Thursday, April 30, 2015

On Nepal, Inner City Press Asks IMF If Any Debt Relief, New CCR Trust Is Possible, Spokesperson Gerry Rice Tells ICP



By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS / DC, April 30 -- At the International Monetary Fund's embargoed media briefing on April 30, Inner City Press asked, "In Nepal after the earthquake, will the IMF use the CCR Trust? What of the $54 million Nepal owes to the IMF, with $10 million due this year and $16 million in 2016? Any debt relief?"


IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice replied to Inner City Press that

 "we’re assessing the situation, we’re seeing exactly what the needs are. We will be looking at all options and all instrumentalities, all instruments that are available to us to respond as effectively as possible to the situation facing the people of Nepal. There are a number of different instruments that could be used, as you know.
"There is the Rapid Credt Facility, for example, which is our zero interest rate facility, provides financing very quickly, limited conditionality aimed at low income countries facing urgent budget balance or payment needs, due to an external shock including natural disasters. So that’s one. That’s one option. And as I said, we’re looking at all options, including potential availability under the new CCR Trust."

  This CCR was set in earlier this year, limited to disasters which  destroy more than a quarter of a nation's productive capacity, impact one third of its people or cause damage larger than the size of the country's economy. How the IMF will apply it to Nepal is not yet known.

 At the IMF's annual meeting's Asia and Pacific press conference on April 17, Inner City Press asked, "on Vanuatu, it's said that even after Cyclone Pam the country is not eligible for the IMF's Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust. Is that true, and what could be done given that only two small-island states are eligible, despite high debts and storm risks?"
 The IMF's Hoe Ee Khor replied that "We have a mission in Vanuatu right now. We are in the process of trying to draw up the program. The amount we have access to is 22 million SDR. It's small relative to the size of the damage and the losses that it suffered, it’s true.  But the amount of money that the IMF is able to provide will be able to capitalize financing assistance from all the other countries, especially Australia, New Zealand, and the other IFIs like the World Bank and the ADB.” Video here.
 (SDR was discussed at the April 30 embargoed media briefing, with insistent questions whether central bank independence, for example in China, is considered. Yes, Rice said, but it is not only of the headline criteria. The IMF Board meeting on it has been deferred, as has an answer on Syria.)
     There is a similar problem at the World Bank, with countries like Lebanon and Jordan and some in West Africa not eligible for financing needed to deal with refugees. And now more refugees are being created, for example from Yemen.
Back on March 26 amid the ongoing airstrikes in Yemen, Inner City Press asked the IMF again about the status of its program in the country.
   IMF Deputy Spokesperson William Murray said that the first review is postponed until things clarify.
   Back on January 22, Murray had answered Inner City Press that while events in Yemen were not helpful, the review was not until Spring. Now it is postponed indefinitely.
   On March 26, Inner City Press asked Murray if the IMF has had any contact with the Houthis. No, seemed to be the answer - certainly not in recent days, Murray specified.
   Murray declined a follow up question about the impact on oil markets.
  Inner City Press also asked Murray to confirm that the IMF may declined to proceed with Haiti if it continues to subsidize electricity. Murray said he would get an answer to the question and that it would be circulated and inserted into the transcript. Watch this site.
Three days after the UN Security Council convened on Yemen for a rare Sunday meeting on March 22 and issued only a Presidential Statement against outside interference, Saudi Arabia began airstrikes against the Houthis inside Yemen, citing Article 51 of the UN Charter.
   At the US State Department briefing on March 25, outgoing spokesperson Jen Psaki would only confirm that Hadi left his residence -- "voluntarily" -- while at the UN in New York Ban Ki-moon's deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq cautioned against increased militarization in Yemen.
  Will the UN Secretariat criticize Saudi Arabia now?
 On March 24, Hadi wrote again to the Council and asked for "the Security Council to issue a binding resolution under Chapter VII inviting all willing countries who wish to to provide immediate support;" he also cited al-Qaeda and Daesh.
  This is not the way Iraq did it.
On March 23 the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia seemed to express this willingness. (On March 24, Saudi Arabia spoke in the UN Budget Committee to say same sex relationship are "morally unacceptable;" Yemen, perhaps because of the pending request, did not vote.)
Inner City Press: there have been two statements I wanted to ask if there's any response to.  One is by the new Foreign Minister of Yemen calling for a no-fly zone, making this request presumably to the Arab League, and also from the Foreign Minister from Saudi Arabia saying they'll take whatever necessary measures to curb Houthi advance.  So I’m just wondering, Jamal Benomar said there is no military solution and there should be talks, but is there any response by the UN to these two statements? 

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  Well, in general, like I said at the start of this briefing, Mr. Benomar did urge all sides in this time of rising tensions and inflammatory rhetoric to appreciate the gravity of the situation and de-escalate by exercising maximum restraint, ceasing all hostilities and refraining from provocation and using violence to achieve political goals.  And that remains our standpoint as a whole. Regarding a request to the League of Arab States, of course, that will be for them to consider
  Call it deferring. 
  After the two-hour closed door meeting of the Security Council, during which Permanent Five members' Permanent Representatives drifted away one by one, no one came out to the UN Television stakeout to speak on the record and apparently little new was said behind closed doors.
  Hours after the UN Security Council scheduled the emergency meeting on Yemen, the US announced:
"Due to the deteriorating security situation in Yemen, the U.S. Government has temporarily relocated its remaining personnel out of Yemen.  We have informed President Hadi of this step as part of our close coordination with the Yemeni government.  We will continue to engage the Yemeni people and the international community to strongly support Yemen’s political transition.  We also continue to actively monitor terrorist threats emanating from Yemen and have capabilities postured in the area to address them.  As we have in the past, we will take action to disrupt continuing, imminent threats to the United States and our citizens.

"There is no military solution to Yemen’s current crisis.  We urge the immediate cessation of all unilateral and offensive military actions.  We join all of the other members of the Security Council in underscoring that President Hadi is the legitimate authority in Yemen and re-emphasize our support for his efforts to lead Yemen through crisis.  We call upon the Houthis, former President Ali Abdallah Salih, and their allies to stop their violent incitement that threatens President Hadi, Yemeni government officials, and innocent civilians.

"We encourage all Yemeni factions to constructively engage in the UN-led political dialogue to achieve an inclusive power sharing agreement.  No unilateral assertion of authority will succeed in Yemen.  We urge a renewed commitment to a peaceful political transition consistent with the Gulf Cooperation Council Initiative, the National Dialogue Conference outcomes, and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

"We are concerned that the well-being of all Yemenis now stands threatened by increasing instability, with extremists trying to capitalize on growing volatility as witnessed in the unconscionable March 20 attacks that killed over 130 Yemeni men, women, and children.  Progress in the political transition process offers Yemen the best hope to address these grave threats.  The United States remains committed to supporting all Yemenis in this endeavor and to aiding those who continue to strive for a peaceful, prosperous, and unified Yemen."
  Five weeks after the last Yemen resolution of the UN Security Council was adopted on Sunday, February 15, now on Sunday March 22 the Council held another emergency meeting on Yemen. Much has changed, most recently airstrikes on Hadi's headquarters in Aden and more deadly bombing of largely Houthi mosques in Sana'a.
  With less than 24 hours notice on March 21 the new emergency Security Council meeting was reported by the UN Spokesperson, Inner City Press, Lithuania, Jordan which requested the meeting, and France the Council's president for March.
  It was said Hadi requested the meeting; some speculated he wants the "Houthi coup" language that was dropped from the February 15 resolution revived. But with the Houthis themselves targeted, how would this play? And if a first round of sanctions didn't stop these developments, would a second round?
Update: Sources tell Inner City Press that UN envoy Jamal Benomar abruptly left Yemen, and that Hadi's goal is to get (more) UN Security Council authorization for military action against the Houthis "and Saleh." But he could already claim to be authorized for that. A Presidential Statement doesn't mean victory on the ground, though...
Update II: a question, of course, is how all this UN Security Council action relates to its P5+1 talks with Iran on the nuclear file. Seems the draft PRST would call on "all member States to refrain from external interference which seeks to foment conflict and instability and instead to support the political transition." ALL member states? Including Saudi Arabia and Qatar? Or only Iran?
  On a cold Sunday in New York, the UN Security Council scheduled a 5 pm vote on a resolution on Yemen. Diplomats rushed in. The Gulf Cooperation Council had submitted a draft with the word "Houthi coup" in it, but the phrase did not survive.
  After the watered down resolution was adopted 15-0, Inner City Press asked Saudi Arabia's Permanent Representative about the threat of new sanctions, given how little previous sanctions on Ali Saleh and two Houthi leaders accomplished - and, does he think the Houthis are working with Saleh? (Video here and embedded below.)
  He replied that both are spoilers, they could work together directly or indirectly. The Gulf Cooperation Council will be continuing to push the Security Council, for example on the house arrest of Hadi and others.
  Jordan's Permanent Representative added that come members did not want the word coup.
 Inner City Press notes that while Hadi consented to US drone strikes, a coup would leave such consent "up in the air."
 After the diplomats left, two different Arabic language channels described what had occurred in entirely different terms: one as a "strong message," the other as "weak."  And so it goes.

 
Posted by at