On Yemen, Inner City press Asks IMF of Impact, Ahmed Cites Delay, Hadi Gov Efforts

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS / DC, April 17 -- At the International Monetary Fund's annual meeting on April 17, Inner City Press asked, "On Yemen, given the fighting, airstrikes and uncertainly, any update on the IMF's first review? Any contacts with Hadi government or Houthis since March 26? What is the IMF's view of regional economic impacts?"

 The IMF's Masood Ahmed replied that the IMF's first review remains “on hold until political situation clarifies and until we can then assess impact on economy.” 

  He said “the impact of the  crisis and conflict in Yemen is first and foremost humanitarian, the real cost is the human cost. The economy is contracting, oil production is 40% lower, public spending and review is 1/3 down, reserves are down 1/4 this year.”

   And so, Masood Ahmed of the IMF told Inner City Press, “so leads us to have our own small voice to call trying to find quickly a solution to ending the conflict in Yemen so the efforts the government was already trying to make last year to improve economic situation could be continued.”

  But what are the prospects of Hadi returning to power? Now the UN has removed Jamal Benomar as mediator, slated to be replaced by one chosen by Saudi Arabia. Is that sustainable?

Back on March 26 amid the ongoing airstrikes in Yemen, Inner City Press asked the IMF 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. Now on April 17 Masood Ahmed has provided some figures.

 Also on April 17 Inner City Press asked the IMF, "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 damages.”Video here.

  He said the IMF is working on the “macro economic framework” which may trigger more financing from Australia, New Zealand and other IFIs like the ADB and World Bank.

     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.

  And so it goes.

    

On Yemen, IMF Tells Inner City Press Recent Events "Not Positive from an Economic Standpoint," First Review in Spring

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, January 22 -- When the International Monetary Fund held an embargoed press briefing on January 22, after the Houthi rebels in Yemen have held the Presidential palace for days, Inner City Press asked about the impact on the IMF's program with Yemen.

  IMF Deputy Spokesperson William Murray said that recent events are "not positive from an economic standpoint," but that the IMF's first review of its program will not be until the Spring.

  Where will the Houthis be then? And Hadi? And Saleh?

   Inner City Press also submitted questions on Sri Lanka and on Ebola and debt relief. On the latter, Murray spoke of an exceptional assistance program as with Haiti, but wouldn't specify debt relief. We'll have more on this.

 On Yemen, Murray referred back to the January 21 report and briefing by Masood Ahmed -- to which Inner City Press also submitted the question. In that briefing, Ahmed said:

"we are worried about the continued difficulties in Yemen, really because Yemen is already a country with a fragile economic recovery, with a large number of people living in poverty, and with already trying to cope with different shocks that the economy has undergone, and so this makes the uncertainty, makes it both harder to deal with those shocks and also it affects confidence, so that some of the private sector activity is affected.

"Of course we as an interactive institution don't have a view on the political developments in any country, but we can look at the economic consequences, which is what I was referring to. In terms of the implications for this on the price of oil, you know the price of oil, the markets build in both up side and down side risks into that price. So there's a risk of supply disruptions. That is one of the sources that can push up oil prices with the risk premium, not just from Yemen but also people have been concerned about supply disruptions in other oil producing countries, but there's also the risk that the world economy may turn out to be slower in terms of growth or there's a risk that in fact oil production may turn out to be higher in some countries than expected. If you remember, earlier on in 2014, people were expecting oil production in Libya to be relatively low for the year. As it happened, oil production actually increased at one point to 900, 1000 barrels a day and so that was unexpected. And some people say that was one of the reasons that was helping people to reestablish equilibrium in terms of their expectations. So I think that the market is always looking at both up side and down side risks and prices."

The IMF's Middle East and Central Asia Department Regional Economic Outlook Update as released on January 21, says “Yemen is at high risk because its banks are highly exposed to government debt against the backdrop of a weak fiscal position and limited financing options.”

    Referring to the demands for fuel subsidy cuts, the IMF report says “Yemen “is planning to increase non-oil revenue collection, contain the government wage bill, and continue fuel subsidy reform.” Is that still the case? How could the IMF know?
  
  Looking wider, the IMF report says that “conflicts, terrorism, and related security disruptions continue to be a prevailing concern in the region. Although airstrikes have slowed the advance of the so-called Islamic State (ISIS), conflicts in Iraq and Syria persist, creating significant economic and political spillovers for neighboring countries (especially Jordan and Lebanon). The security situations in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen also remain challenging. Conflicts cast a shadow over the economic outlook for the MENAP region, not only because they disrupt economic activity; they also reduce political space for the much-needed reforms and delay the return of confidence to the MENAP region.”  

 On January 19-20, the IMF's Olivier Blanchard answered Inner City Press' question about the impact of falling oil prices on Africa by saying "Nigeria will have to adjust. I do not know at this stage whether they can adjust on their own or they might need a program from the Fund. If they did any member is welcome to come at this stage I have no information about it.”

    A Yemen-like program?

   To the IMF's World Economic Outlook Update press conference, Inner City Press had submitted this question: “Please summarize what the decline in oil prices may mean for countries in Africa, and what the IMF is prepared to do about those countries negatively impacted.”

    As the second online question taken, this question was put to Blanchard, who responded:

“Most African countries are importers and so are helped. Some countries are not and the main example is Nigeria. Nigeria will have to adjust. I do not know at this stage whether they can adjust on their own or they might need a program from the Fund. If they did any member is welcome to come at this stage I have no information about it.”

  Earlier on January 19, the UN Security Council issued a Presidential Statement about, but not funding, the fight against Boko Haram. Security Council sources leaving the meeting told Inner City Press that for funding, those in the region -- i.e. Nigeria -- should be looked to first.

  But if Nigeria may even need to apply for an IMF program, is it reasonable for the powers in the UN and it Permanent Five members of the Security Council to expect it to be entire responsible for fighting Boko Haram?

  We'll have more on this.

Footnote: while Blanchard's "main example" was Nigeria, what about Angola? What about Equatorial Guinea? To the north, what about Libya? Questions, questions...

 Follow @innercitypress Follow @FUNCA_info

IMF Press Conference Has Syria Questions from USAID, While Yemen & Mali Press Questions Ignored, FUNCA Asks Why

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, October 10 -- With the International Monetary Fund having its Annual Meeting, Managing Director Christine Lagarde began by saying the quota reform, blocked by the US, is crucial.
 
  Then at the IMF's October 10 press conference about the Middle East, even as Press questions about Yemen and other topics were pending, the IMF called on USAID to ask a question about Syria. 

  See video here at Minute 41, question of Mona Yacoubian, USAID's Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Middle East Bureau.

   The IMF's transcript omits that the question was from USAID, that the questioner said, "Mona Yacoubian from USAID."

  It is often said that these press conference are limited to the media, including to the Free UN Coalition for Accesswhich advocates for press access including at the IMF. How then can a US government agency ask a question about Syria? And what does it mean?

  Inner City Press submitted a question on October 10 about Yemen, still not answered, and during the Africa briefing about Mali and South Sudan. Does the IMF answer questions from the US government but not from the press? Was it just a mistake?

    Back on October 6 with the dispute between Argentina and hedge or vulture funds more and more discussed, the International Monetary Fund released a paper and held an embargoed press call on the topic of "Strengthening the Contractual Framework to Address Collective Action Problems in Sovereign Debt Restructuring."

  Inner City Press asked the IMF's Sean Hagan, General Counsel and Director of the IMF's Legal Department, how his "market based" approach relates to the vote take last month in the UN General Assembly and to respond to the critique that the lack of quota reform at the IMF undermines the legitimacy of its approach.

   Hagan said the UNGA's approach is "treaty based," and that

"There was insufficient support in our members to support that approach, there has been in no change in the attitude of our members when we discussed this last year.”

  But in essence the membership of the IMF is the same as the UN General Assembly -- it's just that in the IMF votes are weighed to wealth, measured in the past. The UN is controlled by five permanently veto-wielding Security Council members. At the IMF for now there is one veto: the US.

  Hagan made much of Kazakhstan including some of the IMF supported language in its most recent bond issuance. He mentioned copycat litigation, already pending in Grenada. He said it seems the issue will be discussed at the upcoming IMF and World Bank Annual Meetings in a session involving "civil society organizations." We'll have more on this.

 For now, the IMF on October 6 said "Directors acknowledged that the recent New York court decisions with respect to Argentina may exacerbate collective action problems, although most felt that the extent of their impact on the restructuring process is still unclear. Directors welcomed the recent modification of pari passu clauses in certain sovereign bond issuances to explicitly exclude the obligation to effect ratable payments."

 So beyond the cited Kakastan, how prevalent is this?

 The IMF also on October 6 discussed "the inclusion of an enhanced collective action clause (CAC) that includes a more robust 'aggregation' feature to address collective action problems more effectively."

  Back on September 11, two days after 124 nations in the UN General Assembly voted to start a process on sovereign debt restructuring, Inner City Press asked the International Monetary Fund, "What is the IMF's comment on the “sovereign debt restructuring” resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 9? The resolution cites the IMF's work on the issues, in 2003."

  At the IMF's embargoed briefing that day, IMF spokesperson William Murray provided a long answer, including that the IMF is working on a "market based" solution, particularly on debt contractual terms to prevent "hold out" problems. He mentioned, as he had to, Argentina, which has had it own contentious relation with the IMF.

  Clearly, Argentina -- and Bolivia as chair of the Group of 77 -- were aware of these IMF efforts when they pursued the issue in the UN General Assembly. But it's a power game.

When Argentina's foreign minister Héctor Timerman held a press conference at the UN at 5:30 pm on September 9, he was flanked not only by Argentina's ambassador to the UN Maria Cristina Perceval but also the chair of the Group of 77, Sacha Llorenti of Bolivia. 

  They spoke of 11 countries opposing their resolution on sovereign debt and vultures funds, or sovereign debt restructuring, including the United States. Timerman took the high road, saying that Argentina would present a project with the G77 and speak with all opponents. 

  He asked how the UN General Assembly, which he called the most democratic forum, could be involved in so many fields but not this one. Why indeed.

   Back in June, Inner City Press thanked Timerman and his finance minister Axel Kicillof on behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, then asked if Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital hold stakes in other G77 members, and if the case shows the need for reform, that countries should have at least the same debt restructuring rights as corporations.

  Kicillof added, states and the people (pueblos) they represented. He said that in the G77 meeting, Peru had spoken. An attentive Inner City Press reader chimed in with a question about Ecuador, which sold bonds just this week.

  But in that case, new language tried to avoid the Argentina decision of the US Supreme Court, just as Belize and Armenia have also done on their debt. Watch this site. 

    

At IMF, Masood Ahmed Answers Inner City Press on Jordan $264 Million Loan & Syrian Refugees, Silent on Morocco and Western Sahara

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS System, April 11 -- When the International Monetary Fund recently announced a staff-level agreement to lend $264 million to Jordan, it was reported as "for Syrian refugees."

  Since doing humanitarian aid on credit, or on the installment plan, seems more than a little strange, Inner City Press submitted a question to the IMF's Middle East and Central Asia Department director Masood Ahmed: "can you explain the relation between this Stand By Arrangement tranche and the flow of refugees from Syria?"

  At the IMF's April 11 press conference, this question was read to Masood Ahmed by communications officer Wafa Amr, and Ahmed offered a lengthy answer.

  He said that Jordan's economy has been impacted not only by Syria but also disruption of energy flows from Egypt. But, he specified, IMF loans are not for specific projects or humanitarian aid. Still, that's how it was reported.

  A representative of Al Mayadeen TV asked a follow up question about the Syrian conflict's impact on Lebanon; SABA asked a question about Yemen and then the press conference was over.

  This Morocco question which Inner City Press submitted has not yet been answered:

You cited disbursements to Jordan & Tunisia but not Morocco. Where does that stand? What is the impact of the unresolved issue of Western Sahara, where it's said Morocco should not exploit resources, and Morocco's economic prospects?

  If and when an answer is received, we will report it. At least this IMF press conference took and answered online question(s), as urged by the Free UN Coalition for Access.

  When at the IMF three ministers atop the G24 group of developing countries took the stage at 6 pm on April 10, they were fired up about, or against, the US Congress refusing to adopt the so-called quota reform.

 G24 chairperson Ashraf El Araby of Egypt raised the issue. The first questioner -- one of only three, from a total of two media -- asked what will you do if the US doesn't agree to reform in six months?

  All options must be considered, Amar Bhattacharya of the G24 Secretariat said. Another questioner from the same media asked if loans contingent on the reform might be called in. Amar Bhattacharya said that would have to be considered.

  The only other questioner went big picture, asking if the situation of Ukraine and Russia was casting a shadow on the IMF and World Bank meetings. Senior IMF Communications Officer Silvia Zucchini said the G24 wasn't the right group to answer that. And it was over.

  The Free UN Coalition for Access would suggest that for such press conferences the IMF use the technology it uses for its usual biweekly briefings, where accredited journalists can pose questions online from elsewhere. Inner City Press had questions, but no way to ask there. Here was Inner City Press' G24 coverage from two years ago.

  This Spring's meeting has coincided with the death of former Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. Here is a 2012 Q&A with him, about the Volcker Rule and Tim Geithner, now cashed out to Warburg Pincus. They're cashing in on the Umpqua - Sterling Bank merger -- but that's another story.

  After Congress dropped International Monetary Fund reform from its legislation on Ukraine aid and sanctions, earlier today IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde calls the decision "utterly disappointing."

  In her embargoed "Global Policy Agenda," Lagarde returns to the theme: "The delay in making effective the 2010 reform package is utterly disappointing... These reforms are
essential to ensure the continued legitimacy, relevance, financial strength, and effectiveness of the Fund. Next steps will build on the advice of the Chairman of the International Monetary
and Financial Committee in his consultations with the membership regarding available options to complete the current round of the quota and governance reform process, with the objective of completing the 15th Review by January 2015."

 Seems like speaking with Rand Paul et al might be a good idea.

  Lagarde also brags that "several new lending programs have been put in place, including to support Armenia and Albania, while Poland, Colombia, and Mexico continue to benefit from added liquidity buffers through the Flexible Credit Line. Myanmar completed a staff-monitored program that has triggered debt relief from the Paris Club, and a major effort continues to build capacity in key areas of macroeconomic management."

  Lagarde has no mention of the violence in Rakhine State, nor of the Rohingya being excluded from the UN-funded census.

   Back on March 27 it was 4:25 am in New York and Washington when the International Monetary Fund announced its preliminary agreement for a $14 - $18 billion loan program with Ukraine. 

 Inner City Press asked the IMF to confirm or comment on reports that the Ukrainian "increase the price of natural gas for household consumers by an average of 50%" is attributable to the IMF. 

  At the IMF's 9:30 am embargoed briefing, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out the question then said that the program has five components, including energy sector reform.

  He said Ukraine will reduce subsidies to the energy sector, and that current prices in Ukraine are two to three times lower than in neighboring countries. He said, as it did to other questions, that responses were given in a press conference in Kyiv.

 In New York at the UN, a General Assembly meeting started at 10 am. Russia's Ambassador Vitaly Churkin recounted history and said radicals "called the shots" in the change of government. We've noted that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with the leader of the Svoboda party while in Kyiv.

  In Washington later on March 27 the US Congress is expected to act on a $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine, but not on the IMF changes the Obama administration requested. Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney issued a statement welcoming the IMF preliminary deal, concluding that "We also remain committed to providing the IMF with the resources it needs – in partnership with Congress – to provide strong support to countries like Ukraine as well as reinforcing the Fund’s governance to reflect the global economy."
  
  Two weeks ago on March 13, the day after several US Senators argued that International Monetary Fund quota reform would have to be approved by Congress to enable the IMF to meaningfully assist Ukraine, Inner City Press asked IMF spokesperson Gerry Rice if this is true. Video here, from Minute 12:05.

  Rice genially said several times that the question couldn't or wouldn't be answered while the IMF mission is “in the field” in Ukraine. He initially gave the same answer to Inner City Press' question that had nothing to do with Ukraine: is it true, as Russia reportedly argued at the most recent G-20 meeting, that quota reform could be accomplished without US approval, under some set of rule changes?

  Rice during the briefing repeated this could not be answered while the mission is in Ukraine. Later it was conveyed that the reform is not possible without US approval. The answer is appreciated: a benefit of asking in person. But Inner City Press (and the Free UN Coalition for Access) hope to make the online asking of questions work better from now on. 

 And on March 27, for example, IMF deputy spokesperson William Murray read out this question from Inner City Press:

"On Zimbabwe, please confirm IMF is re-opening its office and respond to Finance Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying part of the deal included cutting Zimbabwe's wage bill from 70 percent of the budget but this pledge will not be met, 'addressing it overnight would mean very drastic measures which I indicated to them (IMF) I am not prepared to take. That would mean retrenchment of civil servants.'"

  On March 27, Murray said he would not comment directly on what the Finance Minister said, but pointed to a press release we will add a link to.

  Back on March 13 in another non-Ukraine question, Inner City Press asked Rice about a book published earlier this week in Hungary, that the then-economy minister in 2011 told Goldman Sachs that the government would be going to the IMF for a program. Since much currency trading ensued, Inner City Press asked if the IMF has any rules limiting its government interlocutors from trading on or sharing insider information.Video here, from Minute 31:12.

  Rice said there are confidential provisions. But are those only for the contents of communication and not the existence of communications or negotiations? We'll see.

  

IMF Notes Heglig Impact, Dodges on Sudans Oil Transfer Fee, Answers ICP on Romania

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, May 3 -- During the International Monetary Fund's Spring Meeting last month, Inner City Press asked the the spokesperson for the IMF's Masood Ahmed about the conflict between Sudan and South Sudan:

after the press conference, in which my question was about Egypt, I asked Masood Ahmed about Sudan, South Sudan and the IMF, on which he's written, and specifically his / the IMF's view of the oil transfer fee (and impact of stopping oil pumping and destroying the Heglig field). I was told to email the question so here it is: I cover the UN, and Sudan diplomats say they want $34 a barrel transfer fee, South Sudan offers some 40 cents, citing example of Chad to Cameroon, and Azerbaijan to Turkey. What is the IMF's view of this oil transfer fee issue?

   But even as, or because, the conflict military and diplomatic around Heglig continued to heat up, the IMF never answered.

    And so to the IMF's bi-weekly embargoed briefing on May 3 Inner City Press, from in front of the UN Security Council where the day prior Sudan's Ambassador spoke of an investigation and possible reparations for Heglig, resubmitted the above question as well as a question about Romania. 

 

    Lead IMF spokesman Gerry Rice on camera answered the Romania question, saying that even after the fall of the government the IMF mission remains in dialogue and will report back. 

 

   On the reformulated Sudans question, the IMF replied:

In response to your question on South Sudan during today’s press briefing, you can attribute this to an IMF spokesperson:

"Conflict in border areas and a prolonged shutdown of oil production will have serious implications on both countries' economies and people's livelihoods. We look forward to a mutually beneficial resolution of oil and other bilateral issues as soon as possible."

While appreciated, this was the question posed by Inner City Press:

"What is the IMF doing in Sudan and South Sudan given the economic and oil transfer fee roots of the conflict between them? South Sudan cites the IMF for the less than a dollar a barrel transfer fee it proposes. I asked Ahmed Masood during the Spring meeting but have not heard back. What IS the IMF's position?"

So Inner City Press has asked again, and is now told "Sure. Will get back to you on this." Watch this site.

At IMF, Of Muslim Brotherhood, Asian Homers, No Sri Lanka or Myanmar, Ban Hype?

By Matthew Russell Lee

IMF, April 20, updated with video link -- There is a lot of hot air at the International Monetary Fund during its Spring Meeting, but every once in a while a question actually gets answered. On Friday Inner City Press asked IMF official Masood Ahmed about Egypt, whether a military government in what should be its declining days should be able to bind future Egyptians to the tune of $3.2 billion. 

 

  He replied that "to be successful, [an IMF program] has to enjoy broad support in the country. Because the program is going to be implemented over a couple of years."

  He said that the current government has a "self defined limited duration" -- let's hope so -- and so the IMF has consulted "those likely to be in the incoming government need to be saying broadly supportive of program."

  There, was that so hard? Inner City Press had asked Masood Ahmed to explain Managing Director Christine Lagarde's statement the previous day that "If we hear solid partners on the ground say, aah, I am not too sure about this program, not too sure about the IMF, not too sure about borrowing, it is a bit of an issue." 

 

  Now can we say, Lagarde's "solid partners" are Masood Ahmed's "those likely to be in the incoming government"? Can you say, Muslim Brotherhood?

  But elsewhere in the IMF's Spring Meeting there was stonewalling and conflicts of interest, hype photo-ops and needless security. 

 

  After Masood Ahmed's press conference, a similar one was held about Asia and the Pacific. But in this, India's Anoop Singh jumped in to say that his own country's growth is "robust," even as contradicted by his less conflicted deputy Masahiko Takeda. 

  In the UN system, generally one is not supposed to act or speak on one's own country. Does Anoop Singh have an exemption?

During the Asia and Pacific press conference, IMF spokesperson Keiko Utsunomiya was selective in how she allowed questions, and the questions asked were parochial, for example about banks in Cambodia (to which Anoop Singh replied that he'd gone to Ankor Wat).

No question at all was allowed about Myanmar, and no question about military spending in Sri Lanka.

  The Latin America and Caribbean press conference by Nicolas Eyzaguirre was better run, but still nothing was said about for example Haiti.

At the higher profile G20 press conference, it was mostly Christine Lagarde bragging about the $430 billion pledged -- without details -- and nothing about, for example, the G20's opposition to the Volcker Rule in the US.

There was event after event. On the IMF schedule screen came a notice of a meeting of Guinea Bissau official (pre or post coup, one wondered) and then of the "Macedonia Team Meeting." One wondered, and asked via Twitter, wasn't FYROM the term used in UN system?

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came to the World Bank Friday morning; there was a photo op before his meeting with Lagarde, Robert Zoellick and finance minister about Rio +20. Inner City Press there, as was Bob Orr, as Bank watchers said how Zoellick always has a Diet Coke (like Ban and his covered glass of water).

  Making-of video on Inner City Press YouTube, click here.

Later Inner City Press heard that Ban had urged another DC audience to Tweet at Barack Obama urging his to go to Rio +20. Inner City Press asked the question at the State Department briefing, including why Tim Geithner hadn't bothered to attend the Rio meeting of finance minister, but was referred to the White House. 

 

At 5 pm on Friday a protest march came by the IMF, just as a Syria meeting began up in the UN Security Council. Watch this site.