This would imply formal, systematic coordination between the different facilities to allow synchronised provisioning of liquidity during crises. Apart from the fact that any significant transfer of power from national to supranational authorities is extremely difficult to achieve, I am not yet convinced that a global financial safety net of this kind is necessary or even desirable. First, concerns about moral hazard must be taken seriously. Second, we have to be careful not to undermine established mechanisms at the national level. Finally, let us not forget that it is only the central banks that can create liquidity as needed. And their cooperation has proven to be very effective during the recent crisis. Let me now shortly outline the topic of the five panels of today’s conference. The first panel will discuss policy discipline and spillovers in an interconnected global economy. It will assess proposals for improving the surveillance of the system and global policy cooperation. The second panel will deal with global liquidity provision in systemic crises. It will evaluate the adequacy of currently available facilities and proposals on expanding them. The third panel focuses on capital flow management. It will follow up on the recently initiated discussion about a new, more uniform and balanced approach. The fourth panel will discuss the desirability and feasibility of a multi-polar currency and reserve system, and the fifth panel will wrap up and outline realistic objectives for 2011 and beyond. I am looking forward to a lively discussion and open exchange of views.
Switzerland, as an open economy with an important currency and a leading financial centre, has a vital national interest in participating actively in the reform debate. The IMF occupies a central role in the international monetary system. Therefore, it is natural that the Fund has also come under scrutiny, and its many activities are being reviewed. Judged by the recent proliferation of conferences about the international monetary system, one might conclude that the system is in need of a major overhaul. This is not necessarily the case. I share the Managing Director’s view, expressed recently in Nanjing, that the current system, despite many imperfections, also has good features. What is required are improvements, not revolutionary changes. In other words, the current system can be strengthened while preserving its core features. If progress is slow, it is because even small changes typically require difficult political decisions. Continuous dialogue and cooperation are therefore essential. Only through a regular and open exchange of views can we hope to forge a common understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and address any remaining shortcomings – step by step. Since our last conference, the international community has made progress on the reform agenda. The Fund has greatly increased its capacity to provide financial support to members and adapted its lending tools. It has modernised its surveillance activity, for example by introducing new tools to track spillovers. Furthermore, it has reopened the discussion on the management of capital flows, although admittedly this has been controversial.