ICP
Asks
Bolivia's Evo
Morales About
Sovereign Debt
Restructuring
in UNGA
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
September 26
-- The day
after
Pope Francis
in his General
Assembly
speech
denounced
"usury,
especially
where
developing
countries are
concerned,"
Inner City
Press on
September 26
asked
Bolivia's
President Evo
Morales what
the next steps
for the
sovereign debt
restructuring
proposals are
in the UN
General
Assembly. Video here.
The
Assembly
overwhelmingly
passed a
resolution on
the issue,
with
opposition
from the US
and some
European
countries, but
new President
of the General
Assembly
Mogens
Lyyketoft of
Denmark on
September 25
said he didn't
think the
issue would be
dealt with in
the walls of
the UN, see
below. Morales
replied
that it requires
political
will, that
anti-imperialist
leaders see such
debt as an
aggression. He
praised
Latin America,
Colombian
President
Santos' talk
with the FARC,
listing
Malvinas
Islands and
the US embargo
on Cuba as
issues
remaining to
be addressed.
He praised the
BRICS.
Previously the
old UN
Correspondents
Association
disrupted a
Morales press
conference to
demand they
get the first
question. This
time, further
weakened, they
weren't even
there; Inner
City Press
thanked
Morales for
the press
conference on
behalf of the
new Free UN
Coalition for
Access.
Background:
on September
25 Inner City
Press asked
new General
Assembly
President
Mogens
Lykketoft
about the
comment and
the process in
the GA, at
least in the
last session,
on sovereign
debt
restructuring.
Video
here.
Lykketoft said
that he didn't
think the
issue would be
dealt with
within the
UN's walls --
strange, given
that
resolutions
sponsored by
Argentina,
Bolivia and
the Group of
77 and China
on just his
have passed by
substantial
majorities.
Perhaps Inner
City Press
will have the
opportunity to
ask Lykketoft
about this
again: getting
a question in
to him is
proving less
straight
forward that
it should be,
but we remain
optimistic.
Watch this
site.
The
issue of
sovereign debt
restructuring
was taken up
at the UN on
December 5,
2014 with a
resolution on
modalities for
negotiation
sponsored by
Bolivia for
the Group of
77 and China
put to a vote
in the Second
Committee of
the UN General
Assembly.
The US spoke
against the
resolution and
in favor of
dealing with
it through the
International
Monetary Fund
-- note that
the US is
blocking IMF
reform -- and
was one of 16
countries to
vote
"no." 34
countries
abstained and
fully 128
countries
voted yes.
Afterward
Bolovia's
Permanent
Representative
Sacha Llorenti
and his
counterpart
from Argentina
Maria
Cristina
Perceval
held a press
conference in
the UN Press
Briefing Room.
Llorenti
emphasized the
greater
legitimacy of
the UN General
Assembly --
one country,
one vote --
over the pay
to play
environment of
the IMF. He
contrasted the
16 "no" voting
countries as a
percentage of
those in the
GA, versus
their power in
the IMF.
Perceval
joined and
expanded in
this comments,
and declined
to comment on
the company
Inner City
Press had
asked about,
Highland
Capital. She
said this is
not about
Argentina's
problem but
the
multilateral
process. She
said that
Argentina took
a lead on the
issue of the
disappeared,
though it was
too late to
help
Argentina.
While
understandable,
there's
nothing wrong
with a
particular
country's
problems being
an engine for
raising an
issue of wider
import. This
is how things
get changed,
if they do,
says the Free
UN Coalition
for Access.
We'll have
more on this.
On
October 6 with
the dispute
between
Argentina and
hedge or
vulture funds
more and more
discussed, the
International
Monetary Fund
on 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.