UNITED NATIONS, September 9 -- Despite the flooding crisis in Pakistan, the International Monetary Fund is offering loans, which barely make up for the debt payments Pakistan is making. Inner City Press on September 9 asked IMF Spokesperson Caroline Atkinson the following question:
“In Pakistan, given the scope of the flooding and that 60% of the population lives in poverty, why is the IMF not considering debt forgiveness, and grants instead of loans? Does IMF dispute that Pakistan's debt payments ($500 million) are larger than the $450 million loan?”
Ms. Atkinson paraphrased the first part of the question, and declined to read out the second part. She said there was a question from this reporter, that “talks about the scope of the flooding, which is indeed terrible... We are assessing, there is a damage assessment by the World Bank and ADB [Asia Development Bank], results in late October.”
But there is no dispute that Pakistan is deeply damaged. Why use the damage assessment as an excuse? Ms. Atkinson went on to say that Pakistan's financial minister was at the IMF last week, discussing an ENDA (emergency) loan that she said will be approved by the board on a date not even set yet.
But she did not read out, or answer, this: “Does IMF dispute that Pakistan's debt payments ($500 million) are larger than the $450 million loan?”
Nor did Ms. Atkinson acknowledge another question Inner City Press submitted, after in her introduction she presented the IMF's commitment to what she called the “Millennium Development Challenge Goals” -- seeming to conflate the MDGs with the U.S. Millennium Challenge.
Inner City Press submitted this question, in the same manner as the paraphrased Pakistan question, that NGOs have
“criticized the IMF 'for appearing to retreat to its “traditional position" and not providing enough flexibility on unwinding deficits without harming development spending.' Your response?”
To this, no answer. Watch this site.
