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 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."
But
what
action
will the IMF
take? So far,
it has been
unwilling to
even answer
questions.
(c) UN Photo
IMF's Lagarde
& UN's Ban
Ki-moon,
supporting
militarized
Sri Lanka?
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.
, 
