Meanwhile, with the annual IMF-World Bank meeting scheduled for April 15-17 in Washington, D.C., both IMF chief Christine Lagarde and U.S Treasury Secretary Jack Lew were trotted out to make major preparatory policy statements. In a lengthy interview with the editor-in-chief of Bloomberg, John Micklethwait, Lagarde launched into a defense of the wacko policy of negative interest rates (``if we hadn’t had negative interest rates, we’d be in a much worse place``), and then ominously threatened that major changes in the global architecture are required, and that ``it may take a bit more fragility, drama and economic misery for things to actually change.`` Asked if this meant that ``you need a terrible shock in order to wake them [countries] up,`` Lagarde responded: ``That’s often the case… But it’s not going to come easily from a political point of view.`` Rather than just putting out fires, ``I would rather be the architect`` of the needed changes.

In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations and an accompany article in Foreign Affairs, Treasury Secretary Lew threatened China that they had to bolster the exiting (bankrupt) system, and not try to create a new one. He said that the U.S. would embrace ``new players on the global economic stage and make sure they meet the standards of the system we created.`` In his article, he took direct aim at China and the AIIB:

``I conveyed the same message both to China directly and to countries considering joining the institution [the AIIB]: namely, that it was paramount to incorporate in the AIIB’s policies and procedures the high-quality standards and lessons learned from the decades of experience of the World Bank and regional development banks, so that the AIIB can reinforce the existing global financial architecture… A successful AIIB that meets high standards and collaborates effectively with the other international financial institutions would be a positive thing for the global economy.``

Unexpected Crisis on Obama's Final Saudi Visit Agenda

A senior, bipartisan array of members of the two major investigations into the 9/11 attacks appeared on "60 Minutes" Sunday night, calling for release of secret documents which show Saudi Arabia's involvement in the attacks. The program appeared just before Barack Obama's final presidential visit to Saudi Arabia next week, and simultaneous with Congressional Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's press statement calling for release of the secret "28 pages" of the Congressional 9/11 investigation.

The agenda of Obama's "crowning" visit to his war ally has surely now been "complicated." The Royal Embassy in Washington of the Wahabite Saudi monarchy, weakened and not so dismissive as with previous 9/11 exposes, immediately denounced the "60 Minutes" broadcast as "a compilation of myths and erroneous charges that have been thoroughly addressed not just by the Saudi government, but also by the 9/11 Commission and the U.S. Courts."

In the years since Obama first promised 9/11 victims' families that he would declassify the 28 pages, he and the Saudis have been hand-in-hand in so much genocidal, or merely disastrous warmaking — and still are — that revealing Saudi responsibility in the 9/11 attacks would be a charge of dynamite, which would hit London as well. The "60 Minutes" segment began by stating, accurately, that there is "deep distrust" between the war allies, part of which arises from the obvious Saudi support for Sunni jihadist groups and terrorist ideologies worldwide.

Yet justice must, at last, be done for the 9/11 victims. Representative Pelosi stated that "As the former Ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee looking into the 9/11 attacks, I agree with former Senator Bob Graham that these documents should be declassified and made public." Graham, on the CBS-TV program, said the hijackers had to have support within the United States, and when asked, "You believe that support came from Saudi Arabia?", answered, "Substantially," and indicated that he included the Saudi government. 9/11 Commission members Adm. (ret.) John Lehman, former Sen. Bob Kerrey, former Colorado Gov. Tim Roemer, all confirmed that most members of both investigations — including their leaders — want the 28 pages declassified by Obama. More so do the families, and EIR.

Most notable was Kerrey's remark. The Saudi government for 14 years has relied on a single sentence in the 9/11 Commission Report, that it "did not find evidence that senior Saudi officials" were behind the attacks. Despite the extreme, deliberate ambiguity of "senior," the Saudis have claimed, publicly and in U.S. Courts, that the Commission exonerated them. Kerrey bluntly told "60 Minutes" host Steve Kroft, "No, we did not exonerate the Saudis."

Cameron Further Exposes Himself on 'Panama Papers' Scandal

Squirming under the spotlight of the 'Panama Papers' scandal on the British imperial "offshore" banking system and his own personal finances, Prime Minister David Cameron is further exposing himself. On a sudden crusade "against tax evasion," Cameron on Sunday announced a commission to investigate the Panama Papers—headed by a lawyer whose firm advised Cameron's father on setting up offshore dummy companies!

Cameron had to testify in the House of Commons Monday on the whole subject, and was attacked for allowing dirty money from these offshore havens to take over London real estate, one example of the tax evasion and money laundering by which London has victimized nations all over the world. When Labour MP Dennis Skinner called Cameron "Dodgy Dave," the 84-year-old Member was ejected from the House by the Conservative Speaker.

Cameron has also suddenly proposed new legislation making companies criminally liable for the tax advice their employees give. But it is his "world-class investigative commission" which has drawn ridicule.

It involves the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority, both of which managed, for example, to miss the LIBOR-fixing conspiracy of Barclays and other major banks entirely. Cameron's nominee to head the commission is Edward Troup, head of the Revenue & Customs (HMRC, the British "IRS"); he turned a blind eye to the entire Credit Suisse tax-evasion operation in Britain, exposed last year by whistleblowers.

Moreover, Troup is a senior lawyer ideologically opposed to all taxes! In a 1999 newspaper article, Troup described taxation as "legalized extortion." His whole career was built on advising corporations on how to reduce their tax bills, before leaving Simmons & Simmons to join the civil service in 2004. And finally, Simmons and Simmons was the advisor, from 2001 while Troup was a partner, for Blairmore Partners, the set of dummy companies in the British Virgin Islands set up by Ian Cameron, the Prime Minister's father, to handle the family's wealth. The law firm's name appears on dozens of emails and documents in the Panama Papers in connection with a number of companies registered with Mossack Fonseca, the offshore agent at the center of the scandal.

The Guardian determined that in its 30-year existence, Cameron's Blairmore "has never paid a penny of tax in the U.K. on its profits."

Official HMRC spokesperson said: "Before joining the civil service in 2004, Edward Troup had a successful career in the private sector, during the course of which he dealt with many companies.... Edward Troup's role in HMRC has never involved responsibility for operational activities or direct dealings with companies on their tax affairs..."