As
IMF
Urges
Pakistan to Raise Tax, Dodges Food Prices, Cote d'Ivoire and,
Belatedly, Bulgaria
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February
3, updated -- With protests
related to rising food prices
and mis-government spreading worldwide, the IMF in Pakistan is
reportedly urging the much-opposed government to raise taxes on
agricultural income, and thereby food prices too.
At
the IMF's
fortnightly press briefing on Thursday, Inner City Press submitted
four question, including about Pakistan, food prices and Cote
d'Ivoire. IMF spokesperson Caroline Atkinson, calling three of the
four questions “bilateral,” read out and answered only one:
“On
Pakistan, can you confirm the IMF is accepting delay in the Reformed
General Sales Tax, in exchange for the gov't raising other taxes,
such as taxes on agricultural income? What impact could this have on
food prices?”
To
this, Ms.
Atkinson said that what she would confirm was that the IMF had a team
in Pakistan, working closely with the government “to get the program
back
on track” including “revenue raising measure so that they have the
resources... especially after the floods." But
what safeguards are there that this revenue raising won't further
raise food prices?
Among
the
questions
that Atkinson called “bilateral” was one directly on
food prices:
“On
Africa, what is the IMF's response to Botswana
Central
Bank governor
Linah Mohohlo's statement that 'The IMF (International Monetary Fund)
is also lagging behind. I am almost sure the problems of Africa
will
not reach the board of the IMF.' She added that higher food inflation
in the continent squeezes the poor?”
One
wonders how
this is a “bilateral” question -- does that mean, not of general
interest? Those in person at the IMF's briefing asked question after
question about Egypt, even after Atkinson made it clear she would not
answer, saying “we are not political experts.” She would not even
answer if the IMF had been in contact this week with Egypt's finance
minister.
Protest in Tunisia, IMF role not acknowledged, other
Qs called bilateral
In
response to a
question from an Israeli newspaper, Ms. Atkinson acknowledged the
obvious, that events in Egypt would have regional impact. But here is
another question she called bilateral:
“On
Cote d'Ivoire, what is the IMF's comment on the recent sovereign bond
default? What does the IMF think the impacts would be of Cote
d'Ivoire breaking from the CFA and establishing its own currency?
What are the IMF's plans on Cote d'Ivoire?”
At
the end of the IMF briefing, Spokesperson Atkinson concluded, "I should
just say that we've received some bilateral questions on Botswana, Cote
d'Ivoire and Romania that will be answered bilaterally." This was the
question about protests against the IMF also not answered at the
briefing nor by embargo deadline:
On
Romania,
what
is the IMF's response to 1000s of people protesting in
Romania after “the
government
cut public workers' salaries,
increased the sales tax from 19 to 24 per cent and cut child benefits
to meet demands by the IMF”?
Recently
at
the
UN, a wire service reporter proposed that other reporters at
briefings should only ask questions in which “everyone” is
interested. Perhaps the IMF has adopted this approach. But it goes
around world trumpeting its interest in Africa, for example. How then
are questions about Cote d'Ivoire and Botswana “bilateral”? Watch
this site.
Update: later, this
arrived:
From:
IMF
spokesperson
Date: Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM
Subject: FW:
Inner City today--Romania
To: Inner City Press
Dear
Matthew,
Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Below you
will find our answer with regard to your question on Romania, which
you can attribute to an IMF spokesperson.
“Following
very large nominal wage increases during the economic boom period in
Romania, public wages were cut 25 percent last summer. Adjustment of
the public sector was necessary and the authorities decided on a
combination of expenditure cuts and increases of revenues to put the
public finances back on a sustainable path.”
* * *
As
IMF
Downplays
Tunisia
Role,
Gbagbo
Frozen,
Juba
Waiting,
Hungary
Dodged
By
Matthew
Russell
Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
January
21
-- Amid Tunisia's seeming revolution, Inner City
Press has asked the International Monetary Fund twice in the past
fortnight about its role in the country.
On
January
6, at the IMF
first briefing of the year, Inner City Press asked, “on Tunisia,
given the IMF's role and statements, what can IMF say about the
unrest that has followed the death of protester Mohamed Bouazizi and
others?”
IMF
later that
day replied with a statement that “we deeply regret the recent
surge of violence in Tunisia. The IMF remains engaged with the
Tunisian authorities... IMF staff continues to encourage the
authorities to pursue structural reforms.”
As
event moved
forward, more and more of the commentary within and outside Tunisia
noted that IMF's long time role in Tunisia. For example on a January
20 on a press conference call Steven Cook, author of "Ruling But
Not Governing: The Military and Political Development in Egypt,
Algeria, and Turkey,” referred the IMF having offered lavish praise
of Ben Ali's authoritarian government.
So
on January 20
at the IMF's next briefing, Inner City Press asked, “on Tunisia,
what is the current status of IMF programs? With whom has the IMF
spoken since the departure of Ben Ali?”
This
time,
the
answer
provided by spokesman David Hawley was that “there isn’t
an IMF program. Tunisia is a country which has Article IV status and
there is an annual consultation with the authorities.”
So what happened,
after Ben Ali fled to Saudi Arabia, to the IMF “remain[ing]
engaged” and “continu[ing] to encourage the authorities to pursue
structural reforms”?
Protest in Tunis, even after Ben Ali fled, IMF not shown
Inner
City
Press also on January 20 asked three other questions,
getting two answers from the IMF:
Inner
City
Press:
On
Cote d'Ivoire, what has the IMF done and expended
since November 28? What are its plans going forward?
Hawley:
“We
are
waiting
for the situation to stabilize before there can be
further action on the fund supported program”.
Inner
City
Press:
On
Southern Sudan, what is the IMF's planning in light of
the preliminary results indicating an overwhelming vote for
secession?
Hawley:
“The
situation
in
Sudan, as in any country that divides, is that
following recognition of the new entity and a request by the new
entity to join the fund, there would be consideration of membership.
That is a process that takes some time, up to a year.”
Inner
City
Press'
final
question, on Hungary, was neither read out loud nor
acknowledged by email:
On
Hungary,
in
light
of Anne-Marie Gulde's statements, does the IMF find
more in the country's plans to take issue with than the transfer of
funds from private pension funds to the state?
Watch
this
site.
* * *