IMF Confirms, in its Fashion, Sri Lanka Defense Spending Increase

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 23 -- When the International Monetary Fund establishing a lending program with Sri Lanka in 2009, the year in which according even to a UN report the government killed tens of thousands of civilians, the IMF stated that

"This, together with savings on military spending ... should help finance the considerable reconstruction spending needs... Cuts in military and other expenditures will help make room for post-conflict reconstruction and relief spending."

The IMF has since been ducking questions about its program in Sri Lanka, declining to answer questions submitted during and after its biweekly media briefings, most recently this year on January 12 and January 26, by email in February and at the February 9 briefing.

This has been an ongoing pattern. Inner City Press first asked the IMF about Sri Lanka in March 2009, when spokesman David Hawley saying the IMF would support the government's priority. Since then, despite some answer on other countries, the IMF has stonewalled on Sri Lanka.

The IMF's reasoning has belatedly become clear in a table of data the Fund sent out on January 31 in response to inquiries by the Sri Lanka Campaign to Managing Director Christine Lagarde.

First, the IMF's "head of mission" to Sri Lanka Brian Aitkins sent a response claiming that in Sri Lanka "overall security-related spending has declined both as a share of GDP and of total government spending."

When asked for the data behind this claim, the IMF produced a chart, about which Inner City Press has asked the IMF for comment -- so far, there has been none -- and which is now being placed online here.

Contrary to the IMF's table, according to the SLC,

"much of the so called 'reconstruction' work the Government is conducting in the north and the east – no doubt under non military budget headings – is actually a form of militarization by stealth. Our contacts in the north talk of the creeping infiltration of the military into every aspect of civilian life – and that in the Vanni area soldiers now form one third of the population.

A non exhaustive list of industries the military is involved in would include: construction, fruit production, whale watching, fishing, hotels, management of the three largest cricket stadiums, pedalo hire, and transport. This militarization is doing untold damage to Sri Lankan society and rapidly undermining the primacy of the civilian state. The IMF demanded a cut in the defense budget and instead the Government of Sri Lanka increased defense spending by 30%. This demands firm action."

On February 23, Inner City Press submitted the question for the third time just as Lagarde's spokesperson Gerry Rice began his biweekly briefing:

"On Sri Lanka, please explain Mr. Aitken's numbers downplaying Sri Lanka defense spending increase of 30%, asked earlier this month with reference to IMF correspondence, and now the UN Senior Advisory Group barring Sri Lanka's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN due to war crimes allegations?"

Rice did not read out and answer the question, but one minute before the 10:30 am embargo deadline, this answer was provided, from "the" IMF spokesperson -- that is, Mr. Rice:

"Please attribute to the IMF spokesperson:

"There’s no dispute over numbers. Mr. Mortimer acknowledged Mr. Aitken’s central point that defense spending had fallen as a share of GDP and of total spending. Mr. Mortimer’s central point was that despite this being the case, defense spending had increased in absolute terms. This is not in dispute either (although we can’t quite replicate the 30 percent quoted by Mr. Mortimer). We would note that the bulk of the increase in defense spending appears to be on wages and salaries—non wage spending has declined in absolute terms—which has increased with public sector pay awards over the past 3 years. Further progress in reducing defense spending, in absolute terms, would likely require a comprehensive demobilization program. While we would be supportive in principle of such a move, this is not an area that the Fund has expertise. We would say though that international experience suggests that such programs need to be very carefully designed and executed to be successful."

Ah, increased military spending using an IMF lending program -- click here for IMF not answering at all on February 23 Inner City Press' question about criticism of the IMF dealing with the military SCAF government of Egypt. We'll have more on this.

IMF Won't Substantiate "Arab Spring" Spending, Downplays Military Spending in Sri Lanka

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 9 -- While the International Monetary Fund bragged about committing $35 billion to the "Arab Spring," now it has been questioned by area finance ministry officials and, although the IMF dodged the question, by the Press how many much has been disbursed.

Every two weeks the IMF holds a press briefing, for journalists in DC and online around the world. Spokesman Gerry Rice at the February 9 briefing purported to take online questions, one from a reporter usually there in person, and one each about Argentina and the Dominican Republic.

But the IMF ignored, and did not answer by deadline, questions about its Arab Spring pledge, about Yemen and Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Romania. Nor did the IMF explain its logic. It took question after question about Greece, and one about Bosnia not having a 2011 budget. Nothing on Ireland, either.

Inner City Press, as soon as the briefing began, asked three, four then five questions, including:

How much of the $35 billion "Arab Spring" pledge has the IMF disbursed, given this criticism?

What is the status of the IMF's work in & with Yemen after the visit of Hassan Al-Atrash?

What is the status of the IMF's work in & with Myanmar, and what impact will the US lifting Trafficking Victims Protection Act restrictions have on it?

On Sri Lanka, since IMF Brian Aitken has publicly claimed defense spending is down, what is IMF's response to statistics submitted [to IMF] that defense spending is up at least 30%, contrary to IMF?

This question, Inner City Press submitted on February 6 as well, to Mr. Rice and others:

Hello - this is a Press request for the IMF's comment or response its claim that Sri Lanka's defense spending has decreased, when other say it has INCREASED 30%, despite IMF statements that

“This, together with savings on military spending ... should help finance the considerable reconstruction spending needs.” And “Cuts in military and other expenditures will help make room for post-conflict reconstruction and relief spending."

For ease of reference, I refer to correspondence to Ms. Lagarde and from the IMF's Mr. Aitken (particularly the response to Mr. Aitken's January 4 letter and subsequent data table), and to the Sri Lanka questions I have submitted, without response, during the last two online media briefings.

And if / when you have something on the resignation of the prime minister in Romania.

With no answer, either on Sri Lanka or even Romania, Inner City Press resubmitted on February 9, including

On Romania, any IMF response to parliament approving new cabinet and to keep budget deficit within 3% of GDP?

There are directly in the IMF's wheelhouse, but even more under Christine Lagarde, the IMF does not want to take or answer the questions. So this IMF brags about Arab Spring spending but won't answer, misrepresents increased military spending it is now partially responsible for, and refuses to answer. Here is Mr. Aitken's letter, that the IMF has refused to explain or substantiate. Watch this site.

IMF Dodges on Sri Lanka as Defense Spending Climbs 30%, "Stealth Militarization"

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 6, updated -- When the International Monetary Fund establishing a lending program with Sri Lanka in 2009, the year in which according even to a UN report the government killed tens of thousands of civilians, the IMF stated that

"This, together with savings on military spending ... should help finance the considerable reconstruction spending needs... Cuts in military and other expenditures will help make room for post-conflict reconstruction and relief spending."

The IMF has since been ducking questions about its program in Sri Lanka, declining to answer questions submitted during and after its biweekly media briefings, most recently this year on January 12 and January 26.

Inner City Press first asked the IMF about Sri Lanka in Mrach 2009, when spokesman David Hawley saying the IMF would support the government's priority. Since then, despite some answer on other countries, the IMF has stonewalled on Sri Lanka.

The IMF's reasoning has belatedly become clear in a table of data the Fund sent out on January 31 in response to inquiries by the Sri Lanka Campaign to Managing Director Christine Lagarde.

First, the IMF's "head of mission" to Sri Lanka Brian Aitken sent a response claiming that in Sri Lanka "overall security-related spending has declined both as a share of GDP and of total government spending."

When asked for the data behind this claim, the IMF produced a chart, about which Inner City Press has asked the IMF for comment -- so far, there has been none -- and which is now being placed online here.

Contrary to the IMF's table, according to the SLC,

"much of the so called 'reconstruction' work the Government is conducting in the north and the east – no doubt under non military budget headings – is actually a form of militarization by stealth. Our contacts in the north talk of the creeping infiltration of the military into every aspect of civilian life – and that in the Vanni area soldiers now form one third of the population.

A non exhaustive list of industries the military is involved in would include: construction, fruit production, whale watching, fishing, hotels, management of the three largest cricket stadiums, pedalo hire, and transport. This militarization is doing untold damage to Sri Lankan society and rapidly undermining the primacy of the civilian state. The IMF demanded a cut in the defense budget and instead the Government of Sri Lanka increased defense spending by 30%. This demands firm action."

But what action will the IMF take? So far, it has been unwilling to even answer questions.

Meanwhile at the UN, Inner City Press on February 6 again asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesman Martin Nesikry about Ban accepting as a "Senior Adviser" on Peacekeeping Shavendra Silva, named in Ban's own Panel of Experts report on Sri Lanka in connection with war crimes such as shelling hospitals and killing people who were trying to surrender. [Click here for a BloggingHead.tv Feb 4 segment on this.]

From the UN's February 6 transcript:

Inner City Press: last week when on this issue of Shavendra Silva being made an adviser, senior adviser on peacekeeping. You’d said, this is up to Member States, ask the Member States, don’t ask me. I wonder if you could just simply explain the difference in the case of Syria. I did see the statement and I know it is a very high-profile issue, but it doesn’t seem that the Secretary-General has a position that he doesn’t speak out when he thinks that something done by Member States makes the UN, well either weakens the Security Council or is bad in the world. So I wonder, is it a choice in the case of having an accused war criminal advising him on peacekeeping? How can it be that in this case it is entirely up to Member States and there is no ability to say anything, and in the other case there is an ability to say something? Can you explain that?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Yes, I can.

Inner City Press: Okay.

Spokesperson: Because there is a General Assembly resolution which instructs explicitly the Secretary-General to do something and for the Member States to do something. That is very different from what was happening in the Security Council on Saturday.

Inner City Press: But it said they’re supposed to nominate. It sort of implies that he has some… a nomination usually means that a person gets to choose…

Spokesperson: I think you know how it works. We’ve been through this a number of times and it is quite clear that it was for the Secretary-General to select five eminent individuals and for the rest of that advisory group to be drawn from the different components, including from the Asia group. And that was for them to do. That’s what they did and that’s the outcome.

Inner City Press: But does he think it makes the UN, in the same way that he commented on the Security Council action, somehow undermining some organ of the UN? Does he think it makes the UN look good to have an individual named in his report advise him on peacekeeping?

Spokesperson: Again, as I say, the General Assembly resolution was quite explicit about what needed to happen in selecting the individuals for that advisory group, and it was for the different regional groups to decide, and that’s what they did.

On this, SLC chairman Edward Mortimer after back and forth told Inner City Press:

“It’s disgraceful that someone against whom there are strong and credible charges of war crimes should serve as Deputy Permanent Representative of his country at the UN, and even more disgraceful that the Asian Group has chosen him, without even taking a vote, to serve on the Secretary-General’s Special Advisory Group on Peacekeeping Operations – disgraceful, and insulting to the Secretary-General. I’m surprised that he puts up with it.”

Watch this site.