IMF
Dismissive on
Sequester,
Answers ICP on
Tanzania,
Ignores
Bahrain, Sri
Lanka &
Zimbabwe
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 28,
updated twice
– On the eve
of the US
sequester, the
International
Monetary Fund
minimized the
disruption it
might cause,
at least at
first.
In an
embargoed
Thursday
morning
briefing, the
IMF's Deputy
Spokesperson
William Murray
told the press
that the
sequester
would take
seven months
to kick it,
and that it is
a
“political
process.”
Asked
about Greece,
he refused to
comment on
reports the
IMF is telling
Greece to
carry out
25,000 lay
offs. Instead,
he emphasized
that if
Greece could
increase or
improve tax
collection,
less austerity
would
be needed.
Then he
refused to
comment on
quotes from a
leaked report
in which the
IMF calls
Greece's tax
system in
shambles.
Murray
purported
to take all
online
questions:
from the
Dominican
Republic
(he chortled
at the
question), two
from a
journalist in
Argentina,
and finally
form the
Business
Recorder of
Pakistan.
On this, he
immediately
said he had no
answer. But he
read out the
question,
implying that
those were the
only questions
submitted.
In
fact, Inner
City Press had
submitted
these
questions, two
on Africa
-- otherwise
unmentioned in
the Q&A --
one on Bahrain
and one on
Sri Lanka, a
follow up.
Before
deadline, the
IMF offered a
February 12
press release
on the
Tanzania
question,
which was "BoT's
Governor Ndulu
has been
quoted that
the IMF's
Standby
Credit
Facility (SCF)
of about $117
million is “to
finance
various
development
projects and
programs.” Is
that the IMF's
understanding?
The
IMF told Inner
City Press,
"Hi Matthew:
Regarding your
question on
the
disbursement
for Tanzania,
I will refer
you to the
press release
we issued on
February 12:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2013/pr1345.htm
But at
deadline these
remain
unanswered:
On
Zimbabwe, what
is the IMF,s
engagement and
is it true the
country had
only $217 in
the bank in
January?
On
Bahrain, what
does the IMF
mean by the "Bahrainization" of
the economy?
Is locking up
or barring
critics good
for the
economy?
On
Sri Lanka,
Treasury
Secretary
P.B.Jayasundera
has just said,
“If
the IMF can
support our
reform
programme, it
was most
welcome.” On
Feb 14, IMF
told us “IMF
financial
support for
Sri Lanka’s
budget
is not
required at
this
juncture.” Is
this
consistent?
Please
comment.
What's
wrong
with the IMF
under
Christine
Lagarde? Watch
this site.
Update
of 11:11 am --
after 11 am,
that is, after
embargo
deadline Mr.
Murray did
respond to
say, "Matthew,
I’m sorry I
wasn’t able to
take these
questions
during the
briefing.
On the Bahrain
reference,
this is jargon
often used by
analysts,
officials, and
others in the
Gulf region in
reference to
instances
where
expatriate
workforces are
being
gradually
phased out in
favor of
nationals. Someone
will get back
to you on
Zimbabwe.."
It's
appreciated
but... what
about Sri
Lanka? And why
were questions
read out at
the briefing
even though
Mr. Murray
said he had no
answers to
them? What are
the rules, or
even logic,
here?
On
Bahrain,
Bahrainization
has ALSO meant
recruiting
soldiers from
other
countries and
turning them
into citizens
-- so they
won't be
considered
mercenaries...
Update
of 1:02 pm --
then after
another
inquiry, this
arrived just
before 1 pm,
on Zimbabwe:
"Hi
Matthew, On
Zimbabwe, the
Minister has
clarified that
he dramatized
to emphasize
that the 2013
budget is
tight and that
the government
would be
seeking
support from
development
partners. As
for our
engagement,
since we
announced the
relaxation of
most
restrictions
on technical
assistance
last October (here),
we’ve been
working to
increase our
provision of
technical
assistance,
including in
areas related
to statistics,
public
financial
management,
and other
areas."
, 
