By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, June 9 -- Without a managing director, without transparency and seemingly without regard to human rights, the International Monetary Fund is negotiating with Belarus about a loan larger than the $3 billion the Russians lent, conditioned on privatization to Russian firms.
During the IMF's bi-weekly briefing on June 9, Inner City Press submitted this question:
“On Belarus, what is the IMF's thinking after Russia cut electrical supply this week, after crackdown on online protests and long sentences to political opponents, and what does the IMF say that to require privatization would be serving Russian buyers of Belarus assets?”
IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson, facing in-person questions about Dominique Strauss Kahn, took three online questions -- about Pakistan, Argentina and Latvia -- but not this Inner City Press question about Belarus (nor another one, about Jamaica).
After not acknowledging the timely submitted questions during the briefing, afterward Inner City Press received this email from the IMF about Belarus:
Subject: Your question on Belarus
From: [ ] @imf.org
Date: Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:43 AM
To: Matthew.Lee [at] innercitypress.com
Matthew, With regard to your question today on Belarus. As you probably know, a previously scheduled IMF mission is currently in Minsk (the dates are June 1-13) to conduct post-program monitoring. The standing policy has been that we don’t comment on specific country matters while missions are in the field and discussions are in progress. We will update the press on the mission’s outcome when it concludes.
The purpose of this mission is to discuss policies that would restore economic stability and put the economy on the path of strong and sustainable growth. The mission will use the opportunity to exchange views with the authorities on possible next steps in response to their request for the Fund-supported program.
Regards, [ ] IMF Press Office
It's been reported that IMF Head of the mission Chris Jarvis has met Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Rumas. Inner City Press replied with a request to be informed of any IMF press conference call about any announcement with Belarus, but the IMF press person who had replied was listed as out of the office.
On Jamaica, the IMF asked for more specifics, to which Inner City Press replied:
Jamaican Finance Secretary Wesley Hughes met with the IMF, now returns to Jamaica for talks with trade unions, in connection with which Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance and the Public Service, Senator Arthur Williams, has spoken of the “Government’s inability to pay the $20 billion owed this year, and has proposed an extended payment period, to protect the gains made in the economy and to preserve its agreement with the IMF.”
So 1) does the IMF dispute that the Jamaican gov't can't pay, must extend the payment period “to preserve its agreement with the IMF”?
Separately, 2) what did the IMF tell Finance Secretary Hughes about this?
After not taking this question during the briefing, then asking two rounds of counter questions about it, the IMF finally replied:
Subject: RE: FW: Question Received (6/9/2011 10:10:02 AM)
From: [ ] @imf.org
Date: Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 1:14 PM
To: matthew.lee [at] innercitypress.com
Matthew, We are not going to make any comment on ongoing negotiations between the administration and the unions. I would refer your questions to the Jamaican authorities.
The government’s commitments related to the program are outlined in the documents of the second and third reviews of the stand-by arrangement, which you can consult online in the Jamaica page [of the IMF].
So, after not acknowledging the timely submitted questions during the briefing, and even asking questions about the questions, the IMF declined to answer either of them. Some transparency. The IMF did not even respond to repeatedly emailed questions about its policies on gifts. To be continued.
