IMF
Now Confirms,
in its
Fashion, Sri
Lanka Defense
Spending
Increase
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 23
-- When the
IMF
establishing a
lending
program with
Sri Lanka in
2009, the year
in which
according even
to a UN report
the government
killed tens of
thousands of
civilians, the
IMF stated
that
"This,
together
with savings
on military
spending ...
should help
finance the
considerable
reconstruction
spending
needs... Cuts
in military
and other
expenditures
will help make
room for
post-conflict
reconstruction
and relief
spending."
The IMF
has since been
ducking
questions
about its
program in Sri
Lanka,
declining to
answer
questions
submitted
during and
after its
biweekly media
briefings,
most recently
this year on January
12
and January
26,
by
email in
February
and at
the February 9
briefing.
This has been
an ongoing
pattern. Inner
City Press first asked
the IMF about
Sri Lanka in
March 2009,
when spokesman
David Hawley
saying the IMF
would support
the
government's
priority.
Since then,
despite some
answer on
other
countries, the
IMF has
stonewalled on
Sri Lanka.
The IMF's
reasoning has
belatedly
become clear
in a table of
data the Fund
sent out on
January 31 in
response to
inquiries by
the Sri Lanka
Campaign to
Managing
Director
Christine
Lagarde.
First, the
IMF's "head of
mission" to
Sri Lanka
Brian Aitkins
sent a
response
claiming that
in Sri Lanka
"overall
security-related
spending has
declined both
as a share of
GDP and of
total
government
spending."
When asked for
the data
behind this
claim, the IMF
produced a
chart, about
which Inner
City Press has
asked the IMF
for comment --
so far, there
has been none
-- and which
is online
here.
On
February 23,
Inner City
Press
submitted the
question for
the third time
just as
Lagarde's
spokesperson
Gerry Rice
began his
biweekly
briefing:
"On
Sri Lanka,
please explain
Mr. Aitken's
numbers
downplaying
Sri Lanka
defense
spending
increase of
30%, asked
earlier this
month with
reference to
IMF
correspondence,
and now
the UN Senior
Advisory Group
barring Sri
Lanka's Deputy
Permanent
Representative
to the UN due
to war crimes
allegations?"
Rice did
not read out
and answer the
question, but
one minute
before the
10:30 am
embargo
deadline, this
answer was
provided, from
"the" IMF
spokesperson
-- that is,
Mr. Rice:
"Please
attribute to
the IMF
spokesperson:
"There’s no
dispute over
numbers. Mr.
Mortimer
acknowledged
Mr. Aitken’s
central point
that defense
spending had
fallen as a
share of GDP
and of total
spending.
Mr. Mortimer’s
central point
was that
despite this
being the
case, defense
spending had
increased in
absolute
terms.
This is not in
dispute either
(although we
can’t quite
replicate the
30 percent
quoted by Mr.
Mortimer).
We would note
that the bulk
of the
increase in
defense
spending
appears to be
on wages and
salaries—non
wage spending
has declined
in absolute
terms—which
has increased
with public
sector pay
awards over
the past 3
years.
Further
progress in
reducing
defense
spending, in
absolute
terms, would
likely require
a
comprehensive
demobilization
program.
While we would
be supportive
in principle
of such a
move, this is
not an area
that the Fund
has expertise.
We would say
though that
international
experience
suggests that
such programs
need to be
very carefully
designed and
executed to be
successful."
Ah,
increased
military
spending using
an IMF lending
program
-- click here
for IMF not
answering at
all on
February 23
Inner City
Press'
question about
criticism of
the IMF
dealing with
the military
SCAF
government of
Egypt. We'll
have more on
this.
, 
