IMF Won’t Answer on Rwanda, Sudan or Hungary, Does on Bosnia and Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, November 29, updated — The International Monetary Fund is much in the news, and not only on Greece and Egypt.

  But Press questions submitted to the IMF for its Thursday briefing questions on Rwanda, Bosnia, Hungary, Sudan and South Sudan, as well as a long IMF dodged question on Sri Lanka.And none, by deadline, were answered. Here were the questions:

On Rwanda, Mr. Shinohara’s statement did not directly mention aid cuts offs amid the M23 controversy. What *is* the IMF’s position on that?

On Sudan and South Sudan, how does Khartoum’s announcement that no South Sudan oil can flow through for now impact the IMF’s views and programs?

In Bosnia, will the opposition boycott of one of the regional governments impact the IMF’s relationship and program, impacting public servants getting paid, as Bosniak-Croat federation prime minister Nermin Niksic has said? [Update: this was later answered

IMF Spokesperson: “During the mission earlier this month, staff had reached agreements with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina on government budgets for 2013 that are consistent with the objectives of the Stand-By Arrangement. Once these budgets are adopted by the respective parliaments, we can proceed with presenting the first review under the arrangement to the IMF’s Executive Board.”]
On Hungary, what does the IMF think of the country’s new foreign currency bond plan? Does it mean no IMF program any time soon?

On Egypt (obviously), what is the effect of Morsi’s moves on the IMF program?

  Gerry Rice, spokesman, ran the briefing mostly “in the room,” taking an online question on Argentina and the New York court ruling, on which he would not comment. But how about this?

The International Monetary Fund lent into Sri Lanka’s military build-up, then when challenged tried to downplay it.

  Two weeks ago, Inner City Press asked the IMF to comment on the Rajapaksa government’s new 2013 budget, which reportedly has $2.2 billion for defense / “urban development,” a 26% increase over 2012. Inner City Press asked, “Given past IMF claims defense spending was not rising, what is IMF comment now?”

  The IMF did not give a substantive response, but a spokesperson replied, “On Sri Lanka, the 2013 budget is expected to be finalized and presented in early November (we understand November 8). We have not yet seen the 2013 budget, and thus would not be in a position to comment at this time.”

  The spokesperson, asking to be identified as such, told Inner City Press “it would be the best if you could follow up on this later this month.”

  And so at the IMF briefing two weeks ago and today, after the Sri Lanka budget was released, Inner City Press asked again: “On Sri Lanka, now that the budget is out: given past IMF claims defense spending was not rising, what is IMF comment now?”

In light of news all over the world this month, Inner City Press also asked, “in light of this week’s UN report on its failures in Sri Lanka during the killings in 2009, does the IMF as a member of the UN system have any review of or comment on its performance with regard to the killings, accountability and defense spending in the country?”

  But during the IMF’s embargoed briefing two weeks ago and this morning, alongside question after question on Greece, no answer was given. [Update: the Sri Lanka question was later answered, below]

   What about the fortnight old questions on Mali and Romania which Inner City Press submitted, and those above, through the IMF Media Center and by email?

   Inner City Press e-mailed again, asking for an explanation before deadline / embargo time. None was received. Then later, these, which we publish in full:

On Sri Lanka:

IMF spokesperson: “The 2013 budget envisages only a moderate increase in defense spending, less than the budgeted increase in total spending and below the projected growth of GDP. As a result, the share of defense spending in total spending and in GDP is declining. This is a welcome development, in line with the Fund recommendation to gradually reduce the defense spending and create room for increased capital spending.”

Question: In Bosnia, will the opposition boycott of one of the regional governments impact the IMF’s relationship and program, impacting public servants getting paid, As Bosniak-Croat federation prime minister Nermin Niksic has said?

IMF Spokesperson: “During the mission earlier this month, staff had reached agreements with the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina on government budgets for 2013 that are consistent with the objectives of the Stand-By Arrangement. Once these budgets are adopted by the respective parliaments, we can proceed with presenting the first review under the arrangement to the IMF’s Executive Board.”