however.

[edit] Local government

There are 89,500 local governments, including 3,033 counties, 19,492 municipalities,
16,500 townships, 13,000 school districts, and 37,000 other special districts that deal with
issues like fire protection.[1] To a greater extent than on the federal or state level, the local
governments directly serve the needs of the people, providing everything from police and
fire protection to sanitary codes, health regulations, education, public transportation, and
housing.

About 28% of the people live in cities of 100,000 or more population. City governments
are chartered by states, and their charters detail the objectives and powers of the
municipal government. For most big cities, cooperation with both state and federal
organizations is essential to meeting the needs of their residents.

Types of city governments vary widely across the nation. However, almost all have a
central council, elected by the voters, and an executive officer, assisted by various
department heads, to manage the city's affairs.

There are three general types of city government: the mayor-council, the commission,
and the council-manager. These are the pure forms; many cities have developed a
combination of two or three of them.

Mayor-Council. This is the oldest form of city government in the United States and,
until the beginning of the 20th century, was used by nearly all American cities. Its
structure is like that of the state and national governments, with an elected mayor as chief
of the executive branch and an elected council that represents the various neighborhoods
forming the legislative branch. The mayor appoints heads of city departments and other
officials, sometimes with the approval of the council. He or she has the power of veto
over ordinances (the laws of the city) and often is responsible for preparing the city's
budget. The council passes city ordinances, sets the tax rate on property, and apportions
money among the various city departments. As cities have grown, council seats have
usually come to represent more than a single neighborhood.

The Commission. This combines both the legislative and executive functions in one
group of officials, usually three or more in number, elected city-wide. Each
commissioner supervises the work of one or more city departments. One is named
chairperson of the body and is often called the mayor, although his or her power is
equivalent to that of the other commissioners.

Council-Manager. The city manager is a response to the increasing complexity of urban

problems that need management ability not often possessed by elected public officials.
The answer has been to entrust most of the executive powers, including law enforcement
and provision of services, to a highly trained and experienced professional city manager.

The city manager plan has been adopted by a large number of cities. Under this plan, a
small, elected council makes the city ordinances and sets policy, but hires a paid
administrator, also called a city manager, to carry out its decisions. The manager draws
up the city budget and supervises most of the departments. Usually, there is no set term;
the manager serves as long as the council is satisfied with his or her work.

[edit] County government

The county is a subdivision of the state, sometimes (but not always) containing two or
more townships and several villages. New York City is so large that it is divided into five
separate boroughs, each a county in its own right. On the other hand, Arlington County,
Virginia, the United States' smallest county, located just across the Potomac River from
Washington, D.C., is both an urbanized and suburban area, governed by a unitary county
administration. In other cities, both the city and county governments have merged,
creating a consolidated city–county government.

In most U.S. counties, one town or city is designated as the county seat, and this is where
the government offices are located and where the board of commissioners or supervisors
meets. In small counties, boards are chosen by the county; in the larger ones, supervisors
represent separate districts or townships. The board collects taxes for state and local
governments; borrows and appropriates money; fixes the salaries of county employees;
supervises elections; builds and maintains highways and bridges; and administers
national, state, and county welfare programs. In very small counties, the executive and
legislative power may lie entirely with a sole commissioner, who is assisted by boards to
supervise taxes and elections. In some New England states, counties do not have any
governmental function and are simply a division of land.
[edit] Town and village government

Thousands of municipal jurisdictions are too small to qualify as city governments. These
are chartered as towns and villages and deal with such strictly local needs as paving and
lighting the streets, ensuring a water supply, providing police and fire protection and
waste management. Note that in many states, the term "town" does not have any specific
meaning; it is simply an informal term applied to populated places (both incorporated and
unincorporated municipalities). Moreover, in some states, the term town is equivalent to
how civil townships are used in other states.

The government is usually entrusted to an elected board or council, which may be known
by a variety of names: town or village council, board of selectmen, board of supervisors,
board of commissioners. The board may have a chairperson or president who functions as
chief executive officer, or there may be an elected mayor. Governmental employees may
include a clerk, treasurer, police and fire officers, and health and welfare officers.

One unique aspect of local government, found mostly in the New England region of the
United States, is the town meeting. Once a year, sometimes more often if needed, the
registered voters of the town meet in open session to elect officers, debate local issues,
and pass laws for operating the government. As a body, they decide on road construction
and repair, construction of public buildings and facilities, tax rates, and the town budget.
The town meeting, which has existed for more than three centuries in some places, is
often cited as the purest form of direct democracy, in which the governmental power is
not delegated, but is exercised directly and regularly by all the people.

Suffrage

Main article: Voting rights in the United States

Suffrage is nearly universal for citizens 18 years of age and older. All 50 states and the
District of Columbia contribute to the electoral vote for President. However, the District,
and other U.S. holdings like Puerto Rico and Guam, lack the states' representation in
Congress. These constituencies do not have the right to choose any political figure
outside their respective areas. Each commonwealth, territory, or district can only elect a
non-voting delegate to serve in the House of Representatives.

Voting rights are sometimes restricted as a result of felony conviction, but such laws vary
widely by state. Election of the president is an indirect suffrage: Voters vote for electors,
who in turn vote for President. In theory, these electors vote as they please, but in modern
practice, they do not vote against the wishes of their constituencies (though they have
abstained from voting in protest).

[edit] Campaign finance

 This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (October 2008)
Main article: Campaign finance in the United States

Successful participation, especially in federal elections, requires large amounts of money,

especially for television advertising[citation needed]. This money is very difficult to raise by
appeals to a mass base[citation needed], although in the 2008 election, candidates from both
parties had success with raising money from citizens over the Internet.[citation needed], as had
Howard Dean with his Internet appeals. Both parties generally depend on wealthy donors
and organizations - traditionally the Democrats depended on donations from organized
labor while the Republicans relied on business donations[citation needed]. Since 1984, however,
the Democrats' business donations have surpassed those from labor organizations[citation
needed]
. This dependency on donors is controversial, and has led to laws limiting spending
on political campaigns being enacted (see campaign finance reform). Opponents of
campaign finance laws cite the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech, and
challenge campaign finance laws because they attempt to circumvent the people's
constitutionally guaranteed rights. Even when laws are upheld, the complication of
compliance with the First Amendment requires careful and cautious drafting of
legislation, leading to laws that are still fairly limited in scope, especially in comparison
to those of other countries such as the United Kingdom, France or Canada.

[edit] Political culture

Most schools in the United States teach the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and writings of the Founding Fathers as the definition of
the country's governing ideology. Among the core tenets of this ideology are the
following:

• Democracy: The government is answerable to citizens, who may change the

representatives through elections.
• Equality before the law: The laws should attach no special privilege to any
citizen. Government officials are subject to the law just as others are.
• Freedom of religion and separation of church and state: The government can
neither support nor suppress religion.
• Freedom of speech: The government cannot restrict through law or action the
personal, non-violent speech of a citizen; a marketplace of ideas.

At the time of the United States' founding, the economy was predominantly one of
agriculture and small private businesses, and state governments left welfare issues to
private or local initiative. As in the UK and other industrialized countries, laissez-faire
ideology was largely discredited during the Great Depression. Between the 1930s and
1970s, fiscal policy was characterized by the Keynesian consensus, a time during which
modern American liberalism dominated economic policy virtually unchallenged.[2][3]
Since the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, laissez-faire ideology has once more
become a powerful force in American politics.[4] While the American welfare state
expanded more than threefold after WWII, it has been at 20% of GDP since the late
1970s.[5][6] Today, modern American liberalism, and modern American conservatism are
engaged in a continuous political battle, characterized by what the Economist describes
as "greater divisiveness [and] close, but bitterly fought elections."[7]

Before World War II, the United States pursued a noninterventionist policy of in foreign
affairs by not taking sides in conflicts between foreign powers. The country abandoned
this policy when it became a superpower, and the country mostly supports
internationalism.

[edit] Political parties and elections

The United States Constitution is silent on political organizations, mainly because most
of the founding fathers disliked them. Yet, major and minor political parties and groups
soon arose.

In partisan elections, candidates are nominated by a political party or seek public office
as an independent. Each state has significant discretion in deciding how candidates are
nominated, and thus eligible to appear on the election ballot. Typically, major party
candidates are formally chosen in a party primary or convention, whereas minor party
and Independents are required to complete a petitioning process.

Registered Democrats, Republicans and independents in millions as of 2004.[8]

[edit] Political parties

Main article: Political parties in the United States

The modern political party system in the United States is a two-party system dominated
by the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. These two parties have won every
United States presidential election since 1852 and have controlled the United States
Congress since at least 1856. Several other third parties from time to time achieve
relatively minor representation at the national and state levels.

[edit] Elections

For other political parties see List of political parties in the United States. An overview
on elections and election results is included in Elections in the United States.

[edit] Organization of American political parties

See also: Political party strength in U.S. states

American political parties are more loosely organized than those in other countries. The
two major parties, in particular, have no formal organization at the national level that
controls membership, activities, or policy positions, though some state affiliates do. Thus,
for an American to say that he or she is a member of the Democratic or Republican party,
is quite different from a Briton's stating that he or she is a member of the Conservative or
Labour party. In the United States, one can often become a "member" of a party, merely
by stating that fact. In some U.S. states, a voter can register as a member of one or
another party and/or vote in the primary election for one or another party. Such
participation does not restrict one's choices in any way. It also does not give a person any
particular rights or obligations within the party, other than possibly allowing that person
to vote in that party's primary elections. A person may choose to attend meetings of one
local party committee one day and another party committee the next day. The sole factor
that brings one "closer to the action" is the quantity and quality of participation in party
activities and the ability to persuade others in attendance to give one responsibility.

Party identification becomes somewhat formalized when a person runs for partisan office.
In most states, this means declaring oneself a candidate for the nomination of a particular
party and intent to enter that party's primary election for an office. A party committee
may choose to endorse one or another of those who is seeking the nomination, but in the
end the choice is up to those who choose to vote in the primary, and it is often difficult to
tell who is going to do the voting.

The result is that American political parties have weak central organizations and little
central ideology, except by consensus. A party really cannot prevent a person who
disagrees with the majority of positions of the party or actively works against the party's
aims from claiming party membership, so long as the voters who choose to vote in the
primary elections elect that person. Once in office, an elected official may change parties
simply by declaring such intent.

At the federal level, each of the two major parties has a national committee (See,
Democratic National Committee, Republican National Committee) that acts as the hub
for much fund-raising and campaign activities, particularly in presidential campaigns.
The exact composition of these committees is different for each party, but they are made
up primarily of representatives from state parties and affiliated organizations, and others
important to the party. However, the national committees do not have the power to direct
the activities of members of the party.

Both parties also have separate campaign committees which work to elect candidates at a
specific level. The most significant of these are the Hill committees, which work to elect
candidates to each house of Congress.

State parties exist in all fifty states, though their structures differ according to state law,
as well as party rules at both the national and the state level.

[edit] Political pressure groups

See also: Advocacy group

Special interest groups advocate the cause of their specific constituency. Business
organizations will favor low corporate taxes and restrictions of the right to strike, whereas
labor unions will support minimum wage legislation and protection for collective
bargaining. Other private interest groups, such as churches and ethnic groups, are more
concerned about broader issues of policy that can affect their organizations or their
beliefs.

One type of private interest group that has grown in number and influence in recent years
is the political action committee or PAC. These are independent groups, organized
around a single issue or set of issues, which contribute money to political campaigns for
U.S. Congress or the presidency. PACs are limited in the amounts they can contribute
directly to candidates in federal elections. There are no restrictions, however, on the
amounts PACs can spend independently to advocate a point of view or to urge the
election of candidates to office. PACs today number in the thousands.

"The number of interest groups has mushroomed, with more and more of them operating
offices in Washington, D.C., and representing themselves directly to Congress and
federal agencies," says Michael Schudson in his 1998 book The Good Citizen: A History
of American Civic Life. "Many organizations that keep an eye on Washington seek
financial and moral support from ordinary citizens. Since many of them focus on a
narrow set of concerns or even on a single issue, and often a single issue of enormous
emotional weight, they compete with the parties for citizens' dollars, time, and passion."

The amount of money spent by these special interests continues to grow, as campaigns
become increasingly expensive. Many Americans have the feeling that these wealthy
interests, whether corporations, unions or PACs, are so powerful that ordinary citizens
can do little to counteract their influences.

A survey of members of the American Economic Association find the vast majority
regardless of political affiliation to be discontent with the current state of democracy in
America. The primary concern relates to the prevalence and influence of special interest
groups within the political process, which tends to lead to policy consequences that only
benefit such special interest groups and politicians. Some conjecture that maintenance of
the policy status quo and hesitance to stray from it perpetuates a political environment
that fails to advance society's welfare.[9]

[edit] General developments

See also: History of the United States Republican Party and History of the United States
Democratic Party

Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties. They were
sure quarreling factions would be more interested in contending with each other than in
working for the common good. They wanted citizens to vote for candidates without the
interference of organized groups, but this was not to be.

By the 1790s, different views of the new country's proper course had already developed,
and those who held these opposing views tried to win support for their cause by banding
together. The followers of Alexander Hamilton, the Hamiltonian faction, took up the
name "Federalist"; they favored a strong central government that would support the
interests of commerce and industry. The followers of Thomas Jefferson, the Jeffersonians
and then the "Anti-Federalists," took up the name "Democratic-Republicans"; they
preferred a decentralized agrarian republic in which the federal government had limited
power. By 1828, the Federalists had disappeared as an organization, replaced by the
Whigs, brought to life in opposition to the election that year of President Andrew
Jackson. Jackson's presidency split the Democratic-Republican Party: Jacksonians
became the Democratic Party and those following the leadership of John Quincy Adams
became the "National Republicans." The two-party system, still in existence today, was
born. (Note: The National Republicans of John Quincy Adams is not the same party as
today's Republican Party.)

In the 1850s, the issue of slavery took center stage, with disagreement in particular over
the question of whether slavery should be permitted in the country's new territories in the
West. The Whig Party straddled the issue and sank to its death after the overwhelming
electoral defeat by Franklin Pierce in 1852 presidential election. Ex-Whigs joined the
Know Nothings or the newly formed Republican Party. While the Know Nothing party
was short-lived, Republicans would survive the intense politics leading up to the Civil
War. The primary Republican policy was that slavery be excluded from all the territories.
Just six years later, this new party captured the presidency when Abraham Lincoln won
the election of 1860. By then, parties were well established as the country's dominant
political organizations, and party allegiance had become an important part of most
people's consciousness. Party loyalty was passed from fathers to sons, and party
activities, including spectacular campaign events, complete with uniformed marching
groups and torchlight parades, were a part of the social life of many communities.

By the 1920s, however, this boisterous folksiness had diminished. Municipal reforms,
civil service reform, corrupt practices acts, and presidential primaries to replace the
power of politicians at national conventions had all helped to clean up politics.
[edit] Development of the two-party system in the United States

This section needs additional citations for verification.

Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (October 2008)

Since the 1790s, the country has been run by two major parties. The United States does
not have a parliamentary system, in which governing coalitions are formed after
elections, so coalitions are formed before elections under the umbrella of the party
organizations. In the absence of a parliamentary system, third parties cannot thrive. Since
the Civil War, the two major parties have been called the Republican and Democratic
parties. Many minor or third political parties appear from time to time. They tend to serve
a means to advocate policies that eventually are adopted by the two major political
parties. At various times the Socialist Party, the Farmer-Labor Party and the Populist
Party for a few years had considerable local strength, and then faded away. At present,
the Libertarian Party is the most successful third party.

Most officials in America are elected from single-member districts and win office by
beating out their opponents in a system for determining winners called first-past-the-post;
the one who gets the plurality wins, (which is not the same thing as actually getting a
majority of votes). This encourages the two-party system; see Duverger's law.

Another critical factor has been ballot access law. Originally, voters went to the polls and
publicly stated which candidate they supported. Later on, this developed into a process
whereby each political party would create its own ballot and thus the voter would put the
party's ballot into the voting box. In the late nineteenth century, states began to adopt the
Australian Secret Ballot Method, and it eventually became the national standard. The
secret ballot method ensured that the privacy of voters would be protected (hence
government jobs could no longer be awarded to loyal voters) and each state would be
responsible for creating one official ballot. The fact that state legislatures were dominated
by Democrats and Republicans provided these parties an opportunity to pass
discriminatory laws against minor political parties, yet such laws did not start to arise
until the first Red Scare that hit America after World War I. State legislatures began to
enact tough laws that made it harder for minor political parties to run candidates for
office by requiring a high number of petition signatures from citizens and decreasing the
length of time that such a petition could legally be circulated.

It should also be noted that while more often than not, party members will "toe the line"
and support their party's policies, they are free to vote against their own party and vote
with the opposition ("cross the aisle") when they please.

"In America the same political labels (Democratic and Republican) cover virtually all
public officeholders, and therefore most voters are everywhere mobilized in the name of
these two parties," says Nelson W. Polsby, professor of political science, in the book New
Federalist Papers: Essays in Defense of the Constitution. "Yet Democrats and
Republicans are not everywhere the same. Variations (sometimes subtle, sometimes
blatant) in the 50 political cultures of the states yield considerable differences overall in
what it means to be, or to vote, Democratic or Republican. These differences suggest that
one may be justified in referring to the American two-party system as masking something
more like a hundred-party system."

[edit] Political spectrum of the two major parties

This section does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (January 2009)

During the 20th century, the overall political philosophy of both the Republican Party and
the Democratic Party underwent a dramatic shift from their earlier philosophies. From the
1860s to the 1950s the Republican Party was considered to be the more classically liberal
of the two major parties and the Democratic Party the more classically
conservative/populist of the two.

This changed a great deal with the presidency of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose
New Deal included the founding of Social Security as well as a variety of other federal
services and public works projects. Roosevelt's success in the twin crises of the
Depression and World War II led to a sort of polarization in national politics, centered
around him; this combined with his increasingly liberal policies to turn FDR's Democrats
to the left and the Republican Party further to the right.

During the 1950s and the early 1960s, both parties essentially expressed a more centrist
approach to politics on the national level and had their liberal, moderate, and
conservative wings influential within both parties.

From the early 1960s, the conservative wing became more dominant in the Republican
Party, and the liberal wing became more dominant in the Democratic Party. The 1964
presidential election heralded the rise of the conservative wing among Republicans. The
liberal and conservative wings within the Democratic Party were competitive until 1972,
when George McGovern's candidacy marked the triumph of the liberal wing. This
similarly happened in the Republican Party with the candidacy and later landslide
election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, which marked the triumph of the conservative wing.

By the 1980 election, each major party had largely become identified by its dominant
political orientation. Strong showings in the 1990s by reformist independent Ross Perot
pushed the major parties to put forth more centrist presidential candidates, like Bill
Clinton and Bob Dole. Polarization in Congress was said by some[who?] to have been
cemented by the Republican takeover of 1994. Others say that this polarization had
existed since the late 1980s when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Liberals within the Republican Party and conservatives within the Democratic Party and
the Democratic Leadership Council neoliberals have typically fulfilled the roles of so-
called political mavericks, radical centrists, or brokers of compromise between the two
major parties. They have also helped their respective parties gain in certain regions that
might not ordinarily elect a member of that party; the Republican Party has used this
approach with centrist Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani, George Pataki, Richard
Riordan and Arnold Schwarzenegger. The 2006 elections sent many centrist or
conservative Democrats to state and federal legislatures including several, notably in
Kansas and Montana, who switched parties.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"APEC" redirects here. For other uses, see APEC (disambiguation).
The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
(APEC)

APEC member countries shown in green

Headquarters Singapore
Type Economic forum
Member Economies 21
Leaders
- APEC Chair Japan
- Executive Director Muhamad Noor Yacob
Establishment 1989
Website
http://www.apec.org/

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is a forum for 21 Pacific Rim countries

(styled "Member Economies") to cooperate on regional trade and investment
liberalisation and facilitation. APEC's objective is to enhance economic growth and
prosperity in the region and to strengthen the Asia-Pacific community. Members account
for approximately 40% of the world's population, approximately 54% of world GDP and
about 44% of world trade.[1]

An annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting is attended by the heads of government of

all APEC members except the Republic of China (Taiwan) which is represented under
the name Chinese Taipei by a ministerial-level official. The location of the meeting
rotates annually among the member economies, and a famous tradition involves the
attending Leaders dressing in a national costume of the host member.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 History
• 2 Member Economies
• 3 Possible enlargement
• 4 APEC's Three Pillars
o 4.1 APEC and Trade Liberalisation
o 4.2 APEC's Business Facilitation Efforts
 4.2.1 Proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
o 4.3 APEC Study Center Consortium
• 5 APEC Business Advisory Council
• 6 Annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meetings
o 6.1 Meeting developments
o 6.2 Meeting locations
• 7 Criticism
• 8 See also
• 9 References

• 10 External links

[edit] History
In January 1989, Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke called for more effective
economic cooperation across the Pacific Rim region. This led to the first meeting of
APEC in the Australian capital Canberra in November, chaired by Australian Foreign
Affairs Minister Gareth Evans. Attended by political ministers from twelve countries, the
meeting concluded with commitments for future annual meetings in Singapore and South
Korea.

The initial proposal was opposed by countries of the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) which instead proposed the East Asia Economic Caucus which would
exclude non-Asian countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand. The plan was opposed and strongly criticised by Japan and the United States.
The first APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting occurred in 1993 when U.S. president Bill
Clinton, after discussions with Australian prime minister Paul Keating, invited the heads
of government from member economies to a summit on Blake Island. He believed it
would help bring the stalled Uruguay Round of trade talks on track. At the meeting, some
leaders called for continued reduction of barriers to trade and investment, envisioning a
community in the Asia-Pacific region that might promote prosperity through cooperation.
The APEC Secretariat, based in Singapore, was established to coordinate the activities of
the organisation.

During the meeting in 1994 in Bogor, Indonesia, APEC Leaders adopted the Bogor Goals
that aim for free and open trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific by 2010 for
industrialised economies and by 2020 for developing economies. In 1995, APEC
established a business advisory body named the APEC Business Advisory Council
(ABAC), composed of three business executives from each member economy.

[edit] Member Economies

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and
U.S. President George W. Bush at APEC 2006 in Hanoi.

APEC currently has 21 members, including most countries with a coastline on the Pacific
Ocean. The organization is one of the few international organizations which Taiwan
(albeit under the name Chinese Taipei) joined with full approval of mainland China. As a
result, the APEC uses the term Member Economies rather than member countries to refer
to its members.

Member economy Date of accession

Australia 1989
 Brunei 1989
Canada 1989
Indonesia 1989
Japan 1989
Republic of Korea 1989
Malaysia 1989
New Zealand 1989
Philippines 1989
Singapore 1989
Thailand 1989
United States 1989
Chinese Taipei[2] 1991
Hong Kong, China[3] 1991
People's Republic of China[4] 1991
Mexico 1993
Papua New Guinea 1993
Chile 1994
Peru 1998
Russia 1998
Vietnam 1998

[edit] Possible enlargement

India has requested membership in APEC, and received initial support from the United
States, Japan[5] and Australia. Officials have decided not to allow India to join for various
reasons.[6][7] However, the decision was made not to admit more members until 2010.
Moreover, India does not border the Pacific which all members do. The Philippines trade
negotiator was quoted as saying that there is concern that "Once the Indians come in, the
(Asian) weighting would become heavier in this part of the world."[8]

In addition to India, Mongolia, Pakistan, Laos, Bangladesh, Costa Rica, Colombia,[9] and
Ecuador,[10] are among a dozen countries seeking membership in APEC by 2008.
Colombia applied for APEC's membership as early as in 1995, but its bid was halted as
the organization stopped accepting new members from 1993 to 1996,[11] and the
moratorium was further prolonged to 2007 due to the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Costa
Rica, Colombia and Ecuador hope to become members in 2010.[citation needed] Guam has also
been actively seeking a separate membership, citing the example of Hong Kong, but the
request is opposed by the United States, which currently represents Guam.

[edit] APEC's Three Pillars

To meet the Bogor Goals, APEC carries out work in three main areas:
 1. Trade and Investment Liberalisation
2. Business Facilitation
3. Economic and Technical Cooperation

[edit] APEC and Trade Liberalisation

According to the organization itself, when APEC was established in 1989 average trade
barriers in the region stood at 16.9 percent, but had been reduced to 5.5% in 2004.[12]

[edit] APEC's Business Facilitation Efforts

APEC has long been at the forefront of reform efforts in the area of business facilitation.
Between 2002-2006 the costs of business transactions across the region was reduced by 6
percent, thanks to the APEC Trade Facilitation Action Plan (TFAPI). Between 2007 and
2010, APEC hopes to achieve an additional 5 percent reduction in business transaction
costs. To this end, a new Trade Facilitation Action Plan has been endorsed. According to
a 2008 research brief published by the World Bank as part of its Trade Costs and
Facilitation Project, increasing transparency in the region's trading system is critical if
APEC is to meet its Bogor Goal targets.[13] The APEC Business Travel Card, a travel
document for visa-free business travel within the region is one of the concrete measures
to facilitate business.

[edit] Proposed Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific

APEC is considering the prospects and options for a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific
(FTAAP) which would include all member economies of Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC). Since 2006, the APEC Business Advisory Council, promoting the
theory that a free trade area has the best chance of converging the member nations and
ensuring stable economic growth under free trade, has lobbied for the creation of a high-
level task force to study and develop a plan for a free trade area. The proposal for a
FTAAP arose due to the lack of progress in the Doha round of World Trade Organization
negotiations, and as a way to overcome the 'spaghetti bowl' effect created by overlapping
and conflicting elements of free trade agreements between members - there are as many
as 60 free trade agreements and 117 being negotiated in Southeast Asia and the Asia-
Pacific region.[14][14][15] [16][16] The FTAAP is more ambitious in scope than the Doha round,
which limits itself to reducing trade restrictions. The FTAAP would create a free trade
zone that would considerably expand commerce and economic growth in the most
dynamic region in the world.[14][16] The economic expansion and growth in trade could
exceed the expectations of other regional free trade areas such as the ASEAN Plus Three
(ASEAN + China, Japan, and South Korea).[17] Some criticisms include that the diversion
of trade within APEC members would create trade imbalances, market conflicts and
complications with nations of other regions.[16] The development of the FTAAP is
expected to take many years, involving essential studies, evaluations and negotiations
between member economies.[14] It is also affected by the absence of political will and
popular agitations and lobbying against free trade in domestic politics.[14]
[edit] APEC Study Center Consortium

In 1993, APEC Leaders decided to establish a network of APEC Study Centres (ASCs)
amongst universities and research institutions in APEC member economies.[18]

Notable centers include:

• Australian APEC Study Centre, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology,

Australia[19]
• Berkeley APEC Study Center, University of California, Berkeley, United States[20]
• Chinese Taipei APEC Study Center, Taiwan Institute of Economic Research,
Taiwan[21]
• HKU APEC Study Center, Hong Kong University, Hong Kong, China[22]
• Kobe APEC Study Center, Kobe University, Japan[23]
• Nankai APEC Study Center, Nankai University, People's Republic of China[24]
• The Canadian APEC Study Centre, The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada,
Vancouver, Canada[25]

[edit] APEC Business Advisory Council

The APEC Business Advisory Council (ABAC) was created by the APEC Economic
Leaders in November 1995 with the aim of providing advice to the APEC Economic
Leaders on ways to achieve the Bogor Goals and other specific business sector priorities,
and to provide the business perspective on specific areas of cooperation.

Each economy nominates up to three members from the private sector to ABAC. These
business leaders represent a wide range of industry sectors.

ABAC provides an annual report to APEC Economic Leaders containing

recommendations to improve the business and investment environment in the Asia-
Pacific region, and outlining business views about priority regional issues.

ABAC is also the only non-governmental organisation that is on the official agenda of the
APEC Economic Leader’s Meeting.

[edit] Annual APEC Economic Leaders' Meetings

Since its formation in 1989, APEC has held annual meetings with representatives from all
member economies. The first four annual meetings were attended by ministerial-level
officials. Beginning in 1993, the annual meetings are named APEC Economic Leaders'
Meetings and are attended by the heads of government from all member economies
except Taiwan, which is represented by a ministerial-level official. The annual Leaders'
Meetings are not called summits.

[edit] Meeting developments

In 1997, the APEC meeting was held in Vancouver. Controversy arose after officers of
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police used pepper spray against protesters. The protesters
objected to the presence of autocratic leaders such as Indonesian president Suharto.[26][27]
[28][29][30][31]

At the 2001 Leaders' Meeting in Shanghai, APEC leaders pushed for a new round of
trade negotiations and support for a program of trade capacity-building assistance,
leading to the launch of the Doha Development Agenda a few weeks later. The meeting
also endorsed the Shanghai Accord proposed by the United States, emphasising the
implementation of open markets, structural reform, and capacity building. As part of the
accord, the meeting committed to develop and implement APEC transparency standards,
reduce trade transaction costs in the Asia-Pacific region by 5 percent over 5 years, and
pursue trade liberalization policies relating to information technology goods and services.

In 2003, Jemaah Islamiah leader Riduan Isamuddin had planned to attack the APEC
Leaders Meeting to be held in Bangkok in October. He was captured in the city of
Ayutthaya, Thailand by Thai police on August 11, 2003, before he could finish planning
the attack.[citation needed] Chile became the first South American nation to host the Leaders'
Meeting in 2004. The agenda of that year was focused on terrorism and commerce, small
and medium enterprise development, and contemplation of free trade agreements and
regional trade agreements.

The 2005 Leaders' Meeting was held in Busan, South Korea. The meeting focused on the
Doha round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations, leading up to the WTO
Ministerial Conference of 2005 held in Hong Kong in December. Weeks earlier, trade
negotiations in Paris were held between several WTO members, including the United
States and the European Union, centered on reducing agricultural trade barriers. APEC
leaders at the summit urged the European Union to agree to reducing farm subsidies.
Peaceful protests against APEC were staged in Busan, but the meeting schedule was not
affected.

At the Leaders' Meeting held on November 19, 2006 in Hanoi, APEC leaders called for a
new start to global free-trade negotiations while condemning terrorism and other threats
to security. APEC also criticised North Korea for conducting a nuclear test and a missile
test launch that year, urging the country to take "concrete and effective" steps toward
nuclear disarmament. Concerns about nuclear proliferation in the region was discussed in
addition to economic topics. The United States and Russia signed an agreement as part of
Russia's bid to join the World Trade Organization.

The APEC Australia 2007 Leaders' Meeting was held in Sydney from 2-9 September
2007. The political leaders agreed to an "aspirational goal" of a 25% reduction of energy
intensity correlative with economic development.[32] Extreme security measures including
airborne sharpshooters and extensive steel-and-concrete barricades were deployed against
anticipated protesters and potential terrorists. However, protest activities were peaceful
and the security envelope was penetrated with ease by a spoof diplomatic motorcade
manned by members of the Australian television program The Chaser, one of whom was
dressed to resemble the Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

[edit] Meeting locations

The location of the meeting is rotated annually among the members. As a tradition, the
leaders attending the meeting participate in a photo op in which they dress in a costume
that reflects the culture of the host member.

Annual meetings of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation

Host Photo op Web
Date Location Photo
member fashion site
November Australi
1st Canberra
6–7, 1989 a
July 29– Singap
2nd Singapore
31, 1990 ore
November
Republi
3rd 12–14, Seoul
c of Korea
1991
September
Thailan
4th 10–11, Bangkok
d
1992
November
United Bombardier
5th 19–20, Seattle
States Jackets
1993
November Indones
6th Bogor Batik Shirts
15, 1994 ia
November Business
7th Japan Osaka
19, 1995 Suits
November Philippi Manila and Barong
8th [1]
25, 1996 nes Subic Shirts
November
Leather
9th 24–25, Canada Vancouver [2]
Jackets
1997
November
Malaysi Kuala
10th 17–18, Batik Shirts [3]
a Lumpur
1998
11th September New Auckland Sailing [4]
 12–13,
Zealand Jackets
1999

November Kain
Brunei
12th 15–16, Brunei Tenunan [5]
Darussalam
2000 Shirts

October People'
13th 20–21, s Republic Shanghai Tangzhuang
2001 of China

October Guayabera
14th 26–27, Mexico Los Cabos Shirts (M);
2002 Huipíles (F)

Brocade
October
Thailan Shirts (M);
15th 20–21, Bangkok
d Brocade
2003
Shawls (F)

November
16th 20–21, Chile Santiago Chamantos [6]
2004

November
Republi
17th 18–19, Busan Hanboks
c of Korea
2005

November
Vietna
18th 18–19, Hanoi Áo dài [7]
m
2006
 Drizabones
September Australi
19th Sydney and Akubra [8]
8–9, 2007 a
Hats

November
20th 22–23, Peru Lima Ponchos [9]
2008

Peranakan-
November
Singap Inspired
21st 14–15, Singapore [10]
ore Designer
2009
Shirts
November
22nd 13–14, Japan Yokohama [11]
2010
November
United
23rd 12–13, Honolulu
States
2011
November
24th Russia Vladivostok [12]
2012
November Indones
25th
2013 ia

[edit] Criticism
APEC has been criticized for failing to clearly define itself or serve a useful purpose.
According to the organisation, it is "the premier forum for facilitating economic growth,
cooperation, trade and investment in the Asia-Pacific region" established to "further
enhance economic growth and prosperity for the region and to strengthen the Asia-Pacific
community."[33] However, whether it has accomplished anything constructive remains
debatable.[34]

United Nations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"UN" redirects here. For other uses, see UN (disambiguation).
 ‫المم المتحدة‬
United Nations
Organisation des Nations Unies
联合国 / 聯合國
Organización de las Naciones Unidas
Организация Объединённых Наций

Flag

Map of UN member states

Note that this map does not represent the view of its members or the UN concerning the
legal status of any country,[1] nor does it accurately reflect which areas' governments
have UN representation.

International territory in
Headquarters
Manhattan, New York City
Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Official languages
Russian, Spanish
Membership 192 member states
Leaders
- Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
Establishment
United Nations
- 26 June 1945
Charter signed
Entry into force of
- 24 October 1945
Charter
Website
www.un.org
United Nations portal

The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN) (Arabic: ‫المم‬
‫المتحدة‬, French: Organisation des Nations Unies, Chinese: 联合国 / 聯合國, Spanish:
Organización de las Naciones Unidas, Russian: Организация Объединённых
Наций) is an international organization whose stated aims are facilitating cooperation in
international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human
rights, and achievement of world peace. The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II
to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a
platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its
missions.

There are currently 192 member states, including nearly every sovereign state in the
world. From its offices around the world, the UN and its specialized agencies decide on
substantive and administrative issues in regular meetings held throughout the year. The
organization has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative
assembly); the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security);
the Economic and Social Council (for assisting in promoting international economic and
social cooperation and development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information,
and facilities needed by the UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial
organ); and the United Nations Trusteeship Council (which is currently inactive). Other
prominent UN System agencies include the World Health Organization (WHO), the
World Food Programme (WFP) and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). The
UN's most visible public figure is the Secretary-General, currently Ban Ki-moon of South
Korea, who attained the post in 2007. The organization is financed from assessed and
voluntary contributions from its member states, and has six official languages: Arabic,
Chinese (Mandarin), English, French, Russian and Spanish.[2]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 History
• 2 Organization
o 2.1 General Assembly
o 2.2 Security Council
o 2.3 Secretariat
 2.3.1 Secretary-General
o 2.4 International Court of Justice
o 2.5 Economic and Social Council
o 2.6 Specialized institutions
• 3 Membership
o 3.1 Group of 77
• 4 Stated objectives
o 4.1 Peacekeeping and security
o 4.2 Human rights and humanitarian assistance
o 4.3 Social and economic development
o 4.4 Mandates
o 4.5 Other
• 5 Funding
• 6 Personnel policy
• 7 Reform
• 8 See also
 o 8.1 Relations between specific states and the United Nations
• 9 References
• 10 Further reading

• 11 External links

[edit] History
Main article: History of the United Nations

The signing of the UN Charter in San Francisco, 1945.

Following in the wake of the failed League of Nations (1919–1946) (which the United
States never joined) the United Nations was established in 1945 to maintain international
peace and promote cooperation in solving international economic, social and
humanitarian problems. The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was
begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first
coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to describe the Allied countries. The term was
first officially used on 1 January 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter,
pledging to continue the war effort.[3] On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on
International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a
number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United
Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of
the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the
Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by
a majority of the other 46 signatories. The first meetings of the General Assembly, with
51 nations represented, and the Security Council, took place in Westminster Central Hall
in London in January 1946.[4]

The organization was based at the Sperry Gyroscope Corporation's facility in Lake
Success, New York from 1946-1952, before moving to the United Nations Headquarters
building in Manhattan upon its completion.

Since its creation, there has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization. In the
United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, which began a
"get US out of the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a
"One World Government." After the Second World War, the French Committee of
National Liberation was late to be recognized by the US as the government of France,
and so the country was initially excluded from the conferences that aimed at creating the
new organization. Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin
("the thingie"), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help maintain
world peace, preferring direct defense treaties between countries.[5]

[edit] Organization
Main article: United Nations System

The United Nations system is based on five principal organs (formerly six – the
Trusteeship Council suspended operations in 1994, upon the independence of Palau);[6]
the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC), the Secretariat, and the International Court of Justice.

Four of the five principal organs are located at the main United Nations headquarters
located on international territory in New York City. The International Court of Justice is
located in The Hague, while other major agencies are based in the UN offices at Geneva,
Vienna, and Nairobi. Other UN institutions are located throughout the world.

The six official languages of the United Nations, used in intergovernmental meetings and
documents, are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish,[2] while the
Secretariat uses two working languages, English and French. Four of the official
languages are the national languages of the permanent members of the Security Council
(the United Kingdom and the United States share English as a de facto official language);
Spanish and Arabic are the languages of the two largest blocs of official languages
outside of the permanent members (Spanish being official in 20 countries, Arabic in 26).
Five of the official languages were chosen when the UN was founded; Arabic was added
later in 1973. The United Nations Editorial Manual states that the standard for English
language documents is British usage and Oxford spelling, the Chinese writing standard is
Simplified Chinese. This replaced Traditional Chinese in 1971 when the UN
representation of China was changed from the Republic of China to People's Republic of
China.

[edit] General Assembly

United Nations General Assembly hall.

Main article: United Nations General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative assembly of the United Nations.
Composed of all United Nations member states, the assembly meets in regular yearly
sessions under a president elected from among the member states. Over a two-week
period at the start of each session, all members have the opportunity to address the
assembly. Traditionally, the Secretary-General makes the first statement, followed by the
president of the assembly. The first session was convened on 10 January 1946 in the
Westminster Central Hall in London and included representatives of 51 nations.

When the General Assembly votes on important questions, a two-thirds majority of those
present and voting is required. Examples of important questions include:
recommendations on peace and security; election of members to organs; admission,
suspension, and expulsion of members; and, budgetary matters. All other questions are
decided by majority vote. Each member country has one vote. Apart from approval of
budgetary matters, resolutions are not binding on the members. The Assembly may make
recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN, except matters of peace and
security that are under Security Council consideration.

Conceivably, the one state, one vote power structure could enable states comprising just
eight percent of the world population to pass a resolution by a two-thirds vote.[citation needed]
However, as no more than recommendations, it is difficult to imagine a situation in which
a recommendation by member states constituting just eight percent of the world's
population, would be adhered to by the remaining ninety-two percent of the population,
should they object. (See List of countries by population.)

[edit] Security Council

United Nations Security Council chamber.

Main article: United Nations Security Council

The Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among countries.
While other organs of the United Nations can only make 'recommendations' to member
governments, the Security Council has the power to make binding decisions that member
governments have agreed to carry out, under the terms of Charter Article 25.[7] The
decisions of the Council are known as United Nations Security Council resolutions.

The Security Council is made up of 15 member states, consisting of 5 permanent

members – China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States – and 10
non-permanent members, currently Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Gabon,
Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Turkey, and Uganda. The five permanent members
hold veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions allowing a permanent
member to block adoption but not to block the debate of a resolution unacceptable to it.
The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms with member states voted in by the
General Assembly on a regional basis. The presidency of the Security Council is rotated
alphabetically each month,[8] and is currently held by Nigeria for the month of July 2010.

[edit] Secretariat

Main article: United Nations Secretariat

The United Nations Secretariat Building at the United Nations headquarters in New York
City.

The United Nations Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, assisted by a staff of

international civil servants worldwide. It provides studies, information, and facilities
needed by United Nations bodies for their meetings. It also carries out tasks as directed
by the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, the UN Economic and Social
Council, and other UN bodies. The United Nations Charter provides that the staff be
chosen by application of the "highest standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity,"
with due regard for the importance of recruiting on a wide geographical basis.

The Charter provides that the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any
authority other than the UN. Each UN member country is enjoined to respect the
international character of the Secretariat and not seek to influence its staff. The Secretary-
General alone is responsible for staff selection.

The Secretary-General's duties include helping resolve international disputes,

administering peacekeeping operations, organizing international conferences, gathering
information on the implementation of Security Council decisions, and consulting with
member governments regarding various initiatives. Key Secretariat offices in this area
include the Office of the Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations. The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the
Security Council any matter that, in his or her opinion, may threaten international peace
and security.
[edit] Secretary-General

Main article: Secretary-General of the United Nations

The current Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon of South Korea.

The Secretariat is headed by the Secretary-General, who acts as the de facto spokesman
and leader of the UN. The current Secretary-General is Ban Ki-moon, who took over
from Kofi Annan in 2007 and will be eligible for reappointment when his first term
expires in 2011.[9]

Envisioned by Franklin D. Roosevelt as a "world moderator", the position is defined in

the UN Charter as the organization's "chief administrative officer",[10] but the Charter also
states that the Secretary-General can bring to the Security Council's attention "any matter
which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security",
[11]
giving the position greater scope for action on the world stage. The position has
evolved into a dual role of an administrator of the UN organization, and a diplomat and
mediator addressing disputes between member states and finding consensus to global
issues.[9]

The Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly, after being recommended

by the Security Council, any member of which can veto,[12] and the General Assembly
can theoretically override the Security Council's recommendation if a majority vote is not
achieved, although this has not happened so far.[13] There are no specific criteria for the
post, but over the years it has become accepted that the post shall be held for one or two
terms of five years, that the post shall be appointed on the basis of geographical rotation,
and that the Secretary-General shall not originate from one of the five permanent Security
Council member states.[13]

Secretaries-General of the United Nations[14]

Country of
No. Name Took office Left office Note
origin
2 February 10 November Resigned; First Secretary-
1 Trygve Lie Norway 1946 1952 General from Scandinavia
Dag 18 September
2 Sweden 10 April 1953 Died while in office
Hammarskjöld 1961
 30 November 1 January First Secretary-General from
3 U Thant Burma
1961 1972 Asia
1 January 1 January
4 Kurt Waldheim Austria
1972 1982
Javier Pérez de 1 January 1 January First Secretary-General from
5 Peru
Cuéllar 1982 1992 South America
Boutros Boutros- 1 January 1 January First Secretary-General from
6 Egypt
Ghali 1992 1997 Africa
1 January 1 January
7 Kofi Annan Ghana
1997 2007
South 1 January
8 Ban Ki-moon Incumbent
Korea 2007

[edit] International Court of Justice

Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands.
Main article: International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), located in The Hague, Netherlands, is the
primary judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945 by the United Nations
Charter, the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of
International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its
predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.[15]

It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, sharing the building with the
Hague Academy of International Law, a private centre for the study of international law.
Several of the Court's current judges are either alumni or former faculty members of the
Academy. Its purpose is to adjudicate disputes among states. The court has heard cases
related to war crimes, illegal state interference and ethnic cleansing, among others, and
continues to hear cases.[16]

A related court, the International Criminal Court (ICC), began operating in 2002 through
international discussions initiated by the General Assembly. It is the first permanent
international court charged with trying those who commit the most serious crimes under
international law, including war crimes and genocide. The ICC is functionally
independent of the UN in terms of personnel and financing, but some meetings of the
ICC governing body, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute, are held at the
UN. There is a "relationship agreement" between the ICC and the UN that governs how
the two institutions regard each other legally.[17]

[edit] Economic and Social Council

Main article: United Nations Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) assists the General Assembly in promoting
international economic and social cooperation and development. ECOSOC has 54
members, all of which are elected by the General Assembly for a three-year term. The
president is elected for a one-year term and chosen amongst the small or middle powers
represented on ECOSOC. ECOSOC meets once a year in July for a four-week session.
Since 1998, it has held another meeting each April with finance ministers heading key
committees of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Viewed
separate from the specialized bodies it coordinates, ECOSOC's functions include
information gathering, advising member nations, and making recommendations. In
addition, ECOSOC is well-positioned to provide policy coherence and coordinate the
overlapping functions of the UN’s subsidiary bodies and it is in these roles that it is most
active.

[edit] Specialized institutions

Main article: List of specialized agencies of the United Nations

There are many UN organizations and agencies that function to work on particular issues.
Some of the most well-known agencies are the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
Food and Agriculture Organization, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization), the World Bank and the World Health Organization.

It is through these agencies that the UN performs most of its humanitarian work.
Examples include mass vaccination programmes (through the WHO), the avoidance of
famine and malnutrition (through the work of the WFP) and the protection of vulnerable
and displaced people (for example, by the UNHCR).

The United Nations Charter stipulates that each primary organ of the UN can establish
various specialized agencies to fulfill its duties.

Specialized agencies of the United Nations

Established
No. Acronyms Flag Agency Headquarters Head
in
Food and Agriculture Jacques
1 FAO Rome, Italy 1945
Organization Diouf
International Atomic Vienna, Yukiya
2 IAEA 1957
Energy Agency Austria Amano
International Civil Montreal, Raymond
3 ICAO 1947
Aviation Organization Canada Benjamin
 International Fund for Kanayo F.
4 IFAD Rome, Italy 1977
Agricultural Development Nwanze
International Labour Geneva, Juan
5 ILO 1946 (1919)
Organization Switzerland Somavía
International Maritime London, Efthimios
6 IMO 1948
Organization United Kingdom E. Mitropoulos
International Monetary Washington, Dominique
7 IMF 1945 (1944)
Fund D.C., USA Strauss-Kahn
International Geneva, Hamadoun
8 ITU 1947 (1865)
Telecommunication Union Switzerland Touré
United Nations
Irina
9 UNESCO Educational, Scientific and Paris, France 1946
Bokova
Cultural Organization
United Nations Industrial Vienna, Kandeh
10 UNIDO 1967
Development Organization Austria Yumkella
Bern, Edouard
11 UPU Universal Postal Union 1947 (1874)
Switzerland Dayan
Washington, Robert B.
12 WB World Bank 1945 (1944)
D.C, USA Zoellick
Josette
13 WFP World Food Programme Rome, Italy 1963
Sheeran
Geneva, Margaret
14 WHO World Health Organization 1948
Switzerland Chan
World Intellectual Geneva, Francis
15 WIPO 1974
Property Organization Switzerland Gurry
World Meteorological Geneva, Alexander
16 WMO 1950 (1873)
Organization Switzerland Bedritsky
World Tourism Madrid,
17 UNWTO Taleb Rifai 1974
Organization Spain

[edit] Membership
Main article: United Nations member states
An animation showing the timeline of accession of UN member states, according to the
UN. Note that Antarctica has no government; political control of Western Sahara is in
dispute; and the territories administered by the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Kosovo
are considered by the UN to be provinces of the People's Republic of China and Republic
of Serbia, respectively.

With the addition of Montenegro on 28 June 2006, there are currently 192 United Nations
member states, including all fully recognized independent states[18] apart from Vatican
City (the Holy See, which holds sovereignty over the state of Vatican City, is a
permanent observer).[19]

The United Nations Charter outlines the rules for membership:

1. Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving

states which accept the obligations contained in the present Charter and, in
the judgment of the Organization, are able and willing to carry out these
obligations.
2. The admission of any such state to membership in the United
Nations will be effected by a decision of the General Assembly upon the
recommendation of the Security Council.

—United Nations Charter, Chapter 2, Article 4, http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

[edit] Group of 77

The Group of 77 at the UN is a loose coalition of developing nations, designed to

promote its members' collective economic interests and create an enhanced joint
negotiating capacity in the United Nations. There were 77 founding members of the
organization, but the organization has since expanded to 130 member countries. The
group was founded on 15 June 1964 by the "Joint Declaration of the Seventy-Seven
Countries" issued at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD). The first major meeting was in Algiers in 1967, where the Charter of
Algiers was adopted and the basis for permanent institutional structures was begun.[20]
[edit] Stated objectives
[edit] Peacekeeping and security

Main article: History of United Nations Peacekeeping

See also: List of United Nations peacekeeping missions

UN peacekeeping missions. Dark blue regions indicate current missions , while light blue
regions represent former missions.

The UN, after approval by the Security Council, sends peacekeepers to regions where
armed conflict has recently ceased or paused to enforce the terms of peace agreements
and to discourage combatants from resuming hostilities. Since the UN does not maintain
its own military, peacekeeping forces are voluntarily provided by member states of the
UN. The forces, also called the "Blue Helmets", who enforce UN accords are awarded
United Nations Medals, which are considered international decorations instead of
military decorations. The peacekeeping force as a whole received the Nobel Peace Prize
in 1988.

The founders of the UN had envisaged that the organization would act to prevent
conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, however the outbreak of the
Cold War made peacekeeping agreements extremely difficult because of the division of
the world into hostile camps. Following the end of the Cold War, there were renewed
calls for the UN to become the agency for achieving world peace, as there are several
dozen ongoing conflicts that continue to rage around the globe.

A 2005 RAND Corp study found the UN to be successful in two out of three
peacekeeping efforts. It compared UN nation-building efforts to those of the United
States, and found that seven out of eight UN cases are at peace, as compared with four
out of eight US cases at peace.[21] Also in 2005, the Human Security Report documented a
decline in the number of wars, genocides and human rights abuses since the end of the
Cold War, and presented evidence, albeit circumstantial, that international activism—
mostly spearheaded by the UN—has been the main cause of the decline in armed conflict
since the end of the Cold War.[22] Situations where the UN has not only acted to keep the
peace but also occasionally intervened include the Korean War (1950–1953), and the
authorization of intervention in Iraq after the Persian Gulf War in 1990.
A British armoured car painted as it appeared while deployed on a UN peacekeeping
mission.

The UN has also drawn criticism for perceived failures. In many cases, member states
have shown reluctance to achieve or enforce Security Council resolutions, an issue that
stems from the UN's intergovernmental nature—seen by some as simply an association of
192 member states who must reach consensus, not an independent organization.
Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as
having failed to prevent the 1994 Rwandan Genocide,[23] failed to provide humanitarian
aid and intervene in the Second Congo War, failed to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica
massacre and protect a refugee haven by the authorizing the peacekeepers to use force,
failure to deliver food to starving people in Somalia, failure to implement provisions of
Security Council resolutions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and continuing
failure to prevent genocide or provide assistance in Darfur. UN peacekeepers have also
been accused of child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various
peacekeeping missions, starting in 2003, in the Congo,[24] Haiti,[25][26] Liberia,[27] Sudan,[28]
Burundi and Côte d'Ivoire.[29] In 2004, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold
criticized what it called the organization's moral relativism in the face of (and occasional
support of)[30] genocide and terrorism that occurred between the moral clarity of its
founding period and the present day. Gold specifically mentions Yasser Arafat's 1988
invitation to address the General Assembly as a low point in the UN's history.[31]

In addition to peacekeeping, the UN is also active in encouraging disarmament.

Regulation of armaments was included in the writing of the UN Charter in 1945 and was
envisioned as a way of limiting the use of human and economic resources for the creation
of them.[32] However, the advent of nuclear weapons came only weeks after the signing of
the charter and immediately halted concepts of arms limitation and disarmament,
resulting in the first resolution of the first ever General Assembly meeting calling for
specific proposals for "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and
of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction".[33] The principal forums for
disarmament issues are the General Assembly First Committee, the UN Disarmament
Commission, and the Conference on Disarmament, and considerations have been made of
the merits of a ban on testing nuclear weapons, outer space arms control, the banning of
chemical weapons and land mines, nuclear and conventional disarmament, nuclear-
weapon-free zones, the reduction of military budgets, and measures to strengthen
international security.
The UN is one of the official supporters of the World Security Forum, a major
international conference on the effects of global catastrophes and disasters, taking place
in the United Arab Emirates, in October 2008.

[edit] Human rights and humanitarian assistance

Eleanor Roosevelt with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1949.

The pursuit of human rights was a central reason for creating the UN. World War II
atrocities and genocide led to a ready consensus that the new organization must work to
prevent any similar tragedies in the future. An early objective was creating a legal
framework for considering and acting on complaints about human rights violations. The
UN Charter obliges all member nations to promote "universal respect for, and observance
of, human rights" and to take "joint and separate action" to that end. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, though not legally binding, was adopted by the General
Assembly in 1948 as a common standard of achievement for all. The Assembly regularly
takes up human rights issues.

The UN and its agencies are central in upholding and implementing the principles
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A case in point is support by the
UN for countries in transition to democracy. Technical assistance in providing free and
fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights
officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties have contributed
significantly to democratization worldwide. The UN has helped run elections in countries
with little or no democratic history, including recently in Afghanistan and East Timor.
The UN is also a forum to support the right of women to participate fully in the political,
economic, and social life of their countries. The UN contributes to raising consciousness
of the concept of human rights through its covenants and its attention to specific abuses
through its General Assembly, Security Council resolutions, or International Court of
Justice rulings.

The purpose of the United Nations Human Rights Council, established in 2006,[34] is to
address human rights violations. The Council is the successor to the United Nations
Commission on Human Rights, which was often criticised for the high-profile positions it
gave to member states that did not guarantee the human rights of their own citizens.[35]
The council has 47 members distributed by region, which each serve three year terms,
and may not serve three consecutive terms.[36] A candidate to the body must be approved
by a majority of the General Assembly. In addition, the council has strict rules for
membership, including a universal human rights review. While some members with
questionable human rights records have been elected, it is fewer than before with the
increased focus on each member state's human rights record.[37]

The rights of some 370 million indigenous peoples around the world is also a focus for
the UN, with a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples being approved by the
General Assembly in 2007.[38] The declaration outlines the individual and collective rights
to culture, language, education, identity, employment and health, thereby addressing
post-colonial issues which had confronted indigenous peoples for centuries. The
declaration aims to maintain, strengthen and encourage the growth of indigenous
institutions, cultures and traditions. It also prohibits discrimination against indigenous
peoples and promotes their active participation in matters which concern their past,
present and future.[38]

In conjunction with other organizations such as the Red Cross, the UN provides food,
drinking water, shelter and other humanitarian services to populaces suffering from
famine, displaced by war, or afflicted by other disasters. Major humanitarian branches of
the UN are the World Food Programme (which helps feed more than 100 million people
a year in 80 countries), the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees with projects in
over 116 countries, as well as peacekeeping projects in over 24 countries.

[edit] Social and economic development

Millennium Development Goals

1. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger;
2. achieve universal primary education;
3. promote gender equality and empower women;
4. reduce child mortality;
5. improve maternal health;
6. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases;
7. ensure environmental sustainability; and

8. develop a global partnership for development.

The UN is involved in supporting development, e.g. by the formulation of the

Millennium Development Goals. The UN Development Programme (UNDP) is the
largest multilateral source of grant technical assistance in the world. Organizations like
the World Health Organization (WHO), UNAIDS, and The Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria are leading institutions in the battle against diseases around the
world, especially in poor countries. The UN Population Fund is a major provider of
reproductive services.
The UN also promotes human development through various related agencies. The World
Bank Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF), for example, are independent,
specialized agencies and observers within the UN framework, according to a 1947
agreement. They were initially formed as separate from the UN through the Bretton
Woods Agreement in 1944.[39]

The UN annually publishes the Human Development Index (HDI), a comparative

measure ranking countries by poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, and other
factors.

The Millennium Development Goals are eight goals that all 192 United Nations member
states have agreed to try to achieve by the year 2015.[40] This was declared in the United
Nations Millennium Declaration, signed in September 2000.

[edit] Mandates

See also: Category:United Nations Security Council mandates

From time to time the different bodies of the United Nations pass resolutions which
contain operating paragraphs that begin with the words "requests", "calls upon", or
"encourages", which the Secretary-General interprets as a mandate to set up a temporary
organization or do something. These mandates can be as little as researching and
publishing a written report, or mounting a full scale peace-keeping operation (usually the
exclusive domain of the Security Council).

Although the specialized institutions, such as the WHO, were originally set up by this
means, they are not the same as mandates because they are permanent organizations that
exist independently of the UN with their own membership structure. One could say that
original mandate was simply to cover the process of setting up the institution, and has
therefore long expired. Most mandates expire after a limited time period and require
renewal from the body which set them up.

One of the outcomes of the 2005 World Summit was a mandate (labelled id 17171) for
the Secretary-General to "review all mandates older than five years originating from
resolutions of the General Assembly and other organs". To facilitate this review and to
finally bring coherence to the organization, the Secretariat has produced an on-line
registry of mandates to draw together the reports relating to each one and create an
overall picture.[41]

[edit] Other

Over the lifetime of the UN, over 80 colonies have attained independence.[42] The General
Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial
Countries and Peoples in 1960 with no votes against but abstentions from all major
colonial powers. Through the UN Committee on Decolonization,[43] created in 1962, the
UN has focused considerable attention on decolonization. It has also supported the new
states that have arisen as a result of self-determination initiatives. The committee has
overseen the decolonization of every country larger than 20,000 km² and removed them
from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, besides Western Sahara,
a country larger than the UK only relinquished by Spain in 1975.

The UN declares and coordinates international observances, periods of time to observe

some issue of international interest or concern. Using the symbolism of the UN, a
specially designed logo for the year, and the infrastructure of the United Nations System,
various days and years have become catalysts to advancing key issues of concern on a
global scale. For example, World Tuberculosis Day, Earth Day and International Year of
Deserts and Desertification.

[edit] Funding

Top 10 donators to the UN budget, 2009[44]

Member state Contribution

(% of UN budget)

United States 22.00%

Japan 16.624%

Germany 8.577%

United Kingdom 6.642%

France 6.301%

Italy 5.079%

Canada 2.977%

Spain 2.968%

China 2.667%

Mexico 2.257%

Other member states 23.908%

The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The
regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by
assessments. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the
assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each
country to pay, as measured by their Gross National Income (GNI), with adjustments for
external debt and low per capita income.[45]

The Assembly has established the principle that the UN should not be overly dependent
on any one member to finance its operations. Thus, there is a 'ceiling' rate, setting the
maximum amount any member is assessed for the regular budget. In December 2000, the
Assembly revised the scale of assessments to reflect current global circumstances. As
part of that revision, the regular budget ceiling was reduced from 25% to 22%. The U.S.
is the only member that has met the ceiling. In addition to a ceiling rate, the minimum
amount assessed to any member nation (or 'floor' rate) is set at 0.001% of the UN budget.
Also, for the least developed countries (LDC), a ceiling rate of 0.01% is applied.[45]

The current operating budget is estimated at $4.19 billion for the 2-year (biennial)period
of 2008 to 2009, or a little over 2 billion dollars a year[45] (refer to table for major
contributors).

A large share of UN expenditures addresses the core UN mission of peace and security.
The peacekeeping budget for the 2005–2006 fiscal year is approximately $5 billion
(compared to approximately $1.5 billion for the UN core budget over the same period),
with some 70,000 troops deployed in 17 missions around the world.[46] UN peace
operations are funded by assessments, using a formula derived from the regular funding
scale, but including a weighted surcharge for the five permanent Security Council
members, who must approve all peacekeeping operations. This surcharge serves to offset
discounted peacekeeping assessment rates for less developed countries. As of 1 January
2008, the top 10 providers of assessed financial contributions to United Nations
peacekeeping operations were: the United States, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom,
France, Italy, China, Canada, Spain, and the Republic of Korea.[47]

Special UN programmes not included in the regular budget (such as UNICEF, the WFP
and UNDP) are financed by voluntary contributions from other member governments.
Most of this is financial contributions, but some is in the form of agricultural
commodities donated for afflicted populations.

Because their funding is voluntary, many of these agencies suffer severe shortages during
economic recessions. In July 2009, the World Food Programme reported that it has been
forced to cut services because of insufficient funding.[48] It has received barely a quarter
of the total it needs for the 09/10 financial year.

[edit] Personnel policy

The UN and its agencies are immune to the laws of the countries where they operate,
safeguarding UN's impartiality with regard to the host and member countries.[49]
Despite their independence in matters of human resources policy, the UN and its agencies
voluntarily apply the laws of member states regarding same-sex marriages, allowing
decisions about the status of employees in a same-sex partnership to be based on
nationality. The UN and its agencies recognize same-sex marriages only if the employees
are citizens of countries that recognize the marriage. This practice is not specific to the
recognition of same-sex marriage but reflects a common practice of the UN for a number
of human resources matters. It has to be noted though that some agencies provide limited
benefits to domestic partners of their staff and that some agencies do not recognise same-
sex marriage or domestic partnership of their staff.

[edit] Reform
Main article: Reform of the United Nations

Proposed logo for a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which would involve direct
election of a country's representative by its citizens.

Since its founding, there have been many calls for reform of the United Nations, although
little consensus on how to do so. Some want the UN to play a greater or more effective
role in world affairs, while others want its role reduced to humanitarian work.[50] There
have also been numerous calls for the UN Security Council's membership to be
increased, for different ways of electing the UN's Secretary-General, and for a United
Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

The UN has also been accused of bureaucratic inefficiency and waste. During the 1990s
the United States withheld dues citing inefficiency, and only started repayment on the
condition that a major reforms initiative was introduced. In 1994, the Office of Internal
Oversight Services (OIOS) was established by the General Assembly to serve as an
efficiency watchdog.[51]

An official reform programme was begun by Kofi Annan in 1997. Reforms mentioned
include changing the permanent membership of the Security Council (which currently
reflects the power relations of 1945), making the bureaucracy more transparent,
accountable and efficient, making the UN more democratic, and imposing an
international tariff on arms manufacturers worldwide.[citation needed]

In September 2005, the UN convened a World Summit that brought together the heads of
most member states, calling the summit "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to take bold
decisions in the areas of development, security, human rights and reform of the United
Nations."[52] Kofi Annan had proposed that the summit agree on a global "grand bargain"
to reform the UN, renewing the organisation's focus on peace, security, human rights and
development, and to make it better equipped at facing 21st century issues. The World
Summit Outcome Document delineated the conclusions of the meeting, including: the
creation of a Peacebuilding Commission, to help countries emerging from conflict; a
Human Rights Council and a democracy fund; a clear and unambiguous condemnation of
terrorism "in all its forms and manifestations"; agreements to devote more resources to
the Office of Internal Oversight Services; agreements to spend billions more on achieving
the Millennium Development Goals; the dissolution of the Trusteeship Council, because
of the completion of its mission; and, the agreement that individual states, with the
assistance of the international community, have the "responsibility to protect"
populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity-
with the understanding that the international community is prepared to act "collectively"
in a “timely and decisive manner” to protect vulnerable civilians should a state
"manifestly fail" in fulfilling its responsibility.[53]

The Office of Internal Oversight Services is being restructured to more clearly define its
scope and mandate, and will receive more resources. In addition, to improve the oversight
and auditing capabilities of the General Assembly, an Independent Audit Advisory
Committee (IAAC) is being created. In June 2007, the Fifth Committee created a draft
resolution for the terms of reference of this committee.[54][55] An ethics office was
established in 2006, responsible for administering new financial disclosure and
whistleblower protection policies. Working with the OIOS, the ethics office also plans to
implement a policy to avoid fraud and corruption.[56] The Secretariat is in the process of
reviewing all UN mandates that are more than five years old. The review is intended to
determine which duplicative or unnecessary programmes should be eliminated. Not all
member states are in agreement as to which of the over 7000 mandates should be
reviewed. The dispute centres on whether mandates that have been renewed should be
examined. As of September 2007, the process is ongoing.[57]

United States dollar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (February 2009)
This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications.
Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient
for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable
sources. (April 2010)
United States dollar
 $1 Coin Federal Reserve Notes

ISO 4217
USD
Code
Official United States
user(s) 14 U.S. territories[show]
Unofficial 11 other countries[show]
user(s) 3 non-U.S. territories[show]
Inflation 1.05%, June 2010
Source inflationdata.com
Method CPI
Pegged by 22 currencies[show]
Subunit
1/10 Dime
1/100 Cent
1/1000 Mill (only used in accounting)
Symbol $
Cent ¢
Buck, paper, dead president, smacker, and
greenback. Plural: dough, bread. Also,
Washingtons, Jeffersons, Lincolns, Jacksons,
Nickname
Benjamins, and Hamiltons are used based on
denomination; also peso in Puerto Rico, and
piastre in Cajun Louisiana.
Coins
Freq. used 1¢, 5¢, 10¢, 25¢
Rarely used 50¢, $1
Banknotes
Freq. used $1, $5, $10, $20, $50, $100
Rarely used $2
Central
Federal Reserve System
bank
Website www.federalreserve.gov
Printer Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Website www.moneyfactory.gov
Mint United States Mint
Website www.usmint.gov

The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD) is the official currency of the United
States, Zimbabwe, Palau, Marshall Islands, El Salvador, British Virgin Islands, Ecuador,
and Federated States of Micronesia. The U.S. dollar is normally abbreviated as the dollar
sign, $, or as USD or US$ to distinguish it from other dollar-denominated currencies and
from others that use the $ symbol. It is divided into 100 cents.

The U.S. dollar is the currency most used in international transactions and is one of the
world's reserve currencies.[10] Several countries use it as their official currency, in many
others it is the de facto currency,[11] and it is also used as the sole currency in some British
Overseas Territories.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Overview
• 2 Etymology
o 2.1 Nicknames
• 3 Dollar sign
• 4 History
o 4.1 Continental currency
o 4.2 Silver and gold standards
• 5 Coins
o 5.1 Collector coins
o 5.2 Dollar coins
o 5.3 Mint marks
• 6 Banknotes
• 7 Means of issue
• 8 Value
• 9 International use
o 9.1 The dollar as international reserve currency
o 9.2 U.S. Dollar Index
o 9.3 Dollarization and fixed exchange rates
 o 9.4 Dollar versus euro
• 10 Exchange rates
o 10.1 Historical exchange rates
• 11 See also
• 12 References
• 13 External links

o 13.1 Images of U.S. currency and coins

[edit] Overview
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)

The Constitution of the United States of America provides that the United States
Congress shall have the power "To coin Money".[12] As an exercise of that power,
Congress enacted Section 5112 of Title 31 of the United States Code. Section 5112
provides that United States dollars shall be issued in two forms: (1) a coin made of a
copper alloy and (2) a coin made of pure silver.[13] Those coins are both designated in
Section 5112 as "legal tender" in payment of debts.[13] The Sacagawea dollar is one
example of the copper alloy dollar. The pure silver dollar is known as the American
Silver Eagle. Section 5112 also provides for the minting and issuance of other coins,
which have values ranging from one-hundredth of one dollar to fifty dollars.[13] These
other coins are more fully described in Coins of the United States dollar.

The Constitution provides that "a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and
Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time".[14] That provision
of the Constitution is made specific by Section 331 of Title 31 of the United States Code.
[15]
The sums of money reported in the "Statements" are currently being expressed in U.S.
dollars (for example, see the 2009 Financial Report of the United States Government).[16]
The U.S. dollar may therefore be described as the unit of account of the United States.

The word "dollar" is one of the words in the first paragraph of Section 9 of Article 1 of
the U.S. Constitution. In that context, "dollars" is a reference to the Spanish milled dollar,
a coin that had a monetary value of 8 Spanish units of currency, or reales. In 1792 the
U.S. Congress adopted legislation titled An act establishing a mint, and regulating the
Coins of the United States. Section 9 of that act authorized the production of various
coins, including "DOLLARS OR UNITS—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled
dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains
and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard
silver". Section 20 of the act provided, "That the money of account of the United States
shall be expressed in dollars, or units... and that all accounts in the public offices and all
proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this
regulation". In other words, this act designated the United States dollar as the unit of
currency of the United States.
The U.S. dollar bill uses the decimal system, consisting of 100 equal cents (symbol ¢). In
another division, there are 1,000 mills or ten dimes to a dollar, or 4 quarters to a dollar.
However, only cents are in everyday use as divisions of the dollar; "dime" is used solely
as the name of the coin with the value of 10¢, while "eagle" and "mill" are largely
unknown to the general public, though mills are sometimes used in matters of tax levies
and gasoline prices. When currently issued in circulating form, denominations equal to or
less than a dollar are emitted as U.S. coins while denominations equal to or greater than a
dollar are emitted as Federal Reserve notes (with the exception of gold, silver and
platinum coins valued up to $100 as legal tender, but worth far more as bullion). Both
one-dollar coins and notes are produced today, although the note form is significantly
more common. In the past, "paper money" was occasionally issued in denominations less
than a dollar (fractional currency) and gold coins were issued for circulation up to the
value of $20 (known as the "double eagle," discontinued in the 1930s). The term eagle
was used in the Coinage Act of 1792 for the denomination of ten dollars, and
subsequently was used in naming gold coins. In 1854, James Guthrie, then Secretary of
the Treasury, proposed creating $100, $50 and $25 gold coins, which were referred to as
a "Union," "Half Union," and "Quarter Union,"[17] thus implying a denomination of 1
Union = $100.

Today, USD notes are made from cotton fiber paper, unlike most common paper, which
is made of wood fiber. U.S. coins are produced by the United States Mint. U.S. dollar
banknotes are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and, since 1914, have
been issued by the Federal Reserve. The "large-sized notes" issued before 1928 measured
7.42 inches (188 mm) by 3.125 inches (79.4 mm); small-sized notes, introduced that year,
measure 6.14 inches (156 mm) by 2.61 inches (66 mm) by 0.0043 inches (0.11 mm).

Series of 1917 $1 United States bill

[edit] Etymology
Further information: Dollar

In the 1500s, Count Hieronymus Schlick of Bohemia began minting coins known as
Joachimstalers (from German thal, or nowadays usually Tal, "valley", cognate with
"dale" in English), named for Joachimstal, the valley where the silver was mined (St.
Joachim's Valley, now Jáchymov; then part of the Holy Roman Empire, now part of the
Czech Republic).[18] Joachimstaler was later shortened to the German Taler, a word that
eventually found its way into Danish and Swedish as daler, Dutch as daalder, Ethiopian
as talari, Italian as tallero, Flemish as daelder, and English as dollar.[18] Alternatively,
thaler is said to come from the German coin Guldengroschen ("great guilder", being of
silver but equal in value to a gold guilder), minted from the silver from Joachimsthal.
[edit] Nicknames

This section does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (April 2008)

The colloquialism buck (much like the British term "quid") is often used to refer to
dollars of various nations, including the U.S. dollar. This term, dating to the 18th century,
may have originated with the colonial fur trade. Greenback is another nickname
originally applied specifically to the 19th century Demand Note dollars created by
Abraham Lincoln to finance the costs of the Civil War for the North. The original note
was printed in black and green on the back side. It is still used to refer to the U.S. dollar
(but not to the dollars of other countries). Other well-known names of the dollar as a
whole in denominations include "greenmail", "green", and "dead presidents", (the last
because late presidents are represented on the bills).

Grand, sometimes shortened to simply G, is a common term for the amount of $1,000.
The suffix k (from "kilo-") is also commonly used to denote this amount (such as "$10k"
to mean $10,000). In street slang, when someone refers to a "large" or "stack", they are
usually referring to any amount of $1,000, such as "fifty large", meaning $50,000.
Banknotes' nicknames are the same as their values (such as five, twenty, etc.) The $5 bill
has been referred to as a "fin" or a "fiver" or a "five-spot;" the $10 bill as a "sawbuck," a
"ten-spot," or a "Hamilton"; the $20 bill as a "double sawbuck," or a "Jackson"; the $1
bill is sometimes called a "single," or a "buck," the $2 bill a "deuce," "Tom," "Jefferson,"
or a "T.J." and the $100 bill is nicknamed a "Benjamin," "Benji," or "Franklin" (after
Benjamin Franklin, who is pictured on the note), C-note (C being the Roman numeral for
100), Century Note, or "bill" ("two bills" being $200, etc.). The dollar has also been
referred to as a "bone" or "bones" (i.e., twenty bones is equal to $20) or a "bean". The
newer designs are sometimes referred to as "Bigface" bills, or "Monopoly Money". Some
people refer to U.S. money as "cha-chingers," "bucks," "green-backs," and also
"smackers."

In Panama, the equivalent of buck is "palo" (literally "stick"). In Ecuador, the dollar is
referred to as "lata". Puerto Ricans, both in Puerto Rico and in the U.S., may refer to the
dollar as a peso. In French-speaking areas of Louisiana, the dollar is referred to as a
piastre which is pronounced "pee-as", and cents by the French holdover of sous,
pronounced "soo." In Mexico, in some places prices in dollars are referred to as "en
americano" ("in American"). (In Mexico, peso is used primarily for the Mexican peso.) In
Peru, a nickname for the U.S. dollar is coco, which is a pet name for Jorge (George in
Spanish), a reference to the portrait of George Washington on the $1 note.

[edit] Dollar sign

Main article: Dollar sign
The symbol $, usually written before the numerical amount, is used for the U.S. dollar (as
well as for many other currencies). The sign's ultimate origins are not certain, though it is
possible that it comes from the Pillars of Hercules which flank the Spanish Coat of arms
on the Spanish dollars that were minted in the New World mints in Mexico City, Potosí,
Bolivia, and in Lima, Peru. These Pillars of Hercules on the silver Spanish dollar coins
take the form of two vertical bars and a swinging cloth band in the shape of an "S".[19]

An equally accepted, and better documented, explanation is that this symbol for peso was
the result of a late eighteenth-century evolution of the scribal abbreviation "ps." The p and
the s eventually came to be written over each other giving rise to $.[20][21][22]

A fictional possibility suggested is that the dollar sign is the capital letters U and S typed
one on top of the other. This theory, popularized by novelist Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged
[23]
, does not consider the fact that the symbol was already in use before the formation of
the United States[24].

[edit] History
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)
See also: History of the United States dollar

Obverse of rare 1934 $500 Federal Reserve Bill, featuring a portrait of President William
McKinley.

Reverse of $500 Bill

The first dollar coins issued by the United States Mint (founded 1792) were similar in
size and composition to the Spanish dollar. The Spanish, U.S. silver dollars, and Mexican
silver pesos circulated side by side in the United States, and the Spanish dollar and
Mexican peso remained legal tender until 1857. The coinage of various English colonies
also circulated. The lion dollar was popular in the Dutch New Netherland Colony (New
York), but the lion dollar also circulated throughout the English colonies during the
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Examples circulating in the colonies were
usually worn so that the design was not fully distinguishable, thus they were sometimes
referred to as "dog dollars".[25]
The U.S. dollar was created and defined by the Coinage Act of 1792. It specified a
"dollar" to be based in the Mexican peso at 1 dollar per peso and between 371 and
416 grains (27.0 g) of silver (depending on purity) and an 'eagle" to be between 247 and
270 grains (17 g) of gold (again depending on purity). The choice of the value 371 grains
arose from Alexander Hamilton's decision to base the new American unit on the average
weight of a selection of worn Spanish dollars (and later Mexican peso). Hamilton got the
treasury to weigh a sample of Spanish dollars and the average weight came out to be 371
grains. A new Spanish dollar was usually about 377 grains in weight, and so the new US
dollar was at a slight discount in relation to the Spanish dollar. The gold equivalent of the
Spanish dollar in sterling was ₤1 = $4.80, whereas the gold equivalent of the US dollar
was ₤1 = 4.86⅔. This exchange rate with sterling remained right up until Britain
abandoned the gold standard in 1931.

The Coinage Act of 1792 set the value of an eagle at 10 dollars, and the dollar at 1/10th
eagle. It called for 90% silver alloy coins in denominations of 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/10, and 1/20
dollars; it called for 90% gold alloy coins in denominations of 1, 1/2, 1/4, and 1/10
eagles.

The value of gold or silver contained in the dollar was then converted into relative value
in the economy for the buying and selling of goods. This allowed the value of things to
remain fairly constant over time, except for the influx and outflux of gold and silver in
the nation's economy.

The early currency of the USA did not exhibit faces of presidents, as is the custom now.
In fact, George Washington was against having his face on the currency, a practice he
compared to the policies of European monarchs. The currency as we know it today did
not get the faces they currently have until after the early 1900s; before that "heads" side
of coinage used profile faces and striding, seated, and standing figures from Greek and
Roman mythology and generic native Americans. The last coins to be converted to
profiles of historic Americans were the dime (1946) and the Dollar (1971).

For articles on the currencies of the colonies and states, see Connecticut pound, Delaware
pound, Georgia pound, Maryland pound, Massachusetts pound, New Hampshire pound,
New Jersey pound, New York pound, North Carolina pound, Pennsylvania pound, Rhode
Island pound, South Carolina pound and Virginia pound.

[edit] Continental currency

See also: Continental currency

Continental One Third Dollar Bill (obverse)

In 1775, the United States and the individual states began issuing "Continental Currency"
denominated in Spanish dollars and (for the issues of the states) the £sd currencies of the
states. The dollar was valued relative to the states' currencies at the following rates:

Value of
Dollar
State
in State
Currency
5
Georgia
Shillings
6
Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Virginia
Shillings
7½
Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
Shillings
8
New York, North Carolina
Shillings
32½
South Carolina
Shillings

The continental currency suffered from printing press inflation and was replaced by the
silver dollar at the rate of 1 silver dollar = 1000 continental dollars.

[edit] Silver and gold standards

This section does not cite any references or sources.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (April 2010)
 This article may need to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent
events or newly available information, and remove this template when finished.
Please see the talk page for more information. (March 2009)

From 1792, when the Mint Act was passed, the dollar was pegged to silver at 371.25
grains, or 24.75 grains (1.604 g) of gold. Many historians[who?] erroneously assume gold
was standardized at a fixed rate in parity with silver, however there is no evidence of
Congress making this law. This has to do with Alexander Hamilton's suggestion to
Congress of a fixed 15:1 ratio of silver to gold, respectively. The gold coins that were
minted however, were not given any denomination whatsoever and traded for a market
value relative to the Congressional standard of the silver dollar. 1834 saw a shift in the
gold standard to 23.2 grains (1.50 g), followed by a slight adjustment to 23.22 grains
(1.505 g) in 1837 (16:1 ratio).[citation needed]

In 1862, paper money was issued without the backing of precious metals, due to the Civil
War. Silver and gold coins continued to be issued and in 1878 the link between paper
money and coins was reinstated. This disconnection from gold and silver backing also
occurred during the War of 1812. The use of paper money not backed by precious metals
had also occurred under the Articles of Confederation from 1777 to 1788. With no solid
backing and being easily counterfeited, the continentals quickly lost their value, giving
rise to the phrase "not worth a continental". This was a primary reason for the "No state
shall... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts" clause in
article 1, section 10 of the United States Constitution.

The Gold Standard Act of 1900 abandoned the bimetallic standard and defined the dollar
as 23.22 grains (1.505 g) of gold, equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at
$20.67. Silver coins continued to be issued for circulation until 1964, when all silver was
removed from dimes and quarters, and the half dollar was reduced to 40% silver. Silver
half dollars were last issued for circulation in 1969.

Gold coins were confiscated in 1933 and the gold standard was changed to 13.71 grains
(0.888 g), equivalent to setting the price of 1 troy ounce of gold at $35. This standard
persisted until 1968. Between 1968 and 1975, a variety of pegs to gold were put in place.
The price was at $42.22 per ounce before August 15, 1971[citation needed] saw the U.S. dollar
freely float on currency markets.

According to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the largest note it ever printed was
the $100,000 Gold Certificate, Series 1934. These notes were printed from December 18,
1934 through January 9, 1935, and were issued by the Treasurer of the United States to
Federal Reserve Banks only against an equal amount of gold bullion held by the
Treasury. These notes were used for transactions between Federal Reserve Banks and
were not circulated among the general public.

[edit] Coins
Main article: Coins of the United States dollar
Official United States coins have been produced every year from 1792 to the present.

• Half-cent 1792 - 1857

• Penny 1793–present
• 2-cent 1864–1873
• 3-cent 1851-1873
• Half Dime 1792-1873 (Not to be confused with the Nickel below also worth 5
cents)
• Nickel 1866–present
• Dime 1792–present
• 20-cent 1875-1878
• Quarter 1796–present
• Half dollar 1794–present
• Dollar coin (United States) 1794–present
• Quarter Eagle ($2.5 gold coin) 1792-1929
• Three-dollar piece 1854-1889
• Half Eagle ($5 gold coin) 1795-1929
• Eagle ($10 gold coin) 1795-1929
• Double Eagle ($20 gold coin) 1850-1933

Collector coins for which everyday transactions are non-existent.[26]

• American Eagles originally were not available from the Mint for individuals but
had to be purchased from authorized dealers. In 2006 The Mint began direct sales
to individuals of uncirculated bullion coins with a special finish, and bearing a
"W" mintmark.

* American Silver Eagle $1 (1 troy ounce) silver bullion coin 1986-Present

* American Gold Eagle $5 (1/10 troy oz), $10 (1/4 troy oz), $25 (1/2 troy oz), and
$50 (1/4 troy oz) Gold bullion coin 1986-Present
* American Platinum Eagle ($10, $25, $50, and $100 platinum coin) 1997–
present

• United States commemorative coins - special issue coins

* $50.00 (Half Union) 1915

* Presidential Proofs (see below) 2007-present

Technically, all these coins are still legal tender at face value, though some are far more
valuable today for their numismatic value, and for gold and silver coins, their precious
metal value. From 1965 to 1970 the Kennedy half dollar was the only circulating coin
with any silver content though the Mint still makes what it calls Silver Proof sets for
collectors.
In addition, an experimental $4.00 (Stella) coin was also minted, but never placed into
circulation and is properly considered to be a pattern rather than an actual coin
denomination.

The $50 coin mentioned was only produced in 1915 for the Panama-Pacific International
Exposition (1915) celebrating the opening of the Panama Canal. Only 1,128 were made,
645 of which were octagonal; this remains the only US coin that was not round as well as
the largest and heaviest US coin ever.

From 1934 to present the only denominations produced for circulation have been the
familiar penny, nickel, dime, quarter, half dollar and dollar. The nickel is the only coin
still in use today that is essentially unchanged (except in its design) from its original
version. Every year since 1866, the nickel has been 75% copper and 25% nickel, except
for 4 years during World War II when nickel was needed for the war.

[edit] Collector coins

The United States Mint produces Proof Sets specifically for collectors and speculators.
Silver Proofs tend to be the standard designs but with the dime, quarter, half dollar, and
in some cases the dollar having silver content. Another type of proof set is the
Presidential Dollar Proof Set where four special $1 coins are minted each featuring a
president.

• 2007 had George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James
Madison
• 2008 had James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, and Martin Van
Buren
• 2009 had William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, and Zachary
Taylor
• 2010 has Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, and Abraham
Lincoln
• 2011 is to have Andrew Johnson, Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and
James A. Garfield

[edit] Dollar coins

This section may stray from the topic of the article into the topic of another
article, Coins of the United States dollar. Please help improve this section or
discuss this issue on the talk page. (April 2010)
Flowing Hair Dollar

The first United States dollar was minted in 1794. Known as the Flowing Hair Dollar, it
contained 416 grains of "standard silver" (89.25% silver and 10.75% copper), as
specified by Section 13 [27] of the Coinage Act of 1792. It was designated by Section 9 of
that Act as having "the value of a Spanish milled dollar".

Dollar coins have not been very popular in the United States.[28] Silver dollars were
minted intermittently from 1794 through 1935; a copper-nickel dollar of the same large
size, featuring President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was minted from 1971 through 1978.
Gold dollars were also minted in the 1800s. The Susan B. Anthony dollar coin was
introduced in 1979; these proved to be unpopular because they were often mistaken for
quarters, due to their nearly equal size, their milled edge, and their similar color. Minting
of these dollars for circulation was suspended in 1980 (collectors' pieces were struck in
1981), but, as with all past U.S. coins, they remain legal tender. As the number of
Anthony dollars held by the Federal Reserve and dispensed primarily to make change in
postal and transit vending machines had been virtually exhausted, additional Anthony
dollars were struck in 1999. In 2000, a new $1 coin, featuring Sacagawea, (the
Sacagawea dollar) was introduced, which corrected some of the mistakes of the Anthony
dollar by having a smooth edge and a gold color, without requiring changes to vending
machines that accept the Anthony dollar. However, this new coin has failed to achieve
the popularity of the still-existing $1 bill and is rarely used in daily transactions. The
failure to simultaneously withdraw the dollar bill and weak publicity efforts have been
cited by coin proponents as primary reasons for the failure of the dollar coin to gain
popular support. There are indications that the dollar coin's failure was also due to the
reluctance of armored transport companies to make the necessary adjustments to handle
the new coins, and the government's reluctance to mandate it.[29] The result of the armored
carriers' unwillingness to handle the new coins was that they virtually never reached
merchants in quantities sufficient to be given out as change on a routine basis, or for
retail clerks to become used to handling them.

In February 2007, the US Mint, under the Presidential $1 Coin Act of 2005,[30] introduced
a new $1 US Presidential dollar coin. Based on the success of the "50 State Quarters"
series, the new coin features a sequence of presidents in order of their inaugurations,
starting with George Washington, on the obverse side. The reverse side features the
Statue of Liberty. To allow for larger, more detailed portraits, the traditional inscriptions
of "E Pluribus Unum," "In God We Trust," the year of minting or issuance, and the mint
mark will be inscribed on the edge of the coin instead of the face. This feature, similar to
the edge inscriptions seen on the British £1 coin, is not usually associated with US coin
designs. The inscription "Liberty" has been eliminated, with the Statue of Liberty serving
as a sufficient replacement. In addition, due to the nature of US coins, this will be the first
time there will be circulating US coins of different denominations with the same
President featured on the obverse (heads) side. (Lincoln/penny, Jefferson/nickel, Franklin
D. Roosevelt/dime, Washington/quarter and Kennedy/half dollar.) Another unusual fact
about the new $1 coin is Grover Cleveland will have two coins with his portrait issued
due to the fact he was the only US President to be elected to two non-consecutive terms.
[31]

Early releases of the Washington coin included error coins shipped primarily from the
Philadelphia mint to Florida and Tennessee banks. Highly sought after by collectors, and
trading for as much as $850 each within a week of discovery, the error coins were
identified by the absence of the edge impressions "E PLURIBUS UNUM IN GOD WE
TRUST 2007 P". The mint of origin is generally accepted to be mostly Philadelphia,
although identifying the source mint is impossible without opening a mint pack also
containing marked units. Edge lettering is minted in both orientations with respect to
"heads", some amateur collectors were initially duped into buying "upside down lettering
error" coins.[32] Some cynics also erroneously point out that the Federal Reserve makes
more profit from dollar bills than dollar coins because they wear out in a few years,
whereas coins are more permanent. The fallacy of this argument arises because new notes
printed to replace worn out notes which have been withdrawn from circulation bring in
no net revenue to the government to offset the costs of printing new notes and destroying
the old ones. As most vending machines are incapable of making change in banknotes,
they commonly accept only $1 bills, though a few will give change in dollar coins.

[edit] Mint marks

Most U.S. coins bear a mint mark as part of the design, usually found on the front of the
coin near the date although in the past it was more commonly found on the reverse. The
Philadelphia Mint issues coins bearing a letter P (or no mark at all), while the Denver
Mint uses a letter D. The San Francisco Mint uses an S, though no coins have been
released from that mint for general circulation since 1980. It does, however, continue to
strike proof coins for collectors. The West Point Mint uses a W, though this is rarely seen
as the West Point mint generally only makes high denomination coins (with face values
over $1.00) which are not meant for everyday use. A CC mark, for the Carson City Mint,
was used for a short time in the mid-nineteenth century, but the mint at that location was
only a temporary establishment. The New Orleans Mint used a mint mark O. It operated
from the 1830s until the American Civil War, and again from 1879 to 1909. The letter D
was also used for coinage of the Dahlonega Mint from 1837 to 1861, and C was used for
the Charlotte Mint during the same timespan. The latter two mints struck gold coins only.

[edit] Banknotes
 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)
Main article: Federal Reserve Note

The U.S. Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "borrow money on
the credit of the United States".[33] Congress has exercised that power by authorizing
twelve private companies—the Federal Reserve Banks—to issue Federal Reserve Notes.
Those notes are "obligations of the United States" and "shall be redeemed in lawful
money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank."[34] Federal Reserve
Notes are designated by law as "legal tender" for the payment of debts.[35] Congress has
also authorized the issuance of more than 10 other types of banknotes, including the
United States Note[36] and the Federal Reserve Bank Note. The Federal Reserve Note is
the only type that remains in circulation since the 1970s.

The largest denominations of currency currently printed or minted by the United States
are the $100 bill and the $100 one troy ounce Platinum Eagle.

• $1 and $2 color: White and rich gray

• $5 color: Gray and some purple
• $10 color: Light yellow
• $20 color: Light green
• $50 color: Deep blue and purple
• $100 color: Rich light blue (Series 2009 redesign is scheduled for release on
February 10, 2011) [37]

Currently printed denominations are $1, $2, $5, $10, $20, $50, and $100. Notes above the
$100 denomination ceased being printed in 1946 and were officially withdrawn from
circulation in 1969. These notes were used primarily in inter-bank transactions or by
organized crime; it was the latter usage that prompted President Richard Nixon to issue
an executive order in 1969 halting their use. With the advent of electronic banking, they
became less necessary. Notes in denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000, $10,000, and
$100,000 were all produced at one time; see large denomination bills in U.S. currency for
details. These notes are now collector's items and are worth more than their face value to
collectors.

The design of the notes has been accused of being unfriendly to the visually impaired. A
U.S. District Judge ruled on November 28, 2006 that the American bills gave an undue
burden to the blind and denied them "meaningful access" to the U.S. currency system.
The judge ordered the Treasury Department to begin working on a redesign within 30
days.[38]

[edit] Means of issue

 The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)
This section's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on
the talk page. (April 2010)
This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (July 2009)

New dollars are issued when the Federal Reserve elects to fund the purchase of debt,
primarily U.S. Treasury Bonds, by creating new reserves rather than financing the
purchase with existing reserves. When the bond issuer spends the money, new dollars
enter circulation.

In theory, Federal Reserve Notes are like checks: liabilities drawn on the Federal Reserve
Bank. The Fed offsets these liabilities by holding U.S. Treasury Bonds as assets, which
are backed by the U.S. Government's ability to levy taxes and repay.

When compared to hard money backed by gold or silver, this debt-based approach has
the advantage of making the currency elastic, giving the government a means of
expanding or contracting the money supply in response to changing economic conditions.
The disadvantage of this approach is inflation. The money supply must be continually
expanded in order to finance interest payments on the debt by which it is issued. This
devalues the currency, causing inflation.

[edit] Value
Buying power of one U.S. dollar compared to 1774 USD

Equivalent buying power Year Equivalent buying

power Year
1774 E
quival
ent
buyin $1.00 1860 $0.97 1950 $0.33
g
power
Year
1780 $0.59 1870 $0.62 1960 $0.26
1790 $0.89 1880 $0.79 1970 $0.20
1800 $0.64 1890 $0.89 1980 $0.10
1810 $0.66 1900 $0.96 1990 $0.06
1820 $0.69 1910 $0.85 2000 $0.05
1830 $0.88 1920 $0.39 2007 $0.04
1840 $0.94 1930 $0.47 2008 $0.04
1850 $1.03 1940 $0.56 2009 $0.04
US Consumer Price Index 1913–2006
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (April 2010)

The 5th paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the U.S.
Congress shall have the power to "coin money" and to "regulate the value" of domestic
and foreign coins. Congress exercised those powers when it enacted the Coinage Act of
1792. That Act provided for the minting of the first U.S. dollar and it declared that the
U.S. dollar shall have "the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current".[39]

The table to the right shows the equivalent amount of goods that, in a particular year,
could be purchased with $1. The table shows that from 1774 through 2009 the U.S. dollar
has lost about 96.4% of its buying power.[40]

The decline in the value of the US dollar corresponds to price inflation, which is a rise in
the general level of prices of goods and services in an economy over a period of time.[41]
A consumer price index (CPI) is a measure estimating the average price of consumer
goods and services purchased by households. The United States Consumer Price Index,
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is a measure estimating the average price of
consumer goods and services in the United States.[42] It reflects inflation as experienced
by consumers in their day-to-day living expenses.[43] A graph showing the US CPI
relative to 1982-1984 and the annual year-over-year change in CPI is shown at right.

The value of the US dollar declined significantly during wartime, especially during the
American Civil War, World War I, and World War II.[44] The Federal Reserve, which was
established in 1913, was designed to furnish an "elastic" currency subject to "substantial
changes of quantity over short periods," which differed significantly from previous forms
of high-powered money such as gold, national bank notes, and silver coins.[45] Over the
very long run, the prior gold standard kept prices stable - for instance, the price level and
the value of the US dollar in 1914 was not very different from the price level in the
1880s. The Federal Reserve initially succeeded in maintaining the value of the US dollar
and price stability, reversing the inflation caused by the First World War and stabilizing
the value of the dollar during the 1920s, before presiding over a 30% deflation in US
prices in the 1930s.[46]

Under the Bretton Woods system established after World War II, the value of the US
dollar was fixed to $35 per ounce, and the value of the US dollar was thus anchored to
the value of gold. Rising government spending in the 1960s, however, led to doubts about
the ability of the United States to maintain this convertibility, gold stocks dwindled as
banks and international investors began to convert dollars to gold, and as a result the
value of the dollar began to decline. Facing an emerging currency crisis and the imminent
danger that the United States would no longer be able to redeem dollars for gold, gold
convertibility was finally terminated in 1971 by President Nixon, resulting in the "Nixon
shock."[47]

The value of the US dollar was therefore no longer anchored to gold, and it fell upon the
Federal Reserve to maintain the value of the US currency. The Federal Reserve, however,
continued to increase the money supply, resulting in stagflation and a rapidly declining
value of the US dollar in the 1970s. This was largely due to the prevailing economic view
at the time that inflation and real economic growth were linked (the Phillips curve), and
so inflation was regarded as relatively benign.[47] Between 1965 and 1981, the US dollar
lost two thirds of its value.[40]

In 1979, President Carter appointed Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The
Federal Reserve tightened the money supply and inflation was substantially lower in the
1980s, and hence the value of the US dollar stabilized. [47]

Over the thirty-year period from 1981 to 2009, the US dollar lost over half its value.[40]
This is because the Federal Reserve has targeted not zero inflation, but a low, stable rate
of inflation - between 1987 and 1997, the rate of inflation was approximately 3.5%, and
between 1997 and 2007 it was approximately 2%. The so-called "Great Moderation" of
economic conditions since the 1970s is credited to monetary policy targeting price
stability.[47]

There is ongoing debate about whether central banks should target zero inflation (which
would mean a constant value for the US dollar over time) or low, stable inflation (which
would mean a continuously but slowly declining value of the dollar over time, as is the
case now). Although some economists are in favor of a zero inflation policy and therefore
a constant value for the US dollar[46], others contend that such a policy limits the ability of
the central bank to control interest rates and stimulate the economy when needed. [48]

[edit] International use

Worldwide use of the U.S. dollar and the euro: United States External adopters of the
US dollar Currencies pegged to the US dollar Currencies pegged to the US dollar w/
narrow band Eurozone External adopters of the euro Currencies pegged to the euro
Currencies pegged to the euro w/ narrow band Note that the Belarusian ruble is pegged to the Euro,
Russian Ruble, and U.S. Dollar in a currency basket.

The dollar is also used as the standard unit of currency in international markets for
commodities such as gold and petroleum (the latter sometimes called petrocurrency is the
source of the term petrodollar). Some non-U.S. companies dealing in globalized markets,
such as Airbus, list their prices in dollars.

The U.S. dollar is the world's foremost reserve currency. In addition to holdings by
central banks and other institutions there are many private holdings which are believed to
be mostly in $100 denominations. The majority of U.S. notes are actually held outside the
United States. All holdings of US dollar bank deposits held by non-residents of the US
are known as eurodollars (not to be confused with the euro) regardless of the location of
the bank holding the deposit (which may be inside or outside the U.S.) Economist Paul
Samuelson and others maintain that the overseas demand for dollars allows the United
States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of the currency to
depreciate and the flow of trade to readjust. Milton Friedman at his death believed this to
be the case but, more recently, Paul Samuelson has said he now believes that at some
stage in the future these pressures will precipitate a run against the U.S. dollar with
serious global financial consequences.[49]

[edit] The dollar as international reserve currency

Main article: Reserve currency

Percentage of global currencies

The U.S. dollar is an important international reserve currency along with the euro. The
euro inherited this status from the German mark, and since its introduction, has increased
its standing considerably, mostly at the expense of the dollar. Despite the dollar's recent
losses to the euro, it is still by far the major international reserve currency, with an
accumulation more than double that of the euro.

In August 2007, two scholars affiliated with the government of the People's Republic of
China threatened to sell its substantial reserves in American dollars in response to
American legislative discussion of trade sanctions designed to revalue the Chinese yuan.
[50]
The Chinese government denied that selling dollar-denominated assets would be an
official policy in the foreseeable future.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in September 2007 that the euro
could replace the U.S. dollar as the world's primary reserve currency. It is "absolutely
conceivable that the euro will replace the dollar as reserve currency, or will be traded as
an equally important reserve currency."[51]

Currency composition of official foreign exchange reserves

v•d•e '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
US 59.0 62.1 65.2 69.3 70.9 70.5 70.7 66.5 65.8 65.9 66.4 65.7 64.1 64.1 62.2
dollar % % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
17.9 18.8 19.8 24.2 25.3 24.9 24.3 25.2 26.3 26.4 27.3
Euro
% % % % % % % % % % %
Pound
2.1 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.6 3.3 3.6 4.2 4.7 4.0
sterlin 4.3%
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %
g
Japane 6.8 6.7 5.8 6.2 6.4 6.3 5.2 4.5 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.2 2.9 3.1
3.0%
se yen % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Germa 15.8 14.7 14.5 13.8
n mark % % % %
French 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.6
franc % % % %
Swiss 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1
0.1%
franc % % % % % % % % % % % % % %
13.6 11.7 10.2 6.1 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.2
Other 3.1%
% % % % % % % % % % % % % %
Sources: 1995-1999, 2006-2009 IMF: Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange
Reserves
Sources: 1999-2005 ECB: The Accumulation of Foreign Reserves

[edit] U.S. Dollar Index

Main article: U.S. Dollar Index

The U.S. Dollar Index (Ticker: DXY) is the creation of the New York Board of Trade
(NYBOT). It was established in 1973 for tracking the value of the USD against a basket
of currencies, which, at that time, represented the largest trading partners of the United
States. It began with 17 currencies from 17 nations, but the launch of the euro subsumed
12 of these into one, so the USDX tracks only six currencies today.

Euro 57.6%
Japanese yen 13.6%
Pound sterling 11.9%
Canadian dollar 9.1%
Swedish krona 4.2%
Swiss franc 3.6%
Source: NYBOT, " US Dollar Index", pg.3 (PDF)

The Index is described by the NYBOT as "a trade weighted geometric average".[52] The
baseline of 100.00 on the USDX was set at its launch in March 1973. This event marks
the watershed between the wider margins arrangement of the Smithsonian regime and the
period of generalized floating that led up to the Second Amendment of the Articles of
Agreement of the IMF. Since 1973, the USDX has climbed as high as the 160s and
drifted as low as the 70s.

The USDX has not been updated to reflect new trading realities in the global economy,
where the bulk of trade has shifted strongly towards new partners like China and Mexico
and oil-exporting countries while the United States has de-industrialized.

[edit] Dollarization and fixed exchange rates

Other nations besides the United States use the U.S. dollar as their official currency, a
process known as official dollarization. For instance, Panama has been using the dollar
alongside the Panamanian balboa as the legal tender since 1904 at a conversion rate of
1:1. Ecuador (2000), El Salvador (2001), and East Timor (2000) all adopted the currency
independently. The former members of the U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, which included Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the
Marshall Islands, chose not to issue their own currency after becoming independent,
having all used the U.S. dollar since 1944. Two British dependencies also use the U.S.
dollar: the British Virgin Islands (1959) and Turks and Caicos Islands (1973).

Some countries that have adopted the U.S. dollar issue their own coins: See Ecuadorian
centavo coins, Panamanian Balboa and East Timor centavo coins.

Some other countries link their currency to U.S. dollar at a fixed exchange rate. The local
currencies of Bermuda and the Bahamas can be freely exchanged at a 1:1 ratio for USD.
Argentina used a fixed 1:1 exchange rate between the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar
from 1991 until 2002. The currencies of Barbados and Belize are similarly convertible at
an approximate 2:1 ratio. In Lebanon, one dollar is equal to 1500 Lebanese pound, and is
used interchangeably with local currency as de facto legal tender. The exchange rate
between the Hong Kong dollar and the United States dollar has also been linked since
1983 at HK$7.8/USD, and pataca of Macau, pegged to Hong Kong dollar at
MOP1.03/HKD, indirectly linked to the U.S. dollar at roughly MOP8/USD. Several oil-
producing Arab countries on the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, peg their
currencies to the dollar, since the dollar is the currency used in the international oil trade.

The People's Republic of China's renminbi was informally and controversially pegged to
the dollar in the mid-1990s at ¥ 8.28/USD. Likewise, Malaysia pegged its ringgit at
RM3.8/USD in 1997. On July 21, 2005 both countries removed their pegs and adopted
managed floats against a basket of currencies. Kuwait did likewise on May 20, 2007,[53]
and Syria did likewise in July 2007.[54] However, after three years of slow appreciation,
the Chinese yuan has been de facto re-pegged to the dollar since July 2008 at a value of
¥6.83/USD; although no official announcement had been made, the yuan has remained
around that value within a narrow band since then, similar to the Hong Kong dollar.

Belarus, on the other hand, pegged its currency, the Belarusian ruble, to a basket of
foreign currencies (U.S. dollar, euro and Russian ruble) in 2009.[55]

In some countries such as Peru and Uruguay, the USD is commonly accepted although
not officially regarded as a legal tender. In Mexico's border area and major tourist zones,
it is accepted as if it were a second legal currency. Many Canadian merchants also accept
US dollars, albeit sometimes only at face value. In Cambodia, US notes circulate freely
and are preferred over the Cambodian riel for large purchases,[56][57] with the riel used for
change to break 1 USD. After the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. dollars are accepted
as if it were legal tender. Prices of most big ticket items such as houses and cars are set in
U.S. dollars[citation needed].

[edit] Dollar versus euro

EUR-USD exchange rate, 1999-2010
Euro per US dollar 1999–2010
Highest ↑ Lowest ↓
Year
Date Rate Date Rate
1999 03 Dec €0.9985 05 Jan €0.8482
2000 26 Oct €1.2118 06 Jan €0.9626
2001 06 Jul €1.1927 05 Jan €1.0477
2002 28 Jan €1.1658 31 Dec €0.9536
2003 08 Jan €0.9637 31 Dec €0.7918
2004 14 May €0.8473 28 Dec €0.7335
2005 15 Nov €0.8571 03 Jan €0.7404
2006 02 Jan €0.8456 05 Dec €0.7501
2007 12 Jan €0.7756 27 Nov €0.6723
2008 27 Oct €0.8026 15 Jul €0.6254
2009 04 Mar €0.7965 03 Dec €0.6614
2010 08 Jun €0.8374 13 Jan €0.6867
Source: Euro exchange rates in USD, ECB

Not long after the introduction of the euro (€ ; ISO 4217 code EUR) as a cash currency in
2002, the dollar began to depreciate steadily in value, as it did against other major
currencies.[58] From 2003 to 2005, this depreciation continued, reflecting a widening
current account deficit. Although the current account deficit began to stabilize in 2006
and 2007, depreciation persisted.[58] The fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis in
2008 prompted the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates in September 2007[59], and
again in March 2008[60], sending the euro to a record high of $1.6038, reached in July
2008[61].

In addition to the trade deficit, the US dollar's decline was linked to a variety of other
factors, including a major spike in oil prices[62]. Economists such as Alan Greenspan
suggested that another reason for the decline of the dollar was its decreasing role as a
major reserve currency. Chinese officials signaled plans to diversify the nation's $1.9
trillion reserve in response to a falling U.S. currency which also set the dollar under
pressure.[63][64]

However, a sharp turnaround began in late 2008 with the onset of the global financial
crisis. As investors sought out safe-haven investments in US treasuries and Japanese
government bonds from the financial turmoil, the Japanese yen and United States dollar
sharply rose against other currencies, including the euro.[65] At the same time, however,
many countries such as China[66], India and Russia announced their intentions to diversify
their foreign reserve portfolios away from the US dollar.[67]

The European sovereign debt crisis that unfolded in 2010 sent the euro falling to a four-
year low of $1.1877 on June 7, as investors considered the risk that certain Eurozone
members may default on their government debt.[68] The euro's decline in 2008-2010 had
erased 50 percent of its 2000-2008 rally.[61]

[edit] Exchange rates

See also: Currencies pegged to the USD

[edit] Historical exchange rates

Currency units per U.S. dollar, averaged over the year.[69] * = value at start of year.
197 1990 199 199 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
1980* 1985*
0* * 3 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.83 0.85 0.93 1.08 1.11 1.05 0.88 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.72 0.67 0.71
Euro - - -
43 51 87 32 71 78 33 40 33 60 93 91 76
Japane 357. 240.4 250.3 146. 111. 113. 107. 121. 125. 115. 108. 110. 116. 117. 103. 93.6
se yen 6 5 5 25 08 73 80 57 22 94 15 11 31 76 39 8
Pound
0.41 0.448 0.861 0.62 0.66 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.66 0.61 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.49 0.53 0.63
sterlin
64 4[70] 3[70] 07 60 84 98 46 56 17 56 93 25 95 92 85
g
Canad
1.08 1.16 1.29 1.48 1.48 1.54 1.57 1.40 1.30 1.21 1.13 1.07 1.06 1.14
ian 1.168 1.321
1 05 02 58 55 87 04 08 17 15 40 34 60 12
dollar
Mexic
22.80 206.9 2,67 3.12 9.55 9.45 9.33 9.66 10.7 11.2 10.8 10.9 10.9 11.1 13.4
an -
01 71 9.51 37 3 9 7 3 93 90 94 06 28 43 98
peso
Renmi
2.795 4.73 5.77 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.27 8.19 7.97 7.60 6.94 6.83
nbi 2.46 1.5
7 39 95 81 84 70 71 72 68 36 23 58 77 07
yuan
Singa
1.90 1.61 1.69 1.73 1.79 1.79 1.74 1.69 1.66 1.58 1.50 1.41 1.45
pore - - 2.179
3 58 51 61 30 08 29 02 39 82 65 40 43
dollar
Source: Last 4 years 2005-2002 2003-2000 1996-1999 1993-1996 1990 1970-1992 1970-1985 Canada, China, Mexico

1. Mexican peso values prior to 1993 revaluation.

Dollar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Dolar" redirects here. For the Slovenian philosopher, see Mladen Dolar.
For other uses, see Dollar (disambiguation).

Canadian one-dollar coin (Loonie)

United States dollar

Australian one-dollar coin

A New Zealand One Dollar coin

One New Taiwan dollar

500 old Zimbabwean dollars

The dollar (often represented by the dollar sign: "$") is the name of the official currency
of many countries, including the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the
Eastern Caribbean territories, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Brunei, East Timor,
Ecuador, Suriname, El Salvador, Panama, and Belize.

Contents
[hide]

• 1 History
o 1.1 Etymology
o 1.2 Development of Use
o 1.3 Adoption by the United States
o 1.4 Usage in Great Britain
o 1.5 Usage Elsewhere
• 2 National currencies called "dollar"
• 3 Economies which use the dollar
o 3.1 Economies currently using the dollar
o 3.2 Countries and regions which have previously used the dollar
o 3.3 Other territories which currently use the dollar
o 3.4 Countries which accept the dollar, but is not their official currency
• 4 See also
• 5 References

• 6 External links

[edit] History
[edit] Etymology

In the 1500s, Count Hieronymus Schlick of Bohemia began minting coins known as
Joachimsthaler, named for Joachimstal (modern Jáchymov in the Czech Republic),
where the silver was mined.[1]. (In German, thal or tal refers to a valley or dale.)
"Joachimsthaler" was later shortened in common usage to taler or thaler (same
pronunciation), and this shortened word eventually found its way into Danish, Swedish
and Norwegian as (Riks)daler, Dutch as (rijks)daalder, Ethiopian as ታላሪ talari, Italian
as tallero, Flemish as daelder, and into English as dollar.[1]

[edit] Development of Use

The coins minted at Joachimsthal soon lent their name to other coins of similar size and
weight from other places. One such example, the Dutch lion dollar, circulated throughout
the Middle East and was imitated in several German and Italian cities. Carried by Dutch
traders, this coin was also popular in the Dutch East Indies as well as in the Dutch New
Netherland Colony (New York), and circulated throughout the Thirteen Colonies during
the 17th and early 18th centuries. Some well-worn examples circulating in the Colonies
were known as "dog dollars."[2] By the mid-1700s, the lion dollar had been replaced by
the Spanish "pieces of eight" which were distributed widely in the Spanish colonies in the
New World and in the Philippines..[3]

Pieces of eight (so-called because they were worth eight "reals") became known as
Spanish dollars in the English-speaking world because of their similarity in size and
weight to the earlier Thaler coins.

[edit] Adoption by the United States

By the American Revolution, Spanish dollars gained significance because they backed
paper money authorized by the individual colonies and the Continental Congress.[3]
Common in the Thirteen Colonies, Spanish dollars were even legal tender in one colony,
Virginia.

On April 2, 1792, U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton reported to

Congress the precise amount of silver found in Spanish milled dollar coins in common
use in the States. Based on this result, the United States Dollar was defined[4] as a quantity
of 371 4/16th grains (24.057 grams) of pure silver, or 416 grains of standard silver
(standard silver being defined as 1,485 parts fine silver to 179 parts alloy[5]). It was
specified that the "money of account" of the United States should be expressed in those
same "dollars" or parts thereof. Additionally, all lesser-denomination coins were defined
as percentages of the dollar coin, such that a half-dollar was to contain half as much
silver as a dollar, quarter-dollars would contain one-fourth as much, and so on.

In an act passed in January 1837, the dollar's alloy (amount of non-silver metal present)
was set at 11%. Subsequent coins would contain the same amount of pure silver as
previously, but were reduced in overall weight (to 412.25 grains). On February 21, 1853,
the quantity of silver in the lesser coins was reduced, with the effect that their
denominations no longer represented their silver content relative to dollar coins.

Various acts have subsequently been passed affecting the amount and type of metal in U.
S. coins, so that today there is no legal definition of the term "dollar" to be found in U. S.
statute. [6][7][8]Currently the closest thing to a definition is found in United States Code
Title 31, Section 5116, paragraph b, subsection 2: "The Secretary [of the Treasury] shall
sell silver under conditions the Secretary considers appropriate for at least $1.292929292
a fine troy ounce." Silver was mostly removed from U. S. coinage by 1965, as the dollar
became a free-floating fiat currency. The US Mint continues to make silver $1-
denomination coins, but these are not intended for general circulation.

[edit] Usage in Great Britain

The word dollar had been in use in the English language as a variant for "thaler" for
about 200 years before the founding of the United States, with many quotes in the plays
of Shakespeare referring to dollars as money. Coins known as "Thistle dollars" were in
use in Scotland during the 17th century, and use of the English word, and perhaps even
the use of the coin, may have begun at the University of St Andrews[citation needed]. This
might be supported by a reference to the sum of "ten thousand dollars" in Macbeth (Act I,
Scene II) (an anachronism because the real Macbeth, upon whom the play was based,
lived in the 11th century.

In 1804, a British five-shilling piece, or crown, was sometimes called "dollar". It was an
overstruck Spanish 8 Real coin (the famous 'Piece of 8'), the original of which was
known as a Spanish Dollar. Large numbers of these 8-Real coins were captured during
the Napoleonic Wars, hence their re-use by the Bank of England. They remained in use
until 1811[9]. This practice was repeated by US service members in the UK during World
War II, when U. S. dollars were roughly equivalent in value to 5-shilling coins.

[edit] Usage Elsewhere

Chinese demand for silver in the 19th and early 20th centuries led several countries,
notably the United Kingdom, United States and Japan, to mint trade dollars, which were
often of slightly different weights to comparable domestic coinage. Silver dollars
reaching China (whether Spanish, Trade, or other) were often stamped with Chinese
characters known as "chop marks," which indicated that that particular coin had been
assayed by a well-known merchant and determined genuine.

[edit] National currencies called "dollar"

Prior to 1873 the U. S. silver dollar circulated in many parts of the world, with a value in
relation to the British gold sovereign of roughly $1 = 4s 2d (21p approx). Following the
US Coinage Act (1873), the value of silver declined in relation to that of gold, and the
USA went into a 'de facto' gold standard. Canada and Newfoundland were already on the
gold standard, and the result was that the value of the dollar in North America increased
in relation to silver dollars being used elsewhere, particularly Latin America and the Far
East. By 1900, value of silver dollars had fallen to 50 percent of gold dollars. Following
abandonment of the gold standard by Canada in 1931, the Canadian dollar began to drift
away from parity with the US dollar. It returned to parity a few times, but since the end of
the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates that was agreed in 1944, the Canadian
dollar has been floating against the US dollar. The silver dollars of Latin America and
South East Asia began to diverge from each other as well during the course of the 20th
century. The Straits dollar adopted a gold exchange standard in 1906 after it had been
forced to rise in value against other silver dollars in the region. Hence, by 1935, when
China and Hong Kong came off the silver standard, the Straits dollar was worth 2s 4d
(11.5p approx) sterling, whereas the Hong Kong dollar was worth only 1s 3d sterling (6p
approx).

Existing dollar units today are the Bahamian dollar, the Barbados dollar, the Belize
dollar, the Bermuda dollar, the Brunei dollar, the Canadian dollar, the East Caribbean
dollar, the Guyanese dollar, the Hong Kong dollar, the New Taiwan dollar, the Singapore
dollar, the Trinidad and Tobago dollar, the United States dollar. The only ones on this list
that have still retained their original parity from the days of the universal Spanish dollar
are the Singapore dollar and the Brunei dollar.

The term "dollar" has also been adopted by other countries for currencies which do not
share a common history with other dollars. Many of these currencies adopted the name
after moving from a sterling-based to a decimalized monetary system. Examples include
the Australian dollar, the New Zealand dollar, the Jamaican dollar, the Cayman Islands
dollar, the Fiji dollar, the Namibian dollar, the Rhodesian dollar, the Zimbabwe dollar,
and the Solomon Islands dollar.

• The tala is based on the Samoan pronunciation of the word "dollar."

• The Slovenian tolar had the same etymological origin as dollar (i.e. thaler).

[edit] Economies which use the dollar

[edit] Economies currently using the dollar

Countries Currency ISO 4217 code

Antigua and Barbuda East Caribbean Dollar XCD

Australia and its external
Australian Dollar AUD
territories
Bahamas Bahamian Dollar BSD
Barbados Barbados Dollar BBD
Belize Belize dollar BZD
Brunei Brunei dollar BND
Canada Canadian Dollar CAD
Dominica East Caribbean Dollar XCD
East Timor United States Dollar USD
Ecuador United States Dollar USD
El Salvador United States Dollar USD
Fiji Fiji Dollar FJD
Grenada East Caribbean Dollar XCD
Guyana Guyana Dollar GYD
Hong Kong Hong Kong Dollar HKD
Jamaica Jamaican Dollar JMD
Kiribati dollar along with the
Kiribati N/A/AUD
Australian Dollar
Liberia Liberian Dollar LRD
Marshall Islands United States Dollar USD
Federated States of Micronesia United States Dollar KWD
Namibia Namibian Dollar NAD
Nauru Australian Dollar AUD
 New Zealand and its external
New Zealand Dollar NZD
territories
Palau United States Dollar USD
Saint Kitts and Nevis East Caribbean Dollar XCD
Saint Lucia East Caribbean Dollar XCD
Saint Vincent and the
East Caribbean Dollar XCD
Grenadines
Saint Pierre and Miquelon Canadian Dollar CAD
Singapore Singapore Dollar SGD
Solomon Islands Solomon Islands Dollar SBD
Suriname Surinamese dollar SRD
Republic of China (Taiwan) New Taiwan Dollar TWD
Trinidad and Tobago Trinidad and Tobago Dollar TTD
Tuvaluan dollar along with the
Tuvalu TVD/ AUD
Australian Dollar
United States and its territories United States Dollar USD
Zimbabwe United States Dollar[10] USD

[edit] Countries and regions which have previously used the dollar

• Malaysia: the Malaysian Ringgit used to be called the "Malaysian Dollar." The
surrounding territories (i.e. Malaya, British North Borneo, Sarawak, Brunei, and
Singapore) used several varieties of dollars (e.g. Straits dollar, Malayan dollar,
Sarawak dollar, British North Borneo dollar; Malaya and British Borneo dollar)
before Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei gained their independence from the
United Kingdom. See also for a complete list of currencies.
• Spain: the Spanish dollar is closely related the Dollars and Pesos used today.
• Rhodesia: the Rhodesian dollar replaced the Rhodesian pound in 1970 and it was
used until Zimbabwe came into being in 1980.

[edit] Other territories which currently use the dollar

• Anguilla
• Bermuda
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• British Virgin Islands
• Cayman Islands
• Montserrat
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France) (alongside the Euro)

[edit] Countries which accept the dollar, but is not their official currency

• Afghanistan
 • Cambodia
• Lebanon
• Mexico
• Peru
• Guatemala[11]
• Panama[12]
• Bolivia

Government of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Canada

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
Canada

Executive (The Crown)[show]

Legislative (Parliament)[show]
Elections[show]
Judicial[show]
Provinces and territories[show]
General[show]

Other countries · Atlas

Politics of Canada portal
view • talk • edit

The government of Canada, formally called Her Majesty's Government,[1][2][3] is the

system whereby the federation of Canada is administered by a common authority; in
Canadian English, the term can mean either the collective set of institutions or
specifically the Queen-in-Council. In both senses, the construct was established at
Confederation, through the Constitution Act, 1867, as a constitutional monarchy, wherein
the Canadian Crown acts as the core, or "the most basic building block,"[4] of the
kingdom's Westminster-style parliamentary democracy.[5] The Crown is thus the
foundation of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Canadian
government.[6][7][8] Further elements of governance are outlined in the rest of the
constitution of Canada, which includes written statutes, court rulings, and unwritten
conventions developed over centuries.[9]

Contents
[hide]

• 1 Usage
• 2 Monarchy
• 3 Executive power
• 4 Legislative power
• 5 Judicial power
• 6 Federalism
• 7 See also
• 8 Notes
• 9 References

• 10 External links

[edit] Usage
In Canadian English, the word government is used to refer both to the whole set of
institutions that collectively govern the country as well as the reigning monarch, or her
viceroy, in her current council; when used in the latter context, the word is usually
capitalized to make the distinction.[10] Thus, Canadians would say the 28th Ministry is the
Government that currently administers the Canadian government. Contrasts can be drawn
with the British usage — where the government is synonymous with the state — and the
American usage — where the Government is synonymous with the administration.

Because Canada is a federation, the government can refer to the federal, provincial, or
municipal governments. Because aboriginal peoples "had legal systems prior to the
arrival of Europeans", it could also refer to an aboriginal government (acting as a
municipal government entity).[11] In this article, government refers to the structure of the
Canadian federal state.

[edit] Monarchy
Main article: Monarchy of Canada
Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, wearing the Sovereign's insignia of the Order of Canada
and the Order of Military Merit

As per the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada is a constitutional monarchy, wherein the role
of the reigning sovereign is both legal and practical. The Crown is regarded as a
corporation, with the monarch, vested as she is with all powers of state,[12] at the centre of
a construct in which the power of the whole is shared by multiple institutions of
government acting under the sovereign's authority;[13][14][15] the Crown has thus been
described as the underlying principle of Canada's institutional unity,[16] with the executive
formally called the Queen-in-Council, the legislature the Queen-in-Parliament, and the
courts as the Queen on the Bench.[7]

Royal Assent and the royal sign-manual are required to enact laws, letters patent, and
orders-in-council, though the authority for these acts stems from the Canadian populace
and,[17][18] within the conventional stipulations of constitutional monarchy, the sovereign's
direct participation in any of these areas of governance is limited.[19][20] As the monarch —
presently Queen Elizabeth II — is shared as head of state of 15 other countries in the
Commonwealth of Nations, she appoints as her viceregal representative in Canada a
governor general — currently Michaëlle Jean — to act in her stead; since 1947, the
Governor General of Canada has been permitted to exercise almost all of the sovereign's
Royal Prerogative, though some powers do remain the Queen's alone. Further, the
monarch and governor general typically follow the near-binding advice of their ministers
of the Crown in cabinet, who rule "in trust" for the monarch.[21] It is important to note,
however, that the Royal Prerogative belongs to the Crown and not to any of the ministers,
[15][22]
and the royal and viceroyal figures may unilaterally use these powers in exceptional
constitutional crisis situations,[n 1][15][23][24][25][26][27]

The Canadian monarchy is a federal one in which the Crown is unitary throughout all
jurisdictions in the country, with the headship of state being a part of all equally.[28] As
such, the sovereignty of the federal and provincial regions is passed on not by the
governor general or federal parliament, but through the overreaching Crown itself.
Though singular, the Crown is thus "divided" into eleven legal jurisdictions, or eleven
"crowns" — one federal and ten provincial.[13][29] A lieutenant governor serves as the
Queen's representative in each province, carrying out all the monarch's constitutional and
ceremonial duties of state on her behalf.

[edit] Executive power

Main article: Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Current prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada's head of government

The bilingual Government of Canada wordmark

The government is defined by the constitution as the Queen acting on the advice of her
privy council.[1][30][31][32] However, the Privy Council — consisting mostly of former
members of parliament, chief justices of the Supreme Court, and other elder statesmen —
rarely meets in full; as the stipulations of responsible government require that those who
directly advise the monarch and governor general on how to exercise the Royal
Prerogative be accountable to the elected House of Commons, the day-to-day operation
of government is guided only by a sub-group of the Privy Council made up of individuals
who hold seats in parliament.[32] This body of Ministers of the Crown is the Cabinet.

One of the main duties of the Crown is to "ensure that a democratically elected
government is always in place,"[33] which means appointing a prime minister — presently
Stephen Harper — to thereafter head the Cabinet.[34] Per convention, the governor general
must appoint as prime minister the person who holds the confidence of the House of
Commons; in practice, this is typically the leader of the political party that holds more
seats than any other party in that chamber, currently the Conservative Party. Should no
party hold a majority in the Commons, the leader of one party — either the one with the
most seats or one supported by other parties — will be called by the governor general to
form a minority government. Once sworn in by the viceroy, the prime minister holds
office until he resigns or is removed by the governor general, after either a motion of no
confidence or his party's defeat in a general election.

[edit] Legislative power

Main article: Parliament of Canada

The Centre Block of the Canadian parliament buildings on Parliament Hill

Canada's bicameral legislature, located on Parliament Hill in the national capital of

Ottawa, consists of the sovereign, the House of Commons, and the appointed Senate.[35]
The governor general summons and appoints each of the 105 members of the upper house
on the advice of his or her prime minister,[36] while the 308 members of the lower house
are directly elected by eligible voters in the Canadian populace, with each Member of
Parliament representing a single electoral district for a period of not more than four years.
[37]
Per democratic tradition, the House of Commons is the dominant branch of
parliament, the Senate and Crown rarely opposing its will. The Senate, thus, reviews
legislation from a less partisan standpoint, and the monarch and viceroy provide the
necessary Royal Assent to make bills into law and summon, prorogue, and dissolve
parliament in order to call an election, as well as reading the Throne Speech.

The Constitution Act, 1867, outlines that the governor general alone is responsible for
summoning parliament, and a parliamentary session lasts until a prorogation, after which,
without ceremony, both chambers of the legislature cease all legislative business until the
governor general issues another royal proclamation calling for a new session to begin.
After a number of such sessions, each parliament comes to an end via dissolution. As a
general election typically follows, the timing of a dissolution is usually politically
motivated, with the Prime Minister selecting a moment most advantageous to his or her
political party. The end of a parliament may also be necessary, however, if the majority
of Members of Parliament revoke their confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to
govern, or the legally mandated four year maximum is reached; no parliament has been
allowed to expire in such a fashion.

[edit] Judicial power

Main article: Court system of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada building in Ottawa

The sovereign is responsible for rendering justice for all her subjects, and is thus
traditionally deemed the fount of justice.[38] However, she does not personally rule in
judicial cases; instead the judicial functions of the Royal Prerogative are performed in
trust and in the Queen's name by officers of Her Majesty's courts.

The Supreme Court of Canada — the country's court of last resort — has nine justices
appointed by the governor general and led by the Chief Justice of Canada, and hears
appeals from decisions rendered by the various appellate courts from the provinces and
territories. Below this is the Federal Court, which hears cases arising under certain areas
of federal law.[39] It works in conjunction with the Federal Court of Appeal and Tax Court
of Canada.[40]

[edit] Federalism
Further information: Canadian federalism

The powers of the parliament of Canada are limited by the constitution, which divides
legislative abilities between the federal and provincial governments; in general,
provincial legislatures may only pass laws relating to topics explicitly reserved for them
by the constitution, such as education, provincial officers, municipal government,
charitable institutions, and "matters of a merely local or private nature,"[41] while any
matter not under the exclusive authority of the provincial Legislatures is within the scope
of the federal parliament's power. Thus, parliament alone can pass laws relating to,
amongst other things, the postal service, the census, the military, navigation and shipping,
fishing, currency, banking, weights and measures, bankruptcy, copyrights, patents, First
Nations, and naturalization.[42] In some cases, however, the jurisdictions of the federal and
provincial parliaments may be more vague. For instance, the parliament in Ottawa
regulates marriage and divorce in general, but the solemnization of marriage is regulated
only by the provincial legislatures. Other examples include the powers of both the federal
and provincial parliaments to impose taxes, borrow money, punish crimes, and regulate
agriculture.

Politics of Canada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about national politics in Canada. For provincial politics, see Provinces and
territories of Canada. For municipal politics, see Municipal government in Canada.
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (May 2007)

Canada

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
Canada

Executive (The Crown)[show]

Legislative (Parliament)[show]
Elections[show]
Judicial[show]
Provinces and territories[show]
General[show]

Other countries · Atlas

Politics of Canada portal
view • talk • edit

The politics of Canada function within a framework of constitutional monarchy and a

federal system of parliamentary government with strong democratic traditions. Many of
the country's legislative practices derive from the unwritten conventions of and
precedents set by the United Kingdom's Westminster Parliament. However, Canada has
evolved variations: party discipline in Canada is stronger than in the United Kingdom and
more parliamentary votes are considered motions of confidence, which tends to diminish
the role of non-Cabinet Members of Parliament (MPs). Such members, in the government
caucus, and junior or lower-profile members of opposition caucuses, are known as
backbenchers. Backbenchers can, however, exert their influence by sitting in
parliamentary committees, like the Public Accounts Committee or the National Defence
Committee.
Contents
[hide]

• 1 Context
• 2 Summary of governmental organization
o 2.1 Monarchy
o 2.2 Executive power
o 2.3 Legislative power
o 2.4 Majority and minority governments
• 3 Federal-provincial relations
o 3.1 Quebec and Canadian politics
• 4 National unity
• 5 Political conditions
o 5.1 Party funding reform
• 6 Elections
o 6.1 Political parties, leaders, and status
o 6.2 Realignment
• 7 Judiciary
• 8 Government departments and structure
o 8.1 Crown corporations and other government agencies
• 9 See also
• 10 References

• 11 External links

[edit] Context
BC
AB
SK
MB
ON
QC
NB
PE
NS
NL
YT
NT
NU
Canada's governmental structure was originally established by the British parliament
through the British North America Act (now known as the Constitution Act, 1867),[1] but
the federal model and division of powers were devised by Canadian politicians.
Particularly after World War I, citizens of the self-governing Dominions, such as Canada,
began to develop a strong sense of identity, and, in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the
British government expressed its intent to grant full autonomy to these regions.

Thus in 1931, the British Parliament passed the Statute of Westminster, giving legal
recognition to the autonomy of Canada and other Dominions. Following this, Canadian
politicians were unable to obtain consensus on a process for amending the constitution
until 1982, meaning amendments to Canada's constitution continued to require the
approval of the British parliament until that date. Similarly, the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council in Britain continued to make the final decision on criminal appeals until
1933 and on civil appeals until 1949.[2]

[edit] Summary of governmental organization

Main article: Government of Canada
Name
Canada (for conventional and legal use; "Dominion of Canada" remains legal but
rarely used)
Further information: Canada's name
Type of government
Westminster style federal parliamentary democracy within a constitutional
monarchy.
Capital
Ottawa, Ontario.
Administrative divisions
Ten provinces and three territories*: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New
Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Northwest Territories*, Nova Scotia,
Nunavut*, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Yukon*.
National holiday
 Canada Day, July 1.
Constitution
Westminster system, based on unwritten conventions and written legislation.
Legal system
English common law for all matters within federal jurisdiction and in all
provinces and territories except Quebec, which is based on the civil law, based on
the Custom of Paris in pre-revolutionary France as set out in the Civil Code of
Quebec; accepts compulsory International Court of Justice jurisdiction, with
reservations.
Further information: Law of Canada
Suffrage
Citizens aged 18 years or older. Only two adult citizens in Canada cannot vote:
the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer. The Governor
General is eligible to vote, but abstains due to constitutional convention.
Participation in international organizations
ABEDA, ACCT, ACS (observer), AfDB, APEC, AsDB, Australia Group, BIS, C,
CCC, CDB (non-regional), Council of Europe (observer), Commonwealth of
Nations, EAPC, EBRD, ECE, ECLAC, ESA (cooperating state), FAO, La
Francophonie, G-8, G-10, IADB, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ICJ, ICFTU,
ICRM, IDA, IEA, IFAD, IFC, IFRCS, IHO, ILO, IMF, IMO, Inmarsat, Intelsat,
Interpol, IOC, IOM, ISO, ITU, Kyoto Protocol, MINURCA, MINURSO,
MIPONUH, MONUC, NAM (guest), NAFTA, NATO, NEA, NORAD North
American Aerospace Defense Command, NORTHCOM, NSG, OAS, OECD,
OPCW, OSCE, PCA, UN, UN Security Council (prior/temporary), UNCTAD,
UNDOF, UNESCO, UNFICYP, UNHCR, UNIDO, UNIKOM, UNMIBH,
UNMIK, UNMOP, UNTAET, UNTSO, UNU, UPU, WCL, WFTU, WHO,
WIPO, WMO, WTO, Zangger Committee.
Description of national flag
A red maple leaf centred on a Canadian pale: three vertical bands of red (hoist
side), white (double width, square), and red, with a length twice that of its height.
Further information: Flag of Canada

[edit] Monarchy

Head of state
Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada (since February 6, 1952).
Viceroy
Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada (since September 27, 2005).

[edit] Executive power

Canada's Prime Ministers from 1867 to 1963
Head of government
Prime Minister Stephen Harper (since February 6, 2006).
Cabinet
Ministers (usually around thirty) chosen by the Prime Minister and appointed by
the Governor General to lead various ministries and agencies, generally with
regional representation. Traditionally most, if not all, cabinet ministers will be
members of the leader's own party in the House of Commons (see Cabinet of
Canada); however this is not legally or constitutionally mandated, and
occasionally the Prime Minister will appoint a cabinet minister from another
party.
Elections
The monarchy is hereditary. The Governor General is appointed by the monarch
on the advice of the Prime Minister for a non-specific term, though it is
traditionally approximately five years. Following legislative elections, the leader
of the majority party in the House of Commons is usually designated by the
Governor General to become Prime Minister.
Further information: Monarchy of Canada, Monarchy in the Canadian
provinces, Lieutenant-Governor (Canada), Premier (Canada), and Elections in Canada

[edit] Legislative power

The bicameral Parliament of Canada consists of three parts: the monarch, the Senate, and
the House of Commons.

Currently, the Senate, which is frequently described as providing "regional"

representation, has 105 members appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the
Prime Minister to serve until age 75. It was created with equal representation from each
of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime region. However, it is currently the product of
various specific exceptions, additions and compromises, meaning that regional equality is
not observed, nor is representation-by-population. The normal number of senators can be
exceeded by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister, as long as the additional
senators are distributed equally with regard to region (up to a total of eight additional
Senators). This power of additional appointment has only been used once, when Prime
Minister Brian Mulroney petitioned Queen Elizabeth II to add eight seats to the Senate so
as to ensure the passage of the Goods and Services Tax legislation.

The House of Commons currently has 308 members elected in single-member districts in
a plurality voting system (first past the post), meaning that members must attain only a
plurality (the most votes of any candidate) rather than a majority (50 percent plus one).
The electoral districts are also known as ridings.

Mandates cannot exceed five years; an election must occur by the end of this time. This
fixed mandate has been exceeded only once, when Prime Minister Robert Borden
perceived the need to do so during World War I. The size of the House and
apportionment of seats to each province is revised after every census, conducted every
five years, and is based on population changes and approximately on representation-by-
population.

[edit] Majority and minority governments

Canadians vote for their local Member of Parliament (MP) only. The party leaders are
elected prior to the general elections by party memberships. Parties elect their leaders in
run-off elections to ensure that the winner receives more than 50% of the votes. Normally
the party leader stands as a candidate to be an MP during an election.

The election of a local MP gives a seat to one of the several political parties. The party
that gets the most seats normally forms the government, with that party's leader becoming
prime minister. The Prime Minister is not directly elected by the general population,
although the Prime Minister is directly elected as an MP within his or her constituency.

Canada's parliamentary system empowers political parties and their party leaders. Where
one party gets a majority of the seats in the House of Commons, that party is said to have
a "majority government." Through party discipline, the party leader, who is only elected
in one riding, exercises a great deal of control over the cabinet and the parliament.

A minority government situation occurs when the party that holds the most seats in the
House of Commons still holds less than the opposition parties combined. In this scenario
a party leader is selected by the Governor General to lead the government, however, to
attempt to create stability, the person chosen must command the support of at least one
other party.

[edit] Federal-provincial relations

In Canada, the provinces are considered co-sovereign; sovereignty of the provinces is
passed on, not by the Governor General or the Canadian parliament, but through the
Crown itself. This means that the Crown is "divided" into eleven legal jurisdictions; into
eleven "Crowns" - one federal and ten provincial.
Federal-provincial (or intergovernmental, formerly Dominion-provincial) relations is a
regular issue in Canadian politics: Quebec wishes to preserve and strengthen its
distinctive nature, western provinces desire more control over their abundant natural
resources, especially energy reserves; industrialized Central Canada is concerned with its
manufacturing base, and the Atlantic provinces strive to escape from being less affluent
than the rest of the country.

In order to ensure that social programs such as health care and education are funded
consistently throughout Canada, the "have-not" (poorer) provinces receive a
proportionately greater share of federal "transfer (equalization) payments" than the richer,
or "have," provinces do; this has been somewhat controversial. The richer provinces often
favour freezing transfer payments, or rebalancing the system in their favour, based on the
claim that they already pay more in taxes than they receive in federal government
services, and the poorer provinces often favour an increase on the basis that the amount
of money they receive is not sufficient for their existing needs.

Particularly in the past decade, some scholars have argued that the federal government's
exercise of its unlimited constitutional spending power has contributed to strained
federal-provincial relations. This power, which allows the federal government to spend
the revenue it raises in any way that it pleases, allows it to overstep the constitutional
division of powers by creating programs that encroach on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The federal spending power is not expressly set out in the Constitution Act, 1867;
however, in the words of the Court of Appeal for Ontario the power "can be inferred"
from s. 91(1A), "the public debt and property".[3]

A prime example of an exercise of the spending power is the Canada Health Act, which
is a conditional grant of money to the provinces. Regulation of health services is, under
the Constitution, a provincial responsibility. However, by making the funding available to
the provinces under the Canada Health Act contingent upon delivery of services
according to federal standards, the federal government has the ability to influence health
care delivery. This spending power, coupled with Supreme Court rulings — such as
Reference re Canada Assistance Plan (B.C.) — that have held that funding delivered
under the spending power can be reduced unilaterally at any time, has contributed to
strained federal-provincial relations.

[edit] Quebec and Canadian politics

Except for three short-lived transitional or minority governments, prime ministers from
Quebec led Canada continuously from 1968 to early 2006. Quebecers led both Liberal
and Conservative governments in this period.

Monarchs, Governors General, and Prime Ministers are now expected to be at least
functional, if not fluent, in both English and French. In selecting leaders, political parties
give preference to candidates who are fluently bilingual.
Also, by law, judges from Quebec must hold three of the nine positions on the Supreme
Court of Canada. This representation makes sure that at least three judges have sufficient
experience with the civil law system to treat cases involving Quebec laws.

[edit] National unity

Canada has a long and storied history of secessionist movements (see Secessionist
movements of Canada). National unity has been a major issue in Canada since the forced
union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840.

The predominant and lingering issue concerning Canadian national unity has been the
ongoing conflict between the French-speaking majority in Quebec and the English-
speaking majority in the rest of Canada. Quebec's continued demands for recognition of
its "distinct society" through special political status has led to attempts for constitutional
reform, most notably with the failed attempts to amend the constitution through the
Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord (the latter of which was rejected
through a national referendum).

Since the Quiet Revolution, sovereigntist sentiments in Quebec have been variably stoked
by the patriation of the Canadian constitution in 1982 (without Quebec's consent) and by
the failed attempts at constitutional reform. Two provincial referendums, in 1980 and
1995, rejected proposals for sovereignty with majorities of 60% and 50.6% respectively.
Given the narrow federalist victory in 1995, a reference was made by the Chrétien
government to the Supreme Court of Canada in 1998 regarding the legality of unilateral
provincial secession. The court decided that a unilateral declaration of secession would
be unconstitutional. This resulted in the passage of the Clarity Act in 2000.

The Bloc Québécois, a sovereigntist party which runs candidates exclusively in Quebec,
was started by a group of MPs who left the Progressive Conservative (PC) party (along
with several disaffected Liberal MPs), and first put forward candidates in the 1993
federal election. With the collapse of the PCs in that election, the Bloc and Liberals were
seen as the only two viable parties in Quebec. Thus, prior to the 2006 election, any gain
by one party came at the expense of the other, regardless of whether national unity was
really at issue. The Bloc, then, benefited (with a significant increase in seat total) from
the impressions of corruption that surrounded the Liberal Party in the leadup to the 2004
election. However, the newly-unified Conservative party re-emerged as a viable party in
Quebec by winning 10 seats in the 2006 election, meaning that Quebecers' electoral
choices are now more complex.

Western alienation is another national-unity-related concept that enters into Canadian

politics. Residents of the four western provinces, particularly Alberta, have often been
unhappy with a lack of influence and a perceived lack of understanding when residents of
Central Canada consider "national" issues. While this is seen to play itself out through
many avenues (media, commerce, etc.), in politics, it has given rise to a number of
political parties whose base constituency is in western Canada. These include the United
Farmers of Alberta, who first won federal seats in 1917, the Progressives (1921), the
Social Credit Party (1935), the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (1935), the
Reconstruction Party (1935), New Democracy (1940) and most recently the Reform Party
(1989).

The Reform Party's slogan "The West Wants In" was echoed by commentators when,
after a successful merger with the PCs, the successor party to both parties, the
Conservative Party won the 2006 election. Led by Stephen Harper, who is an MP from
Alberta, the electoral victory was said to have made "The West IS In" a reality. However,
regardless of specific electoral successes or failures, the concept of western alienation
continues to be important in Canadian politics, particularly on a provincial level, where
opposing the federal government is a common tactic for provincial politicians. For
example, in 2001, a group of prominent Albertans produced the Alberta Agenda, urging
Alberta to take steps to make full use of its constitutional powers, much as Quebec has
done.

[edit] Political conditions

Canada is considered by most sources to be a very stable democracy. In 2006 The
Economist ranked Canada the third most democratic nation in its Democracy Index,
ahead of all other nations in the Americas and ahead of every nation more populous than
itself. In 2008, Canada was ranked World No. 11 and again ahead of all countries more
populous and No. 1 for the Americas. (In 2008, the U.S.A. was ranked World No. 18,
Uruguay World No. 23, and Costa Rica World No. 27.)

The Liberal Party of Canada, under the leadership of Paul Martin, won a minority victory
in the June 2004 general elections. In December 2003, Martin had succeeded fellow
Liberal Jean Chrétien, who had, in 2000, become the first Prime Minister to lead three
consecutive majority governments since 1945. However, in 2004 the Liberals lost seats in
Parliament, going from 172 of 301 Parliamentary seats to 135 of 308, and from 40.9% to
36.7% in the popular vote. The Canadian Alliance, which did well in western Canada in
the 2000 election, but was unable to make significant inroads in the East, merged with the
Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party of Canada in late 2003.

They proved to be moderately successful in the 2004 campaign, gaining seats from a
combined Alliance-PC total of 78 in 2000 to 99 in 2004. However, the new
Conservatives lost in popular vote, going from 37.7% in 2000 down to 29.6%. In 2006
the Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper, won a minority government with 124 seats.
They improved their percentage from 2004, garnering 36.3% of the vote. During this
election, the Conservatives also made major breakthroughs in Quebec. They gained 10
seats here, whereas in 2004 they had no seats.

This was the second minority government in Canada federally since 1979-1980. That
government, led by Joe Clark, lasted only seven months. The situation, however, was
different. The Clark government was elected in part because many voters did not want to
support the Liberal party, but they did not expect that the Progressive Conservatives
would win enough seats for a minority government.
Minority governments are not always short-lived. While they have not generally lasted
four years, there have been minority governments in the time before 1979 that were fairly
stable and able to pass legislation. Minority government situations in Canada may
become somewhat difficult to manage though, as in the past there were only three parties
that had a significant number of seats in parliament (fourth parties were at times
represented in small numbers), although the third party has changed over time. This
meant an alliance between the governing and third parties would have a solid majority.
Since the 1930s, the third party was usually the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation
or later the New Democratic Party, which was created when an alliance was formed
between labour unions and the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. The Social
Credit Party of Canada was the third party at times. Before this, there were other parties
that had significant influence; such as the Progressive Party in the 1920s.

No such governing coalition was able to form in the 38th Parliament.

[edit] Party funding reform

Funding changes were made to ensure greater reliance on personal contributions.

Personal donations to federal parties and campaigns benefit from tax credits, although the
amount of tax relief depends on the amount given. Also only people paying income taxes
receive any benefit from this.

A good part of the reasoning behind the change in funding was that union or business
funding should not be allowed to have as much impact on federal election funding as
these are not contributions from citizens and are not evenly spread out between parties.
They are still allowed to contribute to the election but only in a minor fashion. The new
rules stated that a party had to receive 2% of the vote nationwide in order to receive the
general federal funding for parties. Each vote garnered a certain dollar amount for a party
(approximately $1.75) in future funding. For the initial dispersement, approximations
were made based on previous elections. The NDP received more votes than expected (its
national share of the vote went up) while the new Conservative Party of Canada received
fewer votes than had been estimated and has been asked to refund the difference. The
province of Quebec was the first province to implement a similar system of funding many
years before the changes to funding of federal parties.

Federal funds are disbursed quarterly to parties, beginning at the start of 2005. For the
moment, this disbursement delay leaves the NDP and the Green Party in a better position
to fight an election, since they rely more on individual contributors than federal funds.
The Green party now receives federal funds, since it for the first time received a
sufficient share of the vote in the 2004 election.

Commonly, two national debates receive nationwide coverage during an election, one in
each official language. Both debates are broadcast in translation, so it is possible to watch
either debate without a working knowledge of the language of the debate, although part
of the meaning can be lost. People who are bilingual enough to understand both the
English- and French-language debates without need of translation will get a better idea of
the substances of the two debates and the differences between them if they decide to
watch both debates.

Currently only the parties represented in Parliament participate in the debates. The Green
Party, however, has argued that it should also be allowed to participate. Its share of the
vote has increased greatly, due in part to the new funding formula, in part because it ran
in many more ridings than in previous elections (it nominated candidates in every riding
in the 2004 and 2006 elections), and in part to increased popularity. Thus the argument
goes that if there is sufficient national support to earn official recognition as a party (i.e.,
one that is granted funding based on getting 2% or more of the national vote) it should
also be allowed to debate on the same level as the other officially recognized parties.

Also, having received 6% of the vote in British Columbia and based on past precedent,
the Greens will have a stronger case for being included in the debates in future elections.
The Bloc Québécois was allowed to participate in debates on the basis of its support in
Quebec - even before it had elected any MPs in a general election (the only Bloc's MPs at
the time had either switched parties or won in by-elections). Furthermore, on the basis of
anticipated support, the Reform Party of Canada was included in debates despite only
having a single MP. Therefore, past party performance or number of seats is not how
participants are chosen.

In 2007, news emerged of a funding loophole that "could cumulatively exceed the legal
limit by more than $60,000," through anonymous recurrent donations of 199 dollars to
every riding of a party from corporations or unions.[4][5][6]

[edit] Elections
Main article: Elections in Canada

• Elections
o House of Commons - direct plurality representation (last election held
October 14, 2008)
o Senate - appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime
minister

• Election results

e•d Summary of the 14 October 2008 Canadian House of Commons election results

Party Party Candida Seats Popular vote

tes
leader

200 Diss 200 % % # # % %

 6 ol. 8 Change seats Change Change

Stephe -
Conservati +12.6 46.4 5,208,7 37.65 +1.38
n 307 124 127 143 167,49
ve M % % 96 % %
Harper 4

Stépha - -
25.0 3,633,1 26.26 -
Liberal O ne 3071 103 95 77 18.9 846,23
% 85 % 3.97%
Dion % 0

Gilles -
Bloc +2.1 15.9 1,379,9 9.98 -
Ducep 75 51 48 49 173,61
Québécois % % 91 % 0.50%
pe 0

New Jack +23.3 12.0 2,515,5 - 18.18 +0.70

3082 29 30 37
Democrats Layton % % 61 74,182 % %

Elizab
- +273,5 6.78 +2.30
Green eth 303 - 1 - - 937,613
100% 45 % %
May

-
Independents and 3 0.6 +12,98 0.69 +0.14
71 1 3 2 33.3 94,844
no affiliation % 4 % %
%

Christian Ron 0.19 +0.00

59 - - - - - 26,475 -1,677
Heritage Gray % %

Anna
Marxist- 0.06 +0.00
Di 59 - - - - - 8,565 -415
Leninist % %
Carlo

Libertarian Dennis 26 - - - - - 7,300 +4,298 0.05 +0.03

 Young % %

Sinclai
Progressiv r 0.04 -
10 - - - - - 5,860 -8,291
e Canadian Steven % 0.05%
s

Migue
Communis l 0.03 +0.01
24 - - - - - 3,572 +550
t Figuer % %
oa

Conni
Canadian 0.02 -
e 20 - - - - - 3,455 -2,647
Action % 0.03%
Fogal

Blair
0.02 -
Marijuana Longle 8 - - - - - 2,298 -6,873
% 0.05%
y

Franço
Neorhino.c 0.02
is 7 n/a - - n/a - 2,122 n/a n/a
a %
Gourd

Newfoundl Thoma
and and s V. 0.01
3 n/a - - n/a - 1,713 n/a n/a
Labrador Hicke %
First y

Barbar
First
a 0.01 +0.00
Peoples 6 - - - - - 1,611 +410
Wardl % %
National
aw

Animal Liz 4 - - - - - 527 +455 0.00 +0.00

 Alliance
Environme White % %
nt Voters

Conra
d 0.00
Work Less 1 n/a - - n/a - 425 n/a n/a
Schmi %
dt

Doug
Western 0.00 -
Christi 1 - - - - - 195 -899
Block % 0.01%
e

People's Roger
0.00
Political Poisso 2 n/a - - n/a - 186 n/a n/a
%
Power n

Vacant 4

-
13,834,
Total 1,601 308 308 308 - 100 982,86 100
294
5

G - formed Government M - formed Government (minority) O - formed Official Opposition

Sources: Elections Canada & Party Standings (2006 data); Elections Canada (2008 data)
United States – Venezuela relations
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

United States – Venezuela relations have traditionally been close, characterized by an

important trade and investment relationship and cooperation in combating the production
and transit of illegal drugs. However after the election of Presidents Hugo Chávez of
Venezuela and George W. Bush of the United States and particularly after the
Venezuelan failed coup attempt in 2002 against Chavez, tensions between the countries
escalated, reaching a low in September 2008 when Venezuela broke off diplomatic
relations with the US. Relations showed signs of improvement in 2009 with the election
of the new US President Barack Obama, including the re-establishment of diplomatic
relations in June 2009.

United States – Venezuela relations

United States Venezuela

Contents
[hide]

• 1 The Roosevelt Corollary and Dollar Diplomacy

• 2 Hugo Chávez presidency
o 2.1 Allegations of U.S. covert actions against Chávez government
o 2.2 Personal disputes
o 2.3 Economic relations
o 2.4 Opposition to U.S. foreign policy
o 2.5 Personal disputes
o 2.6 Response to assassination calls
o 2.7 Putative coups and invasions
o 2.8 OAS
o 2.9 Hurricane Katrina
o 2.10 Low ebb
 2.10.1 Presidency of Barack Obama
• 3 SICOFAA
• 4 Accusations of producing the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti
• 5 See also
 • 6 Notes

[edit] The Roosevelt Corollary and Dollar Diplomacy

When the government under Cipriano Castro was no longer able to placate the demands
of European bankers in 1902, naval forces from Great Britain, Italy, and Germany erected
a blockade along the Venezuelan coast and even fired upon coastal fortifications. Though
United States Secretary of State Elihu Root characterized Castro as a "a crazy brute,"
President Roosevelt was concerned with the prospects of penetration into the region by
the German Empire. Roosevelt threatened military action against the European powers,
who retreated and later negotiated with Castro. This incident was a major stimulus behind
the Roosevelt Corollary and the subsequent U.S. policy of Dollar Diplomacy in Latin
America.

During the presidency of Juan Vicente Gómez, petroleum was discovered under Lake
Maracaibo. Gómez managed to deflate Venezuela's staggering debt by granting
concessions to foreign oil companies, which won him the support of the United States
and the European powers. The growth of the domestic oil industry strengthened the
economic ties between the U.S. and Venezuela.

[edit] Hugo Chávez presidency

Venezuela

This article is part of the series:

Politics and government of
Venezuela

• Constitution
• President
o Hugo Chávez
o Cabinet
• Vice President
o Elías Jaua
• National Assembly
o Cilia Flores
 • Supreme Tribunal
• Political parties
• Bolivarianism
o Bolivarian Revolution
o Bolivarian Missions
• Elections
o Parliamentary: 2000 • 2005
o Presidential: 1998 • 2000 • 2006
o Referenda: 2004 • 2007 • 2009
• States
• Administrative regions
• Foreign relations

o Foreign policy
· Atlas
Other countries
Politics portal
view • talk • edit

After Hugo Chávez was elected President of Venezuela, the long-standing close
diplomatic relationship between Venezuela and the United States progressively
worsened. Chávez's public friendship and significant trade relationship with Cuba and
Fidel Castro undermined the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba, and long-running ties between
the U.S. and Venezuelan militaries were severed on Chávez's initiative. Chávez's stance
as an OPEC price hawk raised the price of oil for the United States, as Venezuela pushed
OPEC producers towards a higher price, around $25 a barrel.[citation needed] During
Venezuela's presidency of OPEC in 2000, Chávez made a ten-day tour of OPEC
countries, in the process becoming the first head of state to meet Saddam Hussein since
the Gulf War. The visit was controversial at home and in the US, although Chávez did
respect the ban on international flights to and from Iraq (he drove from Iran, his previous
stop).[1]

[edit] Allegations of U.S. covert actions against Chávez government

The United States recognized the government of Pedro Carmona during the 2002 coup
attempt which briefly overthrew Chávez.[citation needed] After returning to power, Chávez
claimed that a plane with U.S. registration numbers had visited and been berthed at
Venezuela's Orchila Island airbase, where Chávez had been held captive.[citation needed] On
May 14, 2002, Chávez alleged that he had definitive proof of U.S. military involvement
in April's coup.[citation needed] He claimed that during the coup Venezuelan radar images had
indicated the presence of U.S. military naval vessels and aircraft in Venezuelan waters
and airspace. The Guardian published a claim by Wayne Madsen– a writer (at the time)
for left-wing publications and a former Navy analyst and critic of the George W. Bush
administration– alleging U.S. Navy involvement.[2] U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd, D-
CT, requested an investigation of concerns that Washington appeared to condone the
removal of Mr Chavez,[3][4] which subsequently found that "U.S. officials acted
appropriately and did nothing to encourage an April coup against Venezuela's president",
nor did they provide any naval logistical support.[5][6] According to Democracy Now!,
CIA documents indicate that the Bush administration knew about a plot weeks before the
April 2002 military coup. They cite a document dated 6 April 2002, which says:
"dissident military factions...are stepping up efforts to organize a coup against President
Chavez, possibly as early as this month."[citation needed] According to William Brownfield,
ambassador to Venezuela, the U.S. embassy in Venezuela warned Chávez about a coup
plot in April 2002.[7] Further, the United States Department of State and the investigation
by the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence that "U.S. assistance programs
in Venezuela, including those funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED),
were inconsistent with U.S. law or policy" or ". . . directly contributed, or was intended to
contribute, to [the coup d'état]."[5][8]

Chávez also claimed, during the coup's immediate aftermath, that the U.S. was still
seeking his overthrow. On October 6, 2002, he stated that he had foiled a new coup plot,
and on October 20, 2002, he stated that he had barely escaped an assassination attempt
while returning from a trip to Europe, however his administration failed to investigate or
present conclusive evidence to that effect. During that period, the US Ambassador to
Venezuela warned the Chávez administration of two potential assassination plots.[7]

Venezuela expelled US naval commander John Correa in January 2006. The Venezuelan
government claimed Correa, an attaché at the US embassy, had been collecting
information from low-ranking Venezuelan military officers. Chavez claimed he had
infiltrated the US embassy and found evidence of Correa's spying. The US declared these
claims "baseless" and responded by expelling Jeny Figueredo, the chief aid to the
Venezuelan ambassador to the US. Chavez promoted Figueredo to deputy foreign
minister to Europe.[9]

Hugo Chávez has repeatedly alleged that the US has a plan to invade Venezuela, a plan
called Plan Balboa. In interview with Ted Koppel, Chavez stated "I have evidence that
there are plans to invade Venezuela. Furthermore, we have documentation: how many
bombers to overfly Venezuela on the day of the invasion, how many trans-Atlantic
carriers, how many aircraft carriers..."[10] Neither President Chavez nor officials of his
administration ever presented such evidence. The US denies the allegations, claiming that
Plan Balboa is a military simulation carried out by Spain. [11]

[edit] Personal disputes

Chávez's anti-U.S. rhetoric has sometimes touched the personal: in response to the ouster
of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in February 2004, Chávez called U.S.
President George W. Bush a pendejo ("jerk" or "dumbass"); in a later speech, he made
similar remarks regarding Condoleezza Rice. The U.S. has called Chávez a "negative
force" in the region, and has tried to gain support from Venezuela's neighbors in isolating
Chávez. [2] In the 2006 Chávez speech at the UN he called Bush "the devil".

[edit] Economic relations

Chávez's socialist ideology and the tensions between the Venezuelan and the United
States governments have had little impact on economic relations between the two
countries. On 15 September 2005, President Bush designated Venezuela as a country that
has failed demonstrably during the previous 12 months to adhere to their obligations
under international counternarcotics agreements. However, at the same time, the
President waived the economic sanctions that would normally accompany such a
designation, because they would have curtailed his government's assistance for
democracy programs in Venezuela.[12] In 2006, the United States remained Venezuela's
most important trading partner for both oil exports and general imports - bilateral trade
expanded 36% during that year[13]

With rising oil prices and Venezuela’s oil exports accounting for the bulk of trade,
bilateral trade between the US and Venezuela is surging, with US companies and the
Venezuelan government benefiting.[14] Nonetheless, since May 2006, the Department of
State that, pursuant to Section 40A of the Arms Export Control Act, has prohibited the
sale of defense articles and services to Venezuela because of lack of cooperation on anti-
terrorism efforts.[15]

[edit] Opposition to U.S. foreign policy

Since the start of the George W. Bush administration in 2001 , Chávez has been highly
critical of U.S. economic and foreign policy; he has critiqued U.S. policy with regards to
Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and other areas. Chávez has
also denounced the U.S.-backed ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in
February 2004. In a speech at the United Nations General Assembly, Chávez said that
Bush promoted "a false democracy of the elite" and a "democracy of bombs".[16]

Chávez's public friendship and significant trade relationship with Cuba and former Cuban
President Fidel Castro have undermined the U.S. policy of isolating Cuba. Longstanding
ties between the U.S. and Venezuelan militaries were also severed on Chávez's initiative.
Chávez's stance as an OPEC price hawk has also raised the price of petroleum for
American consumers, as Venezuela pushed OPEC producers towards lower production
ceilings, with the resultant price settling around $25 a barrel prior to 2004. During
Venezuela's holding of the OPEC presidency in 2000, Chávez made a ten-day tour of
OPEC countries, in the process becoming the first head of state to meet Saddam Hussein
since the Persian Gulf War. The visit was controversial at home and in the US, although
Chávez did respect the ban on international flights to and from Iraq (he drove from Iran,
his previous stop).[17]

The Bush administration has consistently opposed Chávez's policies, and although it did
not immediately recognize the Carmona government upon its installation during the 2002
attempted coup, it had funded groups behind the coup, speedily acknowledged the new
government and seemed to hope it would last. The U.S. government has called Chávez a
"negative force" in the region, and has sought support from among Venezuela's neighbors
to isolate Chávez diplomatically and economically. One notable instance occurred at the
2005 meeting of the Organization of American States, a U.S. resolution to add a
mechanism to monitor the nature of American democracies was widely seen as an
attempt at diplomatically isolating both Chávez and the Venezuelan government. The
failure of the resolution was seen by analysts as politically significant, evidencing
widespread support in Latin America for Chávez, his policies, and his views.

The U.S. has also opposed and lobbied against numerous Venezuelan arms purchases
made under Chávez, including a purchase of some 100,000 rifles from Russia, which
Donald Rumsfeld implied would be passed on to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of
Colombia (FARC), and the purchase of aircraft from Brazil. The U.S. has also warned
Israel to not carry through on a deal to upgrade Venezuela's aging fleet of F-16s, and has
similarly pressured Spain. In August 2005, Chávez rescinded the rights of U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents to operate in Venezuelan territory, territorial
airspace, and territorial waters. While U.S. State Department officials stated that the DEA
agents' presence was intended to stem cocaine traffic from Colombia, Chávez argued that
there was reason to believe the DEA agents were gathering intelligence for a clandestine
assassination targeting him, with the ultimate aim of ending the Bolivarian Revolution.

Chávez dared the U.S. on March 14, 2008 to put Venezuela on a list of countries accused
of supporting terrorism, calling it one more attempt by Washington, D.C. to undermine
him for political reasons.[18]

[edit] Personal disputes

The U.S. has called Chávez a "negative force" in the region, and requested support from
Venezuela's neighbors in isolating Chávez. Chávez's anti-U.S. rhetoric has sometimes
touched the personal: in response to the ouster of Haitian President Jean-Bertrand
Aristide in February 2004, Chávez called U.S. President George W. Bush a pendejo
("dumbass"); in a later speech, he made disparaging personal remarks regarding
Condoleezza Rice.[19][20][21]

During his weekly address Aló Presidente of 18 March 2006, Chávez responded to a US
White House report which characterized him as a "demagogue who uses Venezuela's oil
wealth to destabilize democracy in the region". During the address Chávez rhetorically
called George W. Bush "a donkey." He repeated it several times adding "eres un cobarde
... eres un asesino, un genocida ... eres un borracho" (you are a coward ... you are an
assassin, a mass-murderer ... you are a drunk).[22] In September 2006 at the UN General
Assembly, Chávez called Bush "the devil".[16] A day later, as he was promising to double
the amount of oil discounts to poor Americans in Harlem, Chávez said Bush was "a sick
man" and "an alcoholic".[23]

Once again, in November 2008, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, Nicolas Maduro,
questioned the conviction of a Venezuelan businessman in a Miami court as being part of
a political operation by President Bush to undercut the independence of the country. He
said "These people are political prisoners of the U.S. This delinquent named Antonini has
ended up being a hero for ultra right-wing political parties." Guido Alejandro Antonini
Wilson was said to have been pressured by the convicted Franklin Duran to conceal the
source of the money he was carrying in a suitcase said to be used to fund an Argentine
election campaign.[24]

[edit] Response to assassination calls

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk
page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November
2008)
Wikinews has related news: Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson calls for
assassination of Venezuela's president

After prominent US evangelical Pat Robertson's on-air call for Chavez to be assassinated
in August 2005, the Chávez administration reported that it would more closely scrutinize
and curtail foreign evangelical missionary activity in Venezuela. Chávez himself
denounced Robertson's call as a harbinger of a coming U.S. intervention to remove him
from office. Chávez reported that Robertson, member of the secretive and elite Council
for National Policy (CNP) — of which George Bush, Grover Norquist, and other
prominent neoconservative Bush administration insiders are also known members or
associates — was, along with other CNP members,[citation needed] guilty of "international
terrorism". Robertson subsequently apologized for his remarks, which were criticised by
Ted Haggard of the U.S.-based National Association of Evangelicals. Haggard was
concerned about the effects Roberson's remarks would have on US corporate and
evangelical missionaries' interests in Venezuela.

[edit] Putative coups and invasions

Chávez accuses the United States government of planning an invasion, codenamed "Plan
Balboa". Chávez's own warm friendship with former Cuban president Fidel Castro, in
addition to Venezuela's now significant and expanding economic, social, and aid
relationships with Cuba, have undermined the U.S. policy objective seeking to isolate the
island. Longstanding military, intelligence, and counter-narcotics ties between the U.S.
and Venezuela were severed on Chávez's initiative.[25] Despite OPEC duties, the visit was
controversial at home and in the US. Ever since, President Chávez has consolidated
diplomatic relations with Iran, including defending its right to civilian nuclear power.

The United States enabled and quickly acknowledged but did not formally recognize the
de facto government of Pedro Carmona during the 2002 coup attempt which briefly
overthrew Chávez. On 20 February 2005, Chávez reported that the U.S. had plans to have
him assassinated; he stated that any such attempt would result in an immediate cessation
of U.S.-bound Venezuelan petroleum shipments.[26]

[edit] OAS

At the 2005 meeting of the Organization of American States, a United States resolution to
add a mechanism to monitor the nature of democracies was widely seen as a move to
isolate Venezuela. The failure of the resolution was seen as politically significant,
expressing Latin American support for Chávez.[citation needed]

[edit] Hurricane Katrina

After Hurricane Katrina battered the United States' Gulf coast in late 2005 , the Chávez
administration was the first foreign government to offer aid to its "North American
brothers". Chávez offered tons of food, water, and a million barrels of extra petroleum to
the U.S. He has also proposed to sell, at a significant discount, as many as 66,000 barrels
(10,500 m3) of fuel oil to poor communities that were hit by the hurricane, and offered
mobile hospital units, medical specialists, and electrical generators. Despite the well-
publicised shortcomings of their own relief effort, the Bush administration declined the
Venezuelan offer.[27]

Following a plea by leading US politicians for the US' largest fuel distributors to offer
discounts to the less well-off, in November 2005, officials in Massachusetts signed an
agreement with Venezuela to provide heating oil at a 40% discount to low income
families through Citgo, a subsidiary of PDVSA and the only company to respond to the
politicians' request.[28] Chávez has stated that such gestures comprise "a strong oil card to
play on the geopolitical stage" and that "[i]t is a card that we are going to play with
toughness against the toughest country in the world, the United States."[29]

[edit] Low ebb

In September 2008, following retaliatory measures in support of Bolivia, Chavez

expelled the U.S. ambassador Patrick Duddy labeling him persona non grata after
accusing him of aiding a conspiracy against his government — a charge Duddy
consequently denied.[30]

Despite allegedly waning of Hugo Chavez's aggressive foreign policy due to the sharp
drop in oil in the last quarter of 2008, hostility with America continued. "American
Corners," (AC) a partnership between the Public Affairs sections of U.S. Embassies
worldwide and their host institutions, was said to be an interference in Venezuela. The
U.S.-Venezuelan Eva Golinger and the Frenchman Roman Mingus, in their book,
Imperial Spiderweb: Encyclopedia of Interference and Subversion, warned that it was
one of Washington's secret forms of propaganda. Golinger denounced AC to the
Venezuelan National Assembly saying that conspiracy and political propaganda is
elaborated in "American Corners," as well as funding for opposition organizations. They
identified AC as virtual consulates which are not formally sponsored by the US
government but by an organization, association, school, library or local institution, which
have not only functioned as a launch pad for a psychological war but also sought to
subvert and violate diplomatic rules. The AC's were alleged to be closely supervised by
the State Department.[31]

Recently Chavez announced an investigation into the US Chargé d'Affairs, John

Caulfield, who is the leading US diplomat after Duddy's expulsion. He contended that
Caulfield possibly had met with opposition Venezuelans in exile in Puerto Rico; an
official spokeswoman from the United States said Caulfield was there for a wedding.
Chavez used the occasion to accuse "the empire" of using Puerto Rico as a base for
actions against him and Latin America. He referred to Puerto Rico as a "gringo colony"
and that one day the island would be liberated.[32]

[edit] Presidency of Barack Obama

Following the 2008 U.S. election of Barack Obama, Venezuela's foreign minister labeled
the outcome a historic moment in international relations, and added that the American
people had chosen a "new brand" of diplomacy. Asked if the previously expelled
ambassadors for each country would return, he replied "everything has its time."[citation
needed]
However at a rally the evening before the November 4 elections where Chavez was
supporting his own candidates Chavez echoed a sentiment by Lula of Brazil and Morales
of Bolivia where the change happening in Latin America seemed to be taking place in the
US. He expressed hope that he would meet with Obama as soon as possible.[30] However,
on March 22, 2009 Chavez called Obama "ignorant" and, according the Washington Post,
he also claimed Obama "has the same stench as Bush, this was in response to Obama
stating that Chavez has assisted Colombia's biggest guerrilla movement."[33] Chavez,
feeling that Obama violated his honor by naming him an "obstacle to progress" in the
Latin American Region, has decided to put his new ambassador to the United States on
hold.[34]

Obama and Chavez struck a warm tone at the Summit of the Americas on April 17, 2009.
Chavez expressed his wish to become Obama's friend.[35][36] Relations showed signs of
improvement in 2009 with the election of the new US President Barack Obama, including
the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in June 2009.[37]

On September 10, 2009 Chavez gave a speech at the Peoples' Friendship University in
Moscow where he called the American government "the greatest terrorist in world
history", adding that "[t]he Yankee empire will fall. It's already falling, It will disappear
from the face of the earth, and it's going to happen this century." [38]

[edit] SICOFAA
Venezuela is an active member of SICOFAA.

[edit] Accusations of producing the January 2010

earthquake in Haiti
On January 18, 2010 the television channel ViVe, communication organ of the
Venezuelan government (es:Govierno Bolivariano de Venezuela) published a note
accusing United States of America of producing the earthquake as a series of
experimental earthquakes. The note also links US navy to an earthquake that hit the city
of Eureka, California as well as the earthquake in Sichuan, China, May 12 of 2008. The
note claims that these earthquakes were produced by a combination of explosions and
technology developed within the HAARP.[