Russia nicely brought to the fore such a sentiment when it politely told the IMF's wizard, Christine Lagarde, that it's time to open up the club and ensure that developing countries also have a level-playing field. By saying so Moscow held up a carrot of doling out more than $10 billion to the cash-crunch hit European Union, and even came up with a promissory note of doing more in unison with India, China, Brazil and South Africa.
Russia, which is no more a backyard power of Asia and is poised to impact a surprise on the world stage, took no qualms in telling the IMF chief that the discretion of having a European as IMF chief and an American to head the World Bank is unacceptable. Though, in principle more of an academic debate, the point is supposed to enjoy a wider constituency of support from Africa to Asia and ASEAN, and, of course, Australia. Economic upheavals have been around for quite some time since the ASEAN currency went astray in the 1990s and then to be followed with the Wall Street fiasco in 2008, but nowhere was the IMF seen to be so interactive in bailing out ailing economies, as it was in the case of Greece to Finland and Italy to Spain. This apparently has come as a sentiment of marginalization for other economies of the world, who also look up to the IMF for a fair bailout strategy and, of course, a well-taken say in reshaping macroeconomics worldwide.
This crisis and, moreover, a lack of consensus in dealing with the sovereign debts issues, coupled with a slump in trade and growth prospects, comes as an opportunity. We have been here. The stimulus package in the United States is in need of being replicated in Europe and elsewhere. But for that to happen, there has to be a cushion fund, which should take care of urgent necessities, and no better role can the strategic deposits play in such a case. The need for revitalising the IMF shouldn't be lost even if the big brothers cobble an understanding to retain their monopolized decorum. At least, Cannes has underscored such an eventuality.